POLL: Should Indiana Fix It Now?
- Thread starter OldStyle1902
- Start date
"When someone can PROVE that homosexuality is not a choice, then it
changes this debate completely. The LGBT community wants to equate this
to a racial issue (race is obviously not a choice), but IMO, until
homosexuality can be absolutely proven to not be a choice, then the
comparison is not close to being the same thing."
What difference does it make whether or not it is "proven" to be a choice? How do same-sex relationships have a negative impact on your life?
changes this debate completely. The LGBT community wants to equate this
to a racial issue (race is obviously not a choice), but IMO, until
homosexuality can be absolutely proven to not be a choice, then the
comparison is not close to being the same thing."
What difference does it make whether or not it is "proven" to be a choice? How do same-sex relationships have a negative impact on your life?
the problem with
logical evolutions is that they turn into a parade of horribles and slippery slope arguments which are almost never very compelling.
No, I don't think the level of hair-splitting you think is going to happen is going to happen. I think there's a difference between "bake me a cake like everyone else" and "bake me a cake that says exactly what I want it to say on it."
logical evolutions is that they turn into a parade of horribles and slippery slope arguments which are almost never very compelling.
No, I don't think the level of hair-splitting you think is going to happen is going to happen. I think there's a difference between "bake me a cake like everyone else" and "bake me a cake that says exactly what I want it to say on it."
It matters if it is a choice or not because then it becomes a discussion about choice of religion vs. choice of lifestyle rather than choice of religion vs. genetic "condition" (for lack of a better term). If it is indeed choice, then I can see much more argument for discrimination on religious grounds - why should one lifestyle choice be preferred over another if both are legal? Why should someone who has religious beliefs have to sacrifice them to provide service to someone who chose to live a homosexual lifestyle, but that homosexual does not have to respect the religious beliefs of the service provider?
If it's not a choice, it's a totally different question and one, frankly, that doesn't need to be asked.
GI Man. The law was specifically written for just that. This is nothing but an offensive from the anti-gay side after losing the last battle when the supreme court struck out their gay maraige ban. They thought they were being smart by half by co-opting an existing federal law and expanding the verbiage to hide their true intentions.
What they didn't count on was having the extreme nature of discrimination it seems to permit begin to offend the sensibilities of those in the middle who dont belong in either camp as well as business. Indiana shouldn't have signed this crappy law. Politically, this was a naive gambit by the anti-gay side. Long term, this is a war they can't win anyways. It seems they have only hastened their defeat with this move.
Can anyone tell me who in their right mind believes this law was neccessary? If it isn't meant for the religious to discriminate, why was it necessary?
I don't care what people believe or don't believe, but religion sure has f$cked up politics worse than it was! Goldwater was a liberal by todays standards.
It had to be better years ago when you just bought your local politician and told him to keep his dumbass mouth shut, but no, Indiana elects a moron who likes to display his stupidity daily.
Oh well, carry on...I'm sure God is all over fixing this mess.
I don't care what people believe or don't believe, but religion sure has f$cked up politics worse than it was! Goldwater was a liberal by todays standards.
It had to be better years ago when you just bought your local politician and told him to keep his dumbass mouth shut, but no, Indiana elects a moron who likes to display his stupidity daily.
Oh well, carry on...I'm sure God is all over fixing this mess.
So morals and/or the law should be based on whether or not my life or your life is affected? By that logic, there are lots of things that should be legalized. There is a lot out there that doesn't affect my life. Drug use. Polygamy. Prostitution. Age of consent laws. None of those affect me.
Re: Why wouldn't...
I think you summed it up very well qaz. This law was not needed in Indiana because our discrimination of gays was already legal in the state, except in half a dozen cities which had passed local ordinances banning that type of discrimination. Now that the law has come to pass though it has opened the eyes of those who were not aware of the discrimination in our state and there are those who, now aware, are going to fight for gay rights in Indiana.
If I may paraphrase here, "Thanks Pence!", or maybe another, "Mikey, you're doing a heckuva job."
