Some big ugly bird just took a great big crap on my windshield. How about we turn on the wipers and just keep driving, and hope it doesn’t come back?
That sort of, ah, deposit means more than crap, Scylla. I’m no expert when it comes to the sort of bird equivalent of a yapdog, but I think I see some viscera still hanging on. A bit of wiper fluid or a car wash should clear that right up.
So… you demean the content, continue to patronize me, and then slur me with your religious metaphors.
Wow.
There’s no point in debating with you. Much like some annoying professors I’ve had in my past, you like to hear yourself talk and will fling forth anything you can find to maintain your worldview while demeaning the views of others.
This appears to be one of those fine, hair-splitting legal decisions.
Okay, morality does form the basis of some of our laws and not all morality is based in religious doctrine (witness the many debates here about the morality of Atheists).
But when fundatmentalist Christians invoke specifically religious doctine (and specifically [their religious doctrine) to justify keeping marriage as only between a man and a woman, isn’t that establishing religion in much the same way that prayers in public school establish religion?
Dewey Cheatem Undhow, I know you take a strict, almost literalist interpretation of the Constitution and I don’t agree with that, but I don’t follow the logic of your response to Iampunha
I phrased the title of the thread as I did because too many fundamentalists keep harping on the idea that by allowing homosexuality to run rampant, society would collapse. How this collapse would happen is never explained, unfortunately. After reading many responses, both on this board and others, I’m of the opinion that it’s empty rhetoric, throw in to inflame an already volatile issue by diverting people’s attention from the relevent point: homosexuals and homosexuality do no harm to other people or society!
**
That’s pretty much my take on it. But I’m not a lawyer and law is an arcane art that many practice yet few fully understand.
**
I don’t think our Republic has fallen into “puritan” values, not yet at least. The problem is that these Neo-Puritians make a lot of noise, way out of proportion to their percentage of the population. Personally, I think they’re doing it to make up for their own internalized homophobia and the fact their penises are way below average size. 
I meant to post, but forgot, that I was the one who posted third down on this page, not my beloved.[sub]Darned girl not telling me she signed in. AGAIN! And no Netscape on this PC, either.[/sub]
What, pray tell, was the point of all this? The one thing I asked you to do – elaborate on your statement that “morals should not be the yardstick, ethics should be” – you ignore completely, in favor of childish insults.
Look, if you want to Pit me, Pit me. Don’t do it in GD.
I would say no, because those kinds of laws do not require any specific religious belief – they are only a reflection of communitarian moral views. It’s a bit silly to say that if Community A finds a given act immoral on the basis of community consensus and their own moral tradition, but Community B finds the same act immoral because their religious doctrine forbids it, that somehow Community A is constitutionally hunky-dory but Community B is not.
The First Amendment proscribes government commands to worship, be they implicit (i.e., governmental favoritism – creches and the like, private school funding) or explicit (prayer in school). To the extent a morals-based law does not mandate a particular belief or mode of worship, it is constitutionally fine, at least from a First Amendment perspective. You’ll note that in the recent Texas sodomy case, the first amendment played no role whatsoever in the arguments or in the court’s decision. **
I’m not sure what’s unclear about it. punha said religious beliefs cannot influence secular law. I noted this was incorrect. punha said “I never said that.” So I pointed out where he said it. Simple, really.
DCU, nowhere in this thread have I said that. I said that religious believs cannot dictate secular law, a point I re-emphasized the first time you made the mistake of saying I advanced a point I didn’t, in fact, advance.
I first posted (direct quote of the second paragraph of the post in question:
Emphasis mine.
You go on to say, in response:
I post, in rebuttal:
And then I agree with you in saying that the First Amendment does not prohibit religion (or morality, really) from influencing secular law.
Let me state this here in bold just so you understand it fully:
It is not my position that religious beliefs cannot influence secular law. It is my position that religious beliefs should not DICTATE secular law.
I do not see where you get “punha said religious beliefs cannot influence secular law” from “Christianity (and Christian dogma/doctrine/law) does not dictate secular law.”
The short answer is I didn’t get it from that portion of your post. I got it from the portion of your post I quoted earlier.
punha, if you want to clarify your earlier post, fine. But let’s not pretend it’s difficult to “get” how I read you as saying religion cannot influence law. I quoted you, f’rcryinoutloud.
You may certainly feel free, as you evidently have done, to read
as saying explicitly or implicity that religious beliefs cannot influence secular law, though I still completely fail to see how this is borne out of that part of my post. Here is, as I see it, the train of thought you are using:
“punha says that mama2 is faulty in attempting to let her religious beliefs influence what she thinks secular law should be. Therefore he is saying that religious beliefs cannot influence secular law.”
This is incorrect. What I was saying is that mama2 was using faulty argumentation to say that because her religion states something means that it should become law. What I do NOT see being borne out of that is what you misattribute to me and which I later in that same post clarified, in point of fact.
