[djohnson]

I have been looking around and can not find a really definative solution to this. Can someone please show where in the United Staes of America Constitution it shows that there is a separation of Church and State?

[macvillage.net]

The only instance is Article I:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...tml#amendmenti

though it is pretty widely ignored.

[djohnson]

Very good. Here it is for the lazy people:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[djohnson]

So... Congress cannot declare a religion to be the official US church, but any government official can openly profess their beliefs. Now why do people get mad when someone, IE the President, professes to being a Christian?

[itai195]

It's not illegal or anything, many of us just feel it's inappropriate for leaders of a secular state to make political decisions based on their personal religious convictions.

[Millennium]

The Constitution brings this principle more to light, not in what it says, but in what it doesn't say.

Allow me to explain. Although they wouldn't be recognized as Christian by most sects today, most of the Framers were actually quite devout in their own ways. Particularly popular was John Locke's notion of Christianity, on which he wrote some very interesting treatises. As evidence of this, one need look no further than the Declaration of Independence, which uses many terms of great religious significance to Lockeian Christians, such as "self-evident" (true on such a basic and cosmic level that it proves its own existence independently of God) and "the pursuit of happiness" (the instinct to seek pleasure and flee pain, which -because God created us to have it- is inherently moral).

Why is this important? Because despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence is loaded to the gills with terms like these, it is not a legal document. By contrast, not a single one of these terms ever appears anywhere within the Constitution. Even the famous inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are changed to "life, liberty, and property" within the Constitution's own wording.

My point? Even though the Framers were Christians, they very carefully excised their faith from the Constitution. If you consider how many drafts it went through (most of which are lost, but here is one to consider) there must have been times when they did nothing but remove references they had accidentally inserted. They knew that no religion, not even their own, could be trusted to hold any kind of power, nor to hold any kind of special status.

This is important: we must be careful to look at the Constitution in the terms of its writers, using only the definitions they would have used themselves. Otherwise, things get lost in translation, even if the translation is across time rather than across languages.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's not illegal or anything, many of us just feel it's inappropriate for leaders of a secular state to make political decisions based on their personal religious convictions.

There are, however, those who say that this is inherent to electing people, rather than political parties; we elected them knowing that they had these beliefs, and so they ought to be able to use them as they see fit even in terms of policy decisions. To do otherwise violates their freedom of religion, and they are already forbidden from violating ours, so that's not an issue.

[Dr.HermanG.]

I see nothing wrong with any leader using his/her belief system with respect to making policy decisions even if said belief system comes from his or her personal faith.

Separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by judges legislating from the bench.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There are, however, those who say that this is inherent to electing people, rather than political parties; we elected them knowing that they had these beliefs, and so they ought to be able to use them as they see fit even in terms of policy decisions. To do otherwise violates their freedom of religion, and they are already forbidden from violating ours, so that's not an issue.

You're right, and it's certainly to be expected to some extent. Some just feel certain leaders put those values above the Constitution and the law.

[andi*pandi]

A president, or any elected official, is set in place to serve ALL the people, not just those who voted for him, and not just whose religion they share.

It is a mark of a good representative to put personal agendas aside on behalf of the greater good and the nation.

</idealism>

yeah, I know.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

In my opinion, the idea of separation of church and state being necessary is crystal clear in the current gay marriage issue.

For the record, I’m personally not at all against politicians having very strong religious convictions, and expressing them. But the continued denial of a group of US citizens having the same rights as others, kept that way as the direct result of government enforcement of religious beliefs and personal prejudices, is just plain wrong.

I believe policy can be influenced, even guided by one’s religious conviction, just as it can be influenced and guided by an individual’s personal experiences, knowledge, expertise and skills; all of this in ways that don’t defy the constitution, nor deny anyone else their rights.

However, at a juncture where anyone’s religious convictions and/or personal beliefs in general conflict with the rights of all citizens in a secular society, the rights of all citizens should trump the former. If a person’s faith isn’t actually deep enough to accept this, and requires government-enforced backup, then tough. Having faith does not elevate an individual or group above equal (not greater) participation in a secular system.

