Political Crossfire Forums

[spearsy23]

aLienaTeD wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly Wrong. Freedom from religion does not mean freedom to prohibit. It means freedom from forced imposing of religious ideals.
Religion = Belief System. Everyone has beliefs, no matter what it is they believe in or don't believe in. Therefore, you don't have freedom from religion because you don't have freedom from yourself and your beliefs. You don't have the option of having no beliefs about anything and therefore you don't have freedom from religion.
Wrong again, religion= a belief in a supernatural power/powers that controls destiny, do a google search for religion definition if you don't believe me.

[Plodder]

I loloked at your sources. All are either liberal like the useless ACLU or are part of wikipedia which is changable. the url for the wiki does not work either, and your 2nd paragraph displays your ineptitude to not read the constitution read the 1st ammentdment.

[Enoch]

Plodder wrote: I loloked at your sources. All are either liberal like the useless ACLU or are part of wikipedia which is changable. the url for the wiki does not work either, and your 2nd paragraph displays your ineptitude to not read the constitution read the 1st ammentdment. And why is the ACLU useless? Because they actually fight for the rights of people you don't like?

[Lissou]

I'm not really sure about all this "freedom of religion/ freedom from religion". But I know that in a nation that separates church and state, poeple's religious beliefs shouldn't prevent other people to act if no one is hurt.
What I mean is, if two gay people want to get married, your freedom of religion allows you to think they'll burn in hell. it does not allow you to hurt them.
The gay peple who get married, if they don't share your religious beliefs, shouldn't be prevented from getting married, though. They are making a decision that afects them and not you, and their religion, whatever it is, doesn't consider homosexuality as a sin. then, if they have the freedom to have their religion, and this religion allows gay people to get married, they shoul be allowed to get married, the should not be prevented to because you think it's a sin.
If you think it's a sin, you don't have to be the one to make them get married. They are not harming anyone else, and they want to have a life contract with the person they love, my opinion is that they should have this right too.

Once again, giving other people's right won't take anything from you. You won't have to marry a man. You will still be allowed to think they are wrong. You will be allowed to pray for them to save their souls. No one will take that right away.

[Æ]

The Underground wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly Wrong. Freedom from religion does not mean freedom to prohibit. It means freedom from forced imposing of religious ideals.
Religion = Belief System. Everyone has beliefs, no matter what it is they believe in or don't believe in. Therefore, you don't have freedom from religion because you don't have freedom from yourself and your beliefs. You don't have the option of having no beliefs about anything and therefore you don't have freedom from religion.
Wrong again, religion= a belief in a supernatural power/powers that controls destiny, do a google search for religion definition if you don't believe me.
Lessee...

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition wrote: religion n. 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point of matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7. religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. 9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
There's lots of wiggle room in there. :lol:

Definition 1. applies here ("a set of beliefs") as well as 6. to a lesser extent.

[spearsy23]

aLienaTeD wrote: The Underground wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Freedom from religion, on the other hand, must necessarily deny at least one person freedom of religion. Let's put it this way: If one has freedom of X, one has freedom to choose X. If one has freedom from X, one has freedom to prohibit X

:clap: Exactly Wrong. Freedom from religion does not mean freedom to prohibit. It means freedom from forced imposing of religious ideals.
Religion = Belief System. Everyone has beliefs, no matter what it is they believe in or don't believe in. Therefore, you don't have freedom from religion because you don't have freedom from yourself and your beliefs. You don't have the option of having no beliefs about anything and therefore you don't have freedom from religion.
Wrong again, religion= a belief in a supernatural power/powers that controls destiny, do a google search for religion definition if you don't believe me.
Lessee...

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition wrote: religion n. 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point of matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7. religions, Archaic. religious rites. 8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. 9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
There's lots of wiggle room in there. :lol:

Definition 1. applies here ("a set of beliefs") as well as 6. to a lesser extent.

Eh, this was a while ago but;

definition 1. set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, etc. of the universe

definition 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point of matter of ethics or conscience

[Carlin]

Man, people are odd. This is an odd Godless universe.