I think you summed it up very well qaz. This law was not needed in Indiana because our discrimination of gays was already legal in the state, except in half a dozen cities which had passed local ordinances banning that type of discrimination. Now that the law has come to pass though it has opened the eyes of those who were not aware of the discrimination in our state and there are those who, now aware, are going to fight for gay rights in Indiana.
If I may paraphrase here, "Thanks Pence!", or maybe another, "Mikey, you're doing a heckuva job."
Re: the problem with
Interesting position. "Bake me a cake like everyone else" and "Bake me a cake with exactly what I want it to say on it" are the same thing to me. Didn't the other people get to choose what was on their cakes? But it would be acceptable to the gay couple to just go with what the basket wants to write?
I guess we'll just differ on this.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Interesting position. "Bake me a cake like everyone else" and "Bake me a cake with exactly what I want it to say on it" are the same thing to me. Didn't the other people get to choose what was on their cakes? But it would be acceptable to the gay couple to just go with what the basket wants to write?
I guess we'll just differ on this.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This whole debate involves the head on collision of two basic rights issue groups.
It's not cut and dry, but the challenge is to find a workable solution for BOTH SIDES.
It's complicated. There are airtight arguments on both sides. That's why the state needs to better clarify. But I will say this. The issues that people are outraged over the most center around GAY MARRIAGE which everyone knows is a hotbed issue.
Gays know that there are people with beliefs that deeply oppose this. So if no once should act surprised that this all thing wasn't destined to collide.
Furthermore, you can certainly treat anyone with respect and still be against gay marriage. Gay marriage is an act of event. Most people in question here have an issue with that event, not the people personally.
Any fair minded, objective person can agree with that. But the law, from what I understand doesn't specifically say that. We don't force people to participate in things that runs counter to their faith.
That's an act people should not be compelled to participate in on any level if they so choose.
Anything beyond that, hey, you're a bigot and no court in the land would side with anything beyond such narrow circumstances.
And, seriously, discriminating against others "for discriminating" is utterly useless and truly a BS contradiction.
Go ahead, stay home and don't support those who feel the same as you. I say, it's all BS because hurly death threats and acting like abortion clinics mobsters is hardly solving anything, for those who feel morally superior.
It's one cluster f#%k. It really is.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's not cut and dry, but the challenge is to find a workable solution for BOTH SIDES.
It's complicated. There are airtight arguments on both sides. That's why the state needs to better clarify. But I will say this. The issues that people are outraged over the most center around GAY MARRIAGE which everyone knows is a hotbed issue.
Gays know that there are people with beliefs that deeply oppose this. So if no once should act surprised that this all thing wasn't destined to collide.
Furthermore, you can certainly treat anyone with respect and still be against gay marriage. Gay marriage is an act of event. Most people in question here have an issue with that event, not the people personally.
Any fair minded, objective person can agree with that. But the law, from what I understand doesn't specifically say that. We don't force people to participate in things that runs counter to their faith.
That's an act people should not be compelled to participate in on any level if they so choose.
Anything beyond that, hey, you're a bigot and no court in the land would side with anything beyond such narrow circumstances.
And, seriously, discriminating against others "for discriminating" is utterly useless and truly a BS contradiction.
Go ahead, stay home and don't support those who feel the same as you. I say, it's all BS because hurly death threats and acting like abortion clinics mobsters is hardly solving anything, for those who feel morally superior.
It's one cluster f#%k. It really is.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I agree that may have been the motivation. It's irresponsible to pretend like it's not. If it is, I wish they'd come out and say so and try to defend it rather than deflecting/backpedaling.
Wait, what? The Kennedys are one of the most prominently known Catholic families in the country, and it was discussed during his campaign to the point that some wackos accused him of wanting to make Catholicism the state religion. He had to defend his beliefs about secular government often throughout his campaign because he was Catholic.
sure they got to choose
but if they choose a swastika, or they choose pics of dead babies, do you REALLY think a court would say, well, sorry but you gotta do it baker?
