Cool idea....

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
In a free country, the state should remain NEUTRAL on religion. That doesn't mean atheistic, that means neutral, meaning no opinion or preference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, neutral-not hostile!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------QUOTE;
Have you ever heard of the Inquisition? How about the Crusades?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're confusing Christianity and Catholicism. They are two quite separate and distinct entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
Perhaps maybe you've heard of the Ayatollahs in Iran? All cases where church took over the state and turned it into a theocracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those murdering bastards don't represent any "church" I care to associate with.

You really don't believe that this nation is in danger of becoming a Christian theocracy, do you? If so, you have missed the whole point of Christianity. Man's free will- his free agency- is the central theme of this whole roller coaster ride. What good is adherence to the Word of God if it has to be beaten out of us?

Incidentally, the whole free agency concept-unfettered exercise of free will bound by the rule of civilized law-is the basis of our Constitution and our nation.

 

[Hobbit]

Okay, a few points here:

1) I think Catholicism is a form of Christianity, but they've gotten so clouded in tradition, ego, and ceremony that they've lost sight of the true teachings of Christ. They still believe Christ was the Messiah, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. However, they tacked on so much extra stuff that it's scary.

2) Just because the state can't sponsor religion doesn't mean the state can spit in its face. Case in point: gay marriage. Most people oppose gay marriage from a religious standpoint. Having the government forbid it as well would not sponser any religion, as most major religions prohibit homosexual acts. The government allowing it to occur, despite the cries of the religious majority, is not avoiding sponsorship of a religion, it's pissing on the ideals and values of a VERY large portion of the population, who happen to think it's wrong. We have to have a value system from somewhere, and this secular "it isn't wrong unless it hurts someone else, oh and fetuses don't count as someone" crap isn't going to work.

 

[musicman]

Yeah. What Hobbit and NewGuy said.

 

[Gop guy]

Originally posted by acludem
We've had this discussion before, but I'll say it again. THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! Our founders absolutely wanted a separation of church and state. Church-state issues are exactly what led some of the first people from England to settle here. When our country was founded there were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims already here. It is absolutely incorrect to say that this was founded as a Christian nation. The majority of those who were involved in the formation would've told you they subscribed to some form of Christianity, but they were from many different denominations. John Adams was a Unitarian Universalist, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson were Deists, Washington was Episcopalian. There were Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists, too. They wrote a separation of Church and state into the first amendment to the Constitution, specifically prohibiting Congress from establishing a state religion. I believe they also meant to prevent Congress from endorsing any religion over another at all. Jefferson and Madison successfully fought a bill in Virginia that would've given special tax breaks to Christian clergy. Thomas Jefferson's epitaph even mentions that he was the author of Virginia's statute for religious Freedom.

This is not, has not, and I hope will never be a Christian nation. If it becomes a Christian theocracy in the tradition of Iran's Islamic Theocracy, which is exactly what people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and John Ashcroft want, I'm outta here.

acludem

THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. THE PROOF IS EVERYWHERE YOU RADICAL LEFT ASS.

 

[Gop guy]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Clarification:

Catholocism is NOT a form of Christianity.

It is pure and simple: a cult.

The catholics MAY have a relationship with Christ as scripture would dictate contrary to catholocisms teachings or practices, but catholocism as mandated and listed under their own doctrine is NOT Christianity.

WOW! YOU AND ACCLUDEM ARE ABSOLUTLY OUT OF YOUR MINDS!

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Clarification:

Catholocism is NOT a form of Christianity.

It is pure and simple: a cult.

The catholics MAY have a relationship with Christ as scripture would dictate contrary to catholocisms teachings or practices, but catholocism as mandated and listed under their own doctrine is NOT Christianity.

Where do you get YOUR information?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Hobbit


2) Just because the state can't sponsor religion doesn't mean the state can spit in its face. Case in point: gay marriage. Most people oppose gay marriage from a religious standpoint. Having the government forbid it as well would not sponser any religion, as most major religions prohibit homosexual acts. The government allowing it to occur, despite the cries of the religious majority, is not avoiding sponsorship of a religion, it's pissing on the ideals and values of a VERY large portion of the population, who happen to think it's wrong. We have to have a value system from somewhere, and this secular "it isn't wrong unless it hurts someone else, oh and fetuses don't count as someone" crap isn't going to work.

I don't think the gay marriage subject should be left up to the courts or the government to decide. Each state should have a simple ballot on election day. Support or not? Straight up, no twisting of words or hanging chads.

 

[Gop guy]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
I don't think the gay marriage subject should be left up to the courts or the government to decide. Each state should have a simple ballot on each election day. Support or not? Straight up, no twisting of words or hanging chads.

Hmmmmmmm, not a bad idea....

 

[Bern80]

Though i oppose to gay marriage. I am starting to think that the governemtn should not recognized any marriage since it is a religious institution. If you want a church to marry you, fine. as for the gov't maybe we should just have unions for everyone.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bern80
Though i oppose to gay marriage. I am starting to think that the governemtn should not recognized any marriage since it is a religious institution. If you want a church to marry you, fine. as for the gov't maybe we should just have unions for everyone.

Marriage isnt only a religious institution. non religious people get married all the time.

Marriage has a specific purpose. To create human life in a stable environement so that children can be brought up in the best way possible. The government has a strong reason to promote marriage. its what makes society stable.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Marriage isnt only a religious institution. non religious people get married all the time.

Marriage has a specific purpose. To create human life in a stable environement so that children can be brought up in the best way possible. The government has a strong reason to promote marriage. its what makes society stable.

