Traditional Values Defined

[dilloduck]

Well we have the "new morality", The "the only thing we know is judging is wrong" new age, spiritualism. That's just satan in a slutty top.

Ahhhhh----the "traditional-values-are-oppressive-but-we-have-nothing-better" tradition. It has quite a noble history in America.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Ahhhhh----the "traditional-values-are-oppressive-but-we-have-nothing-better" tradition. It has quite a noble history in America.

That doesn't sound quite like me, but however you need classify me in your possibly old ass filing system, that's fine! :cof:

I think traditions need to be reexamined plank at a time. Painting them all as one "bunkeresque" ball of bigotry is just the reactionary reaction the enemies of morality are trying to inculcate.

For instance, personally I say let the gays marry, any real christian is not goingsuddenly devalue family because gays got married. Let's just let it go. Aren't there more important issues, like national security.

ALso let's make a deal on abortion. Let's legalize it federally, if we can get the lefties to admit it's murder and can constitutionally not be used to perpetrate "euthenasia" on the "socially costly" or "idealogically ineducable." Just a couple thoughts.

 

[dilloduck]

Non-Christian traditional values ? Anybody got one ?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Non-Christian traditional values ? Anybody got one ?

For sure. They exist in all cultures to some degree, and many of them are similar if not identical. Respect for elders. Respect for family life, fertility, pair bonds, social stabilizers. The very concept of moral behavior, right and wrong, a deity which commands, or teaches these things.

 

[dilloduck]

For sure. They exist in all cultures to some degree, and many of them are similar if not identical. Respect for elders. Respect for family life, fertility, pair bonds, social stabilizers. The very concept of moral behavior, right and wrong, a deity which commands, or teaches these things.

EXCLUSIVELY non christian values !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

EXCLUSIVELY non christian values !

Cousin -marrying from Islamic tribalists?, And alabama?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Is housing punishment? Is it legal to discriminate against potential tenants based on race? Your statement remains bullshit.

Everyone requires housing. It is the job of the govt to protect its citizens first and foremost. People have to have homes to be happy.

People dont need to get married to survive. My post remains.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Max, I will concede that the US amendments are binding on the states.

The amendments were written to guarantee that the STATES/Colonies would have certain jurisdiction on certain issues. It defined which areas the federal govt had authority.

The first amendment simply states that the FEDERAL (Congress) govt doesnt have the authority to impose a nation wide officially established religion, and that it would be up to the individual states to determine that.

The proof is simple, they went to their respective states and wrote such laws establishing religions.

This should also apply to abortion. How the Supreme court can construe that the writers of the Constitution intended for their to be a nationally protected right to abortion, when THE WRITERS THEMSELVES made abortion illegal "after the quickening". This was when the baby first moved inside the womb. With their limited medical knowledge, they thought that was when the life began inside the baby.

This thread started out as traditional values. It included the writing of the Constitution and how it applied to traditional values. Therefore, the first amendment, in this case, is all we should be dealing with. What the 14th amendment does is irrelvant.

What Jefferson wrote in trying to eliminate the offically sanctioned state religion in his own state is irrelevant.

|Fact is that the FF's intended for religion to be integral and the basis for our laws. The supreme court building has a carving of Moses receiving the ten commandments. So much for the intention of not having any religous symbols on govt property

Also,, displaying a symbol is NOT ESTABLISHING a religion.

Having a state sanctioned religion is not the same as a theocracy. It allows and demands that the laws of the land be BASED on religion, whilst a theocracy demands that the laws be taken directly from the text that the religion is based on.

As for proof that the Bible states life begins in the womb, God said, "I knew you while you were still in the womb"

 

[liberalogic]

The amendments were written to guarantee that the STATES/Colonies would have certain jurisdiction on certain issues. It defined which areas the federal govt had authority.

The first amendment simply states that the FEDERAL (Congress) govt doesnt have the authority to impose a nation wide officially established religion, and that it would be up to the individual states to determine that.

The proof is simple, they went to their respective states and wrote such laws establishing religions.

This should also apply to abortion. How the Supreme court can construe that the writers of the Constitution intended for their to be a nationally protected right to abortion, when THE WRITERS THEMSELVES made abortion illegal "after the quickening". This was when the baby first moved inside the womb. With their limited medical knowledge, they thought that was when the life began inside the baby.

This thread started out as traditional values. It included the writing of the Constitution and how it applied to traditional values. Therefore, the first amendment, in this case, is all we should be dealing with. What the 14th amendment does is irrelvant.

What Jefferson wrote in trying to eliminate the offically sanctioned state religion in his own state is irrelevant.

|Fact is that the FF's intended for religion to be integral and the basis for our laws. The supreme court building has a carving of Moses receiving the ten commandments. So much for the intention of not having any religous symbols on govt property

Also,, displaying a symbol is NOT ESTABLISHING a religion.

Having a state sanctioned religion is not the same as a theocracy. It allows and demands that the laws of the land be BASED on religion, whilst a theocracy demands that the laws be taken directly from the text that the religion is based on.

As for proof that the Bible states life begins in the womb, God said, "I knew you while you were still in the womb"

Your definition of the First Ammendment is off. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It has nothing to do with congress "establishing a religion." It is saying that no law will "respect" or be based on the "establishment" or "institution" of religion.

 

[MissileMan]

Everyone requires housing. It is the job of the govt to protect its citizens first and foremost. People have to have homes to be happy.

