[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Just because you disagree with someone's interpretation doesn't empower you to simply declare it 'not an interpretation'...

I don't do that just because I disagree. I do that because I can show that the interpretation is in direct conflict of both the letter, and intent of the laws in question. In the case of religious expression

You get to argue over whether or not it's valid, but the Supreme Court ultimately gets to decide, barringva Constitutional amendment.

Yes, they have been allowed to illegally legislate from the bench for some time.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't do that just because I disagree. I do that because I can show that the interpretation is in direct conflict of both the letter, and intent of the laws in question.

... based on your *interpretation* of the intent of the laws in question. It's pretty clear from reading this thread that you want to interpret the intents of The Founders in ways that not everyone agrees with.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

... based on your *interpretation* of the intent of the laws in question.

No, based on indisputable facts. Either the founders had a standard back in the day and allowed that standard to exist or they didn't. If they allowed a standard to exist, given the letter of the law, then it can't be "interpreted" that their intent was to outlaw what they clearly allowed. It's just not logically possible.

I understand that this sort of intellectually dishonest "interpretation" is how people who don't like the standards that have been agreed upon use as a loophole to legislate change a majority doesn't want, but that isn't because it's a legal right that anyone intended to be allowed.

[Chongo]

You have to remember at that time, the term religion was used they way we use denomination today.

[nonhuman]

The Founders' intent can be a useful guide, but is not binding law. We don't have to do things the way they would have done things, nor would they have necessarily wanted us to. We know more now, than they did then, we should make use of that new information to determine the best course of action regardless of how things were done in the past.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, based on indisputable facts.

Indisputable, only by your interpretation.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The Founders' intent can be a useful guide, but is not binding law.

Yes, actually it is supposed to be. Courts are supposed to "interpret" what is already there, and not INVENT things that aren't. If something was not the founder's intent, and not clearly specified in writing, then it's up to the states to decide or for a Constitutional amendment to be created. That's how the founders set this up via the Constitution. It's not up to the courts to create anything that wasn't already supposed to be there.

We don't have to do things the way they would have done things, nor would they have necessarily wanted us to.

You are correct, and they foresaw this fact. They gave us mechanisms so that if there needed to be changes, or if the majority thought something was missing, we could act as a democracy (and a majority) to change them. They never intended for a small group of unelected elites to invent new laws however. If they'd wanted that, they would have went with a monarchy.

Your point of view in regards to what should be legal does not reflect the intent of our founders and the Constitution they created. Nothing wrong with that - but make your own country if you want one where the courts legislate for the people. We fought a war to get fair representation via elected officials.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Indisputable, only by your interpretation.

A fact is a fact. Either it can be proven to be the case, or can't.

I can prove that our founders did not oppose prayer or the mention of God in official government ceremonies and documents, at the time the Constitution was created. I can show you numerous instances where this was allowed or encouraged.

No one can show me what was added to the Constitution later which would make this illegal. Given that intent, letter of the law, and past precedent are all on the side of allowing this, the only thing left is either a change to the Constitution or legislation (unconstitutional) from the bench. We've been given the latter.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, actually it is supposed to be. Courts are supposed to "interpret" what is already there, and not INVENT things that aren't. If something was not the founder's intent, and not clearly specified in writing, then it's up to the states to decide or for a Constitutional amendment to be created. That's how the founders set this up via the Constitution. It's not up to the courts to create anything that wasn't already supposed to be there.

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say we should give a flying **** about the Founders' intentions? The law, especially the Constitution, cannot be predicated on something so tenuous and unknowable as the inner thoughts of men two centuries dead. The only thing that is binding is the actual, written law. Nothing else.

You are correct, and they foresaw this fact. They gave us mechanisms so that if there needed to be changes, or if the majority thought something was missing, we could act as a democracy (and a majority) to change them. They never intended for a small group of unelected elites to invent new laws however. If they'd wanted that, they would have went with a monarchy.

