Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Another HYPOTHETICAL question

OT politics Partisanship State religion

  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#21 darthsikle

darthsikle
  • Dead account
  • 2,139 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:30 PM

Shoshana, on Nov 4 2004, 02:26 AM, said:

It would violate the whole church vs state thing. It would shatter one of the basic tenants of the Constitution, Freedom of Religion.

'shana

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There is no "vs." in there.  Seperation of I think you meant.
Goodbye.

#22 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:37 PM

Dax the thing is - just because some religous folk advocate no gay marriage, no abortions doesn't mean that laws pro or con are religious in nature - as Rov ( I think it was ) said - there are non religious people who believe in no gay marriages , no abortions.

and no Bush can not create a state religion- the constitution prevents this. It is - in the end - the most bedrock foundation of the Constitution. The people who were the heart and soul of the ideals that framed the Constitution were absolutley oppossed to any sort of 'state religion'
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#23 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:40 PM

No, Dax.  There will never be a state religion. Rest assured.

BUT...if there were...look on the bright side: it will get you up early on Sunday mornings for a good breakfast.  And breakfast is the most important meal of the day. :)
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#24 Anastashia

Anastashia

    Tyrant Matriarch and Pegan Too!

  • Islander
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:41 PM

darthsikle, on Nov 3 2004, 10:30 PM, said:

Shoshana, on Nov 4 2004, 02:26 AM, said:

It would violate the whole church vs state thing. It would shatter one of the basic tenants of the Constitution, Freedom of Religion.

'shana

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There is no "vs." in there.  Seperation of I think you meant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Actually darthsikle separation of church and state is ia misconception when applied to the constitution. What is spoken of is the establishment of a state religion.
The Science Fiction Examiner

In the quiet of Midden a young child grows.
Does the salvation of his people grow with him?
"Everything we do now is for the child"

"I made a mistake,
just follow along,
isn't that what tyranny is all about?"
Sheila M---my Praise Band Director

For as long as I shall live
I will testify to love
I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough
Testify to Love

Posted Image


#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:41 PM

Quote

I believe the person I was speaking with had the thought that Bush's strong favor of the gay marriage ban and other similiar issues tied closely with religion, that it would basically be the same thing as a state sponsored religion?

Keep in mind that many states have already stated officially that gay marriage is illegal.  Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to "protect the sanctity" of marriage (use of the word "sanctity" is a clear indicator that his position is prompted by religion).  However, the more fundamental problem is that, establishment clause not withstanding, religion has far too much influence over civil unions as it is.  For example, a marriage certificate can be signed by a justice of the peace OR a pastor.  The answer is to simply remove religion from the equation of legal unions (and the legal benefits stemming therefrom).  Not that it will ever happen.

On the question of whether a conservative USSC would or could create a state sponsored religion.  NO.  They don't have that kind of power. Their job is to interpret the constitution, not legislate.  Not only that, the constitution says that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.  Considering that language I think it would be pretty hard for anyone to come out and say that there is a state sponsored religion.

This doesn't mean I have no concerns about religious influence over political policy in this country because I do but I don't think the scenario you're asking about would ever happen.

Oh and Number 6: And I have no tolerance for bullsh*t from surly conservatives who feel the need to be rude when answering a question.

Just being "civil".   :wacko:


Edited due to (and only due to) Rov's editing of Number 6's post.  The rest of my post below stands.


Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 03 November 2004 - 10:50 PM.

Posted Image

#26 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:43 PM

Rockhound, on Nov 3 2004, 08:40 PM, said:

No, Dax.  There will never be a state religion. Rest assured.

BUT...if there were...look on the bright side: it will get you up early on Sunday mornings for a good breakfast.  And breakfast is the most important meal of the day. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



LOL!
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#27 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:44 PM

Thank you, Lil.

Everyone, please keep it civil. Discussions are much more fun when they're on topic and aren't spent talking about each other.

Edited by Kevin Street, 03 November 2004 - 11:58 PM.


