 | | Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(URL) Good sense has prevailed, for now.> What intrigues me is that the rush to amend the Constitution in order to restrict freedom is expressly contrary to the supposed philosophy of true Conservatives, yet so-called Conservatives worked the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Surely by now you've heard the theory that if you lean too far to the left or right you end up falling to the other side, haven't you? (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose that it is the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Not-Rights? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) The proof will be in the pudding. If the Lefties try and challenge (URL) the DOMA> under the 14th Amendment, then their agenda will be clear, and only a new amendment to the Constitution will protect States' rights for self-determination. The (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shameless diversion aside, I agree. Let's get back to biblical principles. How many wives and concubines did Soloman have again? Allister (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But that's a very different issue from Santorum's holier-than-thou prohibition amendment. The amendment, as proposed, would have stripped individual states of their right to define marriage. If the amendment had forbidden the Federal (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Relevance? (as if polygamy was a "biblical principle"). JOHN (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But don't you see that that is the crux of the matter. The Left has forced the issue-- now the only solution is an "all or nothing" one. The activists couldn't just leave well enough alone. (...) Really now. You know that's not what it's (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Let's establish henceforth that any time a debater uses "activist judges" as a means to trump an argument, then the debater has forfeited the argument. The Left has *not* forced the issue. One state's judiciary has rightly identified the laws (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) "Activist judge" = "Hitler"? This is big, Dave! I think you are underestimating the arguments against legislating from the bench. I'm curious-- how would you respond to an act of congress that went something like this: "The courts are not to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This is very OT (excuse the pun); for a NT ref see Matthew 25:1-12: "...the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom...." ;) (...) (I think you mean polygyny). It was (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) If we follow the logic that marriage is a legal two-party contract - then union of woman and horse is disallowed because horses can't engage in legal contracts. Neither can dogs, turtles, mice, or chimpanzees. If this groups of animals were to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The term "polygamy" has the advantage of covering both polygyny and polyandry (and being a term that most people have actually heard of). Yes, the bible really only deals with polygyny, but it can be politically advantageous to lump them (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) This is exactly my point-- by what reasoning do you choose to define marriage soley between 2 parties? On what basis do you make this discrimination? I have chosen to define it as 1 man and 1 woman. You choose "two-party". Someone else might (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) My objection is to the use of the terms "activist judge" or "judicial activism" as short-hand subsitutions for actual debate. Too often Conservative pundits have decried judicial rulings as "activist" without presenting any legitimate (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) It's amazing that I just agreed with everything that was stated by Dave! You cannot have sexual discrimination in laws. A law forbidding same-sex marriage is sexual discrimination and takes away rights from individuals. Dave K (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Clearly. Article 3, section 2: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, etc." To abridge this function of the judiciary would indeed require an amendment. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This begs the question - with over 6 BILLION humans on this earth, do we REALLY need to make it easier for Breeders to spit out more humans than they should be? The earth would be far better off if we'd figure a *humane* way to scale the world (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Why don't you leave the exogesis of the Bible to those who know what they are talking about (as you obviously don't). (...) The point is moot, to Christians at least. Jesus' teaching on the subject is clear, as He quotes from Genesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) How is allowing or not allowing same-sex marriages going to affect this? I mean, it's a valid concern and all, but forbidding two guys to get married with each other won't make them want to get married to women and have kids, and allowing two (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Yep, you've just lost any sense of moral ground--"let no man separate". As long as "man" is separating, you've got nothing. Get rid of divorce (man separating the covenant that 'God joined'), get rid of adultery and coveting, and then we may (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Are you feeling ok, John? This is precisely what I've been arguing all along. Let the parties to the contract (or the private contracting/sanctioning organization) define who can participate. Keep the state out of interfering with the right of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snipped a bunch of rehash of why John's confused about what right of free association means) (...) You give the Left too much credit here. Insofar as there is any validity in the Right/Left labels (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'm not seeing where that description of linkage rules out a similar linkage with another willing partner, although I'd grant that it does rule out the partmer being the same gender. I'm also not seeing the relevance to constitutional rights (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) But there IS a humane way. Help societies to move away from subsistence agriculture (and the modern sweatshop equivalent) by