• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

State or Consitutional Amendments or neither?

  • I believe we should have a Federal Constitional amendment to combat the activist judges.

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • The state has sole responsibility and all states should recognize every states marriages.

    Votes: 10 40.0%
  • Marriage is adopted by the state - no state should have to recognize other states marriages.

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • I really do not care.

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Total voters
    25

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
People who claim to be against activist judges are either liars, ignorant, or cowards.

I say this because they accept the verdict of these judges so passively.

Short of violence there are numerous ways to disagree with these judges:

including...

--Boycott certain jurisdictions, products, etc.

--Public officials could refuse to enforce the laws, and ultimately resign, go to jail or get impeached.

non-violent resistance can take an infinite number of forms. It's a matter of will.

I think most people don't value marriage very much, so they really don't want to defend it vigorously against the gay rights lobby.

In this instance, thank God for the Right wing!

We as a society have a right to defend our institutions, and those who disagree have the burden to prove how that's wrong.
The problem with the gay rights lobby is that they don't want to debate, they feel if you don't agree with them, you are hateful.

-----------------

I notice people who say that the issue doesn't matter, usually support the gay rights lobby. It's sort of reminds me of people who proclaim that labels don't matter, are inevitably democrats.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,282
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
craigfarmer said:
The problem with the gay rights lobby is that they don't want to debate, they feel if you don't agree with them, you are hateful.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Just because I disagree with gay marriage, doesn't mean that I hate them.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
vague, to be honest with you, I hope those amendments get overturned for being unconstitutional. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE. Hell, I'll tell all the bigots that their opinions have no place in a court of law. Social popular soverignty is dumb. Why do you think we fought so adamently to not allow popular sovern. for slavery? The racists who voted for slavery. Was that issue "spitting in the voters faces" when the amendments gave Africans rights in America?

It's almost a mirror issue. Unfortunently, instead of race, it's sexual preference and the need to be recognized. Black people wanted to be recognized as individuals, Gay people want to be recognized as married. What the hell is the problem with people? I don't see a problem with giving them the right they deserve. The whole issue is spearheaded by the fact that people are scared of homosexuality. I'm straight, I really don't care if 20 million gay people got married tomorrow. Not a problem.

Vague, no offense, but I think you are just using "sanctity of marriage" and "activist judges" as a guise for the underlying bigotry in your subconscious. Deal with it accordingly, please, and come to terms with the fact that the issue shouldn't be amended in the Constitution and the rights of marriage between two PEOPLE cannot be limited by government.
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
"Hell, I'll tell all the bigots that their opinions have no place in a court of law."

I assume bigot refers to a superiority complex of those who believe that normal people are better than gay people?

I always believe the people who call names, are losing the debate.

I am like most Americans who believe it ridiculous that "marriage" is a debate. That "Merry Christmas" is a debate




"Social popular soverignty is dumb. Why do you think we fought so adamently to not allow popular sovern. for slavery?"

"It's almost a mirror issue."

I and others can and do disagree that they are mirror issues. Also, we find it offensive for people to repeatedly make the connection. The only way for someone to know that another is "gay" is for that person to tell them or show them in deed. We are essentially talking about behavior. Even if you want to argue that people are born this way (some may, while others most certainly choose a lifestyle), the fact is absent any particular behaviors, there is no issue. Governments and society have to have the right to regulate behavior.

Sexual orientation is more akin to our eating habits. What if people wanted to eat dogs and cats? Do we have a right as a society to say eating a cow or pig is good (legal), eating a cat or dog is bad (illegal)?

I say yes.


"come to terms with the fact that the issue shouldn't be amended in the Constitution and the rights of marriage between two PEOPLE cannot be limited by government."

You can't possibly believe this. Can you?

Do you support incest also? I certainly don't.

Can government prevent a mentally ill or deficient person from marrying? I cetainly believe so.

If history, tradition, culture, logic, etc. isn't enough to convince you to maintain a normal marriage institution between a man and a woman, why should it convince you the government sholuld limit marriage to TWO PEOPLE? And even if you agree it should be between a man and a woman. You're trying to establish a principle that the issue is beyond popular will or lawmaking.

It's the wrong approach.

