US: Taking a cracker hostage is a mortal sin.

Remove all ads!

Of course I know that. What's your point?

Let me get this straight. Since it never occurred to the founders that no one would ever practice a religion other than Christianity (despite the fact that several of the founders were Deists), we should automatically assume that they intended to provide religious freedom only to Christians, despite the fact that this isn't what they wrote down in the bill of rights?

You know, the founders also intended to maintain the "curious institution" of slavery and gave the right to vote only to white males who owned land. Since that is what the founders intended, should we return all Americans of African descent back to slavery, take away their possessions and strip them of their right to vote? Should we roll back women's suffrage? Should we only allow land owners to vote? After all, the idea that blacks, women, and the poor would someday be guaranteed equal protection and universal suffrage was not even conceivable at the time to our founding fathers...

 

All right, very good arguments drew.
Should only land owners be allowed to vote & should womens suffrage be rolled back? YES,YES!!! Well ok no not really. (BAD Martaug!! No Cookie!!)
Those 2 items and the issue of slavery(which was taken care of by the 13th amendment) were norms in there day & later changed via amendments & common practice in the various states when the norms changed. However, i don't think we ever moved away from the nations christian base.

Actually i don't know if deism has a part in this as deists still believe in a supreme god, they just don't believe that he(she, it?) takes a personal interest in the world's events.

Hmm, give me a little bit to think on it & i will post a better response

 

That's exactly the same reason I want judges given the right to refuse to solemnize a gay union. To force or coerce them is a violation of that very principle.

Gay rights is, and always has been, a civil problem. Therefore the government should solve it without trampling on the things that the religious hold sacred. Failing to do that is also a violation of the first ammendment.

The first colonists had seen a tradition of religious abuse of authority, and while trying to preserve the good things that religion has to offer, did not want to risk allowing such abuse of authority. I just think that they're doing a poor job of keeping the peace...

If that offends a staunch Aetheist, they can send it to me and I'll make sure they never have to look at it again. Nobody takes me up on the offer...

The founders expected the society to grow. They expected change. But they kept freedom of religion so that something that they felt was important was preserved.

Actually, in 1878, the Supreme court said just the opposite. Look at Polygamy on Wikipedia, especially under the Mormons. A judge said that law can regulate practices. Land of the free? Yeah right...

I'm not sure of that. They would have heard of Judaism and Islam from the histories of the Crusades...

 

Actually i guess i should have said Abrahamic religions since they are grouped together.

 

Gnarff, if you are arguing that judges should be able to refuse to solemnize only gay unions - turning away gay couples that reach bench while solemnizing the unions of heterosexual couples - I disagree. The only fair way to handle judges who are uncomfortable with gay unions is to send all marriages to someone else's docket. If a judge wishes to perform only heterosexual unions on his own time, I agree that he has that right. On the bench, though, a judge can't pick and choose. He either solemnizes any unions that come his way, or he has those unions put on the docket of someone who will.

Can we quit the martyr act, already? No Churches have been forced to perform gay marriages. No churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, either. Since the decision of two homosexuals to marry fails to impact your rights in any way, shape, or form, your rights aren't being affected by the mere legalization of the practice.

Is this the best you can do? A 150 year old court decision in which the court stated that the government is able to legislate actions, but not belief?

The court did not see this as a matter of religion, but rather as a matter of law. Bigamy laws had been on the books since King James I of England. It was already illegal; George Reynolds knew it was illegal when he took his second wife, so the fact that Mr Reynolds happened to be a member of a religion that condoned polygamy did not mitigate his crime.

To quote from the 1978 ruling:

A good decision. This was hardly decided on the basis of Contemporary Christian prejudice, or even anti-Mormon prejudice. It was a secular decision based on the limits and purpose of civil law.

 

Someone's rights get curtailed. You would rather force a judge to violate his beliefs as opposed to inconveniencing a gay couple, then there is something wrong with your proposal. Let's see what happens when a Judge won't be coerced to act against his beliefs and stands up for himself...

Not yet, but the 1878 ruling makes that a real possibility.

I wish I could believe you, but you are forgetting that the State can and will act to trump a church if it doesn't like what they are doing...

