The U.S. Constitution

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 12:52 AM'] I just think that sex is as close to a civil right as we get.  I think from a secular post-modernist standpoint, that makes gay sex a foregone conclusion.

I feel that the religious can best express themselves by voting their consciences.  But let's all remember something - Roe v. Wade is a court decision and was never brought to a vote.  It still hasn't been in 30 years.

I think that arguing for sex as a civil right is far easier and less of an uphill battle than arguing the reverse.  Therefore, the legality of gay sex seems to be the much clearer argument.

However, I didn't take into account the possibility that perhaps the reason outlawing heterosexual sex isn't unconstitutional is that nobody would ever think of it nor would the law ever be passed.  Taken from this viewpoint, the argument for gay sex and gay marriage holds a great deal less water.  But, my area of emphasis is medieval history, not constitutional law.  As such, I'll allow the lawyers to deal with this.

An interesting side development - I've never voted because I don't like the US government as an institution.  However, I suppose voting is the only way to make the US a better institution. [/quote]
Nobody has a right to sodomy. Of course, "secular postmodernists" will always want every kind of perverted activity to be a "right" and recognized as such by law, but this is totally irrelevent to what the Constitution actually says.

Your point about Roe v. Wade is exactly the point I was making about the tyranny of activist federal judges. Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision. There was no "right" to an abortion in the Constitution! Most states had laws against abortions, and the federal judiciary overstepped its bounds and declared all laws restricting abortions "unconstitutional" on no solid legal ground whatsoever.

They did this using the same logic that you use to say that homosexual "marriage" is a "constitutional right." They do this by not sticking to what the Constitution actually states, but by coming up with principles supposedly "implied" in the law to make their own law totally unrelated to the Constitution actually states.

The Fourth Ammendment states that the government may not make unreasonable searches of citizen's person or property. This is a just law, and clearly has nothing to do with sex or abortion.

However, liberals take this law and say that because the government can't conduct unreasonable searches, this means that citizens have an absolute "right to privacy," which then somehow means that everyone has an absolute right to abortion and homosexual "marriage."
This is absurd, and has nothing to do with what is actually written in the constitution. By this logic, judges can "infer" whatever they so desire from the constitution, and have their "interpretation" enforced on the states.

With regards to voting, and civil action, it seems you prefer to take the easy way out - do nothing and then say that defeat is inevitable. you seem to be saying someone should argue for something wrong rather than something right because the right would require too much of an "uphill battle."

The Democrats are determined to block any judicial appointments that would limit their decsions to what the Constitution actually states, rather than take a liberal activist view of the law. These Democratic congressmen were voted into office.
They should be voted out. Who we vote for makes a difference.

It's nice and easy to simply take a "hands-off" view and do nothing to prevent the country from sliding further into hell, while dreaming of going back to the middle ages. However, we must deal with the world we live in.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 11:56 AM'] Nobody has a right to sodomy. Of course, "secular postmodernists" will always want every kind of perverted activity to be a "right" and recognized as such by law, but this is totally irrelevent to what the Constitution actually says.

Your point about Roe v. Wade is exactly the point I was making about the tyranny of activist federal judges. Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision. There was no "right" to an abortion in the Constitution! Most states had laws against abortions, and the federal judiciary overstepped its bounds and declared all laws restricting abortions "unconstitutional" on no solid legal ground whatsoever.

They did this using the same logic that you use to say that homosexual "marriage" is a "constitutional right." They do this by not sticking to what the Constitution actually states, but by coming up with principles supposedly "implied" in the law to make their own law totally unrelated to the Constitution actually states.

The Fourth Ammendment states that the government may not make unreasonable searches of citizen's person or property. This is a just law, and clearly has nothing to do with sex or abortion.

However, liberals take this law and say that because the government can't conduct unreasonable searches, this means that citizens have an absolute "right to privacy," which then somehow means that everyone has an absolute right to abortion and homosexual "marriage."
This is absurd, and has nothing to do with what is actually written in the constitution. By this logic, judges can "infer" whatever they so desire from the constitution, and pass it into written law to be enforced.

With regards to voting, and civil action, it seems you prefer to take the easy way out - do nothing and then say that defeat is inevitable. you seem to be saying someone should argue for something wrong rather than something right because the right would require too much of an "uphill battle."