The facts are we as a society have not only a right but a duty to define who we are as a culture, and what is/isn't permissible.

There will always be people who disagree. We may be wrong, but
it is our perogative.

The beauty of America is that eventually we get it right, and have gotten the big questions right more than any other country ever created.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again.
www.newliberals.org
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
6,282
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You might be right.

I am homophobic, but I don't see where you can compare slavery with homosexuality. There are reasons that I am homophobic and it has nothing to do with fantasy or uncouncious desires. Your slavery metaphore is quite flawed. This has nothing to do with being human or not. This has nothing to do with slavery. Lastly, this has nothing to do with race.

Homosexuals are indeed human. They indeed have the SAME rights as I do - I just do not see where same-sex marriage is a RIGHT bound by the constitution.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
craigfarmer said:
Sexual orientation is more akin to our eating habits. What if people wanted to eat dogs and cats? Do we have a right as a society to say eating a cow or pig is good (legal), eating a cat or dog is bad (illegal)?

I say yes.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again.
www.newliberals.org
The beauty of America is that one is guaranteed freedom to say what one wishes. However, this freedom doesn't guarantee that what one says is correct.

There are no laws that prohibit the eating of a cat or dog. I have no doubt, that especially with the influx of Asian immigrants from countries where such animals are considered delicacies, cat burgers and dog chops are appearing on more and more US dinner tables.

On the other hand, same sex marriage, the most recent homosexual demand, is a strictly US phenomenon, is anathema every other country with the exception of Canada.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is the handbook used most often in diagnosing mental disorders in the United States and other countries. It classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until that classification was removed by a vote of its members in 1973.

I marvel at the strides made by the homosexual community in the short time of 30 years of legitimacy. The results of its proslytizing and missionary work would make any religious organization green with envy.

The tactics employed are simple to a fault, yet effective beyond imagination. Simply declare the existence of a new member to expand the list of groups protected from discrimination on an established basis; age, race, religion, country of origin, etc.; to include 'sexual orientation'. Then threaten to label any who stand in their way, 'homophobe'.

Who can deny the success of their efforts.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Fantasea said:
On the other hand, same sex marriage, the most recent homosexual demand, is a strictly US phenomenon, is anathema every other country with the exception of Canada.
It is not strictly a US phenomenon. European countries are facing it, as well. It is legal in the Netherlands, and the effects can be seen, as marriage has seen an overall decline, more people just live together, child birth rates are declining, and divorce rates are rising.

Sure, some people may say that these are caused by other factors, and to a degree, they may be right. But, I don't doubt that legalized same sex marriage has contributed to the decline of morality in places where it is legal.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
bryanf said:
It is not strictly a US phenomenon. European countries are facing it, as well. It is legal in the Netherlands, and the effects can be seen, as marriage has seen an overall decline, more people just live together, child birth rates are declining, and divorce rates are rising.

Sure, some people may say that these are caused by other factors, and to a degree, they may be right. But, I don't doubt that legalized same sex marriage has contributed to the decline of morality in places where it is legal.

I never mention the Netherlands. I'm too embarrassed to acknowledge that I live on the same planet with folks who not only permit their residents to openly drug themselves to death and abort their children, but have also legalized and institutionalized the forced euthanizing of their senior citizens.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Fantasea said:
I never mention the Netherlands. I'm too embarrassed to acknowledge that I live on the same planet with folks who not only permit their residents to openly drug themselves to death and abort their children, but have also legalized and institutionalized the forced euthanizing of their senior citizens.
I though for a moment there, you were talking about Oregon.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WKL815 said:
I might be flamed here and unfairly loose my conservative status, but I just don't see an adequate constitutional or social argument against gay marriage.