[alphasubzero949]

Separation of Church and State falls under the first amendment, which combines two clauses: the "no establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.

The government cannot establish or endorse a specific religion because that would infringe on the civil liberties of those with different beliefs from what the government advocates.

Under the free exercise clause, we as individuals are free to practice our beliefs. The issue of civil rights comes into place when someone else's rights are violated because of one's practices.


The gay marriage issue is more of a civil liberty/right issue than it is of Church and State. From a civil liberty perspective, the government should not be able to restrain a couple from marrying because of their sexual orientation or to withhold rights that others enjoy as married couples. From a civil right perspective, gay couples should be free to carry out their normal lives as a married couple without discrimination from others (be it individuals, organizations, companies, etc.). Nowhere does Church and State fit into this equation. Sure, one could bust out the Bible and all, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil liberty/right matter.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I see nothing wrong with any leader using his/her belief system with respect to making policy decisions even if said belief system comes from his or her personal faith.

Separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by judges legislating from the bench.

My religion says anyone who isn't Christian must not speak unless spoken too.

If I win office, can I have the laws changed?

or...

My religion says I can have slaves, provided I ensure that they marry before having sexual relations, and sell both husband and wife together.

Can I have them? Please?

It's my faith. Why can't the laws be changed?

Or is there some sort of limitations?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I see nothing wrong with any leader using his/her belief system with respect to making policy decisions even if said belief system comes from his or her personal faith.

Separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by judges legislating from the bench.

What if said leader bases policy decisions on a belief system that is significantly different from and perhaps even contradictory to your own?

[chabig]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
Separation of Church and State falls under the first amendment, which combines two clauses: the "no establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.

The government cannot establish or endorse a specific religion because that would infringe on the civil liberties of those with different beliefs from what the government advocates.

Under the free exercise clause, we as individuals are free to practice our beliefs. The issue of civil rights comes into place when someone else's rights are violated because of one's practices.

Well said. The problem is that many people want the government to go far beyond these two principles. Never in the history of the United States has the government sought to establish a religion. Those who argue most stridently for a separation seem to want the government to actually be anti-religion. Witness the battle against school vouchers, or the ACLU's recent lawsuit to have a small cross image removed from the Los Angeles county seal. They have gone so far as to infringe on the free exercise clause.

Chris

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:

The gay marriage issue is more of a civil liberty/right issue than it is of Church and State. From a civil liberty perspective, the government should not be able to restrain a couple from marrying because of their sexual orientation or to withhold rights that others enjoy as married couples. From a civil right perspective, gay couples should be free to carry out their normal lives as a married couple without discrimination from others (be it individuals, organizations, companies, etc.). Nowhere does Church and State fit into this equation. Sure, one could bust out the Bible and all, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil liberty/right matter. [/B]

I don't disagree that it's a civil liberties issue, of course it is.

I do contend that it is a church and state example, in the sense that at its core, the reason for the tenaciousness of the issue failing to be resolved, is that far too many people cite their personal beliefs and religion as the grounds for it, and are all to happy to have the government use the laws to enforce those beliefs to the detriment of someone else's rights. Lawmakers are for the most part afraid of touching the issue for fear of alienating those people and their beliefs. But rights should not be based solely on that.

The government isn’t establishing a religion in this case; it’s allowing prejudice and religious belief to overly-influence policy against the rights of other citizens.

These things (laws and policy) vs. (religious beliefs and prejudices that seek to discriminate due to them) should be kept separated from one another.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What if said leader bases policy decisions on a belief system that is significantly different from and perhaps even contradictory to your own?

My beliefs are that you can't have your own beliefs.


Here's a great example of this that ticks me off:

In NJ, it's illegal to sell a car on Sunday (since your supposed to be in Church, not on a used car lot). So if I'm a Jewish sales person... and I want to respect and practice my own faith... I can only sell cars during the week (when most people come in on weekends, since that's their day off).

Statute

But Christian law says I can't sell a car on Sunday, so my dealership shuts down.