For yet another time, gay rights is a CIVIL matter, and Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ordinance. The state should never have intervened, but they insisted on doing so.

And what happened to English Law after the American revolution? The point is not that it was illegal, but that the government felt that the definition of matrriage was important enough to regulate it then. To change that rule now to suit another minority--after refusing to do so in 1878 for another minority--is a slap in the face to that minority.

The ramification of this is that if civil law chooses to redefine marriage to include homosexuals, then the state would then have the authority to overrule religious cannon, thus forcing a religious authority to marry gays despite his belief in the immorality of such action.

 

Gnarff, how many times do I have to state that I don't think a judge should be forced to perform gay unions before you understand that I'm not suggesting that judges be forced to perform gay unions. My suggestion is quite clear. If a judge is uncomfortable performing gay unions on the bench, then bench marriages should just be moved to the docket of a judge who has no problem performing them with no questions asked. This has been my argument since page 2, and it's quite a reasonable one. The only concern I raised was with a judge turning away gay couples at the bench while marrying heterosexual couples at the bench. If the judge has already had all the bench marriages placed on someone else's docket, though, this will never happen.

Of course it does! Religion is not a "get out of jail free" card. It doesn't enable you to break the law.

Gnarff, I am not a member of any faith. When I was legally married, I was not a member of any faith, and we were married by a secular humanist. I have been married for almost 10 years. My uncle is an Atheist. He was an Atheist when he was married. He has been married for nearly 30 years. Secular marriage is real. You have no right to tell me that I'm not married; and if you are insisting that marriage is always a religious ordinance, that is exactly what you are saying. It isn't for you to decide whether or not I am married.

Bull****. Every heterosexual American is eligible for well over 1000 different legal benefits through the institution of marriage. No Americans are currently eligible to receive those benefits with multiple spouses, so no Americans are currently receiving preferential treatment at the expense of another group. For this to be preferential treatment, polygamists would have to be denied a right that other Americans enjoy.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, are denied those 1000+ legal benefits that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy based solely on their sexual orientation. When I die, my wife will not have to pay any inheritance taxes. When my friend Monty dies, the government is going to tax half of the **** that he and his partner have accumulated over the last 20 years. Tell me how that's fair.

Wrong. Separation of Church and state protects religions from exactly this kind of thing. A judge is not a religious authority, and you are right to point out that the government is within its rights to order its judges to perform gay unions, even if the judges, themselves, don't agree with the practice. A priest or minister, on the other hand, can not be compelled to marry anyone he doesn't want to marry, because he isn't an agent of the state and is also explicitly protected from such compulsions by the first amendment.

 

That is what I disagree with. In fact, a Judge should have the right to refuse any heterosexual union that he is uncomfortable with without having to shift all unions to another bench. The 17 year old girl with parental consent to marry a 40 year old man--even though everything is legal, is still morally off, and a judge should have the right to shift that one to someone who has no such qualms...

But the 1878 ruling gives the government liscence to tighten the noose around churches everywhere...

The term Marriage should NEVER have been used in civil law. The Government could have said that marriage is merely a Civil union with Religious blessing, and saved us a whole headache. This would maintain the seperation of church and state that you keep trying to convince me really exists...

You sound pissed off. Could it be that you don't reduce your own marriage to a mere contract or a piece of paper like you've argued previously? If so, then we're getting somewhere. Just as your marriage was no mere contract, but an emotionally significant part of your life, that was not just a cracker to the catholics in that church in Florida, but a sacred symbol of the central event to the Christian faith.

I have no problem considering you and your wife married. You are a heterosexual couple legally and lawfully bound and covenented before the authority you believe in. That is marriage. I have trouble changing the definition to include homosexual unions because of the immorality of the action.

That is a CIVIL problem, and the state, if it insists on tolerating homosexuality, is obligated to address that. Since the problem exists with the Church over belief, which the first ammendment protects, the State must rectify that without trampling that belief. I believe that they can do that, but in Canada, the politicians were lazy, failed to do that and have caused further trouble by their poorly executed action.

The free practice of their religious beliefs?

So the Constitution says one thing, a Judge says another thing. Is it any wonder there is reduced confidence in government?

