Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsAncient HistoryMedieval PeriodBritish HistoryWhat IfArchaeology
War History
War HistoryWorld War IIUS Civil War
HistoryKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

History Forum / General / General Topics / November 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
buckeye - 11 Nov 2008 10:41 GMT
Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State
http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/

Wow. The following must-read article from the San Francisco Chronicle is by
attorney and author James Brosnahan, and it concerns the un-American
Proposition 8, the alleged separation of church from state, and the
ridiculousness of a pluralistic society being ruled by certain people’s
religious dictates. Please read it and share it with your control-freak
religionista associates. Warning: If they are of the mentality of the
article’s commenters, they aren’t smart enough to understand and aren’t
worth your time.

Here is an excerpt:

   The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling
but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government.
Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were
hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the
government and using it against nonbelievers.

   In the aftermath of Tuesday’s vote, do gays and lesbians in California
have a reason to believe that they have been abused, discriminated against
and relegated to a separate-but-equal status?

   Yes, and that’s why this fight is far from over. There will be a
challenge under the U.S. Constitution. In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down a California constitutional amendment that limited fair housing
on the grounds that prejudice could not be put into a state Constitution.

   No one can forecast the outcome of this next fight, but there is bound
to be some fallout that may harm those religions that so vehemently
insisted that their beliefs be placed in the California Constitution. All
religions require tolerance to flourish, but in Proposition 8 some
religious groups aimed at and wounded gay people in California.

   The drafters of the U.S. Constitution had a brilliant, experienced view
concerning the importance of drawing the lines to protect religion on the
one hand and civil government on the other. They put those lines in the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, those lines are very
relevant.

   Government may not attack religion. Californians who have religious
beliefs concerning the proper scope of marriage may exercise those rights
as they see fit. Churches have always been able to proceed as they wish
concerning marriage ceremonies. There was no mandate to suppress religious
beliefs. This should be obvious to everyone in California because of our
tolerance of all religions.

   That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious
beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians
are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we
like it or not.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning.  Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic."  New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
      THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
   SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
   
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
duke - 11 Nov 2008 16:54 GMT
>Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State
>http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>ridiculousness of a pluralistic society being ruled by certain people’s
>religious dictates.

Nope, you boys are stuck.

You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers.  And the
public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which
religious feelings are legitimate.  

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
chibiabos - 12 Nov 2008 02:03 GMT
> >Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State
> >http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which
> religious feelings are legitimate.  

My god. How can anyone be so stupid or so wrong?

Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind.
These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required
to recognize them.

Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights
and privileges. You'll want to look that up in the US Constitution. (I
know reading is a strain for you, but you'll only have to go a hundred
words or so into it.)

Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's."
Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of
us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe.

-chib

Signature

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

duke - 13 Nov 2008 20:26 GMT

>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers.  And the
>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which
>> religious feelings are legitimate.  

>My god. How can anyone be so stupid or so wrong?

I don't know, but you guys come up to it pretty easy.

>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind.
>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required
>to recognize them.

A marriage is a religious ceremony.  A civil contract is the secular part.

>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights
>and privileges.

Of course it is.  And your worst enemy is that I vote.

>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's."
>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of
>us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe.
>-chib

It comes natural.

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
jemcd - 13 Nov 2008 22:06 GMT
>>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers.  And the
>>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I don't know, but you guys come up to it pretty easy.

Unfortunately for you, you don't have the skills to determine what is
stupid because of being stupid.

>>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind.
>>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required
>>to recognize them.
>
>A marriage is a religious ceremony.  A civil contract is the secular part.

Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized
marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

>>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights
>>and privileges.
>
>Of course it is.  And your worst enemy is that I vote.

Your worst enemy is reasoning.

>>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's."
>>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of
>>us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe.
>>-chib
>
>It comes natural.

It must, or surely you would have forgot how and died.
duke - 15 Nov 2008 14:08 GMT
>>>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers.  And the
>>>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Unfortunately for you, you don't have the skills to determine what is
>stupid because of being stupid.

Except for knowing you're stupid.

>>>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind.
>>>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required
>>>to recognize them.

>>A marriage is a religious ceremony.  A civil contract is the secular part.

>Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized
>marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

It's a legally recognized civil contract.  There was no marriage as God wasn't
involved but actually denied.

>>>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights
>>>and privileges.
>>Of course it is.  And your worst enemy is that I vote.
>Your worst enemy is reasoning.

You lose.

>>>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's."
>>>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of
>>>us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe.

>>It comes natural.

>It must, or surely you would have forgot how and died.

Do you............hear voices in your head when you think?

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Phlip - 15 Nov 2008 14:43 GMT
>>Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized
>>marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
>
> It's a legally recognized civil contract.  There was no marriage as God
> wasn't
> involved but actually denied.

Bullshit. God does not define marriage, humans do.

Otherwise (assuming you mean the Biblical God), we would still practice
polygamy...
duke - 16 Nov 2008 23:45 GMT
>>>Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized
>>>marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Bullshit. God does not define marriage, humans do.

God defined it as the union of one man and one woman in the sight of God.  And
that was 14.5 billion years ago, min.