Hmm... now this law doesn't protect anyone from anything. It just puts me at a disadvantage because of a difference in religion.

Perhaps I'm muslim. Friday is my sabbath.

Perhaps I'm athiest? I can't do business because some Christians want to go to church?

Just a great example of these many laws. And that one's not just for businesses. I've even met someone who was on someone's front lawn looking at a car the person was selling... and a cop who passed by decided to stop... just to make sure no sale was going on. Had to leave and come back the next day.

So if I were a Jewish politician, my first law in NJ, would be to outlaw car sales on Sunday. Even things out a bit. And just see what happens. Would it go to the state supreme court? Would they throw it out?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What if said leader bases policy decisions on a belief system that is significantly different from and perhaps even contradictory to your own?

What difference does it make regardless of what that leader bases his decisions upon?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
My religion says anyone who isn't Christian must not speak unless spoken too.

If I win office, can I have the laws changed?

or...

My religion says I can have slaves, provided I ensure that they marry before having sexual relations, and sell both husband and wife together.

Can I have them? Please?

It's my faith. Why can't the laws be changed?

Or is there some sort of limitations?

The design and structure of our government prevents that from happening with or without the false idea that people in the service of our country must somehow stop being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever the moment they take office.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
The design and structure of our government prevents that from happening with or without the false idea that people in the service of our country must somehow stop being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever the moment they take office.

No one said they should stop practicing their religion. Where did you get that idea?

[Spliffdaddy]

New Jersey is nothing like the other 49 states, by the way.

You can pump your own gas outside of New Jersey (believe it or not, you don't have to be a card-carrying union member in order to have the skills necessary to fuel a vehicle)

Outside of New Jersey, people sometimes like the state they live in (I know *that's* hard for New Jersey residents to comprehend).

People talk funny in New Jersey. While forever making fun of the way New Yorkers talk. Here's some news for ya. Both of ya'll talk funny as hell. The other 48 states agree. And at least 20 of 'em wanted to kick your asses, but I stopped 'em.

If the mafia wanted to govern a state, it would probably choose New Jersey - since they wouldn't have to make any significant changes in policy.

Yeah, once you leave New Jersey you'll have done more to improve the quality of your life than a good diet and exercise ever could. I know. I got outta there.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I don't disagree that it's a civil liberties issue, of course it is.

I do contend that it is a church and state example, in the sense that at its core, the reason for the tenaciousness of the issue failing to be resolved, is that far too many people cite their personal beliefs and religion as the grounds for it, and are all to happy to have the government use the laws to enforce those beliefs to the detriment of someone else's rights. Lawmakers are for the most part afraid of touching the issue for fear of alienating those people and their beliefs. But rights should not be based solely on that.

The problem with the gay marriage issue is that it is impossible to not violate the separation of Church and State, no matter what you do. If you continue to deny gay marriage, you're basing law on religion, which is an obvious violation. If you allow gay marriage, you force religions to accept it as valid, which changes religious dogma. And yes, this does force religious dogma to change, because any religion which does not would then come under the classification of a hate group whether or not the status is deserved.

I hate to say that it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't (awful pun that it is), but there you have it. You may as well ignore the Church/State issue on this one, because it's going to be violated no matter what happens.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I hate to say that it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't (awful pun that it is), but there you have it. You may as well ignore the Church/State issue on this one, because it's going to be violated no matter what happens.

Why not just make sure the church is allowed to decide if they want to marry people, but also make sure that gay couples are allowed all rights and benefits straight couples do?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The problem with the gay marriage issue is that it is impossible to not violate the separation of Church and State, no matter what you do. If you continue to deny gay marriage, you're basing law on religion, which is an obvious violation. If you allow gay marriage, you force religions to accept it as valid, which changes religious dogma. And yes, this does force religious dogma to change, because any religion which does not would then come under the classification of a hate group whether or not the status is deserved.

That's not true at all. It would be quite easy to come up with a solution that didn't violate the separation of Church and State. Acknowledging that marriage is an entirely religious thing and getting the government out of it would do exactly that.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Logic:
Why not just make sure the church is allowed to decide if they want to marry people, but also make sure that gay couples are allowed all rights and benefits straight couples do?

