Debate : 24860


Off-Topic / Debate / 24860

Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —David Koudys

(...) <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 —John Neal

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek

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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —John Neal

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) (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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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)

Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —Scott Arthur

(...) 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) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —David Laswell

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —David Laswell

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —Mark Bellis

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —David Laswell

(...) 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) —Dave Schuler

(...) 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) —Mark Bellis

(...) 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) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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) —Mark Bellis

(...) 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) —Johannes Koehler

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) —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —David Laswell

(...) 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) —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) 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) —Dave Schuler

(...) 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) —Mark Bellis

(...) 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)

Evolution... it never ends —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) 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 —Scott Arthur

(...) 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: Evolution... it never ends —Tim David

(...) 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: Evolution... it never ends —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) 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: Evolution... it never ends —Tim David

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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —Dave Schuler

(...) 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) —Ross Crawford

(...) 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)

Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —Johannes Koehler

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) —Dave Schuler

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —David Eaton

(...) 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) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 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: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution) —John Neal

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) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "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) —John Neal

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) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 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) —John Neal

(...) 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)

Re: Atheism —Don Heyse

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —David Eaton

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —David Eaton

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 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 —David Eaton

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 —Scott Arthur

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Frank Filz

"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 —David Laswell

(...) (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 —Frank Filz

"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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —John Neal

(...) 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 —Mike Petrucelli

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Mike Petrucelli

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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Mike Petrucelli

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Mike Petrucelli

(...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 —Dave Schuler

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution [may offend] —Scott Arthur

(...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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 —David Laswell

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) 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: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution —David Laswell

(...) 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)