-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Krank
I only used an example based on appearance. A hermaphrodite can look like one gender when, in fact, they are not strictly either... or are they both? See what I'm getting at. These are actual people. They have both sets of genitalia, thus gender designation cannot be strictly applied, therefore the meanings of "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", and even "transgender" are, intrinsically at the biological level, different than anyone else.
If a law is absolute, then these folks are sinning no matter what they do, thus I ask if they are expected by a loving god to deny themselves ANY sexual life so as not to offend the creator?
Thankfully all judgement has been given completely to Christ by God the Father, Someone who has observed the human condition and will judge the heart of a person and not by the letter of the law. He kept the law in our place...and expects us to try to walk that path as best we can..or according the the grace given each of us.
Part of the good news is that God's law didn't apply to us in the beginning, but through disbelief of what God said (Don't be awakened to the existence of good and evil or you will die) the knowledge of good and evil meant eventual death to our spirit. We had one minor command, and yet with the fist in the face of God we the same as stated We don't believe you
But there is a holy precedent for the scripture.. "Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute sin" It requires acknowledging by effort and action that God's law is good however. Again, to the best of our ability
And now the same choice is offered us as in the garden (metaphorically or otherwise). Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. The other choice is to continue beholding to the law and Commandments, and deny Christ. And whoever lives by the law, shall die by the law.
So I say we have more than hope, ALL of us, unless that person refuses to believe. Because there is no forgiveness for that.
Still, on one commandment hangs all the law, and our confidence in Christ saving us..
This is my long-winded perspective on the individual relationship with God as best as I can explain it. Yet, a nation is a different entity altogether and each one is playing a part on this finite stage.
The believer escapes the Father's wrath, but the nations and unbelievers will not. God has blessed this nation up to this point. But now, for the first time.. our law is contrary to God's law.
Believing this, how can a believer think that blessing would continue?
As for me, I probably struggle more than everyone here at being "Christ like" by the way. But I struggle on none the less.
I honestly have so wanted to post jokes in the color changing condom thread.. :)
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
The Bible, Koran, and Torah have nothing to do with the civil law, otherwise you get this:
"An Islamic court has sentenced nine people to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad in the northern Nigerian city of Kano."
True enough, the Founders never intended us to follow a particular religion as law.
But the way our legal system of "protected classes" works we are at risk of forcing specific performance of a service that would force people to violate their religious beliefs, and that's not what the Founders intended either. In effect it becomes servitude. At common law the courts considered specific performance remedies of a service as all but abhorrent, but it seems to be becoming not just possible but positively celebrated. That's a real concern as well.
In the true Libertarian world the state would issue a license to whoever wanted one, but no church, tax exempt or not, and no photographer or baker would be required to participate.
Will we be TRULY equal before the law now, or will we just shift the imbalance from one side to the other? I'm all for the former, but I fear it will be the latter.
To me many in the LGBT community are no different than so many revolutionaries who overthrow the dictator only to move into his palace and start their own repression. They want to force people to support their life choices whether it violates their personal religious beliefs or not. That's not wanting tolerance or equality before the law. They don't want to tear down the palace, they want to sit in it and make the former occupants gravel a while.
Oh, and I have many gay/lesbian friends and have had the same discussion with them over the years. Some even agree with me, many don't see it. They dont' mean ill, but they don't see it.
-
Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.
Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.
I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
A suggestion for the movers and shakers for relabeling the national currency..
"In God we trust, if it suits us"
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.
Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.
I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.
Those are all legal matters controlled by the state. What I'm talking about is going to be the non-state issues that impact other people and their rights.
No one's rights are infringed if a same sex couple now gets the legal protection of property transfer and survivorship, but they will if they are forced to perform a marriage they think makes them a sinner.
I'm all for the state getting out of the bias of the marriage business, but that's not where we're going to have issues.
-
Weve seen this battle before; slavery justified by the Bible; segregation justified by the Bible; discrimination justified by the Bible, anti miscegenation laws justified by the Bible. Hanging Quakers for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. Jailing Baptists for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. All men, misusing the Bible and mixing it with civil law, to impose tyranny.