People seem to think courts operate independent of logic or common sense.
but if they choose a swastika, or they choose pics of dead babies, do you REALLY think a court would say, well, sorry but you gotta do it baker?
People seem to think courts operate independent of logic or common sense.
Yeah, but only because they saw the #$%!storm it caused Indiana.
If Pence made any mistake it was doing this before the Final Four. I don't think he could have anticipated this much of a dustup, but it was already somewhat controversial back in the winter, and in hindsight it seems like a mistake to not do it at a less delicate moment.
If Pence made any mistake it was doing this before the Final Four. I don't think he could have anticipated this much of a dustup, but it was already somewhat controversial back in the winter, and in hindsight it seems like a mistake to not do it at a less delicate moment.
As for the Indiana law, there are 3 or 4 areas where the law as written differs from the Federal govt and what we in Illinois have that essentially broaden who can claim their being harmed and also lessen the burden of proof required to show that your religious beliefs are being infringed. So in a nutshell more people and corporations can take issue and it's easier to "prove" you've been wronged (or harder for the government to prove its case).
The more troubling issue is that this law was pushed hard by the most ardent opponents of the LGBT movement. They are the ones who claimed victory upon passage. It certainly isn't coincidence that the State of Indiana picked this up after the courts ruled in favor of gay marriage. It also sounds like Pence and the Legislature had plenty of warning to stop and reconsider, by politicians, the NCAA and coporations, but they pressed on. So now Indiana has a significant issue to deal with and this could have ramifications for anything Purdue related going forward. That's one of my concerns along with well being of family and friends I have in Indiana, especially those of whom are part of the LGBT community.
As for the Federal law itself, I don't have a problem with it. But the real issue is that this law was unnecessary and pushed by religious groups with their own intolerant views. Like I said...the timing for this is not a coincidence.
The more troubling issue is that this law was pushed hard by the most ardent opponents of the LGBT movement. They are the ones who claimed victory upon passage. It certainly isn't coincidence that the State of Indiana picked this up after the courts ruled in favor of gay marriage. It also sounds like Pence and the Legislature had plenty of warning to stop and reconsider, by politicians, the NCAA and coporations, but they pressed on. So now Indiana has a significant issue to deal with and this could have ramifications for anything Purdue related going forward. That's one of my concerns along with well being of family and friends I have in Indiana, especially those of whom are part of the LGBT community.
As for the Federal law itself, I don't have a problem with it. But the real issue is that this law was unnecessary and pushed by religious groups with their own intolerant views. Like I said...the timing for this is not a coincidence.
From best I can tell...
...they're worried that the state law applies to individuals and not the government. Indiana's law codifies it as applying to individuals. The Federal law only applies to the federal government (which is also, shallowly repeated when someone asks why the other state laws didn't illicit such an outcry) It is not the only state law like this to do so (I think there are already five others - one of which, I think is in NM, which has gays as a "protected class"). It's hard to really get a feel for it though, as mostly you'll just get the shallow "it's discriminatory". The other possibility is they're just bent as the Federal law used as a framework was originally written to protect American Indians (on the Federal level), but was written in general terms (by necessity - It would be a long list to mention them all, and you couldn't leave any out as that would imply some religions be more acceptable than others).