Again, this is your (in my opinion, flawed) interpretation of what is happening. No one is inventing new laws at the behest of some elite. This is a minority, one quite strongly reviled by a significant portion of the population, trying to ensure that our rights receive the same respect and protection as those of the majority.

Your point of view in regards to what should be legal does not reflect the intent of our founders and the Constitution they created. Nothing wrong with that - but make your own country if you want one where the courts legislate for the people. We fought a war to get fair representation via elected officials.

By what sort of twisted logic do you equate the protection of the rights of minorities with the courts creating populist legislation? The two things are completely opposites. Legislation 'for the people'—instead of by representatives—would tend to quash and ignore the rights of the minority in favor of the interests of the majority. The courts are there as a bulwark against that: to protect the rights of everyone, but especially of minorities because the rights of minorities are always at greater risk of being subsumed to populist interests.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The Founders' intent can be a useful guide, but is not binding law. We don't have to do things the way they would have done things, nor would they have necessarily wanted us to. We know more now, than they did then, we should make use of that new information to determine the best course of action regardless of how things were done in the past.

I hear this a lot, but ultimately what has changed that would call into serious question any of the principles drafted at the founding?

Faster cars doesn't mean the government should be in the business of selling them for example.

[Doofy]

Doesn't it make you fatties all moist when you think that (for example) the UK has a state religion and nobody gives a toss about bringing religion into school graduations?

Is it possible that all this constant attempted mind reading of old dead dudes has made you all a little, umm, insane?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say we should give a flying **** about the Founders' intentions?

What part of "interpret" don't you understand?

If someone is interpreting sign language, are they not supposed to convey the original communicative intent to third parties? Or, are they supposed to add stuff the original signer never intended to say or mean?

If someone is interpreting a foreign language, are they not supposed to convey the communicative intent of the original speaker? Or, are they supposed to add or change stuff the original speaker never intended to say or mean?

Is it really your belief that judges in Constitutionally mandated courts are supposed to legislate, and not interpret as any reasonable meaning of the word would convey?

Really...this isn't rocket science. If the Constitution has to spell out the differences between interpreting and inventing, then the problem is that we are too stupid of a people to rule ourselves.

The law, especially the Constitution, cannot be predicated on something so tenuous and unknowable as the inner thoughts of men two centuries dead. The only thing that is binding is the actual, written law. Nothing else.

..and when the written law is under dispute, then we try and determine if the source of the original law intended for it to mean one thing or another. A pretty good sign that they wouldn't intend for it to make something illegal is if that thing was never found illegal, or maybe even encouraged at the time the original writer(s) wrote the law. If for 200 years something was perfectly acceptable and allowed by law and no additional laws where passed after that point, you really can't claim that it was ever the intent of anyone forging the laws for that thing to be illegal. It simply isn't a logical place to start an argument.

Again, this is your (in my opinion, flawed) interpretation of what is happening. No one is inventing new laws at the behest of some elite.

When five men in robes change the law to reflect their personal opinions and not what the laws where actually put on the books to do, then it is an invention or legislation, and that is not constitutional.

By what sort of twisted logic do you equate the protection of the rights of minorities with the courts creating populist legislation?

Minorities have the same constitutional rights as non-miniorities. What they don't have is the right to change the laws for everyone based on their minority opinion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Doesn't it make you fatties all moist when you think that (for example) the UK has a state religion and nobody gives a toss about bringing religion into school graduations?

Is it possible that all this constant attempted mind reading of old dead dudes has made you all a little, umm, insane?

It is a little insane, isn't it? It also seems to have really surfaced in the last few years more than I remember. It sort of reminds me of a teenager discovering Yoga or something and wanting to talk about it all the time as if it is the answer for everything.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What part of "interpret" don't you understand?

If someone is interpreting sign language, are they not supposed to convey the original communicative intent to third parties? Or, are they supposed to add stuff the original signer never intended to say or mean?

