Huckleberry takes another state!

Damocles said:
1. You have worked throughout the thread to convince me that I should "fear" exactly what you do. I have worked to tell you first, it is nothing to "fear" because it is a dog with no teeth, and that secondly the reason you "fear" is not the largest reason people are voting for the guy.

2. You dismissed his beliefs several times because of your belief in inherent morality and said that he should not use his while you use yours to set laws and that everybody understands that stealing and murder are wrong just because.

3. It depends on the form of the "fear", yours attempts to take their voice by saying it is something to "fear" that they BELIEVE this way, because THIS is the way it is.
Click to expand...

1) You are mistaking my desire and enjoyment of discussion about issues we disagree about with a desire to convense you of something, you are wrong.

2) I did not dismiss his belief, he is welcome to those belifes and I have no problem with them. My problem is when people use those belifes to try to enforce rules on other people. People are born with the ability to determine certian things are wrong not "just because" but due to empathy.

3) I fear it because I respect the power of this type of thinking, however wrong I may feel it is.
 
2) I did not dismiss his belief, he is welcome to those belifes and I have no problem with them. My problem is when people use those belifes to try to enforce rules on other people.
 
Jarod said:
2) I did not dismiss his belief, he is welcome to those belifes and I have no problem with them. My problem is when people use those belifes to try to enforce rules on other people.
Click to expand...
But when they use yours its all good.
 
Jarod said:
No, laws should have a rational basis not rooted in relign, thats the essence of the first amendment and having a nation that is not a theocracy.
Click to expand...
And by what basis do you determine rationality? So far your only example has been, "If it equals what I believe it is rational!"

As for the First Amendment meaning that a politician cannot use his religiously based morals to make laws, total rubbish.

It makes it so he cannot make it against the law for you to believe in a different religion, not so politicians must reject their moral beliefs while making laws and use only what you believe to be "rational".
 
Damocles said:
And by what basis do you determine rationality? So far your only example has been, "If it equals what I believe it is rational!"

As for the First Amendment meaning that a politician cannot use his religiously based morals to make laws, total rubbish.

It makes it so he cannot make it against the law for you to believe in a different religion, not so politicians must reject their moral beliefs while making laws and use only what you believe to be "rational".
Click to expand...

If the rational for the law is "Because I belive God said so" you are legally required to behave as his God belives only because he belives his God says so.

The only legitatmate reason for a law that regulates behavyor is, does the law reasonably promote a legitatemate state interest in the way that is least intrusive to a persons freedom (privacy). Then on top of that you must ballance the states interest with the intrusion on freedom and make a determination as to which is more important, the state's interest or the freedom of the individual.

So if the government wants to ban Gay Marriage they must first come up with a state interest, then show that that such a regulation on marriage is reasonably related to the promotion of that interest and then show that the interest promoted is more important than allowing freedom to marry as individuals choose.
 
Jarod said:
If the rational for the law is "Because I belive God said so" you are legally required to behave as his God belives only because he belives his God says so.

The only legitatmate reason for a law that regulates behavyor is, does the law reasonably promote a legitatemate state interest in the way that is least intrusive to a persons freedom (privacy). Then on top of that you must ballance the states interest with the intrusion on freedom and make a determination as to which is more important, the state's interest or the freedom of the individual.

So if the government wants to ban Gay Marriage they must first come up with a state interest, then show that that such a regulation on marriage is reasonably related to the promotion of that interest and then show that the interest promoted is more important than allowing freedom to marry as individuals choose.
Click to expand...
Unless the Government (us) decides to pass an Amendment. Whether or not you or I think it is right, the reality is.

BTW - the "reasoning" you gave is equally debatable to "god says so", it just takes longer to say. Just as the uber-religious would say they "feared" you forcing them to accept gay marriages (and would be called fear mongers for it), you can "fear" them (and suffer equally). Neither view is "unamerican".
 
Damocles said:
Unless the Government (us) decides to pass an Amendment. Whether or not you or I think it is right, the reality is.

BTW - the "reasoning" you gave is equally debatable to "god says so", it just takes longer to say. Just as the uber-religious would say they "feared" you forcing them to accept gay marriages, you can "fear" them. Neither view is "unamerican".
Click to expand...

Not in my opinion, because my reasoning, which is simular to that of the US Supreme court if you had not noticed, is based on rational and not faith.

I agree if you change the constititon it would be different, but if you changed the constition to be inconsistant with great American principals you would have changed America to be different than it is, and in this case, less freedom based in my opinion.
 