#28 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:46 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 10:41 PM, said:

  For example, a marriage certificate can be signed by a justice of the peace OR a pastor.  The answer is to simply remove religion from the equation of legal unions (and the legal benefits stemming therefrom).  Not that it will ever happen.

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm not sure if I asked this in the past. If so, I apologize. What exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? I'm guessing that in one it's a JotP signing the certificate, and in a marriage cermony it's a priest? Am I correct?

If so is that the only difference, legally?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#29 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:47 PM

Kevin Street, on Nov 3 2004, 10:44 PM, said:

Lil, please edit that word in your post to b*llsh*t or something else. It goes against our new guidelines. And everyone, please keep it civil. Discussions are much more fun when they're on topic and aren't spent talking about each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm curious. You asked Lil to edit but not the one who started the flaming and the cursing, number Six. Why is that?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:48 PM

^  Just as soon as Number 6 gets the same request made to him and complies.  And not a nanosecond earlier.  I've been seeing this trend all frelling day long and I'm getting sick and tired of it.  If you want to reprimand liberals for responding in kind to rude snottiness from conservatives you'd better start with the conservatives who initiated the rude snottiness.  In case no one had noticed, some people are actually unhappy with the elections' results and I for one am getting sick and tired of how rude some people are being (and being allowed to be) in their crowing.

Lil
Posted Image

#31 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:48 PM

Kevin to be fair Number Six also needs to edit  the word out of his posting.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#32 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:51 PM

I know, and we're dealing with Number6 right now. It's just being done privately. Please don't let me derail the thread.

I think LoTs had the last on-topic post before my unintentional threadjack. Please continue.

#33 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:53 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 3 2004, 08:47 PM, said:

Kevin Street, on Nov 3 2004, 10:44 PM, said:

Lil, please edit that word in your post to b*llsh*t or something else. It goes against our new guidelines. And everyone, please keep it civil. Discussions are much more fun when they're on topic and aren't spent talking about each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm curious. You asked Lil to edit but not the one who started the flaming and the cursing, number Six. Why is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Probably because Rov was in the process of editing Number 6's post.  Still it's a fair question.  So long as Ogami, Number 6 and whoever else continues to behave like complete p*tz's about this and don't get called on it I'm responding in kind. I don't need to put up with that crap and I'm not *going* to.

Lil
Posted Image

#34 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:54 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 3 2004, 10:46 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 10:41 PM, said:

  For example, a marriage certificate can be signed by a justice of the peace OR a pastor.  The answer is to simply remove religion from the equation of legal unions (and the legal benefits stemming therefrom).  Not that it will ever happen.

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm not sure if I asked this in the past. If so, I apologize. What exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? I'm guessing that in one it's a JotP signing the certificate, and in a marriage cermony it's a priest? Am I correct?

If so is that the only difference, legally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's basically it, dude.  A civil union doesn't happen in a religious context.  NO church or minister or anything.
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#35 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:56 PM

Rockhound, on Nov 3 2004, 10:54 PM, said:

That's basically it, dude.  A civil union doesn't happen in a religious context.  NO church or minister or anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's what I figured...But there is no difference legally? One doesn't have more "legal rights" then another?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#36 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:57 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 10:53 PM, said:

Probably because Rov was in the process of editing Number 6's post.  Still it's a fair question.  So long as Ogami, Number 6 and whoever else continues to behave like complete p*tz's about this and don't get called on it I'm responding in kind. I don't need to put up with that crap and I'm not *going* to.

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


*Ducks from the shots fired from both barrels* "Peeks his head up* Is it safe to come out?  ;)

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#37 JadziaDax

JadziaDax

    E.I.'s resident insomniac

  • Islander
  • 2,612 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:58 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 08:41 PM, said:

Keep in mind that many states have already stated officially that gay marriage is illegal.  Bush proposed a constitutional amendment to "protect the sanctity" of marriage (use of the word "sanctity" is a clear indicator that his position is prompted by religion).  However, the more fundamental problem is that, establishment clause not withstanding, religion has far too much influence over civil unions as it is.  For example, a marriage certificate can be signed by a justice of the peace OR a pastor.  The answer is to simply remove religion from the equation of legal unions (and the legal benefits stemming therefrom).  Not that it will ever happen.

