Replies

And, BTW, I'd like to get Moore out of the equasion and go back to the Constitution as written.

I think you agree that this whole thing arose because someone took an offense at what is patently unoffensive--a rock with an inscription. I have passed a million inscribed rocks without reading them, as you most likely have. Whoever complained needs a life.

But the complaint, of course, was a set-up, just as was the Texas sodomy originating complaint, and the emerging lesbian vs. Catholic school complaint in Oregon.

The thesis which unites all these 'complaints' is the thesis that States do NOT have the protections afforded by the 10th Amendment AND that the First Amendment should be read to exclude ANY denominational principles from public policy or practice in the USA.

This thesis, IMHO, is not only incorrect, but the obverse of right order, and is, as one poster above stated, the flowering of a "national crisis."

I need to take a break, but I'll try to respond to your latest comments:

>>>> And, BTW, I'd like to get Moore out of the equasion and go back to the Constitution as written.

But Moore is the aegis many Christians are carrying into this battle. He either wanted to overstate his purpose, or mistakenly failed to qualify it. In either case, that makes for problems, much as we've seen. I personally think he wanted that, and any serious Christian should be cautious about his real intent.

>>>> I think you agree that this whole thing arose because someone took an offense at what is patently unoffensive--a rock with an inscription.

The offense was in his reason for keeping it there, which was deemed to have had an effect on his ability to serve as an impartial servant to justice. That's no small accusation, but I think he earned it. The issues I outline above are pretty serious to someone who values the goal of a rational society.

Aughhh, you brought up the Oregon case. I'm DISGUSTED AND SICK about this. Just as sick as you are. I just don't happen to subscribe to the idea that it should be solved by a spiritual argument. I think we can talk about this right order business and come through with secular reasoning! If we can't, we're not worth our salt. There are several big issues at stake there, but the PRIMARY one is the freedom of association. I'm on the Catholic church's side 100% and I will never waver on that. I don't even want to discuss the other two issues, but suffice it to say that

1) I believe in constitutional privacy -- you started it, but I can't spend time justifying it right now, and probably not in this thread.
2) We as a society have NO IDEA what it means to raise children in same sex domestic partner households, and given the fact that it's a huge laboratory experiment that these people are conducting without fully explaining their reasoning and purpose to the American people, I decline to support them. Reproduction is as basic as animals on a farm. Without a male and a female, nothing is going to happen except in a petri dish, and that's not what I want for the future of humanity.

Again, religion is not an issue here for me. The future of the human race and our society is. My perspectives line up with most here except on the issue of privacy.

>>>> States do NOT have the protections afforded by ...

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree, except that I'm quote open to the notion of justifying policy on religious principles AND secular arguments, but not religious principles alone.

>>>> This thesis, IMHO, is not only incorrect, but the obverse of right order, and is, as one poster above stated, the flowering of a "national crisis."

1) I need to learn more about right order still.
2) Moore is not the right horse to bet on in this race.
3) And this is very important to anyone still willing to read my point of view: there are ways of arguing for most conservative values without falling back on pure metaphysical justification. Success in this respect is critical for our country's future, because families, morals, and values -- most of which originated in the Judeo-Christian tradition ALSO have rational justifications. But to the secularist, or the Hindu, it makes no sense if we just fall back on our traditional dogma.
4) I challenge the idea of a slippery slope. As a society, we must get beyond that and deal with issues one at a time on a rational basis. Yes, we've emboldened the agenda. No, some of it is not our business. Yes, children ARE our business. And yes, immigration and benefits packages paid by the state ARE our business. None of it has any real benefit to our (statist?) goal of a healthy, happy family unit, the fundamental building block of society.

If this is a national crisis, leave Moore out of it, and find rational arguments for the values. Yes, it takes time and energy, but if you care, that's what you'll do. I think God would approve because you can admit to all the religious justifications you like in my model, you just can't make it the exclusive one.