I'm still not quite sure why Indiana passing it shook the hornets nest, but the mob is out and looking for blood now. Even states without this "clarification" are a mixed bag - some court cases allowed it to be used by private parties, others did not. So, even there, this isn't something totally new. It's an over-reaction to a bill that was really unnecessary (and, I'll admit, probably a bit because some were also bent that their gay marriage ban was eviscerated recently) , in my opinion (both the defenses and criticisms are counting on a lot of "what ifs"). Bottom line, to me - it's not a discrimination law, and it's not anti-gay. It could certainly be wielded as an attempt to discriminate against gays by some individuals(which Pence can't even say, because he would get slaughtered in the headlines, even if he stated so conditionally), but it is unlikely (*in my opinion*) that even a "bigoted" Indiana court would stand for that. Also, many other rights can also be wielded in a discriminatory fashion, but we haven't seen to throw them out yet (of course, there have been few attempts to re-codify such rights in recent times). I think the "gay rights" side is only going to get more aggressive in the future, and I think you'll see more push back like this as well. In a more general sense, our country seems to be changing from favoring individual rights to favoring a sort of collective, forced tolerance (which I'm wholly against... I say live and let live - I should be able to do anything that doesn't impede the next person's right to the same.. so yeah, I really don't care about gays marrying as it doesn't affect anyone other than the consenting parties, and is none of my business). Wow... sorry - /end long-winded sermon
...they're worried that the state law applies to individuals and not the government. Indiana's law codifies it as applying to individuals. The Federal law only applies to the federal government (which is also, shallowly repeated when someone asks why the other state laws didn't illicit such an outcry) It is not the only state law like this to do so (I think there are already five others - one of which, I think is in NM, which has gays as a "protected class"). It's hard to really get a feel for it though, as mostly you'll just get the shallow "it's discriminatory". The other possibility is they're just bent as the Federal law used as a framework was originally written to protect American Indians (on the Federal level), but was written in general terms (by necessity - It would be a long list to mention them all, and you couldn't leave any out as that would imply some religions be more acceptable than others).
I'm still not quite sure why Indiana passing it shook the hornets nest, but the mob is out and looking for blood now. Even states without this "clarification" are a mixed bag - some court cases allowed it to be used by private parties, others did not. So, even there, this isn't something totally new. It's an over-reaction to a bill that was really unnecessary (and, I'll admit, probably a bit because some were also bent that their gay marriage ban was eviscerated recently) , in my opinion (both the defenses and criticisms are counting on a lot of "what ifs"). Bottom line, to me - it's not a discrimination law, and it's not anti-gay. It could certainly be wielded as an attempt to discriminate against gays by some individuals(which Pence can't even say, because he would get slaughtered in the headlines, even if he stated so conditionally), but it is unlikely (*in my opinion*) that even a "bigoted" Indiana court would stand for that. Also, many other rights can also be wielded in a discriminatory fashion, but we haven't seen to throw them out yet (of course, there have been few attempts to re-codify such rights in recent times). I think the "gay rights" side is only going to get more aggressive in the future, and I think you'll see more push back like this as well. In a more general sense, our country seems to be changing from favoring individual rights to favoring a sort of collective, forced tolerance (which I'm wholly against... I say live and let live - I should be able to do anything that doesn't impede the next person's right to the same.. so yeah, I really don't care about gays marrying as it doesn't affect anyone other than the consenting parties, and is none of my business). Wow... sorry - /end long-winded sermon
This is exactly what is wrong with politics today
There is a federal law and about 20 states that have laws similar to this. Not an issue once. All the nonsense you hear out there about this law now is at best gross exageration, at worst, blatant lies. The demagoguery out there from politicians and corporate CEOs is just down right embarrassing.
I mean Tim Cook comments on it, really? Right up there with the Salesforce CEO! What Delta Bravos! Seriously, Indiana is just so bad, but many of these same companies are more than glad to do business in countries that execute gays. Or wait, what was just on the news not to long ago in Saudi Arabia? They only lashed a gay man 450 times instead of executing him. Nice to see the tolerance these individuals support and are ok with.
There is a federal law and about 20 states that have laws similar to this. Not an issue once. All the nonsense you hear out there about this law now is at best gross exageration, at worst, blatant lies. The demagoguery out there from politicians and corporate CEOs is just down right embarrassing.
I mean Tim Cook comments on it, really? Right up there with the Salesforce CEO! What Delta Bravos! Seriously, Indiana is just so bad, but many of these same companies are more than glad to do business in countries that execute gays. Or wait, what was just on the news not to long ago in Saudi Arabia? They only lashed a gay man 450 times instead of executing him. Nice to see the tolerance these individuals support and are ok with.