It's equality for all.
Only a conservative would worry about retribution for advocating equality. :D
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
I just do not see where same-sex marriage is a RIGHT bound by the constitution.
The Constitution doesn't grant us rights, it limits the power of the state. The people are soverign and our rights are inalienable and exist separate from the Constitution. This is why Jefferson was at first reluctant to support the Bill of Rights, because he was afraid that by enumerating them, we would be limiting them. Remember, whatever powers not explicitly granted to the state are reserved for the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit right to privacy, but it's understood that we all have it. Thus there is no legal justification for barring same-sex marriage. That's why opponents must resort to adding an amendment to the Constitution explicitly denying that right to citizens who already have it.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
argexpat said:
Nowhere in the Constitution is there an explicit right to privacy, but it's understood that we all have it. Thus there is no legal justification for barring same-sex marriage.
With this argument, many other types of privacy issues can be justified as constitutional. Do you have an argument that would show how constitutionally, polygamy (tired I know, but most similar to the argument at hand) would not also be allowed?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
WKL815 said:
With this argument, many other types of privacy issues can be justified as constitutional. Do you have an argument that would show how constitutionally, polygamy (tired I know, but most similar to the argument at hand) would not also be allowed?
This question belies a misunderstanding of the Constitution. It does not grant rights. It limits the power of the federal government to infringe on the rights of the people, which, as so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence, are "self-evident" and "unalienable." To wit:

The 9th Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning, just because we listed these rights, these are by no means ALL the rights.

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " Again, the Constitution doesn't grant you rights. It protects the rights you were born with as a natural human being against this newly created entity called the United States.

Therefore, the burden of proof isn't on the people to prove they have a right, the burden is on the government to prove they don't have it, and it must show a compelling reason why it should deny them their natural rights. So "We the People" have the right to engage in any activity which does not infringe on the rights of any other person, and the government cannot interfere in the private affairs of consenting adults (although it does all the time). So this isn't a question of "gay marriage" or "polygamy." It's a question of civil liberties. The government must show a compelling reason why it must deny any consenting adult citizen of the United States their right to enter into any agreement or arrangement with any other consenting adult (or adults) that doesn't infringe on the rights of any other person. If the government cannot do this, it cannot deny these concentual, private agreements. And these questions are decided in courts of law by judges who, through the power of judicial review, are given the task of interpreting the constitutionality of laws (such as those banning same-sex marriage).

So I, as a consenting citizen of the United States, already have the right to same-sex marriage (and yes, even polygamy). That's why opponents of same-sex marriage, who cannot prove a compelling reason for denying it and thus have no legal recourse, must resort to amending the Constitution to specifically deny it, knowing full well it will never pass, thereby calling for the enshrining of arbitrary bigotry into our most sacred document simply for crass political gain.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
This question belies a misunderstanding of the Constitution. It does not grant rights. It limits the power of the federal government to infringe on the rights of the people, which, as so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence, are "self-evident" and "unalienable." To wit:

The 9th Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning, just because we listed these rights, these are by no means ALL the rights.

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " Again, the Constitution doesn't grant you rights. It protects the rights you were born with as a natural human being against this newly created entity called the United States.

Therefore, the burden of proof isn't on the people to prove they have a right, the burden is on the government to prove they don't have it, and it must show a compelling reason why it should deny them their natural rights. So "We the People" have the right to engage in any activity which does not infringe on the rights of any other person, and the government cannot interfere in the private affairs of consenting adults (although it does all the time). So this isn't a question of "gay marriage" or "polygamy." It's a question of civil liberties. The government must show a compelling reason why it must deny any consenting adult citizen of the United States their right to enter into any agreement or arrangement with any other consenting adult (or adults) that doesn't infringe on the rights of any other person. If the government cannot do this, it cannot deny these concentual, private agreements. And these questions are decided in courts of law by judges who, through the power of judicial review, are given the task of interpreting the constitutionality of laws (such as those banning same-sex marriage).

So I, as a consenting citizen of the United States, already have the right to same-sex marriage (and yes, even polygamy). That's why opponents of same-sex marriage, who cannot prove a compelling reason for denying it and thus have no legal recourse, must resort to amending the Constitution to specifically deny it, knowing full well it will never pass, thereby calling for the enshrining of arbitrary bigotry into our most sacred document simply for crass political gain.
You know, I read the identical article a few weeks ago. Perhaps someone plagiarized it from you. That must be a nuisance for good word-polishers like you. Someone's always doing a cut & paste on your stuff and posting it without attribution. Just passing it off as their own. Doesn't it just scorch you when that happens?
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
So, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. True.

It limits government frim infringing on our rights. Also true.

