Absolutely! Squaring your principles with the Constitution is a must. When president elect Obama stated that the constraints of the Constitution needed to be changed to allow for social justice, I wonder, is this a direct result of his "liberation theology"? After all social justice is a tenant of that theology, which is militant in its applications of social change. Now, some might argue that this is a good idea (I am not one of them) but how do liberals square a faith based idea that would subordinate the Constitution with their stringent, though misapplied position on separation of church and state? I’ll tell you, constitutional adherence is only required when its principles do not interfere with their own ideologies. Faith based initiatives are only taboo if they conflict with their ideologies. In other words; truth, consistency, logic are only constraints required of conservatives.
Is the GOP listening? They should be...
- Thread starter ironhead
- Start date
Absolutely! Squaring your principles with the Constitution is a must. When president elect Obama stated that the constraints of the Constitution needed to be changed to allow for social justice, I wonder, is this a direct result of his "liberation theology"? After all social justice is a tenant of that theology, which is militant in its applications of social change. Now, some might argue that this is a good idea (I am not one of them) but how do liberals square a faith based idea that would subordinate the Constitution with their stringent, though misapplied position on separation of church and state? I’ll tell you, constitutional adherence is only required when its principles do not interfere with their own ideologies. Faith based initiatives are only taboo if they conflict with their ideologies. In other words; truth, consistency, logic are only constraints required of conservatives.
I don't care what Faith they are, when a goal is to minimize the power of government over our lives to insist that the dichotomy of "We must make a law to define marriage specifically because it is icky for guys to kiss and my book about the magic man says it is bad" is a bit hypocritical. (Specifically not mentioning Christianity, it doesn't matter which book they are using. Increasing government's power is the problem.)
The arguments to protect the traditional idea of marriage are not completely "faith based" or it would not have the majority support that it does. That said, the religious foundations of marriage being a union that codifies family is one that is certainly rooted in faith, but also in societies around the world. On the secular side of things there are few studies yet available for how children would be, are being, affected. I for one am not willing to just sit back and say "whatever will be will be". Homosexuals in CA have the right of a civil union. They can hire someone to perform a ceremony to celebrate their union. You tell me why they must have a "right" that has traditionally been a religious one? A religious right, which presumes the union, is between one man and one woman? Do not the religious or even the traditionalists have a right to say "this far you may come, but over our threshold you may not"? The freedom of religion imparts some pretty good arguments for the religious to stand on with regards fighting homosexual marriage, attacking them as "trying to impose" is silly. It is homosexuals who are trying to impose.
You're gonna get melted Ice Dancer.
How so?
Just wait.
By the way, hadn't seen you around here but see that you have been for a while. A be-lated welcome to you.
By the way, hadn't seen you around here but see that you have been for a while. A be-lated welcome to you.
Thanks for the welcome. I have read enough threads to see who's who, and how things are done. I'll attempt to remain polite
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Thanks for the welcome. I have read enough threads to see who's who, and how things are done. I'll attempt to remain polite
C
Cancel3
Guest
Thanks for the welcome. I have read enough threads to see who's who, and how things are done. I'll attempt to remain polite
Nah, no need to worry about being polite. I tried when I first got here.
Sometimes doesn't work too well does it. I still try though. The only one that got me out of my typical response mode was Drwho from the old board.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Aside from the Defense of Marriage Act, which was a direct result of liberal judicial fiat nationwide, what "draconian" law has been proposed by conservatives, which is based on Christian religion? Roe v. Wade has been allowed to stand, Ginsberg was approved by conservatives to serve on the SCOTUS, Roy Moore was forced to take down his 10 Commandments monument.... so where is this "draconian" effort to rewrite our laws?
In case you haven't noticed (and obviously you haven't) Christianity is under vicious attack by extremists, that is precisely why you see and hear Christian leaders defending their religious practices. They shouldn't fucking have to! This should be protected under the Constitution, but too many complacent people, who have no spiritual foundation, aren't willing to stand up for what is morally right and stand against what is morally wrong.
