Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Marriage only applies as a rule of law, not as a spiritual contract, unless you and your wife make it a spiritual contract. But again that is between you, your wife and God.

If we legislate the rules of the Church to serve as law, then yes we do establish a state run religion. However, if we legislate the principles of faith in law, no we do not establish a religion.

For example, if I prohibit smoking, is that an establishment of religion law, or a state health issue? And if it is a state health issue, what is the issue? The issue is to preserve one's health in fear of death. (short version) if it is to prevent death, is that a state issue or a religious issue?

I will not argue the theocracy issue, for that would be like preaching to the Choir for a different reason, Pete, for a theocracy always ends up being a dictatorship, where the dictator is made out to be a god or something. Not going there.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord the giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son
With the Father and Son, he is worship and Glorified,
He has spoken through the prophets"

Name a creature on earth, that is alive yet is not self-aware.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Good nite Pete, talk to you later. Be the way, a soldier's honor, nice debating with you tonight. Have a good nite.

PeterS

Maybe we can practice a little individual responsibility and turn to ourselves instead of thinking we need a deity to save us.



God Ranger just when I think I can agree with you, you run off the track and start talking about how god is going to save us. I have no argument with a nuclear family being the model but the concept that "once upon a time" this country was wonderful is a crock. My grandmother never divorced yet she told me my grandfather was a holly terror who brutalized her and her children. She should have divorce him but was more afraid of the stigma then being beaten to death. This was typical of men in her generation who were taught that women were their property to do with as they liked. My own father was the same but the difference was that society had come to its senses enough to allow my mother to divorce his sorry ass--though a working women trying to support her children was still looked down upon. I do think that we are turning a corner but it started with my generation who stopped getting married simply so they could have sex and instead started marrying for love and because we were compatible. Yes divorce rates have gone up but only because we now allow ourselves to divorce instead of living in a miserable marriage. My wife and I are going on 35 years and are happier now than any point in our marriage. Divorce doesn't have to be the norm when you marry because you love each other and desire to be with that person the rest of your life.

Gods not going to save this country Ranger simply because people don't want to go back to the way it was. Did you know that back in the good ole days good girls went to the hospital for a "medical procedures" (DNC's) while bad girls had to use coat hangers. Back in the good ole days a man could beat his wife senseless and if she divorced him she was the one who was shunned--and as for supporting her children, not a chance in hell. In the good ole days we sinned with impunity then went to church on Sunday and with a couple "forgive me Jesus" all was well and good with the world. Back in the good ole days N****rs were N****rs and F*gs were F*gs and it was fine to demean and denigrate, even brutalize, because there was no penalty for doing so. Yeah the good ole days were great except for the fact that they weren't.

The difference between today and the past is that we simply don't hide anymore. It's doubtful that between medical procedures and street a******ns that the a******n rate was any different than today and certainly that society no longer condoned the brutalization of women is a good thing not bad. We've made giant leaps with our treatment of minorities and the last step is the fair and equal treatment for those who have a different sexual orientation then we do. If CC's honestly believe in our constitution why is it they are so unwilling to follow it? To be honest it blows my mind that you think our constitution allows you to discriminate as a matter of your religious freedom. No where in our constitution does it say that you can impose your religious beliefs on others. The sooner you realize that the better off this country will be...

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Sounds like you need God more than most.

PeterS

Bull! Principles of faith are rules of the Church! When the majority of a country is one religion and you legislated based on your religious beliefs you cannot avoid but to establish a state sanctioned religion. When we allow ourselves to impose our religious beliefs on others we strip them of their right to live as they so choose. It's fine to use your religious beliefs to govern yourself but you cannot extend those belief's into laws that govern a diverse society that includes homosexuals. You can't strip away someone else's rights simply because your god doesn't like the way they lead their lives.


I smoked for nearly 30 years and it led directly to my stroke and health care bills that have exceeded a million dollars. My stroke has prevented me from returning to a job that provided a 6 figure income for my family and great enjoyment to myself. So where in the constitution does it say I have a right to impose harm to myself, my family, and to society through higher insurance costs? The constitution grants us rights so long as those rights don't harm others. Smoking clearly does harm others so why do we have a right to smoke?

I would assume the religious argument is that the body is the temple of god and therefore a sin to harm it.


You can't escape a theocracy when you insist on legislating your religious beliefs. There has yet to be a theocracy that hasn't turned into tyranny and why this country has to be secular not sectarian if it is to be free.

PeterS

Why is that?

PeterS

Nite, nite little buddy. See you in the morning..

PeterS

So which one of Rush Limbaughs wives does the convenant apply too?

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

You sound very un happy and filled with rage against your father.My father was like that and it was very hard to let go of the anger.

PeterS

You are being obtuse. In a country dominated by one religion you cannot help but to establish a state sanctioned religion when you legislate based on your religious beliefs. You are free to allow your beliefs to govern yourself but you cannot use those beliefs to govern others. We are a diverse society not sectarian with only one religious view. Flip the coin--consider if the majority were Muslim--do you think the constitution was established so that they could legislate for everyone based on their religious views irrespective on how those views affected others? The constitution wasn't created for a sectarian society but a secular one with many, or no, religious views.


Then what purpose do you have to post them in a court house since, as a country, we only abide by a couple of the laws?


You're wrong. No where in the constitution does it say you have a right to impose your religious beliefs over others. If you want to create a monument to the ten commandments and place it on your front lawn then more power to you but if you want to do the same on a domain shared equally by all then you have imposed your religious beliefs over others. That's a no, no and forbidden by the constitution unless you think the constitution wasn't created to provide the maximum of freedom for everyone, not just those with certain religious views.

The constitution grants you the freedom to practice your religion without government interference to the extent that you do not impose your religious beliefs over others. You can't have freedom of if you don't allow others freedom from. It's as simple as that...

PeterS

I never knew my father so it is hard to have any feelings one way or the other for him. He wasn't worth my rage so I wouldn't waste it on him...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Youre kidding right?

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Wasn't responding to you.

Admin

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-28734-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.