patrick.net

Bap33 says

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

There is no mention of an particular "god" in the constitution. It simple indicates a "Creator", which doesn't automatically mean a Christian god, or even neccesarily a God.

Go back and study the US Constitution again because the separation of Church and State is without a doubt within it in the first amendment and it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That makes is crystal clear that while anyone can practice whatever religion they please without government interference, likewise religion cannot interfere with the government and as such, any and all arguments against rights of others based from Christian moral beliefs is automatically null and void.

So as such, if one were to try and use any sort of Christian moral belief system to base their opposition to Gay marriage then they don't actually have a legitimate constitutional basis to back up that claim. This is why they will lose. Plain and simple.

Amazing since I already knew this by the time I was probably in 1st grade....

Bap33 says

certain unalienable Rights.

I reserve the right to declare my "certain" unalienable rights.

I'm an American God damn it, what in the hell is wrong with you People?

lol.
edvard,
do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?

I believe in the US constitution in its regard to how the US is governed. That is the law of our country. As such, the laws within are laws that were meant to be followed and thus why to me this is a straightforward discussion. What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

edvard2 says

What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

Yep, that's the crux of the bisquit.

But Bap is conflicted. He even knows that the American system troubles him, and that the Taliban have a lot going for them (in his view). He would like to see a Christian version of sharia law, totally undoing what America is even meant to be.

OR maybe not. But he's deeply conflicted about the separation of church and state, and does not comprehend the beauty and benefit that comes from this separation.

IF he was an atheist, or a member of any other religion (probably even catholic or non fundy Christion), he would get it.

marcus says

But Bap is conflicted. He even knows that the American system troubles him, and that the Taliban have a lot going for them (in his view). He would like to see a Christian version of sharia law, totally undoing what America is even meant to be.

given we are a christian nation, can you in the past some 200+ years, ever show we were anywhere close to having a Sharia Laws ?

Would you call the 12 Commandments anything like the Sharia Laws ?

marcus says

But he's deeply conflicted about the separation of church and state, and does not comprehend the beauty and benefit that comes from this separation.

Seperation of Church and State..

what exactly does that mean pre-1947 or pre-secularists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States

The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[18] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court determined that the first amendment applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.

Before 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.

Williams was motivated by historical abuse of governmental power, and believed that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings’ relationship with God, advocating a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure.

edvard2 says

I believe in the US constitution in its regard to how the US is governed. That is the law of our country. As such, the laws within are laws that were meant to be followed and thus why to me this is a straightforward discussion. What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

ok. cool. so you must be upset as me with how the left has trampled on the 2nd Ammendment?
And upset with the bastardizing of the naturalization ammendment (13 or 14 I think) that was meant for slaves, and legal visitors, and not for invaders who spawn while in our country. Right?

thomaswong.1986 says

given we are a christian nation

Wrong again.

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

thomaswong.1986 says

the 12 Commandments

When did they add the extra two?

Bap33 says

edvard2 says

I believe in the US constitution in its regard to how the US is governed. That is the law of our country. As such, the laws within are laws that were meant to be followed and thus why to me this is a straightforward discussion. What my personal morals or beliefs are have nothing to do with it.

ok. cool. so you must be upset as me with how the left has trampled on the 2nd Ammendment?

And upset with the bastardizing of the naturalization ammendment (13 or 14 I think) that was meant for slaves, and legal visitors, and not for invaders who spawn while in our country. Right?

He's got another good point here.

finehoe says

thomaswong.1986 says

given we are a christian nation

Wrong again.

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

thomaswong.1986 says

the 12 Commandments

When did they add the extra two?

dude, we lied in that treaty to beat the crazy arab pirates ... they have not changed over the past zillion years -- rape and pillage everything from little boys to granny -- that's how mohamad wants things done. Anyways, we lied, told a fib, to break their backs, much like we lied to the Indians when we wrote treaties.

The American experiement is founded in the system of right/wrong set up by the God of Abraham ... the God of Enoch ... the God of Solomon ... The God of Sumar ... The God of Enki. Not built on "religion", because that is a stupid thing man made up, but built on the freedom to worship God in a way that suits you, and to live a moral and just life so as to allow others to worship God in their own manner. It is all about freedom so the individual spirit can grow and connect with God. Freedom without spirituality is an empty life without purpose. Spirituality without freedom is a life whos purpose can not be known. America offers freedom based on spitiuality, and spirituality can only be enjoyed in freedom. I think, maybe, that is why things started as they did. I also think man has managed to completely F-up every good thing God has shown him.

Here's a simple question that fits into this topic quite nicely...:

If Obamacare is such a great idea, why are there SOOOO MANY WAIVERS... Big companies, small companies, unions, restaurant groups in San Francisco (thanks Nancy Pelosi!!), being granted over the years???

