*sniff* Can't we all just get along?
I'm asking for a rationale, that scarcely constitutes one.Lucky Bob said:Answer 1: Why not?
You didn't answer the question.Lucky Bob said:Answer 2: Why should they be?
I never said it was the original question, I said it was the fundamental one. Whether or not there should be religion in the machinery of government is the principal issue of dispute here. Unless I was having a different conversation with me being an idiot.Lucky Bob said:BONUS QUESTION: Since when was this the original question?
If I could get some answers I could work with, perhaps we could figure that out.Wonderfly said:*sniff* Can't we all just get along?
Because they are the foundation on which our government is built, even if some of the principles contained therein are not wildly popular today.Delthayre said:Why should the government have acknowledgements of religion? (i.e. "In God we trust." "...one nation under God." Ten Commandments etc.)
Only if Congress passes a law establishing religion.And are those ever the cause for contention?
Ack. Misread it. I kill that post.Delthayre said:Where did he say that he does?
Yes, you have the right not only to complain, but to vote for someone that holds the same beliefs as you. And a great number of Americans voted for George Bush because we don't believe in homosexual marriage. This doesn't violate church and state on any level, unless you want to say that everyone who is against homosexual marriage is a Christian.Blue Wolf said:Take our President who wants to make it unconstitutional for Homosexual marriage. Any since the law is as I am an American my protector, than I have the right to complain when my goverment and the law shows itself to favor a belief that I do not hold.
The problem is that homosexuality is only wrong in the context of Religion. No one is actually harmed by a man and man having sex, nor is anyone harmed by gay men being married. The men or women can consent to the act without any bodily harm being brought about themselves or anyone else.EinBebop said:Yes, you have the right not only to complain, but to vote for someone that holds the same beliefs as you. And a great number of Americans voted for George Bush because we don't believe in homosexual marriage. This doesn't violate church and state on any level, unless you want to say that everyone who is against homosexual marriage is a Christian.
So let's review: I said that laws limiting homosexuality are only a religious issue if you are trying to imply that everyone on my side of the issue is Christian. You still asserted that it's only wrong in terms of religion, but that I shouldn't put words in your mouth, while completely avoiding the "words I tried to put in". Although I suppose I shouldn't have limited it to Christianity.Blue Wolf said:Any Ein with all do respect don't put words in my mouth.
That argument is negated by the fact that there are non-religious people who are against homosexuality.Blue Wolf said:The problem is that homosexuality is only wrong in the context of Religion. No one is actually harmed by a man and man having sex, nor is anyone harmed by gay men being married.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Those are among the inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator, right?This brings us back to what most modern U.S. laws come from, the right to life liberty and property.
Here is where I felt you were putting words in my mouth. Just so you know I do enjoy this conversaion, I like arguing with you since you really are a very intelligent human being and bring up such good points. So just so you know I really am not taking this personal and have only respect to you because of this forum. Religous belief may not have been the best words to use, although statistically when it comes to oposition for homosexuality. But I know Christians are not the only ones against homsexuality, as a matter of a fact I have defended the Church on this issue since I actually know Preists who are tolerant and accepting of homosexuality.EinBebop said:This doesn't violate church and state on any level, unless you want to say that everyone who is against homosexual marriage is a Christian.
I did a little research on this, and wanted to clarify lest someone think you meant that prayer was not allowed in the Continental Congress... there were objections to prayer because of the diversity of theological opinions. "I am no bigot," said Samuel Adams. "I can hear a prayer from a man of piety and virtue, who, at the same time, is a friend to his country." Someone was named, put to the vote, and the third day of Congress, the first prayer was given.Blue Wolf said:Ben Franklyn was turned down when he wanted prayer in the begining of Continental Congress...
Since you focused in on the right to worship different gods, I'll address that issue. At one point, NINE of the the states actually had state-established religions. Though they were eventually done away with voluntarily, the federal government had no intention of stepping on the state's toes. Hence the reason that the first amendment specifically says that CONGRESS will not interfere.Arkangel said:If the Ten Commandments are the "foundation" of American law, why does the Constititution-- the true foundation of American law-- grant citizens the explicit right to violate almost all of the Commandments?
Likewise.Blue Wolf said:So just so you know I really am not taking this personal and have only respect to you because of this forum. ...
It's been fun.And with that said I throw my towel into the ring.
You didn't answer the question.EinBebop said:Since you focused in on the right to worship different gods, I'll address that issue. At one point, NINE of the the states actually had state-established religions. Though they were eventually done away with voluntarily, the federal government had no intention of stepping on the state's toes. Hence the reason that the first amendment specifically says that CONGRESS will not interfere.
"...In matters of religion, I have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.'" - Thomas Jefferson, his second inaugural address.
For starters, it's a bad question. "The explicit right to violate"? Overstating our case a little, aren't we? Just because the Constitution doesn't explicity state anything about murder doesn't mean it's giving me an explicit right.Arkangel said:You didn't answer the question.
If the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law, then why does the most important American legal document give me the explicit right to violate almost all of the Commandments?
Of course I don't want to encode the Ten Commandments into law. I reject them outright as I am free to do. However, the fact that none of the precepts given in the Ten Commandments are encoded anywhere in the founding documents of this country quickly dashes the notion that it is the foundation of our law. I can find much more material that actually served as the basis of our law in English common law and Enlightenment philosophy. But nobody is agitating to put up a statue of Montesquieu in an Alabama courthouse.EinBebop said:For starters, it's a bad question. "The explicit right to violate"? Overstating our case a little, aren't we? Just because the Constitution doesn't explicity state anything about murder doesn't mean it's giving me an explicit right.
But I think I see where you're trying to take this, and so I'll save you the trouble: No, not a single one of the Commandments is explicitly stated in the Constitution, not even the one about murder. And even at the state and local levels, do you really want to regulate coveting? The only group I know that wants to regulate thought is the ACLU.
So how can the Ten Commandments be a part of our foundation if not one Commandments is in the Constitution? Because, back in the day, laws were measured against the law of God, of which the Ten Commandments are considered the cornerstone. Theology was a common course of study for those wanting to enter law school. If a law was found to contradict the Bible, it would be removed.
A lot of debate used to go into "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law". Ha, the courts don't even consider that latter anymore, and have mastered twisting the former to their agendas. But if one really wanted to understand "the spirit of the law", they would have to start with the Bible. No, the "explicit right to violate" the Ten Commandments came later.
Yes, of course, English common law. England, where there was no separation of church and state when these laws were being set into place.Arkangel said:I can find much more material that actually served as the basis of our law in English common law and Enlightenment philosophy. But nobody is agitating to put up a statue of Montesquieu in an Alabama courthouse.