People dont need to get married to survive. My post remains.

The laws that cannot be discriminatory, are laws that punish.

Your original statement was crap then and is still crap. There are plenty of areas in society outside the laws dealing with punishment where discrimination is ILLEGAL . Housing was just one example.

 

[Gunny]

Your original statement was crap then and is still crap. There are plenty of areas in society outside the laws dealing with punishment where discrimination is ILLEGAL . Housing was just one example.

You do not feel THIS violates one's constitutional rights? Say I own a house and want to rent it. I'm going to discriminate in whatever manner I see fit against potential tenants to ensure to the best of my ability I don't get screwed.

I, not the government, am ultimately responsible for the property.

 

[MissileMan]

You do not feel THIS violates one's constitutional rights? Say I own a house and want to rent it. I'm going to discriminate in whatever manner I see fit against potential tenants to ensure to the best of my ability I don't get screwed.

I, not the government, am ultimately responsible for the property.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. LRP stated that discrimination only pertains to laws dealing with punishment. I was citing examples to show the error of that statement.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. LRP stated that discrimination only pertains to laws dealing with punishment. I was citing examples to show the error of that statement.

Laws that grant people a privledge are discriminatory in nature.

Obtaining a license of sorts almost always discriminates based on age.

Marriage regulations/laws are very unique in nature. It is the only one I am aware of that affects a particular given number of people involved (2).

Laws that promote things and are discriminatory, are so because it is assumed the group discriminated against is not capable of carrying out the desired activity in a way that is beneficial to society. Marriage laws strenghthen families, without them we would have even more fatherless households and criminals. No fault divorce has wreaked havoc, weakened the marriage laws, weakened the family, and same sex marriage would just allow that slope to get slipperier.

 

[deaddude]

The first amendment simply states that the FEDERAL (Congress) govt doesnt have the authority to impose a nation wide officially established religion, and that it would be up to the individual states to determine that.

And if you would take the time to look at the State Constitutions you would realise that the states are similarly restricted by similar "Freedom of Religion" clauses in their constitutions.

 

[musicman]

And if you would take the time to look at the State Constitutions you would realise that the states are similarly restricted by similar "Freedom of Religion" clauses in their constitutions.

Right - restrictions which the states themselves wrote into their constitutions, and could repeal tomorrow if their citizens so wished. The establishment clause of the First Amendment has no bearing whatever on the states. Flawed interpretation of the XIVth, allowing the federal courts to intrude in any way, is the very definition of judicial activism. Judicial activism is unconstitutional; it violates the separation of powers.

 

[deaddude]

Right - restrictions which the states themselves wrote into their constitutions, and could repeal tomorrow if their citizens so wished. The establishment clause of the First Amendment has no bearing whatever on the states. Flawed interpretation of the XIVth, allowing the federal courts to intrude in any way, is the very definition of judicial activism. Judicial activism is unconstitutional; it violates the separation of powers.

This is a question, I am seeking information, it is in no way rhetorical. I tried to find this on the internet but could not find anything.

If a state did repeal their freedom of religion clause, would they then be violating their conditions of statehood?

 

[Hobbit]

This is a question, I am seeking information, it is in no way rhetorical. I tried to find this on the internet but could not find anything.

If a state did repeal their freedom of religion clause, would they then be violating their conditions of statehood?

I think that, under the current system, they would. Under the original system, they wouldn't.

 

[musicman]

This is a question, I am seeking information, it is in no way rhetorical. I tried to find this on the internet but could not find anything.

If a state did repeal their freedom of religion clause, would they then be violating their conditions of statehood?

I don't see how; in fact, it might make an interesting test case against the bizarre interpretative excesses perpetrated by liberal social engineers, in the name of the XIVth Amendment. I wish a state would do it for just that reason; I believe a clarification in constitutional principle is in order, and long overdue.

That said, I believe states would find "establishment" difficult as a practical matter - as they did almost two centuries ago. Still, states' rights - an absolutely fundamental facet of our system of government - have suffered horrible abuse in our lifetimes. As distasteful as I find political gamesmanship, this might be one case where the long-term good would be served by a bit of tactical belligerence.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And if you would take the time to look at the State Constitutions you would realise that the states are similarly restricted by similar "Freedom of Religion" clauses in their constitutions.

Not at the time of the writing of the FEDERAL constitution. What the states did later is irrelevant to our original topic, whether the founders intended our govt to be completely secular. In actuality, what the States did at the founding of our country was for many of them to establish state religions, so at the time, the guys who wrote the federal and state constitutions obviously intended for our governments to be greatly influenced by religion, and also their individual writings prove that also, most notably Washington, the FATHER of our country and the only person who turned down the Presidency.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Right - restrictions which the states themselves wrote into their constitutions, and could repeal tomorrow if their citizens so wished. The establishment clause of the First Amendment has no bearing whatever on the states. Flawed interpretation of the XIVth, allowing the federal courts to intrude in any way, is the very definition of judicial activism. Judicial activism is unconstitutional; it violates the separation of powers.

Not only that, but using the 14th to enforce the 1st in they way they do and want to, proves that such a method is contrary to what the writers and signers of the constitution intended and wrote into it. Because if the 1st amendment is interpeted to not allowing states to create state established religions, then I guess the guys who signed the constitution and went back to their respective states and created state sponsored religions, knew less what they meant than todays justices who want to interpet it their own way.