The very foundation of our government and way of life, is fundamentally rooted in the belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALLY... that means, CREATED BY A CREATOR! Furthermore, we are given the very rights of freedom we claim, not by a court or man, but by THE CREATOR! The Federal Government DOES NOT give us freedom! A president or political party, DOES NOT give us freedom! This is the founding principle which made all of this possible! Without it, we are nothing more than a limited dictatorship, under the tyranny of 9 judges in black robes!
Among our freedoms, is the freedom to believe or disbelieve in this CREATOR, and to believe in whatever form of CREATOR you so desire, if you so desire. It's like, you have the right to free speech, even if it is to speak out against free speech! Nothing is being "forced down your throat" except Atheism and destruction of our very foundation. It's time Americans stood up for principles, and stop being afraid of "religion" or "Christianity" and insist our founding principles be upheld. Christianity is a religion of acceptance, that means, you have to accept Christ into your life, it can't be "forced down your throat" and you can't make someone be a Christian. Fear mongering has cause a lot of people who are ignorant of Christian beliefs, to accept an Atheistic view of the religion itself, and fear some sort of 'theocratic' takeover of government. Nothing could be more ridiculous, it's impossible!
My first rule of thumb will be to avoid responding to flame throwers with serious replies. I'll try and ignore them, it might work.
Excellent respone!
C
Cancel3
Guest
Lets see.....Blue Laws, trying to stop evolution from being taught in schools, trying to force creationism to be taught in schools, laws against adult "toys" being sold (thats Alabama too), making Xmas a state/federal holiday, and I sure there are more.
C
Cancel3
Guest
YOu keep going on and on about atheism being forced down your throat.
Please tell us any situation where you were told what to believe.
Stopping one religion from dominating is not the same as banishing all religions.
I made the same complaints when muslims wanted special status, and you didn't seem to mind that.
The arguments that are not "faith based" are not the majority of argument, and it is spurious to insist, in a nation where over 70% say they are Christian, that it would be impossible to garner a majority that want to stop people from doing things because their book says it is a "sin".
If it is religious then the conservative (strict constitutionalist) would say, "We must remove laws regarding marriage from the books, especially those based on a 'religious' definition as it is clearly a law 'respecting' religion, and 'establishing' law based on specific definition of a specific religion (others define it differently, ie Muslims do not have the "one man, one woman" thing an Wiccans also do not define it even between opposite sex)."
It is reactionary to attempt to protect the "sanctity" of marriage through laws, it is NOT something based on individual liberty, it is NOT something based on constitutional authority. It is simply emotive reactionary law created to keep you from having to see the "icky".
No one had a law respecting the sanctity of marriage as being between one man and one woman because the law assumed it. That is why homosexuals have had to challenge the laws in states that prohobited their unions. The constituion is clear with regards to the protections of religion. If a religious body can persuade legislators, it is their right to do so. No one can deny the individual right of an adult to cohabitate with any other adult that consents to such a relationship. About 8 years ago when this issue began to really heat up it was argued by the homosexual community that they only wanted the same kinds of protections and financial advantages that heterosexual couples had. In CA they gained those protections and advantages with civil unions. The presumtion of the law that marriage was between one man and one woman, and further that it was a religious sacrament is what is being challenged. It is the homosexual community and the far left idealogues who want to force their beliefs down the throats of the religious and the traditionalists. The 1st amendment grants the right to the religious to fight and to fight hard, they are.
They did not gain all of the rights that married couples have. For instance. They could not marry somebody in France of the same sex then use their marriage to help them enter the US legally. Even in California (when they could marry) and Massachusetts even married they did not have that right because of the "Defense of Marriage Act" and the fact that the Federal government does not recognize homosexual marriage.
There are several other rights, such as automatic lineage. A civil union does not make it so that a child adopted by one parent, or even one more naturally carried in the womb, will automatically go to the other if that parent dies as it does for a married couple.
We could go on, but it really is unnecessary. The sole reason for such a "law" is reactionary in nature, it is not based on the reason (for a conservative) that the power of government should be brought to bear, that of victims. If two consenting adults agree (or even three or more) their contract should be as legally valid as any other two adults. The government is not in the business of sanctifying your marriage, you are.
It doesn't even matter if they are putting themselves in "more danger" they are the sole determination of how they should be able to live their lives, so long as their choices do not make a victim of another.