|
| quote: | I believe you are for a couple reason:
1) You believe the Christian fundamentals are behind all moral-leaning law in the USA. |
Certainly not, but their influence is quite undeniable. You asked for an example of that influence, I gave you one. You now counter with the straw man that I conclude that ALL moral-leaning law is the result of fundies?
Sorry, not biting at that one.
| quote: | | 2) You have just proveed it is interest groups that push these agendas, not a wide-ranging mass of "Christian fundamentals" with your Discovery Insitute example above. |
My goodness, what exactly is the difference between fundamentalist interest groups and “Christian fundamentals”? They intertwine quite easily.
And perhaps you haven’t noticed just how strong the Discovery Institute and their Wedge Doctrine influence have been on the State schools and BOE’s?
Regardless, that is just one example. I noticed that Wolverine also brought up the 10 Commandments as another.
| quote: | | 3) You are also grasping at straws. Wolverine clearly made it out that these "Christian fundamentals" would eat my baby and take my religion from me if they could. I asked him to prove it, you replied proving that some interest group wants to teach evolution in schools. Thats a big, big, big difference. |
Well perhaps you overlooked my emphasis – it’s not just that they want to completely wipe out evolution, but they want to incorporate “Christian convictions”.
| quote: | | 4) You believe that Christian fundamentals if in power would really change all laws in their favor. I think many of them just like you are ingrained in the traditions of this country, they realize the role of religion, and they realize the role of its seperation from government. |
Well call me a bit skeptical and downright a little afraid of religious fundamentalism and power. It certainly stands to reason that historically, religion and power have seemingly gone hand in hand. Of course most of that predates our own Constitution, admittedly, but please do not dismiss those fanatics for trying and in a good number of instances, succeeding. Some, of course, did not. What is it that I mean by that exactly?:
-Continual attempts to wipe out evolution because it does not adhere to Christian principles
-Promoting abstinence education only while withholding and/or distorting known facts about abstinence programs and their results
-Continuing attempts to incorporate school prayer, undermining separation of church and state
-Keeping “Under God” into the Pledge, even though its origin was the reaction against Communist, atheist Russia back in the 50’s
-Moving a 10 Commandments statue into a secular government building in the middle of the night, claiming it is a part of our founding principles of law (last I checked only 2, maybe 3 Commandments are actually used in our law), without consideration of any other religion’s notable monuments as well
-Texas anti-sodomy laws which thankfully got struck down
-Anti-abortion laws are slowly but surely creeping into our government, even at the behest of a woman’s health (which thankfully a number of courts have recently struck down). This is not to say that such laws are the result of Christian fundamentalists, but their role and influence also cannot be denied by any stretch.
-And, of course, pushing Congress both on the federal and state level to define marriage for heterosexual relationships only
What else? Well here’s some more:
-Directly undermining the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which bans discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion:
-Rick Santorum’s Workplace Religious Freedom Act can also effectively potentially undermine civil rights laws and employer nondiscrimination policies:
http://capwiz.com/au/mail/oneclick_...alertid=6007941
-The Jones Bill (from Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC) which strongly resembles the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act that got shot down in 2002 is being introduced, once again effectively wiping out the separation of church and state:
http://capwiz.com/au/mail/oneclick_...alertid=2527776
Take note that the former bill that got shot down in a 178-239 vote. Who voted which way?:
Yeas - Republicans, 168. Democrats, 10
Nays - Republicans, 46. Democrats, 192
Interesting on which majority of the party went where on this, ain’t it?
-As for Bush himself, I think there’s a healthy number of examples out there that demonstrate the Christian Right influence on him, like this one:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170&page=1
As well as his Faith-Based initiatives via Executive Order which have also undermined the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as undermine separation church and state:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm
But let’s not leave out one of the major Republican leaders either:
| quote: | He (God) is using me, all the time, everywhere, to stand up for a biblical worldview in everything that I do and everywhere I am. He is training me.
-Tom Delay at the “Worldview Weekend” conference in the First Babtist Church, Pearland, TX June 2002 |
Oh and Justice Scalia is certainly one of my favorites as well:
| quote: | The "consensus" (that government is the minister of God)
"has been upset, I think by the emergence of democracy...It is much more difficult to see the hand of God...behind the fools and rogues...we ourselves elect of our own free will."
...
"the reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure divine authority...should [be] the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues...les/scalia.html |
So there’s a few more instances to add.
| quote: | What, you're trying to tell me you are FOR WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE?
But they're women! |
Blimey. Foiled again!
| quote: | | "It" doesn't make it legal. "It" does make it rational, based upon the historical argument whereby gays didn't marry and Kansas operated socially as it has done for most part without incident... whereby if you change that component the future of social tranquality (although it might stay the same) is unknown. |
I reiterate:
| quote: | | And the same was said of slavery, women's right to vote, African-Americans right to vote, interracial marriage, etc. etc. |
This same historical rationale was surely used by those who objected to such changes for civil rights. And your statement about Kansas operating socially without incident tends to adhere to that old – “if it ain’t broken why fix it” analogy, which again was certainly used against slavery, voting rights, women’s rights, minority rights, etc. in the past.
And what’s more, how much do you know about the history of marriage? I previously mentioned how our own concept of marriage and the relationship between man and woman have evolved over time with the advent of women’s rights. Here’s another excerpt:
| quote: | Right-wing moralizing to the contrary, "marriage" and "family" are not very traditional at all. For instance, Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the 1st wife. For its first 500 – 1000 years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women didn’t have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each other’s divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class. (Submitted to Marriage Equality by E.J.
