| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2009 10:48:52 AM · #2801 |
Funny.....when I clicked on this link for this page, there was an ad for sponsoring a child....
At the top of the ad on this page full of judgement and abomination there's one word....
Compassion |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 11:04:07 AM · #2802 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I thought that you approved of the citation of scripture to prove a point? |
no, no, no, you got it all wrong, don't genralize: it's ok to quote scripture to prove a point, as long as it's his point you're proving (and the scriptures must not come from any other religion than his) |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 11:12:32 AM · #2803 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
U.S. laws are based on the Constitution, NOT the Declaration of Independence. It draws authority from "We the people," and thus created the first nation NOT to claim authority from God. Motions for prayers during the Constitutional Conventions failed, with Ben Franklin commenting that only three or four supported prayer, while the rest thought it unnecessary. |
In a speach written by Ben for the Constitutional Convention, he states: "...In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. âOur prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered..."
That sounds like support for prayer.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law," |
When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." He was writting about England's common law and how it came from the Saxons in the 5th century. Christianity wasn't introduced to England until the 7th century. Christianity wasn't part of common law in England because it wasn't around. In that same letter Thomas Jefferson wrote how an English Judge wrote on the subject:
"...the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason."
With the John Adams quotes, I was trying to find the full text they were from, but I'm having problems. John Adams was a Unitarian, so he had different believes in how God interacted with people. On one hand he does quote:
âThe government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religionâ
But then I find his quote:
âOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â
|
|
|
|
09/04/2009 11:20:02 AM · #2804 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. |
Actually, that aphorism doesn't quite hold up in this context...
For anything less than granting the title of 'marriage' to my marriage is an affront to my family and I, and calling my marriage a marriage is an affront to others (who would say it's an affront to God). It's obvious that a whole lot rides on a name, or we would not be here. When one group claims common territory as their own and doesn't want to share, even if it's just a word, the effects can be profound.
Likewise, to suggest that someone who doesn't share a biblical faith should change a biblical sounding name, THEIR OWN name, to make a point? That's kind of absurd, in my opinion.
My middle name is Adam. It doesn't get any more biblical than that. Jealous of my primacy? Frankly, I think it fits, what with all the self-appointed god-proxies trying to punt me from their gardens all the time. And my first name is Peter! Oh crap, another biblical name. Alas, I know tons of athiest and agnostic Pauls, Davids, Andrews, Bens, Toms, Seths, Micahs, Gabes, Jacobs, James, Joels, Johns... all in the same boat. Woe unto us! Do we risk some special socket in hell because of the irony?
The fact is that people were named these same names well before Christ came along, even before monotheism came along, and people got married way back then too. To suggest some sort of biblical 'ownership' of these names is just another religion-driven semantic land grab like the one they're now trying with marriage.
A jealous god begets jealous worshipers.
How about this aphorism instead: Sharing is caring.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2009 11:28:39 AM · #2805 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
That sounds like support for prayer. |
Franklin was one of the two sponsors of prayer at the Conventions. He was overwhelmingly outnumbered.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law," |
[/quote]When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." He was writting about England's common law...[/quote]
Thomas Jefferson is that last person you'd want to start quoting! He was vehemently opposed to basing government on religion.
Originally posted by Nullix:
âOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â |
John Adams is another one you'll want to avoid. âThis would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in itâ â Adams
While many of the authors of our Constitution were religious men, the vast majority viewed it as a private matter and separate from civil government. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 11:29:36 AM · #2806 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
"...the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason."
|
Well most of the 10 commandments made it into the law, because they make sense to any sensible, even non-religious person (do not steal, kill, etc...) not because they were dictated by God. |
|
|
|
09/04/2009 11:53:03 AM · #2807 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
In that same letter Thomas Jefferson wrote how an English Judge wrote on the subject:
"...the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." |
You left out a rather important part of that conversation:
"The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." |
|
|
|
09/09/2009 11:28:44 AM · #2808 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In that same letter Thomas Jefferson wrote how an English Judge wrote on the subject:
"...the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." |
You left out a rather important part of that conversation:
"The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." |
Yet another semantic land grab. "I know, we'll just take all this common sense stuff that good people have been doing unprompted for millennia, claim that God came up with it all (via an absurdly hallucinatory parable), and then we'll 'own' moral authority over the basics, going forward! Anyone who disagrees with our god now has to 'disagree' with his 'commandments' and we can, you know, scorn them and stuff for being murderous, thieving adulterers with no concept of right or wrong!"
And that's how it's been ever since!
Well played, organized religion. Well played.
(Apart from the rather poor picture it paints of humanity's inherent capacity for good, that is. Pessimists.)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2009 11:51:09 AM · #2809 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In that same letter Thomas Jefferson wrote how an English Judge wrote on the subject:
"...the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." |
You left out a rather important part of that conversation:
"The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." |
Yet another semantic land grab. "I know, we'll just take all this common sense stuff that good people have been doing unprompted for millennia, claim that God came up with it all (via an absurdly hallucinatory parable), and then we'll 'own' moral authority over the basics, going forward! Anyone who disagrees with our god now has to 'disagree' with his 'commandments' and we can, you know, scorn them and stuff for being murderous, thieving adulterers with no concept of right or wrong!"