If someone is interpreting a foreign language, are they not supposed to convey the communicative intent of the original speaker? Or, are they supposed to add or change stuff the original speaker never intended to say or mean?

You do realize that not all languages can be translated directly to all other languages. Some languages have meaning and intents that simply do not exist in other languages. Sign language, by necessity, is an abbreviated language, and it is impossible to communicate through one's hands all of the nuances and emotions that can be communicated through voice (might be one of the reasons we don't all communicate by sign language). As a result, the interpreter must make some assumptions as to the speaker's intent. Fortunately, the speaker is usually present for the interpreter to confirm their assumptions with.

In the case of interpreting the intent of your Founders, you have several challenges:
1. Time. Your Founders existed in a different time than you do. They thought differently. They spoke differently. They had a different context to *everything*. So much is different, that they might as well have been speaking a different language.

2. They're not here. You can't confirm the assumptions that feed into your interpretation.

3. The Founders were liberals ... by definition. They were seeking massive change to the status quo. If they were conservatives, they would have sought to keep things the same. Therefore, they had an entirely different political mindset than you do. It seems unlikely that they would have fought against the dogma of the British Empire only to establish a society based on the dogma that you are trying to apply to their "intent".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You do realize that not all languages can be translated directly to all other languages.

Regardless, when you translate them, your goal is to relay what the original speaker/writer intended. If you relay something that was NOT their intent, you've failed at your job to interpret.

In the case of interpreting the intent of your Founders, you have several challenges:
1. Time. Your Founders existed in a different time than you do. They thought differently. They spoke differently. They had a different context to *everything*. So much is different, that they might as well have been speaking a different language.

There's ample evidence of what the founders thought via their writings and the historical precedents that are on record from those times. Again, if the guys who wrote the Constitution also didn't choose to make something illegal and made no laws requiring governmental regulation of something, it's not credible to suggest it was their intent to do so. Suggesting otherwise argues against basic logic.

2. They're not here. You can't confirm the assumptions that feed into your interpretation.

See above.

3. The Founders were liberals ... by definition. They were seeking massive change to the status quo. If they were conservatives, they would have sought to keep things the same. Therefore, they had an entirely different political mindset than you do. It seems unlikely that they would have fought against the dogma of the British Empire only to establish a society based on the dogma that you are trying to apply to their "intent".

Facts are facts. As I stated before, I can show via their writings, the actual wording of the law, and precedents from the time that they had no intention of banning religious speech from any public discourse. It doesn't matter whether they called themselves liberals or conservatives. The only way you get to legal rulings that liberals had forwarded is to invent new meanings to laws that where never intended.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Facts are facts. As I stated before, I can show via their writings, the actual wording of the law, and precedents from the time that they had no intention of banning religious speech from any public discourse. It doesn't matter whether they called themselves liberals or conservatives. The only way you get to legal rulings that liberals had forwarded is to invent new meanings to laws that where never intended.

You completely missed my point. It's my opinion that their intent is likely irrelevant, since it seems unlikely to me that they would have wanted to create a static system that couldn't evolve over time as people's attitudes and needs changed ... since that is *exactly* what they were fighting against with the British Empire.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You completely missed my point. It's my opinion that their intent is likely irrelevant..

Then you are no longer talking about interpreting the laws they created. You are talking about legislating. Our Constitution leaves that job to the elected representatives of the people.

... since it seems unlikely to me that they would have wanted to create a static system that couldn't evolve over time as people's attitudes and needs changed ... since that is *exactly* what they were fighting against with the British Empire.

Have you not read this entire thread? This line of reasoning has already been "asked and answered." The founders gave us mechanisms via the Constitution to allow us to evolve over time, and still not have our laws decided via non-participation of the citizens, or at the very least without representation. We can evolve without a few people in the courts deciding for themselves what laws should be without regard to what they were meant to be.

You give our founders too little credit for having already thought all this stuff out.

[smacintush]

Those in government and employed in government entities are individuals with individual rights, and that doesn't change simply because they receive a government paycheck.