But an anti-discrimination law would, by the 1878 ruling, supercede the religious practice, thus forcing them to marry gays or face consequences under the law. Seeing the faith you have in secular government, purple monkeys on the moon may not seem os far fetched...

 

A priest? Sure, he can marry or refuse to marry whomever he wants, and doesn't have to answer to the state. A judge, however, is an agent of the state. His job is to execute the laws and mandates set down by the state, not to moralize from the bench.

Wrong. The government always had that right. If the government didn't have that right, the Manson girls wouldn't have been sent to prison for committing a cult-ordered murder. They would have been set free because their religion demanded those murders. Ron and Dan Lafferty wouldn't have been tried, imprisoned, and (in the case of one) executed for following the Lord's commandment to murder the wife and child of their brother. They, too, would have been set free, since they were merely following the mandates of their faith.

Well, it was, and the meaning has grown to accommodate secular unions. Just as we aren't going to remove the word "lesbian" from our language because some Islanders are pissed, we won't be changing the meaning of the word Marriage just because you don't like it. Language lives, breathes, and evolves, and there's nothing you can do about it. Suck it up.

When did I argue that a blessed communion wafer wasn't considered Sacred by Christians? Oh, right, I didn't. In fact, I never even weighed in on that. I agree with NOG. What the guy did was stupid, disrespectful, and offensive, but it wasn't illegal. The idiots threatening him and trying to break into his house, on the other hand, were breaking the law. By the way, Catholics believe in Transubstantiation. They don't see the communion wafer as a mere symbol. To a Catholic, a blessed communion wafer is the body of Christ. The wine is his blood.

Gnarff, I was married by a secular humanist. An Atheist married me. If, as you say, marriage is always a religious covenant, then it follows that I am not married. Since I am married, marriage is not always a religious institution. Unless you are willing to label all secular marriages invalid, marriage can not be a purely religious affair.

Really? You mean it's actually illegal to believe that gay marriage is immoral? The government is well within its rights to ask its bureaucrats, agents, and representatives to follow and enforce its own laws. It's kind of in the job description, actually. In doing this, no one's rights are violated. If the government were to order the baptist church to perform gay marriages, that would be a different story, but the government isn't doing that, now, is it?

I am already allowed to have as many non-legally-binding marriages as I damn well please under our current laws. While this wasn't always true, it is now, so my Constitutional right to take on multiple wives in religious ceremonies is not in any jeopardy.

Actually, the court and the constitution are in agreement. Bigamy may be illegal, but it isn't bigamy when you are only legally married to one of your wives. The FLDS was able to see this, and turn that fact to it's own advantage. Why can't you?

I'm sorry, but are you really this dense? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches (as well as many, many others), have only allowed males to be priests or ministers for as long as they have existed, and despite all those laws that prohibit businesses from engaging in such practices for the better half of the last century, this hasn't changed. Hell, when your LDS church finally bothered to change its policy on blacks attaining the priesthood in 1978, they still weren't under any pressure to change from the US government (Brazil, on the other hand, was proving to be quite a problem). The Catholic and Orthodox Churches still only admit male priests, and the Catholic Church now prohibits even non-practicing homosexuals from joining the clergy. Churches are exempted from Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws. They always have been.

 

Including the upholding of his constitutional right to protection from being forced to act against his conscience? Or do you support turning the religious faithful into second class citizens?

The examples you gave were major offences. That ruling ultimately tears down the seperation of Church and State by making laws against more and more acts of religion that the state disagrees with.

But that IS the problem! People want to change the word to accommodate another group that was never meant to be included under that umbrella due to their chosen way of life! I was happy with the status quo, but some people had a problem with it, so rather than deliver a well thought out way to accommodate them civilly, the government had to attack what Many believe is sacred because iot seemed quicker and easier...

It becomes even worse when the force of law is brought to bear against other variant definitions of marriage. Either you admit that the laws prohibiting polygamy are a slap at other religions that allow the practice or that the traditional definition of marriage is important enough that it should not be changed now because some minority whined about it. It's a Civil matter, and there should be a distinction to reflect that in the nomenclature...

But you did seem to get pissed off when I ripped off your arguement and reduced your marriage to a mere piece of paper.