And that's how it's been ever since!
Well played, organized religion. Well played.
(Apart from the rather poor picture it paints of humanity's inherent capacity for good, that is. Pessimists.) |
Well said Mousie
My uncle was the most atheist of atheists. He was also the kindest man I ever known, selfless to the core. Never tought twice before giving his time, to his familly or to anyone in need of a helping hand. So no, religions do not have the monopoly of good values. Anyone tries to tell me he's burning in hell will have the whole town against him, because that's how many lives he touched and made better.
Message edited by author 2009-09-09 11:51:34. |
|
|
|
09/10/2009 01:10:58 PM · #2810 |
Another one bites the dust, wherein a staunch defender of traditional marriage, vocal upholder of family values, and avid Prop. 8 supporter, gets caught stepping on his own junk:
OC Assemblyman In Bed With Lobbyist... No, Literally In Bed
When will the conservative masses realize they're getting played for suckers by politicians who care nothing for REAL ethics and morality? It's patently obvious to me, since I'm the one they're constantly being played against.
And why isn't anyone upset at the man this former assemblyman is telling his sordid little stories to? Don't you think it would be that guy's RESPONSIBILITY to report such an obvious conflict of interest, let alone the gross immorality? The chick he's banging is a lobbyist! For a company he's got legal involvement in! He's actually on an ethics committee! This goes WAY beyond a hypocritical indiscretion.
Now, to be clear, I don't really mind that the guy had an affair. Maybe his wife is cool with it. Maybe she appreciates sharing the burden of dealing with his obviously unsatisfied needs, with other women. I can't say, that's a private matter between the two them. What I DO mind that he has made a career of looking down on others as some sort of moral authority, when it's all a lie. That he's fought to take away rights from gays that he has the luxury of abusing, himself. That he, like so many conservatives (when has this parade of humiliation ever stopped?) is a complete hypocrite.
I've always thought it's an great move on the part of Democrats to avoid focusing on 'traditional values' as a part of their platform. Democrats have personal ethics and morals, anyone who'd deny this is crazy, but government should be about solving the people's needs, not enforcing a sham morality on us all.
For we are shown again an again that conservatives are no better than liberals in this arena, but at least the liberals aren't pretending otherwise to get elected.
Who's really defending marriage again?
I'd like to think it's me! |
|
|
|
09/11/2009 05:22:55 AM · #2811 |
Back to the OT... reading the story of Alan Turing in the press today I think that it is clear that society's approach to gay people has changed dramatically in the last half century.
//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8249792.stm
As an aside, I would be interested to know if anyone still thinks that chemical castration should still be promoted to "treat" gay people (and possibly to save gay people from temptations of the flesh and thus save their souls)?
I would guess that there would be few takers - but the logic for banning gay marriage is not far removed from that promoting chemical castration.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2009 06:17:51 AM · #2812 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Another one bites the dust, wherein a staunch defender of traditional marriage, vocal upholder of family values, and avid Prop. 8 supporter, gets caught stepping on his own junk:
OC Assemblyman In Bed With Lobbyist... No, Literally In Bed
When will the conservative masses realize they're getting played for suckers by politicians who care nothing for REAL ethics and morality? It's patently obvious to me, since I'm the one they're constantly being played against.
And why isn't anyone upset at the man this former assemblyman is telling his sordid little stories to? Don't you think it would be that guy's RESPONSIBILITY to report such an obvious conflict of interest, let alone the gross immorality? The chick he's banging is a lobbyist! For a company he's got legal involvement in! He's actually on an ethics committee! This goes WAY beyond a hypocritical indiscretion. |
C'mon,. Mousie.......you need to go read the Governor Sanford thread.
Surely you know that "Boys will be boys." and "It's just an affair; what's the big deal, thousands of people do it." and "Men have their needs.".
Now if you wanted to say.......marry someone of the same sex, now *THAT'S* wrong!
Shame on you for wanting to make a commitment to love, honor, and cherish another person, and make every effort to uphold those vows, if it's someone of the same gender!
I get so tired of the double standard.
It's a pretty screwed up society we have here when the ethics & morality folks behave like this.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2009 06:25:48 AM · #2813 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
In that same letter Thomas Jefferson wrote how an English Judge wrote on the subject:
"...the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You left out a rather important part of that conversation:
"The common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed." |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Yet another semantic land grab. "I know, we'll just take all this common sense stuff that good people have been doing unprompted for millennia, claim that God came up with it all (via an absurdly hallucinatory parable), and then we'll 'own' moral authority over the basics, going forward! Anyone who disagrees with our god now has to 'disagree' with his 'commandments' and we can, you know, scorn them and stuff for being murderous, thieving adulterers with no concept of right or wrong!"
And that's how it's been ever since!
Well played, organized religion. Well played.