[ghporter]

The Founders DID intend to prevent the government from enforcing any religion on the citizens of states or the nation. The first clause of the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." let's not ignore the second part - your free exercise may not interfere with MY free exercise, including to be free OF religion if I so choose. The Supreme Court has held many times that schools and school functions are special in that they have the opportunity to indoctrinate young people.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then you are no longer talking about interpreting the laws they created. You are talking about legislating.

Not necessarily. When laws that require interpretation are craft by intelligent people, they are often intended to be adaptable to the times. Smart people, such as your Founders, recognize that society and cultures change over time and that the system will fail if the law can't adapt itself to those changes.

As more people choose beliefs that don't conform with Christian teachings, we are going to see more examples of this conflict pop up.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." let's not ignore the second part - your free exercise may not interfere with MY free exercise, including to be free OF religion if I so choose.

Completely incorrect. Someone's else free exercise may well interfere with your free exercise. Congress cannot make laws to prevent that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Doesn't it make you fatties all moist when you think that (for example) the UK has a state religion and nobody gives a toss about bringing religion into school graduations?

Is it possible that all this constant attempted mind reading of old dead dudes has made you all a little, umm, insane?

I don't think it's the attempt to read the minds of old dead dudes that makes people crazy as much as it has been the increasing influence you butter-teeth have had on a large portion of our society in loathing both themselves and any notion of a guiding principle.

[Wiskedjak]

Guiding principles are great, until they're used to restrict different guiding principles. If vocal Christians would stop trying to use every gathering as a means to impose their guiding principle onto everyone else, those of us who don't subscribe to it wouldn't be so bothered by it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Guiding principles are great, until they're used to restrict different guiding principles. If vocal Christians would stop trying to use every gathering as a means to impose their guiding principle onto everyone else, those of us who don't subscribe to it wouldn't be so bothered by it.

Perhaps if those who don't subscribe to a particular guiding principle were more comfortable in their own skin, they would not seek to restrict the free exercise of others' expression. There's apparently enough imposition to go around.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think it's the attempt to read the minds of old dead dudes that makes people crazy as much as it has been the increasing influence you butter-teeth have had on a large portion of our society in loathing both themselves and any notion of a guiding principle.

Must be a flimsy guiding principle if a bunch of gap-tooth morons on a small island thousands of miles away cause vast numbers of your countryfatties to loath both themselves and said guiding principle.
Time for something more solid, maybe?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Completely incorrect. Someone's else free exercise may well interfere with your free exercise. Congress cannot make laws to prevent that.

The courts' job is to prevent one citizen's exercise of rights from interfering unnecessarily with another citizen's rights. Free speech is curtailed when it causes harm to others, as in preventing someone from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

The courts establish when someone's free exercise can be restricted because it interferes with someone else's free exercise to the extent that it causes harm. Case in point: prayer in schools. SCOTUS held that requiring children to participate in any type of prayer harmed children who did not practice the religion being supported by whatever prayer the school decided to do. Note that this decision was in a suit brought by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of the American Atheist organization. The decision includes ANY religion, not just attempts to "be inclusive," because by definition such inclusive activities impose religion on children who may actually believe in no religion at all.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Perhaps if those who don't subscribe to a particular guiding principle were more comfortable in their own skin, they would not seek to restrict the free exercise of others' expression. There's apparently enough imposition to go around.

One could argue that those who are constantly broadcasting their beliefs to everyone within earshot, trying to convert everyone they meet and seeking to legislate the rules of the faith into law are the ones who need to become more comfortable in their own skin.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The courts' job is to prevent one citizen's exercise of rights from interfering unnecessarily with another citizen's rights. Free speech is curtailed when it causes harm to others, as in preventing someone from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.

I disagree. A court's job is to uphold the law. And since congress can't make a law concerning this, it's no business of a court's.

I believe the founders' intent was that you all try to get along without running to mommy (i.e. court/government) every five minutes because someone said something which "imposes on your rights".