A, you and your wife are a heterosexual couple, and B, the marriage was performed by the authority you believe in. That meets the two criterion to satisfy my definition of marriage. If the Spiritual connotation offends youi then maybe you should change the word so people like me don't get confused...

Not to merely believe, but people have been fined for preaching that. It is a logical extrapolation that further consequences will apply.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05020403.html

But that 1878 ruling implies just that! If the government wanted to, they could (if they haven't already done so) legislate that it is no longer legal to refuse service based on sexual preference. This would force religion to fall in line with their vision of society.

It changes from polygamy to adultery, which is religiously forbidden. So to accommodate something we would otherwise be forced to abandon, you would suggest a sin on par with homosexuality? Like I said, the religious freedom of one group is curtailed by law.

That will change when some activist brings this in front of an activist judge. That 1878 ruling could force religion to comply with those laws despite doctrineal forbiddance.*

*The LDS get around this because the priesthood authority is not paid, thus the Church is not an employer...

You hold to that belief and call me dense. The First Ammendment is being shot full of holes by the stuff that has to be restricted, but that sets the precident to destroy it outright if action is not taken.

 

Your definition of marriage? So that people like you don't get confused? What the hell does his marriage have to do with you, your morals or your beliefs?

 

He's the one that seems offended by my use of the word, ask him what the problem is. I have no problem with him using the word in his setting, as the covenents are the same, even if he rejects the word covenent, the expected behaviours aren't likely any different. If the religious overtones offend him, then he should use a different word. My objective is when homosexuals want to use the word. To call a same sex union a marriage implies that the religious community approves of the situation.

 

You've made this argument several times, and I thought that I should point out that this isn't actually a constitutional right. It never was. Christian Scientists that refuse to take their seriously ill children to the doctor and Jehovah's witnesses who refuse to allow their children blood transfusions routinely have their children taken away, despite the fact that these parents are acting in accordance with their consciences. Vegetarian waiters are still expected to serve meat when it's on the menu and Muslim delivery-men aren't allowed to refuse to deliver pizzas that have pepperoni. Feminists at hooters are still expected to wear the uniform, pacifist soldiers are still expected to fight, and catholic postal workers are still expected to deliver that shipment of morning-after pills to planned parenthood. With the exception of the pacifist soldier, all of these people have one thing in common. They all can choose to quit if the terms of their employment are not to their liking, just like judges, JOP's, and anyone else who isn't a member of the Armed Forces.

OK. I'll stop here. Clearly you are completely and utterly incapable of seeing reason on this or any subject involving marriage, religion, or constitutional law. I'm once again keenly reminded of Mr. Franklin's advice on arguing, and I assure you that his advice will be heeded from now on.

 

Which is yet another reason to use some other word for non religious unions. Gay Rights are a civil matter. Is it too much to ask the Civil authorities to use a different term to reflect this seperation?

AS soon as the State started to involve itself in marriage, they should have differentiated between Religious and Civil unions. WE have this mess now because the state didn't see this current mess coming...

You've made it quite clear that you disagree with religious people having rights outside their own head...

This falls under the same heading as ritual killing. The Child's life is in danger by refusing these treatments.

Can't they be given other duties in the restaurant? They could even serve dishes that do not include meat. Such beliefs can be accommodated...

And how exactly is that against their beliefs?

And why would a feminist be working at a place that exploits women?

Conscientious Objector Status could allow them to be excused from this, can't it? The Army still needs support personel anyway...

And just how do they know what's in the box?

But they also have SOME right to accommodation where that is possible. You're stretching for examples.

On the contrary, I see it too clearly. The Book of Revelation foretells of persecution of the faithful in the last days. It's there if you know what to look for. You can't (or is that won't) see it because you don't believe the Holy Books. It doesn't mean it's not there...

 

Oh please, Gnarff. Do you really believe that? That Drew is persecuting you are we are in the last days? I've been following this thread but not posting but I can't let this pass. I can't see it, Drew can't see it, no one but you sees it. Do you have any idea how egotistical that sounds?

