Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
I think I could argue that a clone is not reproduction but that it is replication.
My sense is that it will result in grotesque misfits mentally incapable and reminiscent of the Island of Dr Moreau....if they can exist at all.
I also understand that, even then, there'll be the need of a womb....
But, even if we can go from test tube to incubation system have you somehow mixed the DNA of both men to produce a new combination of the two, or have you taken a cell and caused it to replicate?
But you're right about the weakness of the argument. What if two men could reproduce?
No, Gay marriage should be illegal not because men can't reproduce, but because homosexual acts are an "intrinsic moral evil."
"Pol Pot...Marx...Lenin...Stalin...Mao was an atheist. "
No, I do not think they were a-theistic - their theism was communism = leftism - this is the theism of the ACLU; of the Leftists; of all similar a-americanisms.
I regret that you conflate the bedroom thing with the intimacy, commitment and the public square recognition thing. Most folks don't, no matter where they come down.
Specially protected class & all that. Yes, I know. I thought you said you were against those.
Churches don't file licenses, couples do.
You're right. I'm glad you pointed that out, since I do not mean to leave my "i's" un-dotted, nor my "t's" uncrossed.
If the Church does not recognize the marriage, they won't sign the certificate.
They will certainly recognize the marriages they perform, but they might stop recognizing that the state has anything to do with them. In order to prevent the state from leading their flock astray, they might refuse to assist the state in furthering an abomination.
The Catholic Church officials will continue to sign certificates with respect to marriages over which they recognize and officiate, just as now. That is an assumption. Abortion supporting politicians assumed that the Church would never take, state a formal position about their public actions.
In any event, getting the certificate signed can be done just by showing up at the courthouse.
Yes, I suppose it can. I regret that you conflate the bedroom thing with the intimacy, commitment and the public square recognition thing. Most folks don't, no matter where they come down.
I can be troublesome that way. Anytime too many people seem to agree with me about anything, I begin to wonder where I might be wrong.
I was only being fecetious in part of that post. This is the mantra of the fundamentalists baptist types since the 1950s, it gets old hearing it, and they want a theocracy with ten commandment monuments in everyone's face.
Wake up Step, all this shows is that the groups that the news media has systematically and purposely demonized are the ones who have had it right long before anyone else.
They would not have to keep repeating it if the abuse was stopped. The only reason it is getting old to you is because you favor an oligarchy that will force your secular revolution on everyone. Get a righteous purpose for your life and enjoy our great freedom in this great nation.
I think I should explain where my unique world view on this comes from. It is the same reason I responded to you in the way I did about Lawrence, by refusing to take a personal position on it.
Over 20 years ago I was discriminated against in a hiring because of my race. I was hired & un-hired in the matter of a few hours. I guess the employer was up against a lawsuit for past discriminatory behavior & they figured that the job they had informed me I was hired for would be a good place to try to undo some of the harm from their past behavior. A test we all took showed me as the best candidate for the job, but I was the wrong color.
It was a powerful life lesson. Life is not fair. I had no case for the racial discrimination that had cost me that job. Lesson two, it is not the place of the law or the government to make lesson one untrue. Sometimes the government can be the creator or contributor to making sure I learn life lesson one.
I take the government at it's word & in response, I will push it to it's unnatural limits. It is around the edges where we can discover some of the unintended consequences of a government action.
Who would have ever imagined the unintended consequences of controlling the southern border in the way our government went about doing it? If you don't know what I'm talking about, look into what was behind making marijuana illegal.
Mob rule pal. If you want to get your way you'd best get crackin.
Life is so short, life is a gift. The purpose we have in our life better be one worthy of such a gift. If not, a rational man cannot have true joy two inches below the surface.
The reason you have never seen that part of the letter is because it is a hoax.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Jefferson’s Final Letter
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html
The Unedited Draft of Jefferson’s Letter
Sincerely,
Fred Slice
No it does not, and no he wasn't.