I read the opinion as to not require any religion to perform a ceremony. My civil marriage is my way, a church wedding another. The govt cant discriminate between the two.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
Weve seen this battle before; slavery justified by the Bible; segregation justified by the Bible; discrimination justified by the Bible, anti miscegenation laws justified by the Bible. Hanging Quakers for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. Jailing Baptists for preaching their religion justified by the Bible. All men, misusing the Bible and mixing it with civil law, to impose tyranny.
I read the opinion as to not require any religion to perform a ceremony. My civil marriage is my way, a church wedding another. The govt cant discriminate between the two.
Then I submit, the Government must decide if, upon it's precepts and at the heart of what our forefathers intended, was there implication that God really exists.
A simple yes or no and I'll know where I stand as a Christian, and if this is the nation I grew up in.
The above is not the perspective a true believer would have. Are Christian views valid in the eyes of the government, or only allowed?
It's an important question and one that strikes at the heart of the matter imo.
This is entirely different in nature to the examples you give above, also imo.
But that can only be argued if both parties acknowledge inherent truths in the Bible, and that God Himself exists.
P.S
Surely there was a way to accomplish this that accommodates the both the views of the Christian and non believer, because it certainly doesn't come close to hitting that mark. It sets a precedent of utmost concern to many, if not all Christians. And it hints at what might be a coming persecution of Christians for their beliefs.
-
Kingcat, did you not pay attention the answer, "to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"? It was exactly this issue, meant as a trap by the questioner, not answered by "pay your taxes", but "dont confuse the two or your separate duties to each."
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingcat
Are Christian views valid in the eyes of the government, or only allowed?
In light of the Obergefell decision, my question is more basic: Are they allowed, or not allowed?
-
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or none, are all allowed. Government can't favor one and discriminate against the others or by doing so, it establishes an official religion. That's prohibited by the US Constitution.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or none, are all allowed. Government can't favor one and discriminate against the others or by doing so, it establishes an official religion. That's prohibited by the US Constitution.
I know that. That's not what I mean. This is what I mean: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshe...ssibility.html
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Caesar has not had Christian or Jewish slaves in many years. They had no choice, nor vote, nor message board platform. ;)
I am a citizen with certain inalienable rights myself.
And I appeal to Caesar!! (jk...is he here?)
I do understand where you are coming from. I'm just trying to make a point about the ramifications of the new law using your input It is certainly a legitimate stance, as well as the law.
But those ramifications are not clearly seen except from the Christians perspective..or the Jewish and the Muslim perspectives
Can't speak for the Buddhists, but in this situation, "or none" stands in direct opposition to the other three, who must also answer to "higher laws" Thus the dilemma this creates.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
elicat
Yes, I've seen flat tax advocates say the same thing about all non profit corporations. Is it about the money or the faith for the corporate church?
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
Govt grants too many privileges to married couples not to require equal treatment.
Licensing is the least of it. Taxes, survivorship, visitation, property ownership, child custody, etc, are all bigger.
I was married by a justice of the peace, in a corral. I wasnt "civil unioned". Been married 29 years and what "sanctifies" my marriage is our dedication to each other and our friends' and society's respect for that dedication. Equal treatment is due to all.
IMO here lies the problem. Why grant privileges to married folks?
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
Yes, I've seen flat tax advocates say the same thing about all non profit corporations. Is it about the money or the faith for the corporate church?
As you know perfectly well, religious institutions in this country would not survive the loss of tax exemption. The institutions and their funding models have been built with the reasonable expectation that it is permanent. It is merely disingenuous to make snarky comments about faith or money. This is clearly an effort to eliminate religious institutions from American life. It is fortunate that it is highly unlikely to succeed anytime soon, but it does show what some people are increasingly capable of.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
elicat
That is a battle we face and those who seek some kind of revenge are wrong.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
elicat
As you know perfectly well, religious institutions in this country would not survive the loss of tax exemption. The institutions and their funding models have been built with the reasonable expectation that it is permanent. It is merely disingenuous to make snarky comments about faith or money. This is clearly an effort to eliminate religious institutions from American life. It is fortunate that it is highly unlikely to succeed anytime soon, but it does show what some people are increasingly capable of.