I agree with almost all of what Drew has said, but I'll leave you with this: You do not own the definition of marriage. Christianity doesn't own the definition of marriage. (Heck, Christianity doesn't even HAVE a definition of marriage - marriage means different things to people, even if all people involved are Christians! The various Christian sects have different rules for who can and who can't get married.) The problem is you are NOT, in fact, arguing for marriage just to be defined in religious terms, but rather very specific religious terms - YOUR terms. You don't want all views accomodated, you want YOUR views accomodated.

 

Ok Gnarff, let's go there. Lets examine why this line of argument, from you in particular, is so logically specious and frankly, dumb.

Starting today, Thomas Monson, President of the LDS Church, is no longer to be referred to as "The Prophet." I mean, he can't! The term has held a very sacred meaning within Christianity, and in fact all faiths, since long before Mormonism ever existed. To the majority of Christians, the fact that your prophet is appointed and not divinely gifted with his powers of divine communication would negate his prophet status. So, you must henceforth refer to him as...the "Schmophet." The rest of Christianity has dibs on that word, I'm sure you understand. Since his actual position is much closer to that of a Pope than a Prophet, you could call him that instead. But wait - Catholics own that word already, so...I guess he's "The Schmope." Dibs.

Also, "holy books." No. Stop using that term, please. The majority of Christians, and certainly other faiths, consider the Book of Mormon to be pharsical at best and an utter fraud at worst. Therefore, it's not "holy" by the standard definition held dear by Christians the world over and since they had that definition first, you don't get to use it. You must henceforth refer to the BoM as...a "schmoly book." The rest of Christianity has dibs, I'm sure you understand. I see no reason why you can't call it something else. I won't be offended if you still call it a book, however - I can be reasonable.

Oh, and Jesus. Jesus has GOT to go. The documented history of Jesus as told by the Mormons is like so totally way different than the way the rest of Christianity understands it, that clearly you aren't talking about the same guy. And even if you are, since he was their Jesus for 1800 years before he was your Jesus, I think their definition gets to stand and you're just going to have to use another word, lest their rights get trampled on and they're forced to acknowledge something so obviously in conflict with their beliefs. Therefore you will henceforth refer to him as..."Schmesus." "Christ" probably should go too, lest we run into a mess the state didn't see coming. You now belong to "The Church of Schmesus, em...Rice of Latter-Day Saints." After all, dibs. Which brings me to the term "saints"...

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. You can't call dibs on a word. And doubling down on an unreasonable position doesn't negate your inability to see reason on this. Twisting Drew's arguments and erecting more strawmen than a thousand Dorothy's doesn't do much to convince us of your position. I'd really like to think that you'll get the point of this – instead of responding to this line by line without really comprehending, or twisting the facts to suit your disposition, as is your MO – but I'm bracing myself for disappointment.

You have to ask?

 

Clearly. Your flailing, kid.

 

Ok, I was going to stear clear of this topic since it wandered off into marriage and the courts, but this is just ridiculous, and you should know better. There is a HUGE, GAPING chasm of difference between a legal definition of a word and the common societal usage of words. If the American Courts ever define the term Prophet in a legal context, then you may have some grounds to argue on, but short of that, this is just nonsense.

 

I think he was using a nonsensical argument to show that the previous argument was also, in his opinion, nonsensical.

As for the gay marriage thing (which is so far off topic but this thread like many others has morphed -- I wonder if I can invoke the Power of Tal to start a new thread using some of the posts from this one?) I think it is safe to say that in the Western European tradition, "marriage" has been used as a term describing the union between one woman and one man. As I mentioned, gay marriage wasn't even on the radar in the 70s and early 80s, and it certainly wasn't anything that any western society of which I am aware condoned or practiced. That is not to say there weren't homosexuals living together (I'm not an idiot, here) but the societal sanction and even the idea that society SHOULD sanction these unions is something that only came about in the past 20 years.

Things are changing. I have a link I'll post later that delineates my position better than I can, but in the meantime I will simply state that some changes are good (ie: Progress) but not all changes can be termed progress. I also acknowledge that some changes must simply be dealt with no matter how much a person disagrees with them. That means you go with the flow. That doesn't mean you embrace the change or agree with it wholeheartedly, you just accept that in the real world, not everything is going to go the way you might wish it to go.