In the Alabama constitution, the framers prayed for God's guidance and blessing. That's a far cry from "recognizing God's primacy".
Moore, the huckster, violated the requirement in Alabama's constitution that no preference was to be shown by the government to any religion. Why else did Pryor, the devout Christian attorney general, take him on ? Why else did ALL the Alabama Supreme Court Justices condemn his actions ?
Because Moore's actions were ILLEGAL and in violation of his oath of office. Hence he was rightfully stripped of it.
At the outset, this court emphasizes that this is a case concerning only possible violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. It is not a case about the public display of the Ten Commandments in the State Judicial Building nor the acknowledgment of God. Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country. - LINK
Moore, the huckster, violated the requirement in Alabama's constitution that no preference was to be shown by the government to any religion.
As the decision states, Moore was removed for an ethical violation, disobeying a federal order, not for violating the Constitution.
You may not realize this, but it's not up to a federal judge to enforce the Georgia's constitution. Moore was not accused of violating Georgia's constitution, he was accused of violating the First amendment, which does NOT forbid preference for religion by government.
At least get your facts right.
If the Alabama Constitution obligated Justice Moore to use his civil authority to express his religious views, then it did the same for every other Alabama civil officer.
The other Alabama officers used their civl authority over religion to express their religious views by getting rid of Roy Moore. It appears to be a classic case of "be careful what you ask for."
Moore wanted the government to have authority over religion and that is what he got. Too bad his views were not that of the majority. What a fool!!!
FS
The falicy in Rehnquist's argument in Wallace v. Jaffree is his premise. The name of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State may have come from Jefferson's letter, but the legal substance was derived from James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Statute for Religious Freedom, Madison revised it, the Virginia General Assembly made a few changes and finally entacted it 1786.
FS
Hi Fred,
Bit of an old post to drag up, but I don't mind.
I grant that the two documents contain in substance the "separation of Church and state," although the statue prohibits only substantial government support of religion - I can't see that a merely verbal acknowledgement even of a particular religious body as the true religion would be contrary to the Statue on Religious Freedom, but it certainly would be illegal under the modern version of the "separation."
But I'm hardly convinced that this is the interpretative key to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Madison himself (as Rehnquist quotes him in Wallace) describes the purpose of the clause as follows: "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." The legislative history of the Amendment, as Rehnquist relates it, sticks closely to this understanding, and it seems to have been the originally and generally accepted one (which I reckon the proper test for the interpretation of any law). Now this is rather different from the regulations of the Statue on Religious Freedom.
Personally, I consider Rehnquist's mistake in Wallace to be not protesting against the supposed incorporation of the establishment clause. I think Justice Thomas is much closer to the mark in his opinion in Newdow.
Let me get this straight - Are you saying that the Memorial and the Virginia Act contain the substance the religion clauses, but they only prohibit substantial government support of religion?
Do believe that the fundamental principle of religious freedom is no substantial government support of religion?
What if a law requires summary execution of those who advocate or practice infant baptism? Would that pass the test for “no substantial government support of religion?”
Why do you suppose Rehnquist only presented half of Madison’s description of the purpose of the proposed amendment that read, “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed” and why didn't you read everything Madison said about the meaning of the amendment before deciding to own Rehnquist's "I only see what I want to see" view.
Below is Madison’s complete statement of his understanding of the purpose of the proposed amendment.
MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that CONGRESS SHOULD NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION, AND ENFORCED THE LEGAL OBSERVATION OF IT BY LAW, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO THEIR CONSCIENCE. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, AND ESTABLISH A NATIONAL RELIGION; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
Madison actually provided two interpretations of the proposed amendment in the same paragraph. :
· Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.
· Congress should not make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion
Madison saw the primary fundamental purpose of the proposed amendment to be the prohibition of laws infringing on the rights of conscience. Establishing a compulsory religion or a national religion were just two of a million different ways of violating the rights of conscience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.