The Democrats are determined to block any judicial appointments that would limit their decsions to what the Constitution actually states, rather than take a liberal activist view of the law. These Democratic congressmen were voted into office.
They should be voted out. Who we vote for makes a difference.

It's nice and easy to simply take a "hands-off" view and do nothing to prevent the country from sliding further into hell, while dreaming of going back to the middle ages. However, we must deal with the world we live in.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. [/quote]
I wouldn't call it the easy way out. My problem is that voting my conscience can't really happen with political candidates. Why? Well I'd probably be voting libertarian because I don't believe in the government's right to control people's lives. On the other hand, I'm not sure being a libertarian and being Catholic go so nicely together.

[Socrates]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='Jun 3 2005, 12:03 PM'] I wouldn't call it the easy way out.  My problem is that voting my conscience can't really happen with political candidates.  Why?  Well I'd probably be voting libertarian because I don't believe in the government's right to control people's lives.  On the other hand, I'm not sure being a libertarian and being Catholic go so nicely together. [/quote]
Joe Sobran's a Catholic conservative/libertarian commentator whose main point is how far the U.S. government has gone from the Constitution (which limited the power of Federal Government). I don't agree with all he says, but you might want to check him out if you want a Catholic libertarian pespective.

And i'd agree, being in the state of CA would create quite a dilemna of finding acceptable candidates to vote for!

Edited June 3, 2005 by Socrates

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 3 2005, 12:15 PM'] Joe Sobran's a Catholic conservative/libertarian commentator whose main point is how far the U.S. government has gone from the Constitution (which limited the power ofFederal Government). I don't agree with all he says, but you might want to check him out if you want a Catholic libertarian pespective.

And i'd agree, being in the state of CA would create quite a dilemna of finding acceptable candidates to vote for! [/quote]
Yes. We get to choose between socialists and republican actors.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:39 AM'] Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

[quote]Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;[/quote]

[quote]
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 [/quote]



[/quote]
Funny, I seem to remember that the Jews also had the ten commandments. I guess you've dispelled that crazy notion from my head.

Point is, the Ten Commandments do exist beyond the scope of Christianity.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

A huge logical flaw that many on the liberal side make, and try to convince those on the right that we're doing wrong, is that because a belief is held by a religious group it shouldn't be considered to be made into law. Here's how it goes.

Belief A is held by B
B is a religion
The US Government cannot enforce beliefs held by any religion
Therefore, the US Government cannot and should not hold to belief A

The flaw is that the belief is often beyond the scope of the church or churches in the US. Let's take an example where the above statements would be valid.

Belief in the Immaculate Conception is held by the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is a religion
The US Government cannot enforce beliefs held by any religion
Therefore, the US Government cannot and should not hold to belief in the Immaculate Conception

Okay, that works. Let's try another one

Belief that Murder is a Crime is held by the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is a religion
The US Government cannot enforce beliefs held by any religion
Therefore, the US Government cannot and should not hold to belief that Murder is a Crime.

Whoa! I think there's a flaw in our reasoning. The flaw is that a belief held by a Chruch may exist outside of the Church. Murder is wrong for multiple reasons: it violates the Ten Commandments (religious appeal), I wouldn't want it done to me, we should treat others with dignity and respect, it's messy to clean up, etc. Are any of those reasons wrong? Nope. Some may be 'better' than others.

However, there's an even greater flaw that secularists try to thrust upon us, and that is the idea that a religious reason is a bad reason for a law. Worse yet is that they only do this when convenient. If a law about welfare comes up we're reminded about what Jesus says about helping the poor and that if you don't support welfare then you're not being a Christian (this is an example and not meant as a threadjack). But when it comes to a belief like gay marraige then it's an argument that since mostly Christians believe it then we can't make it law. There are many great reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Even more, there aren't any great reasons why it SHOULD be allowed.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:09 PM']
However, there's an even greater flaw that secularists try to thrust upon us, and that is the idea that a religious reason is a bad reason for a law. Worse yet is that they only do this when convenient. If a law about welfare comes up we're reminded about what Jesus says about helping the poor and that if you don't support welfare then you're not being a Christian (this is an example and not meant as a threadjack). But when it comes to a belief like gay marraige then it's an argument that since mostly Christians believe it then we can't make it law. There are many great reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Even more, there aren't any great reasons why it SHOULD be allowed. [/quote]
We need only look to history or to modern day theocracies to see the ills of governing a society using religion. We can thank the creation of this great land of America for those very reasons above stated. In regards to murder. It has been wrong long before the 10 commandments have been around. If you need the 10 commandments to show you that murder is wrong, than you have serious problems. We know things to be wrong often by the fact that they harm people. On the other hand. We can thank the 10 commandments for showing us not to covet our neighbors servants, ox nor his/her donkey.