Why should straight couples get benefits?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
Why not just make sure the church is allowed to decide if they want to marry people, but also make sure that gay couples are allowed all rights and benefits straight couples do?

Any church which decided not to marry anyone would again fall under the legal classification of a hate group.

I think nonhuman's solution is probably the cleanest, as it acknowledges "marriage" as a religious term and gets the government out of it, but it has a flaw: it does not propose anything to fill the hole. Perhaps something like koseki, the Japanese family-registration system, would fit the bill in a case like this. Nothing's that simple, of course -koseki itself has some cultural implications which would need to be considered in any kind of adaptation to another culture- but it might be workable.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Any church which decided not to marry anyone would again fall under the legal classification of a hate group.

I think nonhuman's solution is probably the cleanest, as it acknowledges "marriage" as a religious term and gets the government out of it, but it has a flaw: it does not propose anything to fill the hole. Perhaps something like koseki, the Japanese family-registration system, would fit the bill in a case like this. Nothing's that simple, of course -koseki itself has some cultural implications which would need to be considered in any kind of adaptation to another culture- but it might be workable.

We have something to fill the hole: civil unions. That's what we used to use before someone decided to change the term to marriage, anyway. Of course I still don't see why we need to have benefits for married couples, anyway.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you allow gay marriage, you force religions to accept it as valid, which changes religious dogma. And yes, this does force religious dogma to change, because any religion which does not would then come under the classification of a hate group whether or not the status is deserved.

Tell this to the Mormons. You wouldn't think this was a problem if we were discussing religious bigamy. The law *is* allowed to interefere with religions and declare some of their practices illegal and to force them to do stuff they might not want to.

The American constitution has it right. It says the law *is* above all religion. And this is a *very* good thing too.

[bygimis]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you allow gay marriage, you force religions to accept it as valid, which changes religious dogma.

This is a most bizare argument - many christians don't accept divorced people who remarried as properly married under god, but this doesn't prevent the state allowing it.

Most religions don't accept marrages that take place in other religions sacred sites, registry offices or country houses as being valid marrages, but the state can still allow them.

If a gay couple were married legally in a registry office, or in a religion that didn't object, then other religions would not have to accept it (e.g. some christians might not think that they were married under god).

This isn't a 'hate crime' - no catholics are arrested for not accepting second marrages as being real marrage, so whats the problem? No one religion can claim the exclusive right to choose what a marrage is for everyone - its as old as mankind.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by bygimis:
This is a most bizare argument - many christians don't accept divorced people who remarried as properly married under god, but this doesn't prevent the state allowing it.

Most religions don't accept marrages that take place in other religions sacred sites, registry offices or country houses as being valid marrages, but the state can still allow them.

If a gay couple were married legally in a registry office, or in a religion that didn't object, then other religions would not have to accept it (e.g. some christians might not think that they were married under god).

This isn't a 'hate crime' - no catholics are arrested for not accepting second marrages as being real marrage, so whats the problem? No one religion can claim the exclusive right to choose what a marrage is for everyone - its as old as mankind.

Well put.

Our society also allows to legally violate a few of the second commandments. We have no law about lust for thy neighbors wife, nor do we have laws against missing sunday services. No rule about honoring thy mother and father...

I can legally eat a steak on Good Friday with no punishment.


According to this 'hate crime' logic... all of the above also follow.


And Christians commit hate crimes all the time, by working on others sabaths, or eating during fasting periods for other faiths... Hindu's view a cow as sacred. I know many church BBQ's feature burger's! Is this an organized Christian Hate Crime against Hindu's?

[cpt kangarooski]

Spliffdaddy--
New Jersey is nothing like the other 49 states, by the way.

You can pump your own gas outside of New Jersey (believe it or not, you don't have to be a card-carrying union member in order to have the skills necessary to fuel a vehicle)[/QUOTE]

Of course, in NJ, gas is not only always full-serve, it's generally cheaper than anywhere else in the country. So I guess Jersey is doing something right.

