Posted on 02/17/2007 6:23:04 AM PST by NYer
End of the relgious right ehhh ?
How's this for a test --- A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ?
or better still :
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN...
Now that's a real world test to see if the religious right's influence has really ended.
The Republicans wouldn't even negotiate with themselves. Take immigration reform for instance. The House Republicans refused to name conferees to meet with the Senate to try and work out their differences. They held border security as hostage...and ultimately lost. With Social Security, the Republicans refused to sit down with no preconceived plan to see if they could make some progress with the Democrats. They refused to take privatization off the table, and the Democrats refused to talk with privatization as the line in the sand. But it's more the Republican's fault because they were in control of Congress.
On the other hand, we got 35 judicial confirmations including 2 USSC justices after Republicans and Democrats got together and signed a truce. I could go on, but you get the idea. It's no secret, the voters certainly did.
This drivel from a magazine that once named Adolph Hitler as its Man of the Year.
So, in other words, our republican form of government is great...as long as it complies with the wishes of Christians. Why then have a republic, why not just a central government?
The problem there is that states do not have the power to change the meaning of marriage. Marriage does not come from the state, but from the Church. The State merely records marriages and promotes them.
Not so. Marriage, divorce, adoption, are all state regulated activities. A couple may or may not have the marriage blessed by a church, but it must be legalized by the state. The state, by virtue of the 10th Amendment has the power to regulate all facets of family law...including marriage.
If the people of Massachusetts do not remedy this themselves, and they have not for several years. I see no remedy for this other than a constitutional amendment.
In other words, once again, as long as a state complies with the wishes of Christians, it can do as it is empowered to under the 10th Amendment. Why create the illusion of a republic? Let's just let a gathering of like minded Christians get together, and redo our Constitution to your liking?
I'm sorry, I don't know what example to which you refer.
Well, just a few examples would include Loving, Lawrence, Griswold, and Eisenstadt. These are basis human rights issues where the court ruled that no state's powers can trump the basic human rights of its citizens.
Marriage does not come from the state, but from the Church. The State merely records marriages and promotes them.
So, the hundreds (or thousands) of gay marriages performed by ordained clergy each year are legal?
You say that because you have been taught it. Pure faith notwithstanding, I see a highly evolved animal that has reached the point of assuming such qualities as a part of his makeup. Some call it God-given; some call it natural progression. But those qualities do exist. And I maintain they do not exist because of Christianity.
Without a 'religion', the non-religious cannot hold on the the Self-Evident Truth, so the foundation is very shaky.
Not at all. Nonbelievers in a higher being still believe that certain natural rights exist in all humans that are part of the human makeup. These rights are not trumped by the state, nor are they given by the state. Whether they are given by a higher power is irrelevant to many.
And we know that Christians throughout their history have systematically deprived human beings of those rights. Did they do that under the auspices of God? Slave owners (Christians) showed Bible passages that justified their ownership of fellow humans.
Then if so, why have many of the freedoms enjoyed by all today come out of resistance to them by Christians?
And those very same religious set of men realized that religion had no place in our government, as you wisely point out in Article VI. On that we can agree.
This is NOT true.
Unfortunately it is. If you have followed the threads here for the past couple of years, you cannot have missed how the religious right wants "its" party cleansed of any but the so-called social conservatives.
"Can you name me a passage where Jesus or any of His disciples defines the role of government and the church's relation to it? (Hint: there is one, arguably two, this is not a trick question.)"
Well I would immediately think of the ancient messianic prophecies and how they had all been interpreting the prophecy to expect a military leader who would lead a political revolution against the Roman empire. Instead, He came up with a motto like: "Render unto Caesar."
He wasn't a big fan of the Judaic theocratic leaders, either. He sort of came in the center of their religious/capitalist machine and literally upturned everything. In my personal reading (and I have had so many Biblical 'experts' priests pastors and preachers try to say it means something else) but I see the good JC trying to seperate spirituality from religion, business, and politics in order to eliminate secular greed. He says you can make your relationship with God a personal thing and that He is there when just 2-3 are gathered in His name. He isn't trying to build a new political organization, he's trying to embarass the one that has grown old and corrupt and judgemental.
"Where did Jesus call for the repeal of Jewish or Roman laws against prostitution?"
Or I could ask, when did he ever use law against any sinner? The law said the prostitute could be stoned to death, but obviously He didn't see any justice in that. Modern day Christians seem readier to hurl that rock, even if in a more symbolic and less physically violent way.
"Can you cite me any writing by a Founder that advocates repealing laws against prostitution or any other sin that was outlawed at that time?"