Religion is a protected class and it's a choice, so why do homosexuals needs to prove a genetic link? Because your choice trumps their choice...how and why?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Religion is a protected class because the Constitution says it is. Religion plays a major role in this country's history and in the very founding of the nation. Homosexuality? Not so much.
Look... No one is saying that you can't be gay. But if I'm a business and I don't want to participate with your gay wedding, why should I have to? Religion or not, it shouldn't matter. A person should be free to be a bigot if they want to be a bigot. The market place will take care of places of business that are full of bigotry. We don't need the government to force privately owned businesses who they should serve. There are plenty of places more than willing to take the money from a gay person and would be more than willing to serve them.
How and why would their choice trump that of religion? Why would a religious person have to sacrifice their beliefs to serve another person's lifestyle choice? Your question goes both ways.
That's the discussion to have... If it is a choice.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How is serving someone a sacrifice? If they want to bake cakes as for profit business then they must live by the rules society has in place for operating a business that will be benefiting from the tax dollars of all. If they can't handle that then they can bake their cakes in their kitchen for friends, family and other members of your church.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I agree it was an issue, but he didn't want his religion to be a part of his Presidency.
In September, John F. Kennedy eloquently confronted the religious issue in an appearance before the Greater-Houston Ministerial Association. He said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President-should he be Catholic-how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." But anti-Catholic feeling remained a wild card in the campaign.
I don't get the "free market" solves all argument a solution to every Ill. It's worse than astrology or the worst of religion. Whatever the outcome it can simply be said it was the markets will.
And how would a pure "free market nirvana, allowed to discriminate at will, work in reality? "Free markets" won't eliminate the negative aspects of human nature so if government was stripped to the bone and everything privatized do you honestly think that people and groups wouldn't be, at first in the name of eliminating competition, cut off from roads, water, electricity...?
What people do in their private lives is up to them, I honestly don't care until it negatively impacts me or others but in public space we all need to get along and that means people being treated equally IMO
Posted from Rivals Mobile
And how would a pure "free market nirvana, allowed to discriminate at will, work in reality? "Free markets" won't eliminate the negative aspects of human nature so if government was stripped to the bone and everything privatized do you honestly think that people and groups wouldn't be, at first in the name of eliminating competition, cut off from roads, water, electricity...?
What people do in their private lives is up to them, I honestly don't care until it negatively impacts me or others but in public space we all need to get along and that means people being treated equally IMO
Posted from Rivals Mobile
it was a mistake
to do it. Do you really think the final four is why it was a dustup?
The fact is that the Indiana bill is different, despite what some proponents want to believe. It was going to draw attention based on that.
You know if they REALLY just wanted to apply the federal bill, they could just, you know, verbatim copied the federal bill more or less.
There are a ton more words in the Indiana bill and it's that extra plus the lack of anti-gay discrimination laws that are the problem...not the timing.
to do it. Do you really think the final four is why it was a dustup?
The fact is that the Indiana bill is different, despite what some proponents want to believe. It was going to draw attention based on that.
You know if they REALLY just wanted to apply the federal bill, they could just, you know, verbatim copied the federal bill more or less.
There are a ton more words in the Indiana bill and it's that extra plus the lack of anti-gay discrimination laws that are the problem...not the timing.
You do realize the US Constitution doesn't explicitly mention women
So by your comment above, being a woman technically is not a protected class, either. Other than having the right to vote, they're not explicitly represented as a class in the US Constitution. Yet they've been provided the same rights through laws, interpretations, etc.
So by your comment above, being a woman technically is not a protected class, either. Other than having the right to vote, they're not explicitly represented as a class in the US Constitution. Yet they've been provided the same rights through laws, interpretations, etc.
I see the whole "Separation of Church and State" phrase bandied about a LOT.
I'm often surprised at how many people don't know that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. I don't care if JFK invoked it. It just proves that ignorance regarding this matter reaches all levels of intelligence and stature.
