Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jul 7 2006, 10:53 PM) [snapback]282904[/snapback]</div>

Marbury v. Madison was decided during John Adams' presidency, I think, so it was established law by the time Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists (I had to edit this, because now I'm not so sure ... I'll have to look up the dates again). But you are right that in TJ's famous letter, he was specifically answering the question about a Federal church and Federal support of religion. There's a pretty good article on the subject at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 7 2006, 09:23 PM) [snapback]282804[/snapback]</div>

And a third thing, even if I have to repeat myself.

NO Separation as long as you can backdoor totalitarian religious control. It'll just get worse as sucesses build up...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jul 10 2006, 06:02 AM) [snapback]283754[/snapback]</div>

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't see maintaining the status quo as being the beginning of a long slide to a theocracy, especially since the issue in question ... marriage ... has a status quo that reaches back over 2000 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 10 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]284250[/snapback]</div>

If you look at the crap still being done to people over even just the last 200 years, like slavery and women not being allowed to vote and such, and still think that other unabated stupidity is OK because it has been done a longer time, then I guess 2,000 years of stupidity is going to seem even better.

Face it, homosexuality has just as long a history as the rest of humanity. There's no REAL reason to treat them worse, just fantasies of Jesus patting you on the back for mistreating them. Seems like He'd kick you straight to hell for skipping that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing, but cherry-picking what one wants to follow from the Bible has a long history behind it too...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 7 2006, 10:00 AM) [snapback]282502[/snapback]</div>

Whilst this likely belongs in some other topic, I think it's worth mentioning (once again) that you cannot use religion to pick and choose who 'deserves' certain rights and privleges. Aside from having gay friends, I support the movement because 30 years ago it would have been illegal for me to marry my husband, because we are an interracial couple. To enforce this, the court used the solid religious reasoning that if God had wanted me to marry him, he would have put us on the same continent to start with. When the majority votes to prevent a minority from receiving equal rights, there *should* be someone to step up - men in robes if neccesary - to protect that minority. Someone did it for me before I was ever born, and I am grateful.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jul 11 2006, 05:51 AM) [snapback]284372[/snapback]</div>

Almost by definition, homosexuality is an aberration.

If, as you state, "homosexuality has just as long a history as the rest of humanity", then it is also true that it was looked upon as a aberration by society for equally as long. If you wish, I am certain that pedophilia, incest, and cannibalism have also been around "as long a history as the rest of humanity" as well.


No one was ever born of the union of homosexuals. When it happens, I may change my mind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 11 2006, 10:07 AM) [snapback]284390[/snapback]</div>

Actually, homosexuality fits in nicely to control population.

If everyone was actively trying to reproduce, population would get out of hand. Having say 10% of the population out of the market keeps things more open for the rest to overdo it.

If you check Google, you'll find geese and other animals have their percentage of homosexuals. One population control mechanism seen in many places, but discarded by those who think what some homophobes wrote in the Bible is a better story...

Well, until the 1900's, it seems as if marrying a 13-year-old was acceptable. Apparently, the it-was-good-for-my-ancestors thinking that is trying to save marriage is also trying to forget what marriages used to consist of. "Times change" is only OK if The Right People change them.

Incest was OK for Adam and Eve's kids, wasn't it? Humanity survived somehow. Or is this where God made new Adams and Eves someplace else so no incest ever occurred out of need?

Cannibalism? Gee whiz, side-by-side with who you have sex with, I'd say grasping for straws is an understatement. But it'll probably make your minister/whatever think better of you, so carry on.

You'll find out later what God thinks...

Like more people is the only important thing.

What's important is being good to people. Letting them exercise free will where it doesn't harm others is good, Bible or not...

 

deleted by wstander-

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jul 11 2006, 08:12 AM) [snapback]284406[/snapback]</div>

On this point we can agree: So long as harm is not done.

