Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

There are interesting things written about the First Amendment in the early years that argue that Christianity was protected by it above all others, because society needs it, and that it was very clear that beliefs that were dangerous to the state (papal Rome, of course, and today it would be particularly Islam if it weren't for PC that says otherwise) or to anybody were not meant to be protected by it. We now have revisionist reinterpretations that destroy its whole purpose of course, not only protecting Romanism and Islam, but even protecting evils such as pornography and abortion and sodomy.ABE: This isn't from the early years, it was written by Justice Joseph Story in 1865. Certainly shows a completely different attitude than we find today: Amendment I (Religion): Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1865--73Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There are interesting things written about the First Amendment in the early years that argue that Christianity was protected by it above all others, because society needs it, and that it was very clear that beliefs that were dangerous to the state (papal Rome, of course, and today it would be particularly Islam if it weren't for PC that says otherwise) or to anybody were not meant to be protected by it. We now have revisionist reinterpretations that destroy its whole purpose of course, not only protecting Romanism and Islam, but even protecting evils such as pornography and abortion and sodomy.

---

The "interesting things" ARE "evil revisionist reinterpretations that destroy it's whole purpose."In reality Jefferson himself argued for protection of Islam, and the idea that Catholics were excluded is absurd.The Bill of Rights was about guaranteeing freedom. The whole idea that it meant to permit a Protestant tyranny as you assert is a clear example of revisionism.

Not a founding father is he.Oh yeah another thing he could not have written these in 1865. He died in 1845. I will let you figure out what those numbers mean.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Let's look at what your very own sources say about that Faith.

quote:

---

1873. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

---

No, Christianity was NOT protected above any other religion and the reason was to protect the Catholic from the Protestant and the Jew and the infidel as well.

Well, interesting digression. But it doesn't really answer my point. What do we do if people want to do things, on religious grounds, contrary to the law? What if we have a bunch of Protestants saying "But God wants us to execute Quakers"? Well, that sucks for them. The First Amendment doesn't protect them. What if, to take a more realistic example, you have a guy like Warren Jeffs? The law says that his followers really can't marry that many underage girls. But their prophet says that they should. Hmm, what to do?Now the First Amendment does render unconstitutional those laws that specifically target a religion --- say, a law preventing Catholics from holding Mass. But it doesn't affect laws intended to remedy a (real or perceived) social evil, such as, say racial discrimination, they don't violate the First Amendment on the grounds that some people who want to discriminate want to do so for religious reasons.It does, I believe, do so when it comes to particular religious practices. A church which is opposed to interracial marriage can't be forced to conduct one. But that still leaves the State with a lot of latitude.The thing to do, I suggest, is to try to be fair and reasonable when drafting laws. Just because something doesn't actually violate the First Amendment is not a reason why that thing should be legal; conversely, just because a law stopping people from doing that thing doesn't violate the First Amendment isn't a reason why that thing should be illegal. If the best justification someone can think of for doing something is that it's not actually unconstitutional, then it's probably not a good thing to do.

In fact, the first amendment does not render invalid generally applicable laws that don't target religion and affect adherents only incidentally. It does not prevent the federal government from firing a Seventh Day Adventist who refuses to work on Saturday if the job requires so doing.What is less clear is the fate of any law passed by Congress to allow religious conscience discrimination directed at LGBTs.

Good news! The House of Representatives of the great state of Mississippi have passed the "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT". It's about time too, the state of Mississippi has existed for 199 years, and in all that time its citizens haven't had freedom of conscience, hence the necessity for this bill.At last, the sincerely-held religious beliefs of Mississippians will be protected! Or ... wait, will they? Nuh-uh. Not in general. According to the bill, exactly three sincerely-held religious beliefs will be protected from "government discrimination": Anyone with other (or, God forbid, opposite) sincerely held religious beliefs can go screw themselves.

What happens if the person is a hermaphrodite? Does that mean they can or can't get married? Or even better, if one goes for intrinsic classification, I guess the person can marry themself, right?

Or one of each?

Then we shalle entereth it into thine bestiary for tis a Fantastic beest indede!If however, they are intersex, this really does pose a problem for these kinds of laws. Genetics can't rescue us from this, either. I mean the joke is, meh. But really you lose comedy points because Dr A set you up with this,

quote:

---

Anyone with other (or, God forbid, opposite) sincerely held religious beliefs can go screw themselves.

---

And you didn't take the swing off of that.

That completely misses the point if it's in reference to the Pizza store that almost had to shut down for refusing to cater a GAY WEDDING. Nobody is refusing to serve gays pizza, that has never ever been a problem, the problem is being put in a position where you have to provide a service for a gay wedding which feels like giving approval to gay marriage, which Christians cannot do. There would be no problem catering pizza to a birthday party for gays or anything else besides a gay wedding.I do wish you'd get honest about this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How is it different and remember, only SOME Christians have an issue with Gay marriage.

TRUE Christians who care about what God says in the Bible are the ones who have a problem with it. Not the fakes and hypocrites like you.

They weren't asked to. ... at which point they have said that they would refuse to serve gays pizza, something that you just assured me that nobody does, never ever. Ah, hypocrisy.