introducing the rule of law, property rights, and fostering the growth of free enterprise. This reduces the incentive (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Don't forget anullment which is the Catholics' way of getting around that little religious entanglement. (...) Now, see, there you're just restricting the rights of the citizenry to break their solemn vows. That'll never fly (heck, in (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The operative word I'd say would be "two". (...) Not really. Marriage is a religious institution-- that governments decide to recognize marriages as civil unions is where the rub lies. All I am arguing is for the preservation of the definition (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) For instance, show me in the Constitution the right to marry. You will have to stretch and twist, until finally you can come up with a ruling such as Roe vs Wade that allows a women to kill her baby in her third trimester of pregnancy under (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) BUT, does the state have a vested interest in promoting certain contracts above others? Marriage and families are pretty efficient at raising the next generation of citizens (at least as compared to the state). What is wrong with giving these (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Ever tried to use the women's restroom? Or do you advocate unisex bathrooms? JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) This discussion is about the definition of marriage, Dave. How would you define it? (...) The issue is whether the state has a vested interest in recognizing marriages or not. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The state should recognize marraige as a contract between persons, no matter their sexual affiliation. If the Church wants to put quantifiers on that contract, i.e. one person must be female, and the other must be male, all the power to the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Hey, I'm cool with that. Whoever brings the issue to the table has done the right thing, IMO. I figured that John was right in citing Left-leaning judges as the source of the current controversy, but if the controversy began its momentum with (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So you would have no objection if the Federal government enacted laws barring Christians from marrying? I want you to go on record on this, with the following qualifiers: You can't claim "our country is based on Judeo-Christian tradition" (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) How many persons? (...) So are public restrooms. Are you against separating those? (...) For what possible reason? That is downright strange. (...) Well, that "church" has some issues. (...) lol "evolution of society"? Are you so sure our (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I recognize that the law requires boys to pee in one place and girls to pee in another, but I can't really think of a solid reason that this should be so, other than because people can be quaintly immature about functions involving the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:I15rpI.1v7n@lugnet.com... (...) pee in (...) so, (...) involving the (...) in the (...) I'm with you on this one. I visited a dorm at MIT that had a co-ed bathroom, that had multiple stalls (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I14L96.1r36@lugnet.com... (...) to/seem (...) debunking (...) Hmm, is that debunking that democracies tend to/seem to go to war less, or debunking that certain nations are (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) So your point is that the state has a vested interest in NOT recognizing marriages? Why? I thought your point (in a past debate) was that somehow gay marriage negatively affected the American family, which was the foundation of society (though (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) And the scary bit is that, from what I've read, all Dave's seem to be on the same page regarding this issue, and these Dave's come from widely divergent backgrounds. Wow! Dave K -go Daves (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Somehow I can't imagine the sheep objecting, but I must admit that my expertise on such "relationships" is limited solely to two rather off-color jokes, so others here might know better than I... ;P (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) (URL) fun) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Why would there have been a (URL) problem>? She was obviously calling out to Dave factoral;-) (Sorry to steal your thunder, Dave!) JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I submit that history shows the strong ties between religion and government by the presence of many state-enforced religions (including Islam in much of the Middle East, the Anglican Church in England, and Atheism in the ex-U.S.S.R.). I submit (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I like some of those names. Since this is a PG or less show, I won't mention that I choked on my tea whilst reading 'Soggy Muff'... Oops, did I say that out loud? Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFatee -formerly known as Dave K (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) As far as the state is concerned, the church doesn't, but the church does require itself to abide by the laws of the land. If the US government says gays can get married, it doesn't mean that the church would have to perform or even recognize (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Actually, I don't believe I've stated my opinion on whether gays should be allowed to marry, just on who should be able to say whether they can or can't (not the church, and not the federal government, because the US Constitution relegates (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Good suggestions all. I'd like to disclaim, though, that my original (URL) formulation> of the question made a few stipulations, among them the following: Values predating Judeo-Christianity must not be included (ie, “do unto others...”) (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shearly you jest, but you may wool be correct; my baaaad:-) (...) I swear I was only helping the sheep over the fence.... JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Over the past couple of months I have occasionally been sending letters to the local paper in my neck of the woods in response to another gentleman who has been doing the same. (Most of which, the paper has been printing on both sides of the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I15x8G.s77@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) member of (...) Atheism, (...) While there may not be a "Church of Atheism", I guarantee there are atheist clergy who can and do perform (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) (URL) Found it>, or a case much like the one I was thinking of. Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) First of all, just because it might or might not predate Judeism (technically, by virtue of the fact that Adam is cited as talking to the same God that Abraham talked to, the informal roots of Judeism can be claimed to extend back to the dawn (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) (URL) With its historical roots in the Jewish and Christian traditions, Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion -- that is, a religion that keeps an open mind to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and places.> (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I169rn.vn7@lugnet.com... (...) atheist (...) are (...) is, a (...) God} (...) simply (...) beliefs, no (...) uses the (...) all (...) There are UUs who have no religious beliefs (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) If they're only referring to the bible on the subject of determining punishment, as long as the punishment fits within the legal min/max limits, there are generally no strict legal guidelines for how they are to go about determining what (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Last time I checked Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. They're not allowed to pass laws to prevent religious zealots from flavoring the law with their religious (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) They ascribe to the UUA core beliefs, such as they are, so they ascribe to some form of religious belief. Religion is defined as: 2a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy. 2b) any system (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) If the claim is made that our state charter is founded on ideals dating to the birth of humanity, then evidence must be given to support that claim, or else it is a doctrine of religious faith (and an attempt to unite the state and religion). (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
snip the redundant redundancy (...) Incorrect, as some churches now support gay marraige, denying them the right to legally marry homosexuals is a violation of their religious freedom. "We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'm not sure this is how it should be in the US with our legal precident. If sexual preference is a fully protected non-discrimination item, then private churches won't be able to refuse to marry them. Maybe this is what folks like John are (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Well, that is kind of the defining belief of "conservative," right? (...) But I think John believes that if the Bible says something, it is right. That's the measure of rightness. So he doesn't need to look farther. Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Group marriages are pretty efficient at it too. More so, by every measure I can think of. The only stumbling blocks they suffer are legal challenges. Maybe if the nation were under threat of not reproducing enough, it would be in the interest (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) No problem! Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X - Powers of the States (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That doesn't give you the right to marry. It gives the states the right to either give or deny you the right to marry. Or to abstain from the matter altogether and let the local county and city governments deal with it. (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Marital status is a non-discrimination item, but that doesn't prevent the Catholic church from refusing to marry a divorced person. They can't be required to perform the ceremony if they can't be required to recognize the union, and forcing (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Noone is denying them the right to perform private religious ceremonies. They're just being denied the right to enter into a legally binding social contract. (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Can you prove that those ideals predate Judeism or the roots thereof? Show me some documented proof, not scientific theories. Even the great Stephen Hawking is recanting one of his most cherished theories today. (...) Just as the state's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Let's hope not :) If stated so, I have a hunch lots of people would start migrating over to the liberal side :) (...) Well, I doubt that's John's point since I don't think he's interested in making other laws to: - attend church on Sunday - (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Ok. So if your not using religon what is your justification for disallowing them to enter into a contract. Seriously, you don't see how this is a blatant case of religious discrimination?! -Mike Petrucelli (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) The fact that many states expressly forbid it. If it's illegal, it's illegal. Anyone who feels that it's unjust has the right to try to have the laws changed to make it legal, but until they do...it's still illegal. I'm not sure exactly how (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Well, you seem to have a problem with the term 'marraige' being redefined. The point is that marraige has been redefined many times in the past and has many different definitions today. The point is that marraige is defined by whatever the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) EUREKA! Really, is it that obscure what I'm arguing? (...) I don't know what you mean. Provide examples, if you please. (...) I don't think marriage, until rather recently, has ever been defined as anything other than the union of 1 man and 1 (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) No. The obscurity is why you are so fixated on wishing for the permanence of that definition. (...) I understand they use a slightly different definition in Utah. (...) Whether or not you or I like the definition is irrelevant. Things change, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Used. They changed it a while back, but they really only enforce it if you make a big stink about it (in other words, you have to make your crime seem that much more important to enforce than someone else's murder before they're going to come (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