(Apart from the rather poor picture it paints of humanity's inherent capacity for good, that is. Pessimists.) |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Well said Mousie
My uncle was the most atheist of atheists. He was also the kindest man I ever known, selfless to the core. Never tought twice before giving his time, to his familly or to anyone in need of a helping hand. So no, religions do not have the monopoly of good values. Anyone tries to tell me he's burning in hell will have the whole town against him, because that's how many lives he touched and made better. |
It's funny, but the man I admire most right now is a man at our church who is a devout atheist.
He is the most decent, kind, selfless person I know; he's 84 years old and should be covering his ass to get into heaven, but no......he's just fine with being the best and most decent person he can be.
He marched with Dr. King, he was instrumental in getting Boys Clubs and other underprivileged kids' programs instituted in DF.C. in the early days, he's the most incredible optimist and genuinely nice guy I have ever met. Her's got a physics doctorate, and is off-the-charts intelligent, yet is the most quiet, caring, and decent person I have ever met.
He is *THE* most staunch supporter, and involved activist, for EQUAL rights I have ever known.
He is the head of our social action committee and you will find him at every Silent Witness attended event within driving distance.
When I grow up, I hope to be half the man he is.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2009 06:31:40 AM · #2814 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's funny, but the man I admire most right now is a man at our church who is a devout atheist.
|
Out of curiosity, what does he do at the church?
Also, your usage of devout with atheist made me chuckle ;)
Message edited by author 2009-09-11 06:31:58. |
|
|
|
09/11/2009 06:46:45 AM · #2815 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
[quote=NikonJeb]
It's funny, but the man I admire most right now is a man at our church who is a devout atheist.
|
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Out of curiosity, what does he do at the church?
Also, your usage of devout with atheist made me chuckle ;) |
It's a Unitarian Universalist church......we advocate for the interdependent web of all existence; we believe that every person has inherent worth & dignity; and we promote and encourage each other in/on their spiritual journey.
You don't have to have God for that.
Yeah.....I love that devout word......like my father is a devout Republican....
I just love to utilize that word in ways that make people twitch!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
09/11/2009 11:47:32 AM · #2816 |
| A somewhat related dilemma. |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 11:54:25 AM · #2817 |
Maine had it, now it doesn't.
That such a situation is even possible... TWICE... blows my mind.
Feeling jerked around by a hostile majority.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2009 12:13:46 PM · #2818 |
That's what happens when you leave civil rights of a minority in the hands of the majority. Putting something up to a vote which is subject to deeply held prejudice is "ruling not by democracy, but by mob mentality" (The Guardian/UK).
Historically, it's the courts that make decisions about the application of constitutional guarantees *despite* popular opinion. You can't wait for all of society to agree before granting equal rights to everyone.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2009 12:18:47 PM · #2819 |
Unfortunately, it's a slow process, but it's also much more apparent that there is no longer any basis for "Righteousness" as an excuse for violations of human rights.
We're gettin' there......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2009 12:43:03 PM · #2820 |
| Canada, despite being a leader in the global gay marriage movement, has its own shrill problems. |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 12:47:28 PM · #2821 |
Does the majority get to tell the minority how to live in USAmerica? How is this moral? How does this uphold the Bill of Rights?
Message edited by author 2009-11-06 12:47:51. |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 01:06:29 PM · #2822 |
Mixner:
"Over the next weeks, there will be numerous well-meaning proposals to deal with the aftermath of our brutally unfair defeat in Maine. Clearly there are many ways to respond. However, with all the energy I can muster, I have come to the clear conclusion that we can't continue on the path we have been following the last two decades. The time has come for a major shake-up in ideas, tactics and priorities.
Those who hang on to the nostalgia of the past can live in it. There is no question in my mind that the vast majority of the LGBT community is ready to move forward with new visions and new tactics. What is happening to us with this expanding system of Gay Apartheid in America cannot be allowed to continue and if it does, we cannot go quietly into the night enabling such abuse anymore.
How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting." |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 01:07:47 PM · #2823 |
To highlight what Mixner said, describing what this situation really is: Gay Apartheid.
One set of laws for us, one set of laws for you.
Rebut? |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 01:33:40 PM · #2824 |
| Partially-related editorial cartoon |
|
|
|
11/06/2009 05:50:24 PM · #2825 |
I'd like to make a few points and I apologize if someone else has made them.
Firstly, marriage is something that is more often than not associated with the Church and religion. Christianity is so incredibly hostile towards homosexuality. I don't understand why gay people would spend their time fighting against a hostile force to establish marriage rights. The Church has been so horrible to them, why would they try to win their approval?
Secondly, fighting for gay rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or any kind of 'minority's' rights, is identity politics. Identity politics serves to divide the working class (which forms the overwhelming majority of the population in the US, and the world in general). People need to band together and fight for their living conditions and working rights - not their right to marriage etc. These kinds of rights will follow once equality is achieved.
I am not homophobic, sexist, or racist at all. All I wanted to point out is that all the minorities I mentioned plus many more have more in common that not. |
|