I dont know that. And its one article. Churches are giving up corporate status to allow them to lobby and engage in political activity. As for being "snarky" will you answer the question? should the Catholic or Mormon church be allowed to accumulate immense wealth?
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Well, there's no way for American policy makers to keep the Catholic church from accumulating immense wealth. It's not an American institution. What about the liberal, pro-gay Presbyterian Church (USA) and its hundreds of millions of dollars in their foundation? Is that legitimate? Should a liberal, pro-gay congregation like Riverside Church in NY be allowed to accumulate immense wealth?
I'm not really interested in such questions. I'm interested in the continued viability of the local places American Christians as well as people of other faiths turn up to exercise their faith.
-
I'm sorry if I was snarky--it's as personal to me as it is to you.
I will answer your questions: no. I'm for eliminating that chapter of IRS code. For all non profits. It is not right that foundations are landlords and businesses and dont pay for the services they use.
It's fine to advocate for a special interest. Its not fine to make policy and law that way.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Good nite all. Enjoyed the discussion.
I am a semi-liberal Democrat still..aren't I?
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Further food for thought:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...81.html?page=1
"It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation."
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
elicat
Further food for thought:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...81.html?page=1
"It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation."
The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KeithKSR
The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.
:sCo_huhsign:
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KeithKSR
The same sex marriage charge is part of the progressives' Communist movement.
That assessment is 100% correct and right on point. And what I have been saying all along about this and all of the other ancillary activities associated with these people involved. A lot of different activities are all in play here, and I'm sure if you look at the players some of the same names will keep popping up.
Gay marriage, gun control, Roe v Wade, public education reform, voting issues, immigration reform, and several other issues are all intricately tied together by these liberal socialists/Communists vermin. All you have to do is pay attention and connect the dots to bring the pieces of the puzzle together.
It's a very ugly picture that is forming before our eyes. And I know some of you guys think I'm full of baloney, but the end result may not be to most of our likings. Something very bad is coming, and it's coming for us that don't want it.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
elicat
:sCo_huhsign:
The Progressives' and the Communists' (CPUSA) platforms are nearly identical twins. The same goals, very slight differences in wording.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
suncat05
It's a very ugly picture that is forming before our eyes. And I know some of you guys think I'm full of baloney, but the end result may not be to most of our likings. Something very bad is coming, and it's coming for us that don't want it.
Those that are unknowingly pushing the agenda won't want it when it arrives.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Link to the CPUSA propaganda pamphlet aimed at seducing Americans into their way of thinking:
http://www.cpusa.org/assets/pdfs/pam...ismbooklet.pdf
Every single item on it is a part of the Progressive movement.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
I, too seldom come to this board. I’ve read some of your comments. Both those for and against state interesting comments. We’ve had a state that voted on an issue by legal election and it was overturned by the court. What happened to “Of the people, for the people and by the people”? I thought a democracy works like that. You have an issue; put it on the ballot and vote on it. The loser lives with the outcome. You know, like the presidential election.
This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Now comes the rest of the story. It is unlawful to refuse a gay Boy Scout master to be with a group of kids. I’ve seen some troops disbanded because it was their only choice if they disagreed with the law. I have no desire to watch two men with beards kissing in public. I don’t want a law telling it is unlawful to refuse service to a gay couple or anyone for that matter. As stated in another post, about Sodom and Gomorrah, the way the gays demanded the man to have his guest come out for the reason to have sex with them. Where was the guest's rights?
This is offensive to me. Where are my rights? The idea of equal rights should be for everyone. Not just for the 2%. It’s offensive to me to make governments take down the Ten Commandments, abuse our flag, to be ridiculed for being a Christian, and have different views than someone else.
The Supreme Judge, GOD, will have the last word. His word will be final. Whether you agree or disagree makes no difference to me.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Edward100
I, too seldom come to this board. I’ve read some of your comments. Both those for and against state interesting comments. We’ve had a state that voted on an issue by legal election and it was overturned by the court. What happened to “Of the people, for the people and by the people”? I thought a democracy works like that. You have an issue; put it on the ballot and vote on it. The loser lives with the outcome. You know, like the presidential election.