But where did the value orginate from?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
I don't think the gay marriage subject should be left up to the courts or the government to decide. Each state should have a simple ballot on election day. Support or not? Straight up, no twisting of words or hanging chads.

In case you forgot, the whole gay marriage thing originated because the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that outlawed sodomy, in which they stated that states couldn't legislate on the approproateness of homosexuality. So while the state's rights argument is one I personally favor for most issues, SCOTUS has already eliminated that option for us.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by acludem
We've had this discussion before, but I'll say it again. THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! Our founders absolutely wanted a separation of church and state. Church-state issues are exactly what led some of the first people from England to settle here. When our country was founded there were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and even Muslims already here. It is absolutely incorrect to say that this was founded as a Christian nation. The majority of those who were involved in the formation would've told you they subscribed to some form of Christianity, but they were from many different denominations. John Adams was a Unitarian Universalist, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson were Deists, Washington was Episcopalian. There were Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Baptists, too. They wrote a separation of Church and state into the first amendment to the Constitution, specifically prohibiting Congress from establishing a state religion. I believe they also meant to prevent Congress from endorsing any religion over another at all. Jefferson and Madison successfully fought a bill in Virginia that would've given special tax breaks to Christian clergy. Thomas Jefferson's epitaph even mentions that he was the author of Virginia's statute for religious Freedom.

This is not, has not, and I hope will never be a Christian nation. If it becomes a Christian theocracy in the tradition of Iran's Islamic Theocracy, which is exactly what people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and John Ashcroft want, I'm outta here.

acludem

You have accepted a rather simplistic view of what the founding fathers wanted. The fact remains that Jefferson, although the author of Virginia's statute for religious freedom, was not a benefactor of the separation of church and state. Jefferson is not an example which expresses the true intent of anything that the founding fathers did or didn't believe...the man wrote the declaration of independence which said all men are created equal. Yet he owned slaves...slaves he did not free upon his death. He also enabled many states to gain slavery. He did nothing in his life to uphold many of the principles he so eloquently espoused.

Neither, I might add, were the predominance of the founding fathers. Each was tolerant of certain views regarding the state's effect on religion as well as religion's effect on the state...however that's not the same as saying that they each held one as anathema to the other.

Religion, Christian faith, is inextricably linked into the moral coda of this nation. There is no turning away from that fact much as one might try. It cannot be done. Everything in law is established upon morality...morality comes from somewhere.

 

[acludem]

You equate morality with Christianity? Are you saying that Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists are immoral because they are not Christians? Buddhism is not a "faith" based religion, is a practice based upon the teachings of Siddartha Guatama, the only "faith" is one's own ability to change one's Karma.

Morality does come from somewhere, it comes from traditions, it is passed from parent to child, Aesop's fables teach morality, so do many of the Greek, Roman and Norse myths. Religion is not necessary for morality, nor is morality necessary for religion.

This nation was founded by all kinds of people. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin were Deists, this means they rejected the idea of an active involved God. Morality is an individual, human issue. That is why morality varies somewhat in each society.

acludem

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
In case you forgot, the whole gay marriage thing originated because the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that outlawed sodomy, in which they stated that states couldn't legislate on the approproateness of homosexuality. So while the state's rights argument is one I personally favor for most issues, SCOTUS has already eliminated that option for us.

But SCOTUS shouldn't be creating laws, just interpreting them. If the states passed the law through a ballot iniative, how could it be changed by SCOTUS?

 

[acludem]

If SCOTUS determines that law, regardless of where or how it was passed, violates the Constitution they can throw it out, they can't change it.

acludem

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by acludem
If SCOTUS determines that law, regardless of where or how it was passed, violates the Constitution they can throw it out, they can't change it.

acludem

So would a law passed in all 50 states be deemed unconstitutional if it simply stated for all intent and purpose the State of ______ has ruled that the term marriage applies to 2 members of the opposite sex. How would this be unconstitutional?

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by Bern80
Though i oppose to gay marriage. I am starting to think that the governemtn should not recognized any marriage since it is a religious institution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why should the government cease to recognize an institution it's people have prized for two hundred and twenty-eight years--because a loud, bigoted minority wishes to trample our religious freedoms?

Look, I'm not the one who said this is a Christian nation. That is an erroneous statement. This is, however, a nation founded by Christians. As such, it recogizes certain inalienable rights given us-not by creatures-but by the Creator.

No Christian sought then-nor do any seek now-to impose a Christian theocracy upon this nation. To state that they do shows a complete ignorance of Christianity. The principles which guided our founding fathers-that governments are the creations of imperfect men; that said governments are a necessary evil, to be kept on a short leash; that said leash should be held tightly and vigilantly by the governed; that men are only truly free when they may live and prosper according to their enterprise, bound only by just and civilized law-these principles are uniquely Christian.

In our two hundred plus years of existence (the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye) this nation has advanced mankind, in every way, more than the combined efforts of every other nation in recorded history. You're living in the greatest country on earth. Why not relax and enjoy it?

 

[acludem]

The Supreme Court ultimately makes the decision as to what is and what isn't Constitutional. The only way to override them is via a Constitutional amendment. That is why the religious right is calling for an amendment to Constitutionalize discrimination against gay couples. They are afraid that the Supreme Court might actually enforce the equal protection clause of the 15th amendment.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

For the last time, homosexuals do get equal protection. Marrying someone of the same sex is illegal, no matter what your orientation is. Also, these same arguments can be used to allow communal marriages and polygamy.