All I have to say is, if one is against gay marriage, they are against equality. It's not a matter of believing it exists or not, because it does. You can't disagree with it, because it exists. It's so tiring watching people defend their ludicrous position against homosexuality and marriage. It's amazing at what lengths they will go to. I'm embarrassed for them. I'm embarrassed for us all.

[ShirzadianM]

In the United States Constitution, we are promised three things. We are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No, that is the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution protects (does not promise) Life, Liberty, and Property...

[Mare Tranquillity]

Quote: Who is it exactly who is imposing whose religion when the 10 commandments are banned from the public square? Its the difference between a Christian community being allowed to express itself without forcing its views onto others, and an atheist minority forbidding any public space from displaying any theist statement via unelected and undemocratic court decisons. Those that make up a right to "freedom from religion" don't think anyone should be allowed to express a religious belief publically - that is the true agenda and why people who favour freedom of speech and religion are outraged by them

You are presenting a false choice, it's a debating technique called "framing the discussion". By limiting the choices to Christian or anti-Christian you try to obscure the real issue. The Government is not supposed to endorse ANY religion. If Christians are allowed to put up their religious icons on public property then ALL other religions must be given the same rights. If you want the 10 Commandments displayed then you must accept that the Hindus can place portions of the Upanishads along side them, the Muslims can display parts of the Koran and Jews the Torah. Better to just prohibit all religious propaganda from public property--you know, separation of Church and State.

Religion does not belong codified in law. I have yet to hear anyone present a valid argument against homosexual people being given the same rights as everyone else that didn't rely on religious myth and superstition.

It might also be reasonable for you couch your opinions as "opinions" instead of statements of fact. "Those that make up a right to "freedom from religion" don't think anyone should be allowed to express a religious belief publically - that is the true agenda and why people who favour freedom of speech and religion are outraged by them" You are not in a position to speak for me and my "agenda".

[Enoch]

Angela Bey wrote: Quote: Who is it exactly who is imposing whose religion when the 10 commandments are banned from the public square? Its the difference between a Christian community being allowed to express itself without forcing its views onto others, and an atheist minority forbidding any public space from displaying any theist statement via unelected and undemocratic court decisons. Those that make up a right to "freedom from religion" don't think anyone should be allowed to express a religious belief publically - that is the true agenda and why people who favour freedom of speech and religion are outraged by them

You are presenting a false choice, it's a debating technique called "framing the discussion". By limiting the choices to Christian or anti-Christian you try to obscure the real issue. The Government is not supposed to endorse ANY religion. If Christians are allowed to put up their religious icons on public property then ALL other religions must be given the same rights. If you want the 10 Commandments displayed then you must accept that the Hindus can place portions of the Upanishads along side them, the Muslims can display parts of the Koran and Jews the Torah. Better to just prohibit all religious propaganda from public property--you know, separation of Church and State.

Religion does not belong codified in law. I have yet to hear anyone present a valid argument against homosexual people being given the same rights as everyone else that didn't rely on religious myth and superstition.

It might also be reasonable for you couch your opinions as "opinions" instead of statements of fact. "Those that make up a right to "freedom from religion" don't think anyone should be allowed to express a religious belief publically - that is the true agenda and why people who favour freedom of speech and religion are outraged by them" You are not in a position to speak for me and my "agenda".

Well said. It is a common tactic of people to present the "attack on Christianity" as a red herring in the true debate on religious icons and symbols on publicly or state owned property. The real issue is not whether the 10 Commandments gets displayed, but whether it is appropriate for any religious artifact to be displayed on said property. By allowing the publication of religious dogma or artifacts on public or state ground it is become a de facto sponsorship of that religion. That is in direct violation of the first amendment beings that the USSC (a branch set up to be the foremost judicial body of the nation and later granted the power to interpret and enforce the Constitution) has declared that "no law respecting the establishment of religion" means that there can be no sponsorship or favoratism shown by the state toward a specific religion.

Therefore, showing the 10 Commandments or the Upanishads would equally be a violation.