(I think this has gone off the topic a bit far)

 

Well, to begin with, your "wall of separation" is used with the assumption 'while he wanted state and local governments to be involved with it.' I gathered from fshagan's post that could be disputed, at least.

I don't actually know if I think that there are constitutional protections for the right to marriage. I don't know enough law to know how we went about overturning old cases that refused to allow inter-racial couples to marry. I just know that I'm grateful that someone made sure the worst we had to deal with was rudeness.

It does come down to that fundamental difference of opinion - you think that "The majority needs to be able to project its views onto the minority as much if not more than the rights of the minority need to be protected." and I feel that Thomas Jefferson would not have wanted the majority's RELIGIOUS views projected onto the minority, particularly not at the cost of those minority's rights.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2006, 08:34 AM) [snapback]284426[/snapback]</div>

One wonders what the rulings would be today on the subject of polygamy? To my knowledge, no state recognizes THAT form of marriage, although no state really intervenes in multiple partner cohabitation. Is there even a federal law on polygamy?

Hmmmmmmm, Google search time <_<

 

Sheez ~ I feel like I'm in my 1973 high school civics class. The only other time one would wax political is in a constitutional law school class (1990 for me). Anyhow - WOW are we off topic, or what :^) ?? My old geazer con law prof Black used to say, "there IS no WALL". Why (he rhetoricly asked)? Because if you restrict religious freedom of (for example) christians muslims, etc. then by default, all you are doing is giving preference to agnostics / atheists ... and if one uses an acurate measuring stick to determine WHAT a religion is ... one will be forced to admit that the non-"believer's " require just as much faith to believe in what ever the heck THEY believe in; IE; we came from monkeys, great uncle protozoan, von donagin UFO's or what ever. Thus ... it's not a wall of separation, but (according to professor Black) it's more of a picket fence that necessarily divides state & church.
On a more important note, and on topic with the forum in general, I just talked my wife into replacing her gas guzzling Range Rover (thank God, as it's frequently in the shop for warranty work, & the warranty expires in December) for the Lexus RX400h. She can drag the Prius mileage down from 55mpg to 40, so I figure she'll get around 22 in the 400h. Still, that's a 200% improvement! BTW, isn't is bazar that the spell checker doesn't recognize the word "Prius" ?!? What's up with that?!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 6 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]282119[/snapback]</div>

 

There have been many laws and precedents set denying interracial couples the right to marry. It held up in many a court of law - up to as recently as 1967 with the case Loving v. Virginia. The concept of "unequal yoking" was brought up IN COURT to prevent "miscegenation." It was argued that marriage wasn't a basic right. I'm glad someone decided that religion was not enough to preventing me from marrying.

As for abortion, I think we'll get to a point where, legal or illegal, abortions have dropped to practially nil through pregnancy prevention and well-supported adoption programs. That's my optimism shining through. I think abortion is a stupid thing to fight over because if either side had brains they'd be working towards a solution instead of funding lawyers. For reference, I'm personally pro-choice. I don't think we should legislate early abortions, particularly before the fetus has any claim to sentience. I don't support late term abortions as par for the course, but I accept that doctors know more than me and they should be able to make judgement calls. I'm fairly content to let the majority decide, because I think in the end the majority will be smart, and put the limitations that doctors already place on abortions into law, continue allowing early term abortions, and move forward to prevention. Damned optimism.

I think you and I are in agreement in principle (oddly enough) we just don't agree on what constitutes a basic right, or what constitutes harm to others.

EDIT: What I meant to convey with that last sentence is that I agree with your belief that the will of the majority should ALWAYS rule on "issues that do not involve the basic rights and liberties of people." There ARE certain rights that a person, minority or not, should be assured of, and I think marriage to a loving, consenting adult is one of those rights. Since I don't happen to buy into the (religious) idea that gay marriage will hurt people, I don't think it applies to your statement. Everything you said was true - we're just working from different definitions. On issues that involves basic rights, I fall towards those being stifled. On issues that don't, the majority takes it. If I want things to change I better get out there presenting my views. Oh, wait. =)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 11 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]284432[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 11 2006, 11:59 AM) [snapback]284443[/snapback]</div>

Heck, now I'll wonder what passed by while I wasn't looking: automatic gainsaying or actual discussion...