On the question of whether a conservative USSC would or could create a state sponsored religion.  NO.  They don't have that kind of power. Their job is to interpret the constitution, not legislate.  Not only that, the constitution says that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.  Considering that language I think it would be pretty hard for anyone to come out and say that there is a state sponsored religion.

This doesn't mean I have no concerns about religious influence over political policy in this country because I do but I don't think the scenario you're asking about would ever happen.

Thank you Lil. That does clear up several questions.

Here's a rather weird question.....the constitution says that Congress can't make a law in respect to religion....but could the individual states?  I doubt it....I was just curious about that.


LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 3 2004, 08:46 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 10:41 PM, said:

  For example, a marriage certificate can be signed by a justice of the peace OR a pastor.  The answer is to simply remove religion from the equation of legal unions (and the legal benefits stemming therefrom).  Not that it will ever happen.

Lil

I'm not sure if I asked this in the past. If so, I apologize. What exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? I'm guessing that in one it's a JotP signing the certificate, and in a marriage cermony it's a priest? Am I correct?

If so is that the only difference, legally?

Oh, curious about that as well....
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

#38 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:58 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 3 2004, 08:46 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 3 2004, 10:41 PM, said:

  For example, a marriage certificate can be signed by a justice of the peace OR a pastor.  The answer is to simply remove religion from the equation of legal unions (and the legal benefits stemming therefrom).  Not that it will ever happen.

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm not sure if I asked this in the past. If so, I apologize. What exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? I'm guessing that in one it's a JotP signing the certificate, and in a marriage cermony it's a priest? Am I correct?

If so is that the only difference, legally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I'm going to use my parents as an example.  They got married in the Church and as of that time, they were recognized by the Church as married and my Dad was not going to catch any grief for spending the night with my mother.;)  They were *legally* married several weeks before that.  The legal ceremony conferred some legal rights such as automatic inheritance if there was no will, community property, tax breaks.  Those things are not a result of the ceremony in the Church but of the legal ceremony.  It's the deprivation of these legal benefits that same sex couples who wish to formalize their relationship are talking about.  The government certainly has no right to tell a church who they can or cannot marry (with some age exceptions).  Unfortunately, this has not stopped religions from encroaching upon the legal ceremony and imposing it's "morality" on the issue.

Lil
Posted Image

#39 Rockhound

Rockhound

    I've seen so much "spin" I'm getting drunk!

  • Islander
  • 201 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 10:58 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Nov 3 2004, 10:56 PM, said:

Rockhound, on Nov 3 2004, 10:54 PM, said:

That's basically it, dude.  A civil union doesn't happen in a religious context.  NO church or minister or anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That's what I figured...But there is no difference legally? One doesn't have more "legal rights" then another?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Absolutely no difference in the eyes of the law.  A marriage is a legal contract.  That's how the government can say who can marry who and how.  Either marriage has to have a marriage certificate, and that's all the government is worried about in the long run.
"Wow. This is a ga'damn greek tragedy." ---Rockhound

#40 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 03 November 2004 - 11:00 PM

Lil speaking as one f the people on the other side of the line. I have seen a number of posting that have pushing my hot button.

BTW I did ask Six to please edit his posting as soon as I saw it so I am looking for a bit fairness by both sides.


Now to the topic.

What I see happening with any supreme court nominations. Are likely they will be more focused on civil rights issues rather than Abortion. I see the appointments are also needed at other levels of the federal system. So I doubt that we will see anything wild or wooly in these four years. Also as Rov pointed out. We have had a lot of appointiees who turn out to be fairly open minded.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: OT, politics, Partisanship, State religion

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users