Well nope. The best I can think of off the top of my head is support for laws that would simply allow Jews and Catholics to vote. I also have a hard time reading the Bill of Rights without seeing it as a means of protecting Americans from all sorts of frivolous prosecution. Although things weren't up-front legalized, search, interrogation, and censorship is so limited that if the government actually held to those ideals I doubt we would have the world's largest prison population (and we do have more prisoners than China and Russia combined - and sure, that's because China executes people wholesale - I just don't like being in that kind of prison club)
"Ah, now let's talk about homsexuals. Have you ever wondered why the Religious Right doesn't have any groups to counter burglary or gluttony but they have groups that counter gay rights? Well, when was the last time you came across a well-funded lobbying effort on behalf of burglars? When was the last time you heard someone say that if a parent wants to teach their children why they shouldn't steal, that parent must be motivated by hatred?"
Not all crime or sin is a crime of direct violation. No one sane is going to justify theft of personal property or physical violence because they directly infringe on another person's rights. What about that guy smoking a joint, or wanting to marry his boyfriend, or someone who has become so in love with the concept of America and denied legal entry that they would risk ANYTHING to come here? Who here would risk EVERYTHING to come to America?
How can you argue a compelling social interest without crossing the fine line into socialism, where every individual's actions become the business of the state in the hopes of efficiency? A person in situation A is a liability because they are statistically likely to do B. Or person C is a liability because their lifestyle has a higher incidence of D. Sure. That's the logic that will outlaw guns, fast food, TV, and whatever freedom is deemed too expensive for our current socialist system to pay for. Already the Brits have begun denying their "universal" health care to smokers and overweight people (and by overweight, a lot of aging- and ex-Atheletes are falling into this category.)
Personally, I think it's silly that the government is involved with the business of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious tradition, right? So keep it in the churches. I'd rather not turn our judges into pastors.
My issue is how a certain type of socialist logic is sold under a "pure" Christian banner. Free will takes a back seat to the social costs of sin, even if the sin itself has no effect on violating another citizen's freedom. Moral outrage? Fine, judge people who have done no direct harm in your heart - not in the courts and not in the constitutions.
"Can you cite for me an example of an American politician telling people they should vote for him because he's a Christian?"
Almost every president has run on this platform. We've had a handful of Deists with Christian fundamentals, 1-2 Catholic, 1 unspecified, 1 Southern Baptist and the rest are all other protestants! At best, its a sham label that is merely a pre-requisite for consideration.
"Got any GOP types who've done that? If so, do you think that you could (if you had the research time) prove that even 5% of GOP pols campaign on their relationship with Jesus?"
Nope! Again, the politicians don't need a personal relationship with Jesus. They just have to be "tough on crime," opposed to gay marriage, opposed to abortion, and skeptical of immigration - and they'll snag the Christian votes. The policies that are demanded as a substitute for that relationship with Christ are pretty ironic, but that's just my opinion and I respect your opinion to disagree! Obviously, I have some personal biases as I said in my other post I have experience with what it's like to be marginalized/demonized by a Christian community simply for being sick. Its a pretty raw deal. Thank God the immigrants and the homosexuals and drug users understood and accepted.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, so you do unto me."
The problem with that was that it was just that...a legal maneuver, with the state legal process working as designed and as the state of Florida had the power to exercise. That some didn't like the outcome was no justification for doing an end-run around the legal system.
The state regulates, but does not originate. Marriage existed before the US, before any European country, before ancient Israel. Laws may regulate, but may not change the definition--unless the state wishes to start its own religion. That is one way to interpret the MA decision. You're already on record against state religion, as I am.
No the state does not originate, but once the state assumes legal jurisdiction, I see nothing anywhere that prevents it from making modification as it and the good people of the state see fit. Once we became a legal nation, we were not bound in any fashion by cultural or religious traditions. To want the state to accept only a Christian definition of marriage is to go against your previous statement desirous of a separation of Church and state.
Again, this is a special, unique case, not a policy statement. A marriage amendment that states marriage is only heterosexual would be NO CHANGE from the 231 year status quo of our government. It would merely remedy the erroneous decision of the MA court (not people) to overturn the millennia old institution of marriage.
My point is that each of these instances I cited seem to be unique, and are designed to limit the powers of the state pursuant to the 10th Amendment. Even one is troublesome for many. Marriage is primarily a cultural institution. That a state regulates it is to ensure that the contract serves all parties and provides the legal basis for certain benefits. But that state is not bound in any way to restrict that institution to only those people the Church deems appropriate. And cultural issues should not be the object of constitutional amendments.
I'm sure you have some point here vis a vis government and religion, but not knowing these cases I cannot discuss it. You must be explicit rather than allusive.
Well I didn't think giving you the names of the cases was being "allusive", but Loving referred to the courts striking down miscegenation, with Christians arguing as did you earlier that marriage has traditionally excluded racial mixing; Griswold was the case that ruled the Constitution recognizes and protects the right to privacy (in this case, birth control); Lawrence reinforced the right to privacy of all persons including homosexuals; Eisenstadt ruled that unmarried couples had the same rights to privacy in contraception as married couples.