If all of the promises.. er, lies true, than this piece of legislature would be a Godsend, right? Why is everyone who voted for Obama/Pelosi have hat in hand BEGGING for a waiver? Hmm?

A whole fuckin' state exempt from key Obamacare provisions? Maine? Must be a back door 'quid pro quo' for Senator Snow.. Talk about the doin' the 'rub-da-rub'...

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/09/obamacare-waiver-mania-part-xxxvii-entire-state-gets-exemption/

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/16/hows-that-obamacare-waiver-workin-out-for-ya/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts

...“The bottom line here is that they gave out waivers is an admission of guilt. Basically they’re saying, “You’re right. We screwed up.” That’s the bottom line here. They did not create a law that benefits all of us.”

http://commonamericanjournal.com/unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/

thomaswong.1986 says

The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[18] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

While the exact words: "Seperation of Church and State" might not literally appear in the constitution, what does appear in the constitution: " "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Basically says the same thing.

Bap33 says

ok. cool. so you must be upset as me with how the left has trampled on the 2nd Ammendment?

That has zero to do with this conversation, but I am to play along, I'm not at all upset about this supposed "Trampling of the 2nd amendment" as you say because that isn't happening.
mell says

He's got another good point here.

If you say so... whatever man...thomaswong.1986 says

given we are a christian nation,

Nowhere in the US constitution does it say anything about us being a "Christian nation"

AverageBear says

If Obamacare is such a great idea, why are there SOOOO MANY WAIVERS... Big companies, small companies, unions, restaurant groups in San Francisco (thanks Nancy Pelosi!!), being granted over the years???

Its a great idea except to those on the right being spoon-fed "information" from the very corporations who don't want to have Obamacare implemented.

Bap33 says

but built on the freedom to worship God in a way that suits you, and to live a moral and just life so as to allow others to worship God in their own manner. It is all about freedom so the individual spirit can grow and connect with God.

Yes. That is all true. That was made very clear before in the previous debates. But in turn Religion is NOT a part of the US constitution nor ANY of the decisions made by the US government. That is what was being debated here. I could care less what people do for their personal religious beliefs in their home. But it has nothing to do with the US government, plain and simple.

edvard2 says

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Basically says the same thing.

Why was that written.. was it written because we were atheist nation ? or to prevent
religious sect wars as was seen in early years of colonial life and European history.

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.

Church and state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)#Church_and_state

Williams had read their writings, and his own experience of persecution by Archbishop Laud and the Anglican establishment and the bloody wars of religion that raged in Europe at that very time convinced him that a state church had no basis in Scripture. Clearly he had arrived at this conclusion before he landed in Boston in 1631 because he criticized the Massachusetts Bay system immediately for mixing church and state.

He declared that the state could legitimately concern itself only with matters of civil order, but not religious belief. The state had no business in trying to enforce the "first Table" of the Ten Commandments, those first commandments that dealt with the relationship between God and persons. The state must confine itself to the commandments that dealt with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, honoring parents, and so forth.

finehoe says

Wrong again.

"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

What treaty ?

was it written into the Arab version signed by the Pirates..
the treaty (english text) was changed to delete the lines. so frankly it no long exists as any part of a treaty..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Treaty of Tripoli signed on July 4, 1805 superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

finehoe says

When did they add the extra two?

you got me there.. 10 it is...

sbh says

The reference to Sharia law in America is not spurious, especially if one even barely hears the loudest voices from the religious right in this country.

We do not in our our western tradition going back 100s of years have anything like wide spread Government backed Sharia Laws as the Muslims do. You might find small communities centuries ago, but they are insignificant compared to Islam.

edvard2 says

Its a great idea except to those on the right being spoon-fed "information" from the very corporations who don't want to have Obamacare implemented

Tell me Ed, did these Corporations get to see the details after or before they spoonfed the info to the voters, or the Senators for that matter. All's I know is that Pelosi had that machete over everyone's head, saying you have to vote for it before you get to see it? How fucked up is that? Are you saying the corporations had access to the 'info' before the Senators and voters? Is this not called Obamacare or Corporation-Care?

I think your fallacy statement both doesn't make sense, and has less than no worth. You didn't answer the question. Liberals and the vast majority of the media (sans Fox, talk radio and the few non-liberal newspapers) voted/approved/cheerleaded the Obamacare effort, and now that the lies have been proven false, nobody wants this. I'm sure you don't want this. This is the hypocrisy I'm talking about, and your "oooh, you are drinking corpororate Kool-Aid" insinuation is a pathetic distraction.... Why did Maine ask for the waiver? Why don't they want this "wonderful" solution to healthcare? Hmmm? Why are unions against it? small and large businesses? What's your explanation?

someone tell ed that the unions wanted out of ObamCare right behind those pukes in DC that wanted out.

edvard2 says

I'm not at all upset about this supposed "Trampling of the 2nd amendment" as you
say because that isn't happening.

lol ... priceless