For those that are interested, here is the letter from the Danbury Baptists Association to Thomas Jefferson, congratulating him on his election victory.
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your
election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we
have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,
to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the
chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of
expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others
clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that
none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious
liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter
between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,
person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the
egitimate power of civil government extends no further than to
punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our
constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter
together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as
the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and
such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that
religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and
therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of
the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable
rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such
degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of
freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek
after power and gain under the pretense of government and
religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their
order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,
because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is
not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national
government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes
are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which
have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of
the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all
the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the
earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow
of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more
than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God
has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill
which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God
strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the
voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you
enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of
those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty
and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you
at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious
Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Here is Thomas Jefferson's response, where the term "separation of church and state" originated.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
The Separation of Church and State has been used as an anthem for the destruction of religious rights for decades. It was not written to mean that the Church should stay out of government business. It was written to state that government should stay out of the Church's business.
The use of this phrase to promote the decay of religious freedoms in America is one of the most propogated lies in the last century.
It is a blatant attempt to decieve the American people, and manipulate the words of a founding father to further an agenda.
This post was edited on 4/2 9:53 AM by BoilerSmac
I'm often surprised at how many people don't know that this phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. I don't care if JFK invoked it. It just proves that ignorance regarding this matter reaches all levels of intelligence and stature.
For those that are interested, here is the letter from the Danbury Baptists Association to Thomas Jefferson, congratulating him on his election victory.
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.
Sir,
Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your
election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we
have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,
to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the
chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of
expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others
clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that
none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious
liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter
between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,
person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the
egitimate power of civil government extends no further than to
punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our
constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter
together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as
the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and
such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that
religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and
therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of
the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable
rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such
degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of
freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek
after power and gain under the pretense of government and
religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their
order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,
because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is
not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national
government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes
are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which
have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of
the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all
the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the
earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow
of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more
than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God
has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill
which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God
strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the
voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you
enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of
those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty
and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you
at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious
Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson
Here is Thomas Jefferson's response, where the term "separation of church and state" originated.
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
The Separation of Church and State has been used as an anthem for the destruction of religious rights for decades. It was not written to mean that the Church should stay out of government business. It was written to state that government should stay out of the Church's business.
The use of this phrase to promote the decay of religious freedoms in America is one of the most propogated lies in the last century.
It is a blatant attempt to decieve the American people, and manipulate the words of a founding father to further an agenda.
This post was edited on 4/2 9:53 AM by BoilerSmac
I never intended to imply that that term was in the Constitution, I just posted something from a JFK speech in response to someone else. Many imply that God is in the Constitution also. Personally, I don't care who or what anyone believes in as long as it doesn't hurt someone or something else.
I'm not idealistic enough to believe most people can seperate their personal beliefs from their political beliefs, but when personal beliefs are the over-riding factor in your political decisions then you shouldn't be a Governor or a President. Be a local congressman where you don't affect so many people.
I didn't mean for you to infer that this entire post was aimed at you. You're just the last person that mentioned SCS in this thread.
I agree that people should be able to believe what they want without harming others.
I agree that people should be able to believe what they want without harming others.
Re: This is exactly what is wrong with politics today
If this is the same as the federal law then why was this even passed?
Now that it is passed, why not repeal it since it is the same as the federal law?
Seems dumb to pass a law that literally doesn't change anything.
If this is the same as the federal law then why was this even passed?
Now that it is passed, why not repeal it since it is the same as the federal law?
Seems dumb to pass a law that literally doesn't change anything.
Re: Just curious, but...
Surely by now you've figured out that "The Great and Powerful qaz" has a chip the size of the moon on his shoulder and is the most brilliant person ever to grace Internet forums.
Surely by now you've figured out that "The Great and Powerful qaz" has a chip the size of the moon on his shoulder and is the most brilliant person ever to grace Internet forums.
