is it right next the abortion mega-plex?
No comment...
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
Thanks, that was the point I was trying to get across.
I have no problem with people who choose to practice a religion, especially if it helps them be a better person. But not when they try to force others to abide by their views.
Well unfortunately the first amendment does not mean what you want it to.
Why not? Because if it did then Muslims would be legally protected in their right to stone women who are raped. After all that is what sharia law calls for. Who are we to legislate judo-christian views on the absolute immorality or murder?
Uh, you do realize that whole "until it impacts someone else" aspect of Freedom of Religion, right? It's why Native Americans are able to use peyote in religious ceremonies and Muslims *can't* stone women who were raped.
Yeah OK bad example but the first amendment does not state "until it impacts someone else". A better example would be polygamy. Who does polygamy hurt?
What we are discussing here is commonly called the "Free Exercise Clause" of the First amendment. The supreme court interpreted this clause in Reynolds v. United States to mean:
If you want to bring up the "compelling interest" doctrine, too bad because gay marriage is not considered a religious activity.
Also this:
Last edited:
dante nailed it. freedom of religion only covers you until you start infringing upon the rights of others. or violating other laws. like murder, theft, and cruelty to animals.
don't forget: banning worship services in public schools
got that? prayer is what makes it "bad"
"free exercise" my fat black infidel ass
see? less is more
can't help but wonder how many people cast their vote for bloomberg in a church
I'll say it again because no one seemed to catch it. Reynolds v. United States page 162:
Honestly though gay marriage is not a religious practice so it is in no way protected by the first amendment.
The constitutional challenges to this law, just like prop 8 here in cali, will fall under the "due process" clause of the fifth amendment.
Sure things sweet cheeks. It might even be legal soon.wanna shack up w/ me in monument?
If this was on purpose its a fantastic joke.
So gay marriage is not a religious practice but heterosexual marriage is? So then why does the government issue marriage licenses?
not a trick question: what do you believe are the clear difference(s) b/t 'practice' and 'free exercise'
well, prop 8 was clearly anti-gay ("Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") , so i'm glad it got overturned
Heterosexual marriage is not a religious practice either. It is a legal contract between two people. That is why the fifth amendment and not the first is applicable here.
I am an atheist and I am married.
I'll leave that to the lawyers. I'm just trying to help explain the legal precedents which apply to the first amendment.
Unfortunately the SCOTUS is continually tweaking their interpretation. Here are some examples:
Going back to Dante's Peyote comment, in Employment Division v. Smith the SCOTUS upheld a law prohibiting the use of peyote despite it's use in religious rituals.
But in Sherbert v. Verner the court overturned the decision to deny unemployment benefits to a woman who lost her job after refusing to work on Saturday due to her beliefs as a Seventh-day Adventist.
To me the clearest line is the line between practices (which can be legislated against) and beliefs (which can not). So my best explanation is that 'free exercise' only covers religious beliefs.
It violated the Due Process clause and the Equal Rights Clause not the 1st Amendment.
Rocky, you're completely ignoring the fact that there is such a thing as religious marriage. In christianity its one of their rites or one of those sacrament thingies.
Who cares? If some crazy religion was into doing "marriage" ceremonies for horses they could do that but it wouldn't be a legal contract.
Maybe I'm not getting your point?
clearly not. there's 2 kinds of marriage:
-religious marriage, "in the eyes of god", performed by a pastor/priest/rabbi/etc
-legal marriage, "in the eyes of the state", performed by a justice of the peace (a kind of judge), you get a "marriage certificate" which means the state recognizes the union between you and your partner as legal (not unlike a birth certificate, in a way)
The gov't will generally only recognize legal marriages (important for the tax, health, other benefits), which is why you go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license. No marriage license? In the eyes of the gov't you are not legally married (and subsequently can't get the legal benefits along with it - taxes, health insurance, etc).
The church has their own rules (ie man + woman), and their marriage is in fact a religious ceremony performed by a priest/pastor/etc. In the eyes of the church, you are not married unless you have gone through the ceremony performed by a priest.
The reason this is a big to-do is because the christians people want the legal definition of marriage to follow the same rules as their crazy jeebus version of religious marriage.
Yup.
The point I am making is that the first amendment does not prevent passing legislation in line with religious doctrine. Many people seem to have misconceptions about what the 1st amendment means (or rather the current legal interpretation).
I never even brought up the first amendment, u trawlin?
I was discussing it with Dante and AngryMetalsmith. Then you jumped in with this.
sry if there was some confusion.
What they want is for the legal definition of marriage to stay the same, as it matches their religious views.
Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
This is not the same thing as changing the legal definition to meet their views.
They simply want to preserve an outdated definition to make homosexuals miserable.
I asked because I'm no lawyer, and thought the First Amendment was supposed to preserve separation of church and state. Either way, laws of this nature originate from Christian based morality in a very subtle way. Even if you are not Christian but were raised in the U.S. you more than likely have been influenced by the religion. I only bring this up because the Zen Priest and author Brad Warner wrote about how deeply ingrained Christianity is in our culture. So much so that it it is often unquestioned and accepted as matter of fact.
