Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:21:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
[snip]
| |
| |
To answer the first part of your paragraph. No, I don’t have a problem with
multiple partner marriages or with communal lifestyles for that matter. It
makes no difference in answering this question that I am in an ordinary
heterosexual two person relationship myself. I don’t have a problem if
other people want to choose something different for themselves from what I
choose for myself.
|
Please, stick to the issue. We are talking about government sanctioned
unions, not tolerance of lifestyles. You want to shack up with a chicken?
Knock yourself out. But you don’t have the “right” of recognition by the
government. But feel free to point it out in the Constitution or BoR.
|
The first phrase of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof,...”
|
Not applicable, Mike. We are talking about civil unions here.
| |
| |
You call me “unamerican”, but what you have stated above is completely
unamerican! We live in a Judeo-Christianity society whether you like it
or not, and we have decided as a culture to uphold the traditional
male-female family structure as the foundation of our society.
|
I consider myself a Christian and I am sick of hearing this nonsense.
|
Really? How so?
| |
| |
Attempts to undermine
that foundation are not efforts to protect freedoms, but to destroy the
fabric of our society as we know it. I am afraid that you are in the vast
minority here, because this issue of “family values” cuts through
political, economic, and gender lines.
Your vision of what America should be is simply not shared by the
overwhelming majority of Americans. Whine all you want; it is a free
country.
|
If you have read here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=22019
Well some letters came back touting the same basic thing Mr. Neal did above.
I sent another letter which they actually printed in the local paper again,
as it is relavent to this topic here it is:
There seems to be a popular misconception that our country was founded by
Puritans and Quakers. While those groups had a large impact on the accepted
social mores of our country they had minimal, if any, impact on the founding
of our government.
|
But don’t you see? This is what I am talking about! I am talking about social
mores, culture, values.
| |
Most of our founders came to the colonies because of
religious persecution. At the time persons that did not accept the English
state church were branded as heretics and usually executed. The
Roman-Catholic Church was not much better in that regard.
Our founding
fathers recognized this as a threat to freedom and liberty. That is why the
first amendment to the constitution includes the phrase; “Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,...” This isn’t exactly rocket science, its meaning is quite
clear.
|
I think you are confused in this assessment. Our FF came to the colonies in
order to worship as they wished, not as the State told them. They didn’t come
to escape religion, or view religion as a threat to their freedom or liberty.
The reason the First Amendment addresses the religion issue is to unequivocally
assert that there would never again be a state religion as the one in England.
People would be free to worship as they wanted.
| |
Anything the Government does can not endorse one religious belief
over another. In the case of legal marriage, (not to be confused with the
sacred religious vow,) the government treats it as an entitlement to
privileges.
|
Exactly. Entitlements are not rights.
| |
As this is a government institution, constitutionally it must be
offered to anyone regardless of their religious beliefs.
|
Whoa there! I thought we were talking about civil unions. When did religious
beliefs enter the picture?
| |
If that happens to
include homosexual partners that is just tough. They are entitled to the same
constitutional rights and protections as everyone else.
|
The constitution does not guarantee the “right” to marry. It is an entitlement,
remember?
| |
Note: The other
letters were whining about the removal of the Ten Commandments too
As far
as the Ten Commandments, lets be honest here, if we were talking about
removing a statue of Buddha from a courthouse no one would question its
unconstitutionality. The only reason people oppose the removal of the Ten
Commandments is because they agree with that religion.
|
You are simply wrong. As I mentioned previously, our culture is based on
Judeo-Christian values. Have you ever been to the Lincoln Memorial? Did you
realize that Matt 18:7 is inscribed on the north wall? Are you telling me that
you would support the Memorial being defaced to remove the references from the
Bible??? How about the National Monument? The Jefferson Monument? I could go
on and on. I would really appreciate an answer, because this is the issue in a
nutshell. The fact is that the Judeo-Christian tradition is a part of our
heritage; it is part of who we are. we need not apologize for it, or try and
deny it. It’s just the way it is.
| |
People love freedom
until it works against their beliefs.
I wonder if people realize that they
are unintentionally sending the message that Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Wiccian, and many other religions are not as important as Christianity just
because they are not the majority.
|
No, no, no. It sends no such message! Only that that tradition is our
tradition. Why apologize for that? Don’t be such a PC wimp!
| |
(Nevermind the fact that most people are
too close-minded to realize that those of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
faiths, all pray to the same god. Allah is the Arabic word for God and is not
a name.)
|
Our God is not the same God of people who murder women and children in His name.
If you call that close-minded, so be it.
| |
(Note: The one guy wrote that the ACLU was a puppet of the liberal
left because they fight to legalize lots of things he found morally wrong)
Last but not least is the ACLU. The American Civil Liberties Union is not
liberal left, rather they are extreme conservative right or what people call
libertarians.
|
Mike, where did you ever get that idea??? Sure, the ACLU is interested in
defending rights, as long as they are the rights of those with whom they agree
ideologically! Just look at the cases they decide to defend-- it says it all.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