[spearsy23]

Angela Bey- :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: I can't make the smilies stand but if i could i would

[LittleAcorn]

Very well said! :-D

[WeThePeople]

Lets see, if you intend on arguing the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the government refusing to marry same-sex couples, then it would behoove you to actually read up on some of the Supreme Court Cases involved. I would start with Loving V. Virginia, the 1967 case in which interracial marriage was declared a constitutional right, and is cited by many to support their pro-gay-marriage positions.
However, if you read the opinion of the court (written by Chief Justice Warren), he specifically cites the fact that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival," a clear reference to the procreative side of marriage. He also cites the fact that the state has no rational interest in prohibiting interracial marriages, which is untrue of the current debate.
Strange that you write an essay on the constitutionality of the matter, when you only reference separation of Church and State, and the Declaration of Independence... I would have thought that you would have at least tried arguing your case on 14th amendment grounds, aka "equal protection under the law," which is likewise a fallacious argument, much like trying to rule welfare unconstitutional (which happened back when it was first instituted).
If you really are interested in finding out about the constitutional precedent surrounding the gay marriage debate, i suggest reading the opinions of Chief Justice Smith(?) in the recent New York Supreme court case regarding gay marriage.


Loving V. Virginia:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
New York Supreme Court case:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf

[F'losrix]

Re: The New York court's appplication of 'rational' basis...

It basically ends up sounding like heterosexual couples need protection for their unions because of the likelihood of accidental procreation. I'll give you that this is a rational basis for recognizing heterosexual marriages, but it provides no rationale for withholding marriage recognition from gay couples; recognizing those unions has no negative impact on the recognition of heterosexual unions or the ability of those unions to reproduce, nor on the environment created to raise and nurture their children.

It's an attempt to say that so long as we protect one group who may produce children as the result of an irresponsible act, we can use that to justify not protecting another group which we acknowledge may also raise children but who must, due to the nature of things, undertake their decision to raise children with considerably more care. What's the point here - protecting children? Or their sometimes irresponsible heterosexual parents?

Secondly, the idea that it might be better for a child to be raised in a household headed by a heterosexually married couple might be a rationale for actually taking children away from homosexual couples and single parents; but it hardly works as a rationale to deny marriage recognition unless one buys into the idea that there should be no exceptions - that a marriage license is a license to procreate, that fertility tests and affirmations of intent to procreate should be required to insure that no exceptions occur, and that the couple thus united should be banned from divorce (at least until their children can legally be considered adults). Yet the court thinks some exceptions are just fine, while others apparently are not, giving excessive deference to the alleged foregoing 'rational bases' they presume to have been the intentions of the legislature.

It reads like a pretty tortured decision - because it is.

[WeThePeople]

Quote: Re: The New York court's appplication of 'rational' basis...

It basically ends up sounding like heterosexual couples need protection for their unions because of the likelihood of accidental procreation. I'll give you that this is a rational basis for recognizing heterosexual marriages, but it provides no rationale for withholding marriage recognition from gay couples; recognizing those unions has no negative impact on the recognition of heterosexual unions or the ability of those unions to reproduce, nor on the environment created to raise and nurture their children.

Glad to see that someone else here actually reads these things. I would argue that you look at the issue in the wrong way. Incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages (with me, my mother, and my two sisters, for instance), or me marrying my dog or my horse... of course these don't directly affect a straight marriage on the other side of the country. But why should we recognize such unions? There is no reason to recognize them, and when it comes to uprooting millenia of pragmatic tradition... it doesnt seem like the sort of thing we should do on a whim
If we think that way, then if you love someone, or multiple people, then just sign on the dotted lines to recieve free tax breaks from the government! How can we reduce divorces and try and repair marriage as it stands today, when it becomes more and more about those that get married, and less and less about the kids they raise?
The government has no rational basis for giving such unions benefits and mandating that they get healthcare benefits and the like, so why should they? That would be like me saying that the government has no rational basis for not giving me back all the money they've taken from me over the years, and thus, it has an obligation to do so.