I'm also informed that in other states it's possible to turn left, or to make a u-turn. That's pretty bizarre.

Millennium--

If you allow gay marriage, you force religions to accept it as valid, which changes religious dogma.

No you are not. Religiously neutral, generally applied laws are by definition not targeted at effecting religious change. If you have a valid religious belief that non-believers aren't people, then the government cannot force you to believe otherwise. However, they can force you to not, e.g. indiscriminately kill non believers on that basis, not out of a desire to fiddle with your religion, but merely because that's the standard applied to everyone.

With regards to same sex marriage, if your religion doesn't accept it, then the existence of law doesn't mean you have to. The religion and its adherents can refuse to acknowledge such marriages, or perform them, or enter into them. The fact that they'll happen anyway, in purely civil ceremonies, if nowhere else, has no bearing whatsoever on the religion.

So there is absolutely NO issue of freedom of religion that would arise where same sex marriages are allowed. OTOH, laws based on religious reasons for denying such marriages are unconstitutional.

Any church which decided not to marry anyone would again fall under the legal classification of a hate group.

Show us this legal classification, o sage. 'Cos I'll tell you, as a Jew, I'm having the hardest time imaginable getting the Pope to conduct a Jewish marriage for me. Maybe you can lean on him a little, and point out that it would be illegal for a religion to choose for itself what its beliefs are and with whom it can be associated.

Or alternatively, maybe you're just wrong.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Spliffdaddy--
New Jersey is nothing like the other 49 states, by the way.

You can pump your own gas outside of New Jersey (believe it or not, you don't have to be a card-carrying union member in order to have the skills necessary to fuel a vehicle)

Of course, in NJ, gas is not only always full-serve, it's generally cheaper than anywhere else in the country. So I guess Jersey is doing something right.

I'm also informed that in other states it's possible to turn left, or to make a u-turn. That's pretty bizarre.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortuantely, NJ, NY, and CA are the only states with any diversity beyond the ~2%.

I'll stay put. I can't deal with the monotony outside of the area. Can't stand people living in areas based on ethnicity.

It's like human supermarket: Germans, Isle 5. Japaneese, Isle 2.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by djohnson:
So... Congress cannot declare a religion to be the official US church, but any government official can openly profess their beliefs. Now why do people get mad when someone, IE the President, professes to being a Christian?

I have no problem with him being a Christian - every President we've ever had has professed to being Christian, if only for appearance's sake. But public policy should not be based on religious doctrine. I don't want a guy basing Middle East policy on his belief in the End Times or some other pretentiously named superstition, or because he claims to get instructions directly from God.

To his credit, even Dubya has acknowledged that he's obligated to separate his faith from his Presidential duties, and I think he means it. The problem is that he wears religion on his sleeve so much, and makes so many statements about his relationship with God, that one is left wondering how well he understands the distinction. Getting personal strength from one's faith is one thing, but using it as a basis for public policy decisions is another.

Even if he understands the distinction, I don't like the way he wears religion on his sleeve and invokes the name of God all the time. I'm not going to lose sleep over it, and it doesn't violate any laws, I just don't like it. He was elected President, not Pastor. I don't think even Jimmy Carter, who was an ordained minister, talked about God on the job as much as Bush does. I think a President should generally keep it in the personal realm.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Of course I still don't see why we need to have benefits for married couples, anyway.

Because married couples have the potential for generating more tax paying citizens (children).

By the way. Can you discriminate against someone for choosing a lifestyle? If you are black, you are born black. But you aren't born married. Everyone has the same freedom to marry someone from the opposite sex. But it's discrimination if the state doesn't recognize gay marriage as valid? By the way, where does one draw the line?

(Flames need not apply. I just want a clean discussion.)

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Because married couples have the potential for generating more tax paying citizens (children).

By the way. Can you discriminate against someone for choosing a lifestyle? If you are black, you are born black. But you aren't born married. Everyone has the same freedom to marry someone from the opposite sex. But it's discrimination if the state doesn't recognize gay marriage as valid? By the way, where does one draw the line?