>Otherwise (assuming you mean the Biblical God), we would still practice
>polygamy...

Better luck next time, turkey.

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
jemcd - 16 Nov 2008 21:12 GMT
>>>>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers.  And the
>>>>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Except for knowing you're stupid.

"Unfortunately for you....."

>>>>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind.
>>>>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>It's a legally recognized civil contract.  There was no marriage as God wasn't
>involved but actually denied.

Bullshit again, Earl. Set aside the god part of your argument for a
second. Where does the licensing come from? The church or the local
government? If there is only a marriage service in the church with no
documentation/licensing from the government, is that a marriage that
is actually recognized? Would the priest/pastor/preacher even let the
ceremony begin without the license from the government?
Back to the god part, only in your religion's opinion does it have any
say in marriage, but outside your religion that opinion is
meaningless. (and that goes for the "14.5 billion years" you say your
definition of marriage has existed)
Humans define marriage, as there are actually humans to do this, no
god has ever shown up and said a damn thing about anything.
You are welcome to have an imaginary friend, but your imaginary friend
doesn't even have authority over you, much less anybody else.

>>>>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights
>>>>and privileges.
>>>Of course it is.  And your worst enemy is that I vote.
>>Your worst enemy is reasoning.
>
>You lose.

What a retort, totally dukish of you.

>>>>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's."
>>>>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Do you............hear voices in your head when you think?

Are you checking to see if you are alone?

>The Dukester, American-American
>*****
>"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>Pope Paul VI
>*****
Hatter - 17 Nov 2008 18:54 GMT
> In article <00ejh4l8q8ju9ptqr9bqtsqse4gdm6e...@4ax.com>, duke
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> My god. How can anyone be so stupid or so wrong?

read the name of the person who posted it. This person has amply shown
how stupid and wrong they can be, and therefore it should come as no
surprise.

> Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind.
> These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> know reading is a strain for you, but you'll only have to go a hundred
> words or so into it.)

Religious feelings were the reasoning behind denying the rights of
women, blacks,and natives. It is a oft used reason to deny people
their basic rights and privileges.

Of course every time it was used as a reason, later generations viewed
it as barbarousness.

Unlike duke and his ilk, at least we he the good sense to recognize
this. One day their will be equal treatment of homosexuals, and this
law will be viewed in the same category as Jim Crow.

When that day will be I cannot say, but only through substantial
effort will it come in our lifetime.

Hatter
Douglas Berry - 12 Nov 2008 02:41 GMT
On  Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved
the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism

>>Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State
>>http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers.  

Wrong. The state supreme court said that under our constitution
marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples. No mention was made
of religion, and you can get married by a court clerk or anyone
willing to register. My sister's marriage was conducted by our older
brother. My wife and I were married by a family friend.

Prop 8 removed that right.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
duke - 13 Nov 2008 20:29 GMT
>On  Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved
>the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Wrong. The state supreme court said that under our constitution
>marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples.

No it didn't.  It said a civil contract could not be denied.  The marriage is a
religious ceremony.

> No mention was made
>of religion, and you can get married by a court clerk or anyone
>willing to register.

Actually, you're not getting married, you're signing a civil contract.

> My sister's marriage was conducted by our older
>brother. My wife and I were married by a family friend.
>Prop 8 removed that right.

Meaning, of course, that you're not married, but you do have a civil contract.

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Cary Kittrell - 13 Nov 2008 20:34 GMT
> >On  Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved
> >the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> Meaning, of course, that you're not married, but you do have a civil contract.

So is it your contention that billions of Chinese, Japanese, and Indians
aren't actually married?  Or instead that one religion is as good
as another when it comes to marriage?

-- cary

> The Dukester, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
duke - 19 Nov 2008 12:45 GMT
>> >On  Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved
>> >the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>aren't actually married?  Or instead that one religion is as good
>as another when it comes to marriage?

Did they "marry" in the sight of the one almighty God but in their own religious
faith?  

An Indian is marrying in the sight of his god.  An atheist avoids God.

The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Wide Eyed in Wonder - 12 Nov 2008 18:03 GMT
> Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from Statehttp://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/

Just further example of the extremist views of your side.  So much for
the will of the people (in a statewide vote of the public).  No...a
Constitutional Amendment voted by the people is illegal, since it
reflects the morality of church goers?  Want to tell me a SINGLE law
that isn't based in the morality of church goers?  Looks like we have
to remove all laws against theft and murder, since they are based in
Christian morality.

Kenneth Clifton
--
www.2008jesus.com
Witziges Rätsel - 12 Nov 2008 23:38 GMT
On Nov 11, 5:41 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from
> Statehttp://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>to remove all laws against theft and murder, since they are based in
>Christian morality.

 Our laws are not based on Christian morality - they're based on
secular morality, practicality, ethics, logic, and compassion.
cpt banjo - 12 Nov 2008 23:52 GMT
> Want to tell me a SINGLE law that isn't based in the morality of
> church goers?

You might start with the community property system, which has been
adopted by Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico,
 Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.  It originated with the Visigoths.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.