How, though, is government to create laws for us to follow? If it cannot take away rights, how can it rightfully take away someone's rights to steal, lie under oath, cheat on his taxes, obtain or share pornography, or exercise public indecency?

What standards are we to use in deciding our laws? Are we not to create laws based on what the majority believes should be our laws (Legislators are, after all, supposed to represent us). Is it not reasonable to assume that, since all 11 states with the issue on the ballot passed amendments banning gay marriage by overwhelming margins, a majority of Americans don't want gay marriage to be recognized?

The purpose of the amendments is not to take away a person's right to engage in deviant sexual activities, it is to limit government from recognizing them. Why do we have laws banning some deviant practices (polygamy, pedophilia), while others are still allowed (homosexuality)? If we allow some deviance in sexual activities, why not allow others?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
bryanf said:
So, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. True.

It limits government frim infringing on our rights. Also true.

How, though, is government to create laws for us to follow? If it cannot take away rights, how can it rightfully take away someone's rights to steal, lie under oath, cheat on his taxes, obtain or share pornography, or exercise public indecency?

What standards are we to use in deciding our laws? Are we not to create laws based on what the majority believes should be our laws (Legislators are, after all, supposed to represent us). Is it not reasonable to assume that, since all 11 states with the issue on the ballot passed amendments banning gay marriage by overwhelming margins, a majority of Americans don't want gay marriage to be recognized?

The purpose of the amendments is not to take away a person's right to engage in deviant sexual activities, it is to limit government from recognizing them. Why do we have laws banning some deviant practices (polygamy, pedophilia), while others are still allowed (homosexuality)? If we allow some deviance in sexual activities, why not allow others?
I think this is the enitre debate. You feel it's sexually deviant while others believe it's not. You seem to think homosexuality is a choice being made by certain percentage of the population. I've come to the conclusion that it is not a choice. I believe, just as I have been attracted to the members of the opposite sex, homosexuals must have those same feelings for members of the same sex. I don't believe they can control their feelings any more than I can control mine. What's perfectly natural for me probably is not natural to them.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
You know, I read the identical article a few weeks ago. Perhaps someone plagiarized it from you. That must be a nuisance for good word-polishers like you. Someone's always doing a cut & paste on your stuff and posting it without attribution. Just passing it off as their own. Doesn't it just scorch you when that happens?
What article are you talking about? Are you serious or are you being sarcastic again? Is this your rebuttal to what I posted, or is it that you have no rebuttal and instead have resorted to accusing me of plagiarism? If it's the latter, please have the ovaries to accuse me of it openly, instead of hiding behind ironic pretense.

I read many things and the opinions of others inform my own. Just like they do yours. Plagiarism, on the other hand, is the use of published work without attribution, and a serious offense. Is this what you are implying?

Please explain yourself.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Fantasea said:
You know, I read the identical article a few weeks ago. Perhaps someone plagiarized it from you. That must be a nuisance for good word-polishers like you. Someone's always doing a cut & paste on your stuff and posting it without attribution. Just passing it off as their own. Doesn't it just scorch you when that happens?
I'm sorry you've completely lost me here. What is it you're trying to say with this post? I've read it and reread it and I still have no clue what it is you're attempting to get across or what exactly is your point.
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
bryanf said:
So, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. True.

It limits government frim infringing on our rights. Also true.

How, though, is government to create laws for us to follow? If it cannot take away rights, how can it rightfully take away someone's rights to steal, lie under oath, cheat on his taxes, obtain or share pornography, or exercise public indecency?

What standards are we to use in deciding our laws? Are we not to create laws based on what the majority believes should be our laws (Legislators are, after all, supposed to represent us). Is it not reasonable to assume that, since all 11 states with the issue on the ballot passed amendments banning gay marriage by overwhelming margins, a majority of Americans don't want gay marriage to be recognized?

The purpose of the amendments is not to take away a person's right to engage in deviant sexual activities, it is to limit government from recognizing them. Why do we have laws banning some deviant practices (polygamy, pedophilia), while others are still allowed (homosexuality)? If we allow some deviance in sexual activities, why not allow others?
When folks argue about the amendments, themselves, and whether or not to amend the US Consitution, I question how many of them know the single sentence that introduces that miraculous document:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

They should note, extra carefully, the first three words.