All of these cases have been fought vehemently by Christians, and they are part of the cases that explain why Christian activists despise the 14th Amendment.
What many here fail to understand is that religion is a cultural institution, not a constitutional one. And culture is the prerogative of the people. Culture changes over time, and it is not proper for the Constitution to be made into an instrument to impact those cultural changes in any fashion.
What scripture are you taking that from? Paul fled in some cases and in others he went where he knew he'd encounter trouble. (for example, he received a prophecy by someone taking his belt and binding his hands as a warning of what awaited him in Jerusalem...and yet he still traveled there, which led to his appealing to Cesar). Now I'm not advocating seeking persecution, but there may/will be occasions when we are not to flee it in every case.
Welcome to the church of Laodicea. The end justifies the means, all principles are negotiable, and the Bible didnt really SAY that, or if it did, it must be a mistranslation or never was meant to be taken literally in the first place.
I have, and have posted a reference to it, as you have, more than once on this forum.
There's no other book quite like it.
Thanx, I needed that. Just a real feeling sorry for myself moment, but I'm as thick headed as the next person
That's a reasonable point, but the concern of many here is the influence they play in Republican politics. To be sure, 2008 is in all likelihood going to be a bad year for Republicans. Our Party is going through a sorting out process to see if we can field a good candidate. We all want a candidate who can not only win, but has conservative values.
The religious right however, has defined those values differently from most conservatives. Many of the issues of the RR have little to do with the presidency, but much to do with the judiciary. But the candidate that would be satisfactory to the RR would in all likelihood be destroyed in the general election. Americans are tired of fringe politics. That is why Kerry lost, and why Hillary is desperately trying to paint herself as a moderate.
The exception regarding religion is that God exists in objective reality and has specific desires regarding beliefs and practices, as revealed in the Bible. These transcend human culture.
And I respect the beliefs of those who embrace those values, but they do not transcend human culture; they are a part of the human culture, just as the beliefs of Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others. Their beliefs form the basis for the culture that exists in their parts of the world. It is very clear what can happen when those religious (cultural) beliefs are brought into the government. Basic human rights become subject to the particular religious belief rather than as human values untouchable by governments. They are no longer unalienable, but defined and restricted by priests, ministers, rabbis or other religious "officials".
The constitution was not created in a vacuum and has implicit assumptions, such as heterosexual marriage.
That is not correct. There are no implicit assumptions in the Constitution that would in any way make any part of our culture, including marriage, sacrosanct. As I mentioned in my last post, culture is the domain of the people. A government's prime responsibility is to defend the human rights of its citizens. Secondarily, is to create a societal structure that permits the greatest freedom of expression while ensuring the basic needs of its citizens in the areas of defense, monetary, and a handful of other needs consistent with a republican style of government. That permits the people to keep or change the culture as it desires. If the people of one state wish to incorporate cultural issues into their constitution, then by virtue of the 10th Amendment, that is their prerogative.
When a state supreme court or a state legislature seeks to change the meaning of marriage, Christians, representing anywhere from 20-60% of the population (depending on your definition), can legitimately contend for an amendment to set this definition in our government, to preserve our cultural interests. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this--the only question is, is there sufficient political will to do this?
We must first look at what the goal of those people is. Is it to protect heterosexual marriage? I doubt it since, single couples and divorce are infinitely greater threats to the institution than are a handful of gays and lesbians marrying in one state. Will two gays marrying in Massachusetts have any impact on any other heterosexual marriage anywhere? No evidence of that.
Then I can only conclude the goal is to ensure that all 50 states comply with what is essentially a Christian dictate concerning homosexuality. My next question then is what is next? I asked that of a few of the very ardent anti-homosexuals on the forum, and was told that this would be just the beginning. Their goals are far more devious and dark than they want the majority of Christians to know about.
Personally, I think not. If the country was not outraged by Roe v. Wade to move to a right to life amendment (which I expected at the time), it will not be moved to a marriage amendment. If people will not amend the Constitution to protect the lives of millions of babies, they will not amend it to prevent states from calling homosexual domestic arrangements "marriage".
Most, like me want to see Roe rejected because we believe that there is no innate right to privacy when a third party is concerned (faulty judicial logic), and that it belongs within the purview of the states like most everything else. So hopefully, most Americans will reject these religious amendments, and depend instead on our great Constitution and Republic to do the job intended by the Founding Fathers.
The Republicans even proposed (much to the annoyance of many of us here) raising the cap on taxes on Social Security to make up for the claims of shortfall from the "privatization" (that was not privatization in any sense of the word). The Democrats played like there isn't a problem with Social Security at all.
You don't seem to follow current events very much, but you are obviously influenced by left-wing talking points.
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.