The militant homosexual faction and their allies in the media, government and many corporations turned this into an anti-LGBT issue. They lie to promote an agenda.
it was an over-reaction
However, no where in my comment did I say it was only getting attention because of that. I lamented the timing as it occurred when the city already had a lot of attention, thus magnifying the issue.
The *only* difference is that what was previously public law can be applied to private issues. Even then, this isn't entirely new, as court cases throughout the country have been split on this aspect with both the Federal bill and other state bills. Indiana's law only clarified that it was applicable.
This post was edited on 4/2 12:24 PM by indyogb
However, no where in my comment did I say it was only getting attention because of that. I lamented the timing as it occurred when the city already had a lot of attention, thus magnifying the issue.
The *only* difference is that what was previously public law can be applied to private issues. Even then, this isn't entirely new, as court cases throughout the country have been split on this aspect with both the Federal bill and other state bills. Indiana's law only clarified that it was applicable.
This post was edited on 4/2 12:24 PM by indyogb
there are few arguments worse
than the slippery slope argument.
15 year olds cannot legally consent in most states to marriage. Two adult men/women can, so there's a pretty clear line right there.
Polygamy brings with it a real concern for treatment of the "wives" (since it's almost never the reverse). There is certainly evidence that wives in such an arrangement suffer mental and possibly physical maltreatment moreso than partners in duo relationships.
Having said that, of all the "slippery slope" arguments, polygamy is the only one with even a bit of merit to it.
But just because you have a hard time figuring out where lines should be drawn doesn't mean they can't be drawn.
We draw lines all of the time. can't drink til you are 21, can't drive til you ar 15/16, can't have sex with someone under a certain age, can't vote til a certain age, etc etc.
than the slippery slope argument.
15 year olds cannot legally consent in most states to marriage. Two adult men/women can, so there's a pretty clear line right there.
Polygamy brings with it a real concern for treatment of the "wives" (since it's almost never the reverse). There is certainly evidence that wives in such an arrangement suffer mental and possibly physical maltreatment moreso than partners in duo relationships.
Having said that, of all the "slippery slope" arguments, polygamy is the only one with even a bit of merit to it.
But just because you have a hard time figuring out where lines should be drawn doesn't mean they can't be drawn.
We draw lines all of the time. can't drink til you are 21, can't drive til you ar 15/16, can't have sex with someone under a certain age, can't vote til a certain age, etc etc.
sure they do
drug use can affect you because it affects crime, it affects productivity, you could be hit by someone driving while high for example.
Prostitution (unless it is tightly regulated) can lead to the spread of venereal disease (and also crime).
Age of consent affects anyone with kids, or anyone who cares about a kid. It also affects society if young women are taken advantage of by older men, get pregnant, drop out of school, etc.
Gay marriage affects no one. You can try and argue homosexuality does by making some argument that it spreads AIDS or other diseases, but the only two ways to combat that would be either outlaw gay acts, or encourage gay monogamy.
drug use can affect you because it affects crime, it affects productivity, you could be hit by someone driving while high for example.
Prostitution (unless it is tightly regulated) can lead to the spread of venereal disease (and also crime).
Age of consent affects anyone with kids, or anyone who cares about a kid. It also affects society if young women are taken advantage of by older men, get pregnant, drop out of school, etc.
Gay marriage affects no one. You can try and argue homosexuality does by making some argument that it spreads AIDS or other diseases, but the only two ways to combat that would be either outlaw gay acts, or encourage gay monogamy.
not sure I agree
interracial dating/marriage is a choice for example, would you support not baking a cake for an interracial marriage?
I think the issue here is separating religious freedom to think, worship and operate one's private life from the power of the government to regulate how businesses and public accommodations are run in an anti-discriminatory fashion.
interracial dating/marriage is a choice for example, would you support not baking a cake for an interracial marriage?
I think the issue here is separating religious freedom to think, worship and operate one's private life from the power of the government to regulate how businesses and public accommodations are run in an anti-discriminatory fashion.