Ah, see, but John wants to lock the entire world into {his} version of morality for eternity, and the rest of us can just go to hell if we don't like it. Attitudes like John's truly sicken me. (...) -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) False. I know you're a big states' rights guy. Actually, I am too. But one of the things that these sections of the constitution do is spell out limitations on the federal and state governments. The supreme court has supported that the rights (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Could they, hypothetically speaking deny marriage to blacks by not recognizing their legal status or somesuch? Chris (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) If you'd read the header & not snipped quite so much text, you'd see I was talking about polygyny in NT "biblical times"; what are you talking about? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) OK, what if it's equally valid to claim pagan-animist value system and governance because those are the antecedent of Judaism? (...) But since several of the thinkers of the time were openly hostile to religion in general and clearly not (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) John, we all understand what you're arguing. We just disagree with you. Chris (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) The "ten virgins" are bridesmaids for the bride, not whatever you seemed to be implying (polygyny). Or were you just making some throw-away joke? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) What makes you think the "ten virgins" are "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Before I attempt this documentation, can you give me an idea of what would qualify as acceptable to you? Honestly, a scientific theory that can be falsified is, as an explanatory device, superior to non-falsifiable statements of faith, so I (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) It's not what I think-- it is what biblical scholars think. So again-- leave the exegesis to the ones who know what they are talking about. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) So you don't know? Do you accept the work of these "scholars" without question? Your reply reminded me that you once said this: "I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without the need of (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Good. I guess I didn't catch the irony in his statement (with no winky to guide me:-) JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
????? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You know what, in my crazier moments I'd be happy to leave the definition of "marriage" to whatever non governmental sanctioning bodies wanted to sanction it, and they can define it however they like. As part of that leaving I'd then go (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Do we have any of those here? (biblical scholars who know what they're talking about, I mean, I wasn't casting aspersions on everyone as far as knowing what they're talking about, mind you...) If we don't do we have to take your word for it on (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Write Frank, Tim, Todd or myself if you need a cancel. Else, what are you talking about? (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree with everything Larry stated. Oh if wished made it so... I think Larry should change his name to Dave and become part of the Davish 5 Though there is a Larry David in teh world--mayhaps Larry's middle name is Dave... Dave (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) And in California and Massachusetts, but it's still illegal. (...) Change comes when the majority decide it should change, not a tiny minority. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Uh, I never said that. (...) Uh, I never said that. (...) A straw man if I ever saw one. If my attitudes sicken you, at least be sickened by the ones to which I actually adhere. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Let's see--by this logic, 5 therefore people count as the majority in a pool of some 100+ million voters. Hmm... Dave! (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Where'd you get that? I'm more concerned with whether it's constitutional for the federal government to do something than whether the states should or should not be the final authority. If the federal government wants to pass an ammendment (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Made me curious, but yeah, I think John's spot-on on this one. Looks like it's just yet another quickie parable: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
You've never said it in those exact words, and you have several times tried to profess that you're an open-minded person, but just about every post you make in this group is tight-a@@ed Moral Majority pap where everything is fine as long as it goes (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Truthfully? I'm not sure you can, in much the same way that it's currently impossible to disprove the existence of ET life in the universe. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of using unprovable statements to disprove other unprovable (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You'd need to prove conclusively that this is the case. The New Testament is proof enough that Christianity evolved directly from Judeism, just as the Koran is proof enough that Islam did as well. The Old Testament doesn't claim to have (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I'll admit that it's pretty thin, but there is a distinction nonetheless. By refusing to perform same-sex marriages, the Church is not refusing to perform weddings for gays at all. They're just refusing to perform weddings between them. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) I believe I am. (...) No, no, Tom. The MM would have a hard time with my beliefs-- I am hardly a schill for them! Merely because I am a Christian does not mean for a NY minute that I agree, especially politically with other (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Nope, just five of them. ;P (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's only true because the state law supercedes the local law. California also ruled that it's legal to prescribe medicinal marijuana, but it's still a federal offense to do so. (...) Change rarely requires a true majority in the US legal (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Shame on you for following Dubya's lead. It is a mistake to pretend, because you have not made a statement using a specific phrase, that you therefore have not made an equivalent statement using other words. Dubya does this all the time: "If (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Sorry, why should he shut up about it? If it's against the law and the law is worth enforceing, enforce it. If it's not worth enforcing, get rid of the law. The law against polygamy is such a law. Not worth enforcing. (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Not getting arrested seems like a good start. Also, breaking the law as a means of trying to have it repealed tends to turn people against you on the grounds that you're one of "those" criminals instead of "us" law-abiding citizens). Protest (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I thought we were considering the definition of marraige, not the legality or otherwise of that definition. Even so, there is a world outside the USA. Muslim countries all over the world permit polygamy. One woman + one man = marraige isn't a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So, "don't ask, don't tell"? "Ya I smoked pot but I didn't inhale"? That sort of thing? Is that the moral creed you espouse? Further, was Rosa Parks right or wrong? How do you feel about civil disobedience as an instrument of change? How about (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) No, I just think it's brainlessly stupid to walk around crowing about how you're committing some crime. There's a difference between being willing to be arrested and actively campaigning for it. (...) From what she's said, she was just tired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I was actually unaware of Franklin's claimed opinion on Judaism. But anyway, what about the evidence that hasn't been debunked? (...) Here's the thing. You claim that our culture has a powerful J-C influence because (I think) of the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Whoa! Girl-on-girl-on-girl...rl-on-girl action, straight from the pages. I'll have to reread this book after all. Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) **Blush** I'll have another go at that: I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bridegroom"? Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Ahh, Scott, always to be counted on for persnicking the details. You were right the first time, in quoting "bridesmaids for the bride" rather than 'bridegroom' since that's what John posted initially: (...) And you're right insofar as it's not (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) It is necessary to distinguish between "scientific proof" and "literal proof" in this context. Scientific proof is established when all observable data are consistent with theory and prediction. Literal proof is established only when something (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) As the header & my initial post suggests, my point was only that polygyny did exist in “biblical times” in historic Israel. I am not saying that the bible encourages it... only that it was not uncommon. If you read around ((URL)) you will see (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) So was I, but it appears to be white-supremecist propoganda, so... (...) Trumped by virtue of the fact that there were movements to include specific mention to Christianity (if not any particular denomination thereof), while there don't appear (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Probably some sort of historical precedence. By modern standards, they probably wouldn't be, since they're characterized as waiting at the reception hall rather than being part of the wedding party itself. On the other hand, they're (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's scientific theory. Proof requires that you can difinitively show that the opposite is not true. Science has thusfar failed to do so in regards to the metaphysical origins of the universe. (...) I can to the extent that we can trace the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Well... uh... since the quote you used really doesn't seem to imply a polygynal relationship between the bridegroom and the virgins unless taken out of context, shouldn't you have found a better quote, unless you were making a joke? I mean, as (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I was in a polygonal relationship one time: a love triangle. The other guy was a real square, and it finally ended when she found out that he had a rectangular dysfunction. Dave! FUT: off-topic.what-have-I-done? (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Not to go off on a tangent, but that's plane nuts. I've had a few-- they seem to come and go, but mine are come n-gon. I guess it's a bad sine. DaveE (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) With these types of relationships it's important to approach from the right angle, and if it smells a bit fishy, try angling. But don't get snagged on a wreck......tangle ! It's often hard to enter Royal circles, just ask Di...amateur ! They (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) What does it imply to you? (...) Do you think that negates my point? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) None of which is clear (to me at least) in the text Dave quoted. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) That you were making a joke? Great! A joke it was. (...) Negates your joke? By no means! Does it negate your "point" that polygyny was still common in NT times? No, but it unless it was solely a joke, your use of the quote had about as much (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