The power of the supreme court to overturn unjust laws is enumerated in the constitution by the founders. It was specifically enumerated to overturn issues of "tyranny of the majority". This is a reason for the checks and balances, like it or not, but it is very useful. And as the majority becomes less and less religious, this very right might become more and more important to evangelicals as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Edward100
This issue of gay marriages is a way to get “A foot in the door”. Now comes the rest of the story. It is unlawful to refuse a gay Boy Scout master to be with a group of kids. I’ve seen some troops disbanded because it was their only choice if they disagreed with the law. I have no desire to watch two men with beards kissing in public. I don’t want a law telling it is unlawful to refuse service to a gay couple or anyone for that matter. As stated in another post, about Sodom and Gomorrah, the way the gays demanded the man to have his guest come out for the reason to have sex with them. Where was the guest's rights?
Nice how you imply that all gay men are pedophiles. If a gay man is a scout master, I see zero reason to give a damn. Who cares what he does in his home time. I can't count a single time when I was in scouts that the scout masters homelife/wife was even discussed. ZERO! There was no reason for it to. The discussion was on camping, knot tying, etc. As scuh, the only reason you could be saying this is if you think he would molest the kids.
If two men are kissing, who gives a damn if you want to see it or not. It's none of your business. Should someone stop being happy because it gets on your nerves? If you don't like seeing two man in love and happy, turn away. There is absolutely ZERO reason that you should be able to determine what two people do together, unless they are trying to do it to you.
If God were to list the reasons that S&G were destroyed, where do you think their sexual behavior would fall on the list. The way you talk, it would be number one with a bullet but that turns out to not be the case."'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." With the second part, starting with "They were haughty" being a separate verse even. So basically, it's the LAST thing on the list of reasons that S&G was destroyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Edward100
This is offensive to me. Where are my rights? The idea of equal rights should be for everyone. Not just for the 2%. It’s offensive to me to make governments take down the Ten Commandments, abuse our flag, to be ridiculed for being a Christian, and have different views than someone else.
You have your rights, no one is taking your rights away. You are demanding special rights to determine which rights your can strip from others or infringe on others based on your religious beliefs. Sorry, but I have no desire to live in an Afganistan/ISIS like theocracy, nor did the founding fathers. One where raped women are imprisoned or stoned (in the bible). One where not obeying the sabath is a capitol offense (in the bible). One where we follow the biblical law on everything. We are not, nor ever were intended to be a theocracy. So stop trying to make America one. No one is stripping you of your heterosexuality, not one is forcing you to get married to another man, the government is not stopping you from saying what you want. You might have to live with the repercussions (from others that dislike what you say) just as anyone else, but the government is not muzzling you.
You ask about where are your rights, as part of the majority. One of the prime considerations of the founding fathers was specifically to inhibit the majority from riding roughshod over minorities they disliked.
As James Madison states in the Federalist papers #10:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Madison in The Federalist Papers #10
Those who contend for a simple Democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea, that the people composing the Society, enjoy not only an equality of political rights; but that they have all precisely the same interests, and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed. We know however that no Society ever did or can consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens.
In the sake of brevity, I jump to this statement from later on in FP10:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Madison in The Federalist Papers #10
It remains then to be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority.
At this point, he is saying not only is Tyranny of the majority a possibility but that it is in fact the most likely and natural outcome. The consitution was written with these facts in mind. Tyranny of anything was something that the founding fathers were quite afraid of, and for good reason.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroDaGr8
Tyranny of anything was something that the founding fathers were quite afraid of, and for good reason.
Absolutely! IMO, the Founding Fathers would find the current uproar by the thought police over a Civil War battle flag to be far more upsetting than the governments attempts to be the marriage police.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
I guess all is fine for anyone who believes in ethical relativism.
Imo, secular humanists use such things to propagate their faith, outside of the label of religion.
It's a religion none the less. Albeit a false one...and one predicted for the end time many centuries ago.
There is no common ground for discussion between the two views. And there lies the problem.
P.S.
The known universe is not all there is, and the longer I live the more evident that has become to me. And mark these words, one day soon the sky will open as a scroll and The God of Heaven and earth will be seen by all. Then each of us will fall to our knees, both the believer and non believer and this earth will conform to His desire.