 

Stepping out to engage in more pointless political crap:

I despise both of the two major political parties in the USA, The Republicrats as well as the Democans, as they change their claimed core beliefs to accommodate their desire to obtain and keep power.
The conservatives have been all for "States Rights" until they had the power, then proceeded to trample on those same rights to extend their political philosophy to those State and local governments that dared to not fall into line.
I am old enough to remember when the conservatives railed at length against any involvement of the Federal Government into state and local school agencies and their policies and actions, until it was a matter of civil rights, such as preventing someone from getting an education due to their religion, race, et.. Now the Feds are setting school curriculums in ways such as "no child left behind". There has even been action to set such standards for higher learning as well. Do you really want the Feds to set University and College curriculums?
The practice of Medicine has always been pretty much a State's matter, until the Conservatives decided they didn't want more liberal states allowing Doctors to prescribe meds that would allow someone dying in pain to end their life. Or look at the war the Feds are waging against medicinal marijuana in California. The State of California has decided to allow it, but it defies Federal Drug policy (not specifically the practice of medicine) Why does the Federal Government care about what is supposed to be a state issue?

Liberals are hardly any better. They claim to be in favor of individual rights, unless it's for the greater good, as THEY define the "greater good." They want to ban certain types of speech, "hate speech" and "obscenity", all for the greater good. Of course the Feds get to decide what constitutes hate and obscenity. You may not know if you've violated the law until some prosecutor with political ambitions charges you, and the jury agrees. If they jury disagrees, finding you not guilty, you are still out the money for your defense of your constitutional rights.

By the way folks, the 14th Amendment extended the rights and limitations on the Government noted in the Constitution to the states, remember?
This means that the State of Texas (my home) may not mandate a State religion.
We had a State fool, er.. excuse me, a Comptroller, who decided that the Unitarian Church was not a "real Church" as they did "mandate a belief in one God" The Courts laughed her on her way. Fortunately she left politics (for now) when defeated in her recent run for governor.
What really amused me was the State's own Constitutional provision on religion, "no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship"

The US Constitution also states in Article 4, Section 1 (the "Comity Clause") states (among other things) that a legal marriage legal performed in one State must be recognized by the other States.
So as long as one state recognizes a same -sex marriage, (until changed by a US Constitutional amendment) they all have to.

Except courts have a slippery way of looking at their own laws and a skewed way of looking at reality.
The court rulings and exceptions I have seen to well established and clear laws have been amazing, to say the least.

Folks, it's all about power, and keeping it.

Mac.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 6 2006, 10:34 AM) [snapback]282103[/snapback]</div>

I think there are two things that are telling. Most States had official state religions before the Constitutional Convention. The founders started our new Federal Government without any official state church, and some say that it was simply pragmatism that drove them because of the various sects around at the time. But those same founders, in their home states, systematically and completely severed the established state ties to a church in pretty short order. In every single state. No court ordered them to do it. They, and the people in their state, did it.

But they still spoke with religious imagery, and included things like requests for prayer in their official pronouncements. So they had a religious nature. Some of them were very devout, and others not so much; a few were agnostic or non-believers completely. But there was a "public religion" that appealed to most everyone, and was useful for framing arguments and managing disputes.

Jon Meacham, Managing Editor of Newsweek, wrote what I think is the best exposition of the faith of our founders, and what the true meaning of all those religious pronouncements is (especially against the backdrop of disestablishment, a truly revolutionary idea at the time). His book "American Gospel" doesn't suffer from any of the pitfalls that the books from the religious right or the aggressive secularists put out; its a great read precisely because he isn't taking a side on either extreme. There's a brief write up of the book at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12115700/site/newsweek/.