Somehow, I get the feeling you are being deliberately obtuse. Scott A (20 years ago, 25-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Really? I kinda get the same impression... DaveE (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Gosh, you haven't even begun to see me zealous. :-) (...) And the SC had the opportunity to make a ruling supporting the common man's stance on the wording of the pledge and chose to stick to the limited legal point. While I agree with their (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Chalk this part up to miscommunication, then. And for the record, I certainly don't believe that any "rights" are truly inherent and undeniable (inalienable). (...) Science may be a flawed tool, in the same way that the Constitution is a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless I'm missing something you're assigning a causative relationship between religious background and the commonality of "rights" and other(?) socio-legal constructs. In effect, you're saying that these notions of rights are demonstrably not (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Does that make you an (URL)? (...) Get yourself some open toed sandals. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Only to the extent that all sane atheists are also agnostic. In other words, I don't think so. I'm comfortable with the assumption that there are no supernatural phenomena based on the (lack of) evidence. I'm just reasonable, too. Chris (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) What's wrong with "agnostic"? (...) This sounds closer to atheism-- IE you believe in not-the-Christian-god. In my experience with agnostics, they often reject one (or multiple) religions, but are 'undecided' about the rest: "I don't know what (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I dislike that term because it's often seen as too wishy-washy, or a way to hedge one's bet. It can also carry a connotation of undecidedness, due not to a lack of evidence but a lack of conclusion. Additionally, if you say "I'm an agnostic" (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I definitely agree-- to be agnostic is really to be undecided. And if you really simply "don't believe in God", but *would* if given sufficient reason, then I'd say agnostic matches pretty well. (...) Hmmm. Not really. I guess I see a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Firstly, I think "common man" is a bit inappropriate here, since it very inaccurately suggests that the majority of Americans are opposed to pledging "Under God" (remember that many non-church-goers still consider themselves to be religious). (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You are missing something. Just because a "right" is not universal does not mean it is therefore exclusive. I cannot deny that the US Constitution could have come out of another religious background, but I can deny that it actually did. You (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But the Declaration of Independance states that our founding fathers did. (...) Some are more mutable than others, particularly in Minnesota. (...) I don't remember ever hearing anyone else credited with a similar statement. It was a dangerous (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I don't see why a true agnostic would have any problems with answering that. It's the next question that's the problem (What do you mean you don't know?). (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Not the way I understand what an agnostic is. An agnostic holds that the ultimate truth about God existing or not existing is not knowable. That's not undecided, though many undecided people misuse the term "agnostic" to describe themselves. (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) For the sake of a disclaimer I should probably underscore that my use of "undecided" in this context was to address a popular connotation of the word agnostic, rather than a literal denotation. Dave! (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You mean that you understand the correct and incorrect usage but are willfully contributing to the further incorrect usage? ;-) 00>Bruce<01 (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Huh! I guess I've never really investigated the meaning; rather I've just gone by how people use it (which, for philosophic terms, I'm more inclined to doing anyway, and reject outright whatever a dictionary says if it tells me differently (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you need to reread what I wrote. I think the common man's stance is that the POA is fine as is. That's what the court could have asserted. (...) And this "difference between belief and fact" is what you're claiming underpins (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I think it's more accurate to say that our founding fathers believed rights to be inherent to some people, but they had no problem in accommodating slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. These aren't trifling matters, either--the founding (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Careful, don't fall into the trap of thinking they were of one mind on everything. I fall into this trap a lot myself. The D of I, the articles of confederation and the constitution are held by many to be compromise documents, particularly in (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's true, of course--they were distinct individuals with distinct ideas. My intent, though, was to show that the document they brought to the table allowed the denial of rights to certain groups for the most mundane and terrestrial of (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Agreed. Although I do go into "FF worship mode" here from time to time (no, really??), they certainly had feet of clay just like everyone else. (...) Good question in turn. Taking that a bit further, what would have happened in Britain? Would (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Did the IR not also make the slave trade economical by inflating the price of slaves? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) To be fair, slaves and women were seen more as property than people by many of the colonists, and they basically inherited the idea that political rights were tied to landownership from England. But if you were a white male landowner in the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has no right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they have no right to be involved with marriage at all. (...) Wrong again. It is the judical (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Mike, I generally agree with you. In this case I agree with your logic, but I think one of your foundational premises is questionable and really, this whole issue revolves around it. Is marriage merely a contractual relationship? I think it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong, yourself. The Federal government has no right to make a law declaring same-sex marriage illegal. They can always make a constitutional amendment. Also, state governments don't need to be given specific permission to do something as long (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I did misread what you wrote. Anyways, the bit about the Bush v. Gore Florida ruling still shows that they have no problem turning you away on a mere technicality, but then deny your claim later. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes might not rule on (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) A great example of this is currently in the offing, much to the (URL) disgust> of Justice O'Connor. The ruling may undo thousands of sentences because the methods by which those sentences were imposed has been identified as unconstitutional. (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You ripped that sentance totally out of context, and by doing so totally failed to add anything new or even contradictory to my original statement as a whole. Let's look at the key points of the original text: (...) I accidentally left a word (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I'm not convinced that the enjoyment value of the .debate group is added to when you make statements such as that one, which some may perceive as unnecessarily combative. I suggest you temper your words. I'm comfortable with the extraction I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Here’s a convoluted but well-intended hypothetical (with a hugely compressed timeframe). Let’s say Guy A commits an act in January that’s against State Law X, he’s convicted, and he’s sentenced to 10 years in the big house. He appeals on the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I'm guessing it would have to jump the hoops again. Maybe opinions on the law changed in the meantime, and it wouldn't have passed after being made constitutional. (...) Ex Post Facto applies, preventing him from being punished according to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You have an exasperating habit of picking at irrelevent details when debating, and to my eye, the wording of your post suggests that you were doing it once again (though you didn't pounce on my grammar error, which is a bit surprising). When I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You have many exasperating habits, but exhaustively enumerating them here is not likely to be productive. I think you need to get over your notion that I'm out to persecute you or whatever paranoid notion it is you hold. (...) I don't see the (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Dude, you've flat out told me to stay out of discussions where I've had more authority to participate than you, or where the only person who really had authority to answer was known to be incommunicado at that time. You may not be seeing (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I guess it depends on who you think gets to interpret the constitution and define our rights. The Supreme Court has at least sometimes supported the understanding that Larry and I share (I think), that the 9th is an umbrella for all rights (...) (20 years ago, 2-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution [may offend]
|
|
(...) I have a friend who, when we were kids, tended to use the F-word far too often. He was careful never to do this in front of his parents. On the one occasion he did, his father ordered him to "Stop f*$%£@&g swearing". I suppose, this is a case (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Prior to 1965, the 9th Amendment was not used to restrict the states from excercising their 10th Amendment rights. At that point, it was used to safeguard the privacy of one's home, but subsequent citations of the 9th Amendment have shown that (...) (20 years ago, 3-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) Heh! I see your wishful thinking! However, 1 Timothy 3:2 says: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,..." and 1 Timothy 3:12 says: "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife..." (both NIV). This probably (...) (20 years ago, 14-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) I would question whether you mean "religion" or "God" here. Faith in religion is what I call "Churchianity". It's no better than superstition, like athletes who always go through the same routine before the race starts. As a Christian, I have (...) (20 years ago, 14-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
|
(...) I agree 100%; that was the point I was trying to make. (...) I have heard that too. Perhaps we were pack animals in our (alleged) evolutionary past? (...) So what is the relevance of the them being “virgins”? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 14-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) I meant a little of both. Some denominations are less tied up in religious rituals than others (RCA vs Roman Catholicism, for instance), and just because you don't follow a particular denomination doesn't mean that you don't have your own (...) (20 years ago, 15-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) What is the nature of this relationship? Do you and God go out for pizza together? Who picks up the check? My example is admittedly facetious, but the underlying question is sound. Do you consider yourself to have a "relationship" with anyone (...) (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) A very big question in few words! The relationship is multi-faceted and includes the following things: Saviour: how you relate to someone who has saved your life by sacrificing theirs. Father: including support, protection, provision and love. (...) (20 years ago, 17-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Absence of faith in something leads to faith in nothing. If you didn't understand rudimentary celestial mechanics, you would continue on with no faith that _tomorrow_ that sun was just not going to rise. Every time someone told you that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) In the face of inconsistent sunrise results, you might decide that the celestial mechanics were invalid and that you cannot prove whether the sun will rise tomorrow, thus being agnostic. If the results were consistently wrong, you would just (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