Your comment on the results of the same-sex marriage initiatives is, indeed, a pre-cursor to the result if an amendment on the subject were to be introduced.

The list of your 'prohibited' activities reads exactly like a number of the Ten Commandments. It seems that even though they can't be 'posted' publicly, they cannot be avoided.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
So, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. True.

It limits government from infringing on our rights. Also true.

How, though, is government to create laws for us to follow? If it cannot take away rights, how can it rightfully take away someone's rights to steal, lie under oath, cheat on his taxes, obtain or share pornography, or exercise public indecency?
We don't have the right to steal (it infringes on someone else's property rights) or lie under oath (you can plead the fifth) or cheat on our taxes (because that unfairly penalizes those who don't). As for pornography, as long as it's between consenting adults, it is and should be legal (though it's regulated, as in where and when it can be shown or sold).

bryanf said:
What standards are we to use in deciding our laws? Are we not to create laws based on what the majority believes should be our laws (Legislators are, after all, supposed to represent us). Is it not reasonable to assume that, since all 11 states with the issue on the ballot passed amendments banning gay marriage by overwhelming margins, a majority of Americans don't want gay marriage to be recognized?
There was a time when a significant number of Americans believed there was a class of people who had no civil rights and could be enslaved based solely on their race. The number of people who believed this was so large in fact, that a civil war had to be fought to win these oppressed people the freedom that was their right. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and the constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

bryanf said:
The purpose of the amendments is not to take away a person's right to engage in deviant sexual activities, it is to limit government from recognizing them.
The purpose of the amendments to the Constitution is not to "limit government from recognizing [deviant behavior]. The purpose of the amendments to the Constitution is to do just that, amend the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect our civil liberties from infringement by the government. One of those civil liberties is the freedom for consenting adults to engage in any private behavior that does not infringe on the civil liberties of others. That's the standard. There is no standard for deviancy. What's deviant to you as a Christian may not be deviant to me. Private, concentual activity, although deviant to you, does not infringe on your civil liberties. This is why I believe laws prohibiting polygamy between consenting adults are unconstitutional.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is not in and of itself illegal. What is illegal is acting on it, that's called child molestation, because it violates the civil liberties of a minor.

bryanf said:
Why do we have laws banning some deviant practices (polygamy, pedophilia), while others are still allowed (homosexuality)? If we allow some deviance in sexual activities, why not allow others?
Again, the standard is not whether something is deviant or not. (Deviant from what?) You believe homosexuality is deviant behavior, on a par with pedophilia. I do not. Who decides? Each of us decides for themselves what is deviant behavior and what isn't. You don't have to engage in what you believe is deviant behavior, and neither do I. And as long as my behavior does not infringe on your civil liberties, it should be allowed, whether you or even a majority of people consider it deviant. That's the beauty of system.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
It seems that even though [the Ten Commandments] can't be 'posted' publicly, they cannot be avoided.
There are Bibles that contain the Ten Commandments in public libraries. The Bible is studied in public universities. The Ten Commandments are posted in churches that are open to the public. You can post the Ten Commandments on your door for visitors to see. Anyone with internet access can Google up thousands of web pages that contain the Ten Commandments. Where is it that they can't be posted publicly? Government buildings. Why, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Besides, the Fourth Commandment states: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

Apparently even God didn't want to see God everywhere.

Personally, I'd like to see a big statue of Buddha in my state capitol building and the Eight Fold Path posted on the walls. Luckily for all non-Buddhists, that's prohibited.