Jarod said:
Not in my opinion, because my reasoning, which is simular to that of the US Supreme court if you had not noticed, is based on rational and not faith.

I agree if you change the constititon it would be different, but if you changed the constition to be inconsistant with great American principals you would have changed America to be different than it is, and in this case, less freedom based in my opinion.
Click to expand...
But it would not be "unamerican". Much like prohibition and its repeal were not. And my reasoning is also similar to the SCOTUS. One can, and often does, take from their moral code whether religious or reasoned in order to create what they believe to be just law.

While the government cannot force you into a religion, it cannot remove it from you just because people voted for you.
 
Jarod said:
Not in my opinion, because my reasoning, which is simular to that of the US Supreme court if you had not noticed, is based on rational and not faith.

I agree if you change the constititon it would be different, but if you changed the constition to be inconsistant with great American principals you would have changed America to be different than it is, and in this case, less freedom based in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hence the term AMENDMENT.

Side note.... any amendment that is successfully added to the Constitution is without question living up to the great American principle of the freedom of the people to be able to amend the Constitution.
 
Damocles said:
But it would not be "unamerican". Much like prohibition and its repeal were not. And my reasoning is also similar to the SCOTUS. One can, and often does, take from their moral code whether religious or reasoned in order to create what they believe to be just law.

While the government cannot force you into a religion, it cannot remove it from you just because people voted for you.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 98%, but the difference is when lawmakers use relign to try to justify a legal code. When relign is the only justification for a regulation, you are forcing that religous belife on individuals and thus userping there freedom to not obay that religous tenate.

So if a particular relign said people should not work on Tuesday, and the government passed a law prohibiting people from working on Tuesday, I belive that would be an effort to force individuals to obay the tenates of a religen and thus violative of the first amendment.
 
Jarod said:
I agree with you 98%, but the difference is when lawmakers use relign to try to justify a legal code. When relign is the only justification for a regulation, you are forcing that religous belife on individuals and thus userping there freedom to not obay that religous tenate.

So if a particular relign said people should not work on Tuesday, and the government passed a law prohibiting people from working on Tuesday, I belive that would be an effort to force individuals to obay the tenates of a religen and thus violative of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Even if it were not violative of the first amendment, it would be anti-freedom and theocratic, which in my opinon are un-American, and against freedoms I as an American hold dear.
 
Jarod said:
Even if it were not violative of the first amendment, it would be anti-freedom and theocratic, which in my opinon are un-American, and against freedoms I as an American hold dear.
Click to expand...
At least you are getting away from the fear mongering rhetoric. An Amendment is not a law, it defines what laws are allowed. While it would be more restrictive, other Amendments in the past have been as well, they are not, and have not been unamerican.
 
Damocles said:
At least you are getting away from the fear mongering rhetoric. An Amendment is not a law, it defines what laws are allowed. While it would be more restrictive, other Amendments in the past have been as well, they are not, and have not been unamerican.
Click to expand...

I agree that other Amendments might have been more anti-freedom, that does make it any better or worse. I think it depends on what you mean by unamerican. There are plenty of American things that are unamerican in my opinion. When something is unamerican, to me, it means it does not stand up to the principals and rational that formed this nation. That thing can still be American in the sense that it is "of America or from America".

Depending on the meaning and how you use the word, McDonalds can be Very American and also unamerican at the same time!
 
Jarod said:
I agree that other Amendments might have been more anti-freedom, that does make it any better or worse. I think it depends on what you mean by unamerican. There are plenty of American things that are unamerican in my opinion. When something is unamerican, to me, it means it does not stand up to the principals and rational that formed this nation. That thing can still be American in the sense that it is "of America or from America".

Depending on the meaning and how you use the word, McDonalds can be Very American and also unamerican at the same time!
Click to expand...
A group of people objecting to the "unamerican" label should avoid using it for describing others, especially in a political sense.
 
Damocles said:
A group of people objecting to the "unamerican" label should avoid using it for describing others, especially in a political sense.
Click to expand...

To me that depends, if the political group is promoting death penalty without a fair trial, I would be comfortable calling the idea they are espousing as unamerican.
 
I don't think it is unamerican to espouse any idea, I think that is what the First is all about. It isn't wrong to be unique or even repulsive.
 
Damocles said:
I don't think it is unamerican to espouse any idea, I think that is what the First is all about. It isn't wrong to be unique or even repulsive.
Click to expand...

Expressing any idea is not unamerican, the idea however might be. AGAIN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top