Graff, author of “What Is Marriage For?”) |
So the concept of heterosexual marriage has surely changed over time, even within the past coupla centuries. And what’s more, I also posted information about historical formal recognition of homosexual relationships. The difference between then and now is BENEFITS given to heterosexual couples vs. homosexual couples. This is the crux of my argument.
| quote: | | What does make it legal however is the US Constitution and the right it affords to states. |
Not if it undermines other Constitutional Amendments or other laws such as the Civil Rights Act. I believe such cases like the one that took place in California have been citing the 14th Amendment:
| quote: | San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer found that "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before." Judge Kramer also ruled that "the idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...age31405opn.pdf |
| quote: | A NY Supreme Court ruled that basic freedoms are violated when gay couples are not allowed to marry. Justice Ling-Cohen said "same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing."
http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-d...PDF/pdf/378.pdf |
| quote: | | Your point only brings up the fact that Greeks are gay. We all know this. You have not demonstrated that in American history (pre-USA or post) that homosexuality has been acceptable (in fact you made the argument that it doesn't matter what happened in the past because it might have been wrong, i.e. blacks and... women.) |
Umm, I believe you’re not reading my argument very well at all.
First, quite the contrary to your point about me stating that it doesn’t matter what happened in the past. The point I’m making here is that fundies and those who use such arguments for the “sanctity and history of marriage” tend to overlook just how acceptable homosexual relationships were in the past, as well as just how much heterosexual marriage has truly evolved as a DIRECT result of civil rights issues.
Second, I believe I expounded quite a bit further than just the Greeks accepting homosexual relationships over the past 2 thousand years. I fail to understand how you merely hand-wave the rest away.
But in regards to post-USA history, I do not deny that homosexual relationships have not been considered acceptable – but this is exactly what I am arguing, however, when the benefits of those homosexual relationships are denied versus heterosexual marriages. The basis of such denials are unacceptable and unexplainable, and you have not explained in any way why we should continue to deny such discrimination other than merely state that it has always been that way.
That is not rational nor acceptable, especially when we take other similar examples of discrimination into historical context and how we have evolved to incorporate minority groups as a result.
| quote: | | Therefore using your same argument, I will say. The past doesn't matter, we made mistakes about blacks and... women then, lets not make the same mistake about gays (which were obvisouly according to your history well treated and allowed to marry). Afterall, look what befall those societies! |
Again I fail to understand how we could be making the same mistake here on anything. When we allowed over 1,000 benefits to heterosexual couples simply as a result of their legal marriage, there is no rational reason why we should not allow the same to same-sex couples who wish to be acknowledged by the State that they are married.
And I’m hoping you’re jesting at this point about societies falling either as a direct or indirect consequence to homosexual behavior. We can get further into exactly how homosexual marriages/civil unions have affected society if you wish, but for the sake of brevity I’ll leave that out for now.
| quote: | | The constitution only protects certain inalienable rights. The right/privilege to marriage is not a consitutional right. It is one granted by the State to its citizens, therefore as it stands right now on the books it is no more unconsitutional to grant same-sex marriage as it to taketh away. So stop being a couter. |
As I mentioned previously, both the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of ’64 have been utilized fairly successfully to grant same-sex legal rights, i.e. BENEFITS obtained from legal heterosexual marriage that are not given to same-sex couples.
Nil satis nisi optimum
| quote: | What are you on about consitutionally this, constitutionally that?
Like I said. There is no "right" to marriage. Just like there is no "right" to drive. Some states make it a right and give it to their citizens, others make it a privilege. I don't understand why you are up on the consitution on this one, as on this matter it is silent. Its not like Kanasas voted to deny gays from their right to fair and speedy trial |
See above.
| quote: | | What I do think you are seeing with the South however is a bit of resurggence against the left's succesful athiestation of the State. |
Well what I see is the Conservatives has successfully stroked the social wedge issues of the Christian fundies and have made them feel like “victims” of atheism when, in fact they are anything but that, but we’re just opining a bit here.
| quote: | | Taking the 10 commandments out of a court house is evidence of the success of this left-wing atheistic movement that exist in the nation. |
Oh please.
When that fundie fuck Justice Moore SNUCK the monument in the dead of night, and his actions have been successfully struck down not just by the Republican-led Alabama SC, but the Republican-led U.S. Supreme Court as well, HE is anything BUT a victim of left-wingers for fuck’s sake. Rather, he is a victim of his own irresponsibility and self-martyrdom.
| quote: | | The south is pissed that you are turing this tradtionally secular country into an atheist country. |
Oh fucking please again.
Name me ONE fucking time when Christian rights have been successfully taken away when there has been an irrational means to do so. Just one will do.
| quote: | | When you look at it objectively and with in the spirit of the tradition of the USA, there was no justified reason to remove the 10 commandments out of the court house. |
I look quite objectively at such actions and I see absolutely no reason why this fundie fuck felt compelled to sneak it in his courtroom in the first place.
| quote: | | They're is a scare in the USA against religion. And in turn there is a counter-insurgence for religion. |
Self-created by the fundies. Self-promoted by the fundie apologist politicians. Both groups win in the end.
| quote: | | I think both sides need to shut up and embrace that a little religion is a good thing. |
Not in a SECULAR society it certainly isn’t, and you haven’t made a very compelling argument so far that it is a “good thing” in any manner.
| quote: | | Its when people want too much religion (whether that religion is the religion of no religion or not) that it becomes ugly. |
Well to that we can certainly agree, but the slippery slope of how much is too much is too easy to slide down.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Apr-07-2005 at 20:20
|
Re: Re: Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law