But let’s not pretend that just because you quoted me, f’rcryinoutloud, means you correctly parsed what I said.
If my parsing was incorrect, then let’s not pretend your original post was a model of clarity. I have no problem with you saying “hey, that’s not what I was getting at,” but it’s silly to suggest my reading of that post was absurd.
And you forgot to re-login. Who the hell is **fizzestothetop[/b?
My original post was summed up in the final sentence, DCU. I believe you are familiar with it by now;) If you had any doubts as to the clarity or meaning (which it would appear is/was the case) I would have been more than happy to clarify as opposed to what happened here.
I will be so happy when I return to a computer with netscape (keep forgetting to log her back out and myself back in).
fizzestothetop is my fiancee since November:)
Your point was clear to everyone except Dewey, 'punha.
You are referring, I assume to the story of Tamar, the daughter in law of Judah.
What happened was her first husband was evil and the Bible says the Lord “smote him.” As custom dictated she then married his brother. The brother refused to impregnate her to give her an heir. Since women were not allowed to own property she needed to have a son in case her husband died before she did. Otherwise her property would be given away and she would be destitute. So, when the brother refused to give her his seed God smote him as well.
I don’t think this was a indictment of coitus interuptus (though this is a quite ineffectual way of BC anyway - I mean, little scouts are heading out way before the finale 
) or BC in general. I think it was just that the brother was not fulfilling his duty to his dead brother or the widow/wife. Make sense?
I am confused by the whole idea here of “separation of church and state”. Where in the constitution does it say this phrase? The establishment clause says that the government shall not establish a religion, not that it won’t be influenced by one.
In the words of John Adams, “Our Constitution was written for the governing of a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other kind.”
punha, with all due respect, I thought it was clear, and based on the text I quoted I had a perfectly reasonable basis for my characterization of your remarks. You, upon realizing my reading was incorrect, should have simply clarified your remarks, rather than implying I was illiterate (“Nowhere in my post will you find a statement to that effect…”)
The phrase, as you are probably aware, is lifted from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. It is, in effect, shorthand for rigorous enforcement of the establishment clause, essentially meaning that governmental favoritism of a particular religious sect is tantamount to the establishment of that sect as a state-favored religion.
You are correct, however, in surmising that religion may constitutionally influence political decisionmaking in the US, for reasons discussed above.
I apologise for any inference made that I was accusing you of being illiterate. I attempted to clarify my remarks inasmuch as I could (and I do not feel that I was in error there). I believe the best course of action would have been to quote me and ask me to explain what I meant rather than furthering, on my behalf, an argument I was not on my own advancing. However, I think the matter is largely settled now that we agree that we are both right. Or something. I lost track at some point, but I’m sure I was right at least once:D
Here, for your reading delight, and to ensure that future confusion is kept to a minimum, is the relevant portion of the Bill of Rights as obtained from here:
Furthermore, to say that a government will not be influenced by something (religion, scabs, sudden decline in population dental health, whatever) affecting a plurality (or majority, or even a large-enough segment) of the population is rather silly, as you have evidently grasped.
A simpler (if blunter) way of stating the quoted phrase, I think (though I can sense one or two people chomping at my heels hoping I foul up;)), is this:
“Congress ain’t going to say ‘this is the One True Religion’, or “This is Our Religion in the US”. It ain’t gonna say ‘You can’t be that particular religion here’.”
That’s great. Show me, then, the following things, if you are able to find them:
Where he said this.
What bearing this statement has on anything, since John Adams had nothing to do with the drafting of the Bill of Rights nor the Constitutional Convention involved. Cite. His only involvement was in signing the document. It is his opinion, to be sure, but as he had nothing to do with the drafting of the document his opinion carries about as much weight as that of his grandson. And hell, I could quote any number of politicians since then who have made statements about this nation as God’s country, being founded by (God-fearing) Christians, being blessed by God, etc. That does not mean they are accurate or even relevant.
When do we start quoting Jefferson at whim about his beliefs on the role organized religion should play in American government? Those who peruse the cite will note that he is not listed as having been present. Lest ye try to found an argument against my “quoting Jefferson” bit, rest assured that he was an influence upon the drafting of the Bill of Rights, as Madison and Jefferson worked together to write the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison, being the father of the Constitution, certainly had Jefferson’s ideas in mind when he wrote the thing.
I err again, I guess, after being informed that Adams had even less role in the document than signing it. In my defense, US History has never been my strongsuit:)
Being one of the consultees on Punha’s last post, I would like to make the statement that I did indeed tell him that Mr. John Adams of Quincey, Massachusetts, did not sign the Constitution. However, he can be a dummy, and so forgot that fact in his posting. I have thwapped him mightily (some might even say smote) with the mega-cluestick.
That will be all.