P.S. The Tenth Commandment says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." It doen't say anything about thy neighbor's husband. Desperate housewives take note!
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
There are Bibles that contain the Ten Commandments in public libraries. The Bible is studied in public universities. The Ten Commandments are posted in churches that are open to the public. You can post the Ten Commandments on your door for visitors to see. Anyone with internet access can Google up thousands of web pages that contain the Ten Commandments. Where is it that they can't be posted publicly? Government buildings. Why, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Every serious student of the Constitution knows there is no such thing as 'the establishment clause' in the sense that the ACLU has conjured up. The words are plain enough. The founding fathers, many of whom had been exposed to the Church of England, a government institution established by a monarch, did not want to see a Church of the United States, a government institution established by Congress. On the other hand, at that time and right up to the present, the US government has, in many ways, acknowledged a Supreme Being. Do Americans refuse to use government issued coin and currency because it carries the motto, "In God We Trust"? Do Americans refuse to join the armed forces because among the officer corps are chaplains of various faiths, all paid by the government? Speaking of chaplains, Congress has always had one, too. Every session is opened with a prayer to the Almighty offered by either the resident chaplain or by a guest chaplain. I haven't heard of any congressmen who gave up their seats in protest. Have you? Many state and federal buildings, including the US Supreme Court are emblazoned with religious quotes and mottoes.

It was only after the ACLU stumbled upon President-elect Thomas Jefferson's letter to a group of clergymen from Danbury, Connecticut in which he assured them that the government had no intention of either establishing a state religion or interfering with any established religion, that the ensuing drama began to play out and the lawsuits began to emerge.

Thanks to a combination of generous campaign contributions and politicians and judges having backbone the consistency of overcooked spaghetti, who didn't nip this nonsense in the bud, the show goes on.

Besides, the Fourth Commandment states: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

Apparently even God didn't want to see God everywhere.

Personally, I'd like to see a big statue of Buddha in my state capitol building and the Eight Fold Path posted on the walls. Luckily for all non-Buddhists, that's prohibited.

P.S. The Tenth Commandment says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." It doen't say anything about thy neighbor's husband. Desperate housewives take note!
Catholic and Orthodox Christians understand the Ten commandments in the following way:
(Deuteronomy, RSV)
The first three commandments govern the relationship between God and humans. I would venture that these are the crux of the complaints.

The next group of commandments govern public relationships between people. These are shown in truncated form because of space constraints in this forum. Are they not the basis of our codified laws?
4. "Honor your father and your mother"
5. "You shall not kill."
6. "Neither shall you commit adultery."
7. "Neither shall you steal."
8. "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor."

These last two commandments govern private thoughts.
9. "Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife"
10. "You shall not desire your neighbor's posessions”

With respect to number nine, you may recall former President Carter's public confession that he lusted in his heart.

If number ten was more universally observed, many of the criminal problems associated with numbers five and seven would be avoided.

Given the reputations earned by lawyers and politicians, it is understandable that they would prefer not to be admonished by being forced to read these words everytime they enter a government building.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat said:
P.S. The Tenth Commandment says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." It doen't say anything about thy neighbor's husband. Desperate housewives take note!
Yes, and the original translation was "Wives" not wife. It was changed when it became popular in the christian culture to have only one wife. Many religions still engage in the partice of having several wives. Iyad Allawi, our hand picked man in Iraq, has three wives. Taking his latest wife this past summer.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Every serious student of the Constitution knows there is no such thing as 'the establishment clause' in the sense that the ACLU has conjured up. The words are plain enough.
Yes they are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It's so important that it's the very first sentence of the very first amendment. Serious scholars of the Constitution, such as the ACLU, call this the "establishment clause."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State."

The courts have ruled that posting a religious text of any kind in a government building which is funded by all taxpayers is, in essence, forcing one to "profess a belief in a religion," and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Case closed.

That the US government has acknowledged a Supreme Being, invokes the name of God on its currency, employs clergy in the military, opens sessions of Congress with a prayer, and emblazons federal buildings with religious mottos---all technically violations of the Establishment Clause---is evidence not of the supposed religious underpinnings of our system of government, but of the elegant and enlightened secular philosophical bedrock that allows for the depth and breadth of the religious freedoms we enjoy.

Fantasea said:
Given the reputations earned by lawyers and politicians, it is understandable that they would prefer not to be admonished by being forced to read these words every time they enter government building
Some of those lawyers and politicians represent secular humanists like me, who routinely turn the other cheek when it comes to violations of the Establishment Clause. It's when religious zealots like Judge Roy Moore commit flagrant violations of the Establishment Clause that we throw down the gauntlet. That's called democracy.

P.S. Please see my post: "ACLU: Defender of Christian Religious Freedom."
 
Top Bottom