And then each of us will have to stand behind what we have truly believed in. And there will be no argument afforded other than Christ crucified.
That is folly to some I'm sure, but it will happen regardless.
"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
..George Washington
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Pedro,
While you know I agree with you deeply on your view of the Founders and the importance to prevent tyranny in its many forms, I will add that the worrisome part of the gay marriage situation isn't the issuing of a marriage license, it's the protected status thinking that is inextricably tied to it, and in its own way is a tyranny of the majority just with a different minority being repressed.
The baker who refused to do a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds has been fined $135,000. clearly a punitive judgement b/c gay couples are part of a "protected class", you MUST do business with them if you do business with anyone. OK, that's fine, she was FINE to bake a cake for a gay person, the original complainant was a regular customer who is gay, she just objected on basis of her faith for participating in any way in something she sees as a sin.
The gay marriage thing doesn't worry me, but the fact that churches all over the country are rewriting their rules to have to find ways to prevent what they see as a sin before their God occurring in their own church is very disturbing.
The courts need to protect from that tyranny as well. Want to get married? have a ball. Want to not be part of it b/c you think being part of it is committing a sin? That should be OK too.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
So what do folks think of this very obvious next step?
(FWIW, I'll break my arm patting myself on the back but I pointed out a couple of years ago on this topic that it was coming after gay marriage)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02...cmp=latestnews
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CitizenBBN
Large groups of polygamists in MT. One area is one of the worst % for immunizations in the country. Deeply held religious beliefs and a strong anti-science component.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigsky
Large groups of polygamists in MT. One area is one of the worst % for immunizations in the country. Deeply held religious beliefs and a strong anti-science component.
should it be as legal as any two person relationship?
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CitizenBBN
This is obviously the next logical step, and per the SCOTUS ruling must be allowed.
-
Re: A great day for freedom and liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kingcat
"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
..George Washington
This quote is false, it is modified version of a quote from his Farewell Address. It is never been shown that he said "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible", this comes from a Biography written in 1852 about him and is never seen in any other publication. The real quote does support the concept of religion being necessary but it never says WHICH religion. There is no mention of God or a creator, simply a generic religion and morality.
@ CBBN - I think any law attempting to force a religious person from performing a marriage would be shielded by separation of church and state. The churches rewriting their bylaws are doing so in a knee-jerk fashion. As for the woman baking the cake. To play devils advocate: it is a cake, they didn't ask her to attend the wedding, officiate the wedding or play an integral role in the wedding. They asked her to provide a tasty symbolic treat fro them to use at their wedding. The difference being an active or passive/indirect role in the wedding. Truth be told, it is something I am REALLY up in the air on. I can see both sides arguments and believe that both sides have very strong merit. Until I think about it more or I read a discussion that really gets into it more, I will continue to remain up in the air on it.
As for polygamy, if they are consenting non-coerced adults then why stand in their way. I do think that it can cause a huge amount of legal issues because our current basis of marriage is based around a binary relationship. It creates many of the same problems as getting the government out of marriage all together. For example, next of kin in a hospital. If there are two spouses, who gets to be the next of kin to make decision. If both are the next of kin, as their status would be based on current law, what do you do when they want to different things. Say a spouse is in the hospital with no likely chance of recovery, what do you do if one spouse want to pull the plug and the other holds out hope they will recover and is vitally against this. Who do you listen to? It's a very difficult matter and legally something will HAVE to be worked out if polygamy is going to become legal because the legal system is woefully unprepared for it at this time. The question then becomes, is the legal system being woefully unprepared a basis for denying people the right to polygamy or do you allow it and let the cards fall where they may dragging the legal system kicking and screaming forward?
-
We know Washington was a Freemason and believed in God. He was the soldier. Jefferson and Madison were the philosophers of the new nation, and they were clearly for separation of church and state.
I'd not rely on Barton for my Founding Father quotes. I have a signed copy of his first book, and a large number of the quotes he uses in that book are unsubstantiated or false.
-
I think being forced to bake a wedding cake for a wedding you have religious objections to is as wrong as asking that baker to show up and perform the ceremony. However, Non religious accommodation would be required.
Oregon and its $135,000 fine is outrageous, disproportionate, cruel and unusual.