Of course, the founders probably didn't envisage various countries in the modern age being full of whiney little pansies with nothing better to do than moan about their "rights" being breached. Which was a bit of an oversight on their part, IMO.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course, the founders probably didn't envisage various countries in the modern age being full of whiney little pansies with nothing better to do than moan about their "rights" being breached. Which was a bit of an oversight on their part, IMO.

Given they were all just whining about having to bow to the king they probably did.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

One could argue that those who are constantly broadcasting their beliefs to everyone within earshot, trying to convert everyone they meet and seeking to legislate the rules of the faith into law are the ones who need to become more comfortable in their own skin.

I think you're overdramatizing. It's really not that bad. I used to work with a woman like this who would come unglued if someone said God bless you after a sneeze. Bunch of spastic zealots. If someone said Zeus or Allah bless you, I would thank them and move on. People this sensitive will never be happy and I don't see any reason to bend over backwards trying.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Must be a flimsy guiding principle if a bunch of gap-tooth morons on a small island thousands of miles away cause vast numbers of your countryfatties to loath both themselves and said guiding principle.
Time for something more solid, maybe?

The principle isn't flimsy chuckles, people are.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think you're overdramatizing. It's really not that bad. I used to work with a woman like this who would come unglued if someone said God bless you after a sneeze. Bunch of spastic zealots.

You just described my sister and parents.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The principle isn't flimsy chuckles, people are.

Well, we haven't caused the French or the Japanese to loath themselves or their guiding principles yet, so I would assume that your admission, when related in full, is actually "Americans are flimsy".

What's actually happening here, ebuddy? Shall we examine?
OK. So you're staunchly defending a pluralistic principle (breach of first commandment) inherent in your country's structuring against someone who lives in a country where the Christian God is recognised as the official state god? That's about the top and tail of it, no? Defending your artificial construct's breach of first commandment against artificial constructs which have no such breach?
Hmmm. Best be looking to see how many masters you serve, methinks.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think you're overdramatizing. It's really not that bad. I used to work with a woman like this who would come unglued if someone said God bless you after a sneeze. Bunch of spastic zealots.

I don't acknowledge people who bless me for sneezing. But I find it remarkable that more Christians don't regard it as using the Lord's name in vain, since invoking God in response to something utterly trivial like a sneeze like the kind of thing they'd whine about, besides being kinda stupid.

I'm gonna start saying "God Bless You" when I hear farts, since it makes about as much sense.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I disagree. A court's job is to uphold the law. And since congress can't make a law concerning this, it's no business of a court's.

<snip>

Of course, the founders probably didn't envisage various countries in the modern age being full of whiney little pansies with nothing better to do than moan about their "rights" being breached. Which was a bit of an oversight on their part, IMO.

Agree or not, that's how the Constitution works, and that is effectively how courts, at almost all levels, have worked since the very beginning.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Founding Fathers never foresaw our current age's crop of entitled losers. Still, if someone feels that his rights are infringed, a civil suit is the mechanism through which he seeks redress. If lower courts pulled up their big girl panties and actually evaluated each case, rather than allowing low-level, elected judges to simply use each case to advance their own political agendas, we probably wouldn't see so many playground squabbles in Federal courts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, we haven't caused the French or the Japanese to loath themselves or their guiding principles yet, so I would assume that your admission, when related in full, is actually "Americans are flimsy".

The French never had one and our influence on Japan is unmistakable. I'm talking about a more pervasive Europeanization over the last 20 years. That said, yes. Americans are growing flimsier by the decade. Most notably among its men.

What's actually happening here, ebuddy? Shall we examine?
OK. So you're staunchly defending a pluralistic principle (breach of first commandment) inherent in your country's structuring against someone who lives in a country where the Christian God is recognised as the official state god? That's about the top and tail of it, no? Defending your artificial construct's breach of first commandment against artificial constructs which have no such breach?
Hmmm. Best be looking to see how many masters you serve, methinks.