The fact is, that there isnt a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to be in a relationship, engage in sex in a free society. All of your reasons are purely religious. Because your myth regards it as an abomination. Luckily, society has advanced to recognize that indivuals should be afforded equal rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. In your society, homosexuals who engage in sex would be carted off to prison and serve time with killers and such. Welcome to New Saudi Arabia.

[MC Just]

Now a days everything is Constitutional, except God and Religion. Thanks to the liberal demoncrats.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:33 PM'] We need only look to history or to modern day theocracies to see the ills of governing a society using religion. We can thank the creation of this great land of America for those very reasons above stated. In regards to murder. It has been wrong long before the 10 commandments have been around. If you need the 10 commandments to show you that murder is wrong, than you have serious problems. We know things to be wrong often by the fact that they harm people. On the other hand. We can thank the 10 commandments for showing us not to covet our neighbors servants, ox nor his/her donkey.

The fact is, that there isnt a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to be in a relationship, engage in sex in a free society. All of your reasons are purely religious. Because your myth regards it as an abomination.  Luckily, society has advanced to recognize that indivuals should be afforded equal rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. In your society, homosexuals who engage in sex would be carted off to prison and serve time with killers and such. Welcome to New Saudi Arabia. [/quote]
how many times have selfish atheistic governments persecuted the church? We cant even count how many times. From the time of the old pagan roman empire until now. We also dont appreciate secularism undoing all the Good work the Church has done in the world.

We create colleges and schools and secularists take em over, we convert nations to Christendom and Secularists turn everyone into pagan state worshippers.

One day there will be a clash and we will win just like when we won against the muslims in the past. They surrounded us, they outnumbered us, but we still won. We will win this too. That's a promise.

Edited June 3, 2005 by MC Just

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:49 PM'] how many times have selfish atheistic governments persecuted the church? We cant even count how many times. From the time of the old pagan roman empire until now. We also dont appreciate secularism undoing all the Good work the Church has done in the world.

We create colleges and schools and secularists take em over, we convert nations to Christendom and Secularists turn everyone into pagan state worshippers.

One day there will be a clash and we will win just like when we won against the muslims in the past. They surrounded us, they outnumbered us, but we still won. We will win this too. That's a promise. [/quote]
More like all you crazy religious nutz will kill each other off, and atheist will inherit the earth

[MC Just]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:52 PM'] More like all you crazy religious nutz will kill each other off, and atheist will inherit the earth [/quote]
lol.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 11:39 AM']Funny you mention Jefferson , who was a deist and certainly did not believe in the bible. As far as America being founded as a christian nation, you need only look to the Treaty of Tripoli ,authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
[/quote]
I like the emotive verbage in this account. Stuff like, "...proudly proclaimed it to the Nation..."

It's amazing that the Treaty of Tripoli is so often used as proof for the atheistic position. This "treaty" amounted to a blackmail payment made to placate Muslim pirates who regularly enslaved Christians. Let's see the details. [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26234"]See this thread for more info (link).[/url] Quoting the thread:
[quote name='Mateo el Feo']I think the context of these words (i.e. Article 11) in the Treaty of Tripoli is interesting. For example, check out "Article 10":
[quote]The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.[/quote]
The US's commercial ships were threatened by pirates. The British Navy stopped protecting American ships after the Revolutionary War--go figure! The new federal government had little money. It couldn't build a Navy. So, they paid the Muslim pirates off-- specifically, the dey (ruler) of the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis--so that his ships (aka pirates) wouldn't attack American ships.

The bribe lasted for less than five years before the dey resumed his attacks on Americans. The Wikipedia has some articles on the US's wars against the Barbary states.

I think that the wording of the treaty (i.e. disavowing a foundation upon Christianity) may have something to do with the fact that the Barbary states regularly enslaved Christians who were captured. I suspect that the Americans didn't want to provide their merchant sailors to the Barbary states as a new source of slaves. It was conciliatory language, used in an attempt to further placate a hostile power who clearly had the upper hand.