Hello! Sorry for chiming in but this topic sounds interesting. Of cóurse I didn't read the whole thread so please ignore my post if its a repost of the contents. (...) How about The Life™? I can't believe that's just the result of a thunderbolt (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Hello Jojo: By all means, feel free to chime in. That's what the forum is for! Regarding the thunderbolt & amino acids, you're referring to Miller's experiments in the 1950's. These experiments revealed much that was promising, though they (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism
|
|
(...) Ferget about that one. I'd actually be more worried that someone does re-enact that in a lab before we're prepared for the consequences. And not so long ago you may have said the same thing about just the thunderbolt part. How 'bout this? What (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Isn't that something like comparing an individual's ability to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare from memory with a fleet of monkeys being able to randomly bang them out on typewriters? (...) It would be more significant if he'd (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Your analogy is a rather poor one, because you imply that either sentient capabilities are required to assemble a complex form directly from simple parts or a (complex) assembler would have to be randomly generated. First, most abiogenesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) For a thorough debunking of the "infinite monkeys" myth, I recommend Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker," which gives a great explanation of why that model is flawed as a representation of evolution or of the origins of life. Beyond (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Surely the models can be allowed to evolve. Then models with God as the designer can be compared with models without a designer and the results compared. i.e. you can determine for yourself whether it makes more sense for there to be a God who (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) However, you have to consider the fact that the experiments were performed already knowing such compounds existed, whereas the billions of years of evolution probably had no such knowledge. ROSCO (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) You are free to suggest any model or theory you want. But if you want to challenge an existing scientific model, then you need to present an alternative SCIENTIFIC model. So far no one has presented a scientific model for intelligent design. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is the point of Creation (and religion) not that it needs no "SCIENTIFIC model"? It is a simple solution to a complex question: “What am I ?”. (...) My body hair, nipples, appendix and coccyx all appear to have no (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
hello! (...) Great! In this case I come up with another provocative thesis: If there was no God that gave Life™ this life wouldn't have any value at all. In that case life was just matter that accidentally interachts in a way predetermined by laws (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) In order to test your suggestion, I must ask that you present to me something in nature that, in your judgment, was not designed by God and also something that, in your view, *was* designed by God. Are you able to provide examples of each? If (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) You've set up your claim as a one-premiss argument: P1: God did not create Life ---therefore---...--- C1: Life has no value However, this statement is true only if and only if life's value must be injected by an outside agency, be it God or (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
Do you have a "not so well designed" case (...) I do, teeth! if they were well designed they would be made of something that is not affected by food! Tim (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) They are all (excepting nipples) vestigal remnants of things that were useful in the past (warmth,digestion,tail). The original need for those things has disapeared and in fact they have proved better not to have so natural selection has bred (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) I think the common misconception is that most normal people can't understand why they care about things. IE "Why do I care if spotted owls become extinct? Why do I care if someone I don't know gets tortured?" Notice, it's not "Why *should* I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) God was always threatening to do that anyway, so that's nothing new... God: Wars, torture, greed, stupidity, short-sightedness, vanity...I've put up with these forever and still haven't brought things to an end. But these humans have gone too (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) Of course, which is why such "solutions" have no place being taught in a public science classrooms. They belong in church instead. Keep in mind this is pretty much an issue being driven by Creationists - not all religious people in general. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: (snip) (...) You lost me at "Final Fantasy", GEDA (not to be confused with "Yoda"-- AFAIK). I am not a "Gamer", (not to be confused with a "Goer" -- Are you uh, uh a Goer?), so I may need a (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) "God not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." -S.Hawkins -Any role-playing Game-Master Perhaps you should get religion and become a gamer. :-) Divine revelation and interpretation: The Green-Eyed Devil's (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: (snip) (...) Isn't he that guy who is lousy at winning bets? (...) Well I have a tough enough time IRL so I'm not privy to this world. Perhaps that is why there are such things? :-) (...) I'm (...) (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Actually, considering he has been rolling dice with death for 40 years and surviving, I'd have to disagree with that. (...) You weren't paying attention. :-) (...) "Doom of the Gods." Gotterdammerung, but I don't remember how to spell that. (...) (20 years ago, 21-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Good point. Of course, I was intimating to (URL) this>. (...) Sorry, I have a cold. ;-) (...) lol Some help Google™ was! I was (URL) HERE!> Guess I need to bone up on the ol' Norse Mythology! (...) You obviously never saw PYTHON. I bought the (...) (20 years ago, 22-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