(Flames need not apply. I just want a clean discussion.)

Why allow religion?

Your not born into it, your taught it by your parents. Prohibit that, and the whole religion thing is gone.

Religion has been a root cause (if not the only cause) in every major recorded conflict. More than justified.

But we can't do that, because people want that ability to practice their faith. They feel it's part of their 'culture'.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Because married couples have the potential for generating more tax paying citizens (children).

If that is the case, then perhaps the benefits should be given to couples that actually generate more tax paying citizens rather than those who might generate more tax paying citizens.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Why allow religion?

Your not born into it, your taught it by your parents. Prohibit that, and the whole religion thing is gone.

Religion has been a root cause (if not the only cause) in every major recorded conflict. More than justified.

But we can't do that, because people want that ability to practice their faith. They feel it's part of their 'culture'.

I agree that no religion should be pushed on another person, especially via the legal system. I wouldn't want someone else's faith pushed on me either. But to think that our lawmakers are not, in some way, going to have their decision making affected by their personal beliefs is foolish. The question is, who is going to represent the overall ideals of the masses?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If that is the case, then perhaps the benefits should be given to couples that actually generate more tax paying citizens rather than those who might generate more tax paying citizens.

I agree, but that's not what was asked. I simply answered the question based on what I've understood. I still don't see it as discrimination. Is it discrimination if I wanted to go to a nice club dressed like a punk and get refused at the door for my clothes? No. I chose to dress that way and still have the option of coming back dressed appropriately. If you have the option of complying, it couldn't possibly be discrimination IMO. I'll always be black (mixed, double discrimination?) so there is no hope of change. But A gay person could CHOOSE to marry someone of the same sex and/or carry on a heterosexual relationship if they wanted to. They have the ability to meet the necessary requirements to no longer be "discriminated" against. Would they? Probably not. Depends on the person.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by deomacius:
I agree that no religion should be pushed on another person, especially via the legal system. I wouldn't want someone else's faith pushed on me either. But to think that our lawmakers are not, in some way, going to have their decision making affected by their personal beliefs is foolish. The question is, who is going to represent the overall ideals of the masses?

It's very possible to put it beside you.

Many in history have. Reagan is a good example. May want to look at his record. Especially as govenor.

He clearly was able to control himself, and use it approprately.

I think the real question is if we should hold lawmakers to a standard that they need to make decisions without their own interests as the first priority.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Why allow religion?

Why allow anyone to have a conscience?

Should we just ban all philosophy?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by deomacius:
But A gay person could CHOOSE to marry someone of the same sex and/or carry on a heterosexual relationship if they wanted to. They have the ability to meet the necessary requirements to no longer be "discriminated" against. Would they? Probably not. Depends on the person.

why should they, if they aren't attracted to the opposite sex? would you marry a man (i suppose you're a guy) if society's standards were different? no, you wouldn't.

people don't "choose" to be gay (yes, i HAVE seen pretty much conclusive proof) just like they don't choose to be black, have blue eyes or be straight.

when homsexuals marry, nobody gets hurt, except that maybe some people feel their CHOSEN ethics violated. deal with it. those are the same people that saw their "morals" being violated a century ago, when some folks had the nerve to actually marry across racial divides.

we're moving on. stay behind if you whish. it's your choice.

[doctorkeyser]

"Dearest Jesus the Sweetest of the Christs that Saveth in the Name of the Lord, please make known to my children your love and your demands, for I lack the wherewithal to effectively raise them without your mystical set of rules and hilarious stories. Lead me and the rest of the sheep, Lord, into the fields of thy mercy so that we may make the world a better place... Oh, and also get rid of all the black people, the gays, the people who practice other religions, and the quasi-atheist children that attend my kids' sleepovers who refuse to be converted and attend church with us on Sunday morning. We love thee, Jesus, for thine is the way of peace. See you at NASCAR this weekend, Lord."

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Why allow anyone to have a conscience?

Should we just ban all philosophy?

Why not just ban on race/age/sex while your at it?