Sure, if a drooling, closeted fat white guy flagellating himself with a bible while screaming some nonsense about sacrilege is 'subtle'.
Ayo rocky! (thanks jon!): the point isn't that it's illegal to pass this nonsense, it's that enforcing it is discrimination. But you already knows dat.
Dante, I have called you enough on being a Southist. However, as you pointed out, you tend to lump everyone below the Mason-Dixon line as redneck, mouth breathers, etc, etc. I get your metaphor, really, I do. I think the gay marriage votes are silly and a waste of money and time. Marriage is marriage. If it's a governmental issue, then the federal civil rights act should apply. If it's for religious issues, then that's between you and your God, not me and my ballot box. Yes, the South is primarily bible beltish and prudish to a fault and hypocritical with their morals, but hey, who isn't?
And as far as Obama's "relevation"? He supports it, but thinks it's a state's issue??? Really? Then let's undo all that federal civil rights stuff and he can hop on down to Alabamy and sit his black ass in the back of the bus.
And as far as Obama's "relevation"? He supports it, but thinks it's a state's issue??? Really? Then let's undo all that federal civil rights stuff and he can hop on down to Alabamy and sit his black ass in the back of the bus.
Christian morality? There is no such thing as christian morality. (unless youre talking about sacrificing children and burning women for not believing in your fairytail.)
There is only human morality. Christians just claim they have the rights to it because they want you to believe you can not be moral without obeying/believing in their particular god.
This whole theory is a fallacy and has been proven false in numerous cases.
I'll just leave this one here fer yawl....
http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/22806986381/the-time-when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite
http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/22806986381/the-time-when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite
In all fairness, the definition of marriage was signed into Federal law by a Southerner......
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you forgot Obama.
I think you forgot Obama.
$tinkle, you missed a couple:
(Matthew Hale)
(Paul Jennings Hill)
(Queen Isabella)
(Constantine)
And so on...
(Matthew Hale)
(Paul Jennings Hill)
(Queen Isabella)
(Constantine)
And so on...
and what was the rough death toll from those types done in the name of Christ? feel free to round up, where appropriate.
oh, and i'd be interested if you believe it's relevant to kevin's post (it is; i'm just wondering if you'd acknowledge it)
to review: the comparison is "christian morality -vs- human morality"
oh, and i'd be interested if you believe it's relevant to kevin's post (it is; i'm just wondering if you'd acknowledge it)
to review: the comparison is "christian morality -vs- human morality"
I think claiming to be "Christian" (or any religion for that matter) has little to no affect on someone's morality. There are both good and evil people claiming to be Christian just like there are good and evil people claiming to be Atheist, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or.... Even today one just has to look at genocide in Rwanda done by "Christians" to see the horrors that can be done in the name of religion.
About the only difference from the people you posted were that the Atheists were more proficient at killing, although as a percentage of the population I'm thinking that the Rwandan genocide comes pretty close.
By the way, your post didn't *actually* refute Kevin's post. His point was that you don't have to be Christian to be moral. Your posting of immoral people who weren't Christian does nothing to show that non-Christians *can't* be moral.
About the only difference from the people you posted were that the Atheists were more proficient at killing, although as a percentage of the population I'm thinking that the Rwandan genocide comes pretty close.
By the way, your post didn't *actually* refute Kevin's post. His point was that you don't have to be Christian to be moral. Your posting of immoral people who weren't Christian does nothing to show that non-Christians *can't* be moral.
sounds like someone needs to make a venn diagram
agree.
the claim of religious affiliation means nothing
this is in stark contrast to living out faith-based principles, however (not distorted/perverted, like that phelps klan)
wut?
the genocide was tribal/ethic; not religious (however, there were 10 commandments)
i'd expect meusheu to make this mistake; not you
no, his point was that there is no such thing as 'christian morality', as this would create a false premise (in his mind). it's a stronger statement than "if you are moral, your christianity has no bearing", but rather "if you are christian, you cannot be moral", and underpinned this with his snark about setting babies on fire & treating women like chattel, presumably b/c he believes true adherents would be obliged to carry these things out.
and my posting demonstrated what has happened when religion is banned/outlawed -- all performed in the name of 'human morality', a.k.a. communism
oh, i err'd: tojo wouldn't belong in that list, as he was shinto. that would go in the other column
Oh how you fail again.
Non of these prople have ever commited any crimes against others in the name of atheism while numoures crimes are being commited in the name of religion.
Im getting sick and tired of arguing with people like you. Every argument you come up with has allready been destroyed by people like Hitchens or Dawkins.
The fact that you dont want to read about them doesnt make u more right.
So i suggest you get educated or shut the **** up.
Youre on the losing side of this debate, ever wonder why that is?
Get a clue while you still have a bit of dignity left...
Edit;
Tribal ethnic in practice means religious.
Another thing you should look into because you dont seem to know a lot about the subject...
Last edited:
Uh, you might want to reread Kevin's post again...
Kevin said:
And damm right christians can not be moral.
If you would even read half of the bible and look at the content you would see this.
But i doubt most "christians" have read even parts of it...
If you would even read half of the bible and look at the content you would see this.
But i doubt most "christians" have read even parts of it...