No actually... just clarifying that the Separation of Church and State principle abused by many here as Suppression of Church in State is bogus and more mythical than they suppose of faith in a god, proving there's no limit to what non-believers believe. They sometimes forget that if they don't believe in a myth, the myth has no power over them as it is meaningless.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't acknowledge people who bless me for sneezing. But I find it remarkable that more Christians don't regard it as using the Lord's name in vain, since invoking God in response to something utterly trivial like a sneeze like the kind of thing they'd whine about, besides being kinda stupid.

This is legalistic poppycock. If you truly believe this means there is special punishment for those who say; "oh my God" because they can't believe what they've just heard for example, you're not near as studious as you'd like to believe. Otherwise, it's even more stupid that non-believers would be so offended and that you would suggest this is taking His name in vain.

I'm gonna start saying "God Bless You" when I hear farts, since it makes about as much sense.

At least this is consistent with the lack of reverence you claim to have.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The French never had one

So what was all that hoo-ha about on Bastille Day? Of course the Frogs have guiding principles.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm talking about a more pervasive Europeanization over the last 20 years.

As a European looking from the outside in, I can tell you that what you're seeing in the US isn't "Europeanization". I'm not quite sure what it is, but it ain't Europe.
Maybe it's all the losers who used to hang about in SanFran with flowers in their hair grown up and now in control of things? Maybe it's the Hollywood influence? Maybe it's your colleges? Maybe it's the spread of Internet talking shops (e.g. like this one) giving stupid people stupid ideas?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is legalistic poppycock. If you truly believe this means there is special punishment for those who say; "oh my God" because they can't believe what they've just heard for example, you're not near as studious as you'd like to believe. Otherwise, it's even more stupid that non-believers would be so offended and that you would suggest this is taking His name in vain.

You need to re-read what I said. I don't think it's taking the Lord's name in vain. I said it was remarkable there weren't more objections some Christians. Perhaps I should have mentioned Railroader specifically, since he was the kind of believer I was considering here. I said it was "the kind of thing they'd whine about."

[Railroader]

Umm, I don't say "God bless you" after someone sneezes. I'm not one to go around asking God to bless people because I haven't found that directive in the bible and it is just rote Christian living. And if myth is correct it is the Catholic Church's response to what they thought was a plague starting up and they wanted to head it off at the pass.

You saying it after someone farts though says more about how idiotic your logic is, than how idiotic it is to ask for blessing after a sneeze. Those who are easily offended probably should be.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They sometimes forget that if they don't believe in a myth, the myth has no power over them as it is meaningless.

So, what you're saying is that a gay couple can get married as long as they don't believe in Christianity?

[ghporter]

I say "bless you" when someone sneezes, in the same colloquial/secular way I wish people a merry Christmas (which, face it, is so secular as to make it a separate celebration from the Christian holiday). Remember that the word "goodbye" is actually a contraction from "God be with you," so trying to be completely areligious with language is a practical challenge even with short sentences,

Being polite is at least important as being aware of and "tolerating" other people's beliefs. Calling attention to the fact that one disagrees with someone else's beliefs is, to me, horribly impolite if done for any but the most pressing of reasons - no example of which can I conjure up at this time.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, what you're saying is that a gay couple can get married as long as they don't believe in Christianity?

No. I'm saying distaste for homosexuality transcends religions and cultures. Don't take my word for it. The next time someone cites their Christianity as the reason for opposition, ask them where Christian doctrine says anything about it or even what it says.

The painful fact of the matter is that folks who don't support gay marriage think there's something wrong with them and no reason to extend the privilege of marriage.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So what was all that hoo-ha about on Bastille Day? Of course the Frogs have guiding principles.

All this means is they had them in the late 1700's. Which... is only about 100 years before we began losing ours.

As a European looking from the outside in, I can tell you that what you're seeing in the US isn't "Europeanization". I'm not quite sure what it is, but it ain't Europe.