And since NJ is the one of only 2 or 3 states to ban it, we could legally discriminate on the federal level based on genetics.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
people don't "choose" to be gay (yes, i HAVE seen pretty much conclusive proof) just like they don't choose to be black, have blue eyes or be straight.

You mean like some people don't choose to be aroused by people clad in leather? Like some people don't choose to prefer a particular race for their partner? Like some people don't choose to prefer dressing in diapers and acting like babies? Like some people don't choose to prefer inflatable partners? It's a fetish. You can't possibly claim with a straight face that all of those things that also arouse people are genetic. If you are aroused by having intercourse with someone of the same sex it's the same thing. You CHOOSE to act on those feelings. I didn't CHOOSE to be mixed and there is nothing I can do to change that. I won't sink to your level of trying to make this discussion personal. I'm caught up with the times. I simply choose to hold a different opinion than you. Does that make me a bad person for having an unpopular opinion?

[deomacius]

Originally posted by doctorkeyser:
"Dearest Jesus the Sweetest of the Christs that Saveth in the Name of the Lord, please make known to my children your love and your demands, for I lack the wherewithal to effectively raise them without your mystical set of rules and hilarious stories. Lead me and the rest of the sheep, Lord, into the fields of thy mercy so that we may make the world a better place... Oh, and also get rid of all the black people, the gays, the people who practice other religions, and the quasi-atheist children that attend my kids' sleepovers who refuse to be converted and attend church with us on Sunday morning. We love thee, Jesus, for thine is the way of peace. See you at NASCAR this weekend, Lord."

Spoken like someone who truly has no clue. I won't waste my time explaining.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Religion has been a root cause (if not the only cause) in every major recorded conflict. More than justified.

Much as I'd like to agree with that statement it is simply not true. Nearly all major conflicts in history have been over teritory. Even the crusades.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Much as I'd like to agree with that statement it is simply not true. Nearly all major conflicts in history have been over teritory. Even the crusades.

Perhaps, but religion in those cases was often the excuse.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by sambeau:
Much as I'd like to agree with that statement it is simply not true. Nearly all major conflicts in history have been over teritory. Even the crusades.

But in those cases, look what the territory dispute was:

God gave us this land.
It's our god given right
Manifest destiny
You are the infestation god has empowered us to remove
bla bla bla.

Even the Crusades. It was about land (in a utilitarian sense). But why that land? Religion. Would they have cared about the land if there was no religion? Absolutely not. Europians wouldn't have traveled to worthless desert. That was religion.

Israel/Palestine? Religious supremicy.

WWII? Religious persecution

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by deomacius:
You mean like some people don't choose to be aroused by people clad in leather? Like some people don't choose to prefer a particular race for their partner? Like some people don't choose to prefer dressing in diapers and acting like babies? Like some people don't choose to prefer inflatable partners? It's a fetish. You can't possibly claim with a straight face that all of those things that also arouse people are genetic. If you are aroused by having intercourse with someone of the same sex it's the same thing. You CHOOSE to act on those feelings. I didn't CHOOSE to be mixed and there is nothing I can do to change that. I won't sink to your level of trying to make this discussion personal. I'm caught up with the times. I simply choose to hold a different opinion than you. Does that make me a bad person for having an unpopular opinion?

By that logic...choosing to be aroused by intercourse with someone of the opposite sex is the same thing. If homosexuality can't be genetic based on what you just said, neither can heterosexuality. Try again.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by deomacius:
If you are aroused by having intercourse with someone of the same sex it's the same thing.

nope. that's exactly what i was saying. you don't CHOSE to be gay, in the same way you CHOSE to wear a nixon mask and a tutu while having sex. i'm not saying here that it's not also a completely valid and personal choice, but people are born with a GENETIC predisposition to be attracted to the same sex. there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and in no way constitutes a pathology.

if it conflicts with your chosen morals, tough luck. deal with it.

Originally posted by deomacius:
I simply choose to hold a different opinion than you. Does that make me a bad person for having an unpopular opinion?

no, it just makes you wrong. that's all. of course you are free to believe whatever you want.