by patio34 41 Replies latest social current
Can I call you late for dinner?
Your counter opnion only gives the author's own "oppion" on the meaning of the words cited. He even admits that the US is a "religious people." This begs the question, Why? It is hard to explain away the frank terms used.
What say you to Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892) ? (I can dig up a lot more "case law")
"" The Arabs, the Chinese, and others made plenty of scientific progress too...""
Quick, without doing a search, name one inventor off the top of your head outside of a Christian Nation that made a major contribution to science?...I bet you can?t without cheating....
(however, this is way off topic, sorry)
Wow, I don't remember the names without looking them up - that proves their lack of value, doesn't it? After all, my memory for things I had to go look up on my own because I wasn't told them in history class is the final arbiter of significance. Not. That doesn't prove a damned thing and you know it.
Muhammad Bin Ahmad invented the zero in 967 AD (some sources credit India for the zero - either way, they weren't Christian).
al-Khawarzmi is credited with the first treatise on algebra. By the 11th century the Arabs had founded, developed and perfected geometrical algebra and could solve equations of the third and fourth degree.
Abu Jafar Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Hassan separated trigonometry from astronomy. This contribution recognizes and explains weakness in Euclid's theory of parallels, and thereby may thus be credited as founder of non-Euclidian geometry.
For more see, http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html and http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980422/1998042208.html, where the above was sourced . Curiously, most of these guys lived in Iraq, not too far from Baghdad.
For an abstract of Chinese math history, :
I would be very opposed to a constitutional amendment. The matter should be left to the states. Personally I see no reason why same sex couples could not enter into contractual arrangements that could be recognized by the states.
Dragged this outta the archives...notice the date:)
Holy Matrimony
What's really undermining the sanctity of marriage? By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Thursday, Nov. 20, 2003, at 3:29 PM PT
Within nanoseconds of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's declaration that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution came predictions of the end of life as we know it: The president, speaking from London, warned: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle."
"The time is now. If you don't do something about this, then you cannot in 20 years?when you see the American public disintegrating and you see our enemies overtaking us because we have no moral will?you remember that you did nothing," said Sandy Rios, president of the Concerned Women for America, to her 1 million radio listeners. "We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction," Focus on the Family urged in a statement on Tuesday.
Extinction, no less. The institution of marriage?the one that survived Henry VIII, Lorena Bobbitt, Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson?is suddenly going to become extinct?
Do you want to know what's destroying the sanctity of marriage? Phone messages like the ones we'd get at my old divorce firm in Reno, Nev., left on Saturday mornings and picked up on Monday: "Beeep. Hi? My name is Misty and I think I maybe got married last night. Could someone call me back and tell me if I could get an annulment? I'm at Circus Circus? Room?honey what room is this?oh yeah. Room 407. Thank you. Beeep."
It just doesn't get much more sacred than that.
Here's my modest request: If you're going to be a crusader for the sanctity of marriage?if you really believe gay marriage will have some vast corrosive, viral impact on marriage as a whole?here's a brief list of other laws and policies far more dangerous to the institution. Go after these first, then pass your constitutional amendment.
1. Divorce
Somewhere between 43 percent and 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available?from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions?should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.
2. Circus Circus
In general, if there is blood in your body and you are over 18, you can get married, so long as you're not in love with your cousin. (Although even that's OK in some states). You can be married to someone you met at the breakfast buffet. Knowing her last name is optional. And you can be married by someone who was McOrdained on the Internet. So before you lobby to ban gay marriage, you might want to work to enact laws limiting the sheer frivolousness of straight marriage. You should be lobbying for an increase in minimum-age requirements, for mandatory counseling pre-marriage, and for statutory waiting periods before marriages (and divorces) can be permitted.
3. Birth ControlThe dissenters in the Massachusetts decision are of the opinion that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. They urge that a sound reason for discriminating against gay couples is that there is a legitimate state purpose in ensuring, promoting, and supporting an "optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children." If you're going to take the position that marriage exists solely to encourage begetting, you need to oppose childlessness by choice, birth control, living together, and marriage for the post-menopausal. In fact, if you're really looking for "optimal" social structures for childrearing, you need to legislate against single parents, poor parents, two-career parents, alcoholic or sick parents, and parents who (like myself) are afraid of the Baby Einstein videos.
4. Misc.
Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness. In fact we should start amending the Constitution to deal with the Wiggles immediately.
Here's why marriage will likely survive last week's crushing decision out of Massachusetts: Because despite all the horrors of Section 4, above, human beings want and deserve a soul mate; someone to grow old with, someone who thinks our dopey entry in the New Yorker cartoon competition is hilarious, and someone to help carry the shopping bags. Gay couples have asked the state to explain why such privileges should be denied them and have yet to receive an answer that is credible.
The decision to make a marriage "sacred" does not belong to the state?if the state were in charge of mandating sacredness in matrimony, we'd have to pave over both Nevada and Jessica Simpson. We make marriage sacred by choosing to treat it that way, one couple at a time. We make marriage a joke by treating it like a two-week jungle safari. There is no evidence that gay couples are any more inclined toward that latter course than supermodels, rock stars, or that poor spineless bald man on Who Wants to Marry My Dad? There's good evidence that most of them will take the commitment very seriously, as do the rest of us. There will be more "sanctity" in marriage when we recognize that people of all orientations can make sacred choices. Good for Massachusetts for recognizing that truth.
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091475/
Ever looked into how hard it is to add a constitional amendment. It is not to likely on this one and the chances are very low in a split political enviroment like the ones that exist today. It is a presidential election year, time to work the votes you want. Especially since, many "should be Bush-supporters" are not happy with him over other issues right now.
In an earlier post, I suggested that instituting a constitutional amendment would be a step towards making America a theocracy. I said that as a logical extension of ThiChi's argument that America is historically and factually a "Christian nation".
If America is a Christian nation, and the Bible God makes rules for Christians, then logically the Bible God SHOULD make rules for America. Then we SHOULD outlaw everything the Bible says is immoral.
For what is theocracy, except a nation where a deity imposes rules through humans who interpret and disseminate such rules?
GW Bush has often claimed God's backing and referred to God in his speeches. Well then, apparently he wants to disseminate the rules of the Bible God here in America to the extent possible.
But American cannot become a theocracy. The constitution explicitly prohibits establishment of religion by our government. The founding fathers of the country, though largely Christian, were well aware of the tyranny that sprang from the combination of religion and government. Domination by the majority over any minority class (be they non-Christian, homosexual or whatever) is un-American and unconstitutional.
The constitution was written to protect and enhance freedoms, not to take them away. When the "alcohol prohibition" amendment was unwisely added in the early 20th century, a lot of people knew it was unfair and wrong, and sought ways around it (moonshining, speakeasy establishments, etc.). Eventually that amendment was repealed through yet another amendment.
An anti-gay-marriage amendment early in THIS century would parallel the same mistake made early in the last century. It has little chance of happening, but the debate it's raising is interesting and educational.
""Wow, I don't remember the names..."
LOL....
""The constitution was written to protect and enhance freedoms, not to take them away.""
So, you are losing freedom if you can?t steal or kill? Give me a break. The point is almost every Nation in the world has used some religious principles in their laws. Nations that don?t seem not to fair well.
My only claim was that we were founded on "Christian" principles (I have provided Supreme Court Cases that confirm this), and some laws can be found and based on these. Those who say we were not or did not, are wrong.
Its Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.