A side note: for about twenty years after this treaty was written, the dey continued the practice of enslaving Christians. He had a change of heart in 1816, when the a British and Dutch fleet bombarded Algiers for nine hours.[/quote]

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 3 2005, 02:54 PM'] I like the emotive verbage in this account. Stuff like, "...proudly proclaimed it to the Nation..."

It's amazing that the Treaty of Tripoli is so often used as proof for the atheistic position. This "treaty" amounted to a blackmail payment made to placate Muslim pirates who regularly enslaved Christians. Let's see the details. [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=26234"]See this thread for more info (link).[/url] Quoting the thread:

The US's commercial ships were threatened by pirates. The British Navy stopped protecting American ships after the Revolutionary War--go figure! The new federal government had little money. It couldn't build a Navy. So, they paid the Muslim pirates off-- specifically, the dey (ruler) of the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis--so that his ships (aka pirates) wouldn't attack American ships.

The bribe lasted for less than five years before the dey resumed his attacks on Americans. The Wikipedia has some articles on the US's wars against the Barbary states.

I think that the wording of the treaty (i.e. disavowing a foundation upon Christianity) may have something to do with the fact that the Barbary states regularly enslaved Christians who were captured. I suspect that the Americans didn't want to provide their merchant sailors to the Barbary states as a new source of slaves. It was conciliatory language, used in an attempt to further placate a hostile power who clearly had the upper hand.

A side note: for about twenty years after this treaty was written, the dey continued the practice of enslaving Christians. He had a change of heart in 1816, when the a British and Dutch fleet bombarded Algiers for nine hours.[/QUOTE] [/quote]
Very predictable that you would not want acknowledge a national document , signed by the president at the time. All you have is mere speculation because the facts are on my side. But if you wish, continue to speculate as much as you want.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote]We need only look to history or to modern day theocracies to see the ills of governing a society using religion.[/quote]
This does not prove that religion cannot be a part of government. You attempt to discredit one position that religious viewpoints can be considered with the extreme that not only must religious viewpoints be considered, they are the only positions that can be considered. You've beaten this straw man to death enough times already.

[quote]In regards to murder. It has been wrong long before the 10 commandments have been around. If you need the 10 commandments to show you that murder is wrong, than you have serious problems.[/quote]
So you propose that we don't need the ten commandments? What about governmental laws on murder? Anyone who needs those to know murder is wrong must have something seriously wrong with them. I guess we don't need them either.

[quote]We know things to be wrong often by the fact that they harm people.[/quote]
Do we? In other species harming other animals of the same species is an inherent part of survival. Abortion harms people too (the babies who move away from the abortion instruments). But we'll save that debate for another thread. This notion of harming people as a matter of moral judgement is unfounded. Prove that "harming people" is a necessary and sufficient condition of "wrong" and that things that not "harming people" is a necessary and sufficient condition to make something not "wrong."

[quote]The fact is, that there isnt a good reason why homosexuals should not be able to be in a relationship, engage in sex in a free society.[/quote]
I never said that they shouldn't be in a relationship. You still haven't given a good reason why the should be MARRIED.

[quote]All of your reasons are purely religious. Because your myth regards it as an abomination.[/quote]
How do you know that? In fact, I haven't even given you a single reason why it's wrong. How about that I believe that, at least on a low level, that marriage is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in which all property becomes shared. I didn't even mention God in that. I did mention man and woman and I don't believe that is a trivial point in my brief and incomplete characterization of marriage.

[quote]Luckily, society has advanced to recognize that indivuals should be afforded equal rights, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.[/quote]
Any man can marry any woman who isn't closely related or already married and any woman can marry any man who isn't closely related or already married. That goes for anyone of any race, religion, or sexual orientation. What you're asking for is a new right to be given to everyone whereas I believe that right should not be given to anyone. The government has the right to keep the people from having certain rights as long as it applies that to everyone consistently.

[quote]In your society, homosexuals who engage in sex would be carted off to prison and serve time with killers and such. Welcome to New Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
I don't care if they're having gay sex. Frankly, I'll let God be the judge of them.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 3 2005, 03:52 PM'] More like all you crazy religious nutz will kill each other off, and atheist will inherit the earth [/quote]
Crazy religious people reproduce. Atheists don't. Darwin's natural selection can work!