Maybe it's all the losers who used to hang about in SanFran with flowers in their hair grown up and now in control of things? Maybe it's the Hollywood influence? Maybe it's your colleges? Maybe it's the spread of Internet talking shops (e.g. like this one) giving stupid people stupid ideas?

Much of the social dialogue between business and labor in Europe has made its way overseas to permeate our capitalist system. Activist zealot educators exploit the youthful angst of the college environment by championing contrarian governing philosophies that appear meritorious on paper; unwilling to look upon the well-documented failures in reality and sending kids into the workplace looking for handouts like the rest of the middle class. And yes, the flower children and their younger shills are running this philosophy up the flagpole and the country into bankruptcy. Hollywood stems from the aforementioned elitists who simply don't think their country of origin is cool or fascinating enough. Of course, the internet just amplifies all the above.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying distaste for homosexuality transcends religions and cultures. Don't take my word for it. The next time someone cites their Christianity as the reason for opposition, ask them where Christian doctrine says anything about it or even what it says.

The painful fact of the matter is that folks who don't support gay marriage think there's something wrong with them and no reason to extend the privilege of marriage.

Now you're just deflecting in an attempt to maintain your point, unless you think legislators are using "distaste" is a valid reason for their legislation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Now you're just deflecting in an attempt to maintain your point, unless you think legislators are using "distaste" is a valid reason for their legislation.

You're failing to accept that people just think it's yucky, evidenced by the fact that most legislators likewise do not invoke the Bible as the reason for their opposition.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Much of the social dialogue between business and labor in Europe has made its way overseas to permeate our capitalist system.

I find it odd that you're blaming Europe, when parts of the movement you're talking about were very much rooted in the US. Take commie day, for example. Wasn't this born out of the 1886 Haymarket riot in Chicago, United States?

You're talking like the FOTLU didn't state (sometime between 1881 and 1886) something like "a struggle is going on in the nations of the civilized world between the oppressors and the oppressed...a struggle between capital and labor, which must grow in intensity from year to year"?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're failing to accept that people just think it's yucky, evidenced by the fact that most legislators likewise do not invoke the Bible as the reason for their opposition.

I more than accept that people just think it's yucky. *I* think it's yucky. However, there are many things that many people think to be yucky that we don't try to legislate away (smoking comes to mind).

Given all of the effort from religious groups on certain political issues, and the influence that religious lobbies have on both Republicans and Democrats, it's difficult to believe that influences for certain legislation has anything but religious motivations. Of course the politicians don't cite religious reasons as their motivations, since this would obviously raise the issue of separation of church and state (rightly or not, it's probably something many politicians would prefer to steer clear of).

It seems pretty clear to me that some religions have power over you, despite your lack of belief in that religion. For another example, just look at the effect of Islam on the many people in the world who don't believe in that particular myth.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Umm, I don't say "God bless you" after someone sneezes. I'm not one to go around asking God to bless people because I haven't found that directive in the bible and it is just rote Christian living. And if myth is correct it is the Catholic Church's response to what they thought was a plague starting up and they wanted to head it off at the pass.

You saying it after someone farts though says more about how idiotic your logic is, than how idiotic it is to ask for blessing after a sneeze. Those who are easily offended probably should be.

Another person that needs to re-read what I said, which is the exact opposite of what you think I said.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying distaste for homosexuality transcends religions and cultures. Don't take my word for it. The next time someone cites their Christianity as the reason for opposition, ask them where Christian doctrine says anything about it or even what it says.

The painful fact of the matter is that folks who don't support gay marriage think there's something wrong with them and no reason to extend the privilege of marriage.

Are you seriously claiming that christian homophobes never cite the bible when they attempt to justify their opinions?
There are certainly a few passages that are well used for exactly that purpose.

This page has the verses commonly used to justify homophobia and some interesting alternative interpretations of them:
Six Bible Passages

Legislators don't cite the bible on this matter because its politically incorrect, just as many of them don't say anything racist in public either.