Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the people could elect representatives and a POTUS that could vote to Amend the Constitution.
If the Religious wanted to get together and act...at 75 to 80% of the electorate, they could make this country whatever they wanted it to be. Using the very system of government we have now, they could vote in whatever laws they wanted. Vote to disband the Supreme Court. Anything.
"RIGHTS" most certainly are negotiable...AND changeable.
Hey...if you wanna go by "The Government Documents"...it says our "RIGHTS" come from our Creator (Large "C"), and ONLY from our Creator. Based on that...it would figure that if one doesn't acknowledge a Creator...no RIGHTS for them!! I would suggest the Atheists quit using what "The U.S. Government Documents" say as a basis for their arguments. They shoot themselves in the foot by doing that.
My prediction: Keep pushing the Religious...and when they've had enough...they WILL act together.
Keep standing in close quarters, whacking at the bees nest with a short stick...you'll find out where that gets you when all is said and done.
Read "The Art of War"...then tell me what it says about engaging a opposing force that has you outmanned 4 to 1.
Most people are under the misinformed position that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were created in relatively the same time frame. In fact, they were separated by eleven years. And while every colony signed on to the Declaration of Independence, at the first meeting of the Constitutional Congress, Rhode Island didn't show up.
The two documents are crafted for different purposes. The Declaration of Independence was a document that turned a rebellion into a revolution--legally. The part that everybody knows and quotes--that first paragraph, isn't even half of the entire document. The rest lists point after point (probably a score of them) of how the good King George had sold the colonists down the river with his decrees.
The U.S. Constitution, drafted eleven years later, was a point of bitter contention---among the contentious viewpoints was that this nation be founded as a "Christian" nation. Led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and backed by the most powerful figure in America at that time, George Washington, all mention of God and religion was intentionally left out of the original draft. Even the Bill of Rights was contentious, and Madison, for one, was opposed to adding them. The major familiar name associated with an attempt to have a "Christian" nation was Virginian Patrick Henry, one of the greatest orators of his day. Opposing him were to of his fellow Virginians, Jefferson and Madison, who weren't nearly as eloquent, but had pens that managed to stab through old Patrick's tongue. Henry, of course, was the one who suggested a tax on everyone to support the state religion (in Virginia) of the Anglican Church. Jefferson and Madison beat him on the Virginia Constitution, and gave him a further shellacking at the Constitutional Congress. Henry, of course, didn't show up as he was an adamant anti-federalist, preferring a theocratic government that even the people of Virginia rejected.
However, so many who were involved in the drafting would not sign without a Bill of Rights (the original document was signed by only 38 of the 70 participants (although several were ill and unavailable), it was clear that it would not receive the necessary ratification votes from at least nine of the colonies. Indeed, the final colony, Rhode Island, held out until 1789 and the vote to join the union passed by a mere two votes. Rhode Island, even then, questioned the idea of slavery existing in any of the colonies.
The bill of rights was added in 1789 to get those last states over the hump. Massachusetts had been a main hold out without those amendments. Twelve amendments were eventually offered, but only ten accepted. It was enough to swing the doubters over to the side of the Federalists who were being opposed by the anti-federalists. Ironically, those opposing the strong federal government were primarily northern states, but sixty years later it was the southern states wanting to break away from what they originally championed as a strong federal government.
All this is to make one important point. The Declaration of Independence was to start a war, not to be the law of the land. It wasn't and it isn't. Instead we have the Constitution, a godless document, that established our country as a nation, and is the longest lasting Constitution in the world today. Norway is second having been established in 1814, and then Belgium in 1831. One of the main reasons it has endured is that very early on the Supreme Court took on the job of determining the constitutionality of various laws proposed by both the federal and the state governments.
The Court varied in size until 1869 when it was established at nine. In the 1930's Franklin Roosevelt, unhappy with some of the Court's decisions overturning more than a few of his New Deal proposals, wanted to "pack" the Court with an additional six judges. Congress defeated the attempt. And John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's own vice-president, stood in the Senate holding his nose with his thumb down while the proposal was read to the Senate.
So while people today go into a whining mode every time the Court affirms something that goes against their own bias, the fact that the Court has been able to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document has helped it grow with the morality of its people. It has been willing to reverse itself numerous times, and will again in the future. The fact that there are people who don't wish to grow morally has always been around.
So if atheists are using "government" documents that institute the law of the land, they are perfectly correct in referring solely to the Constitution of the United States and the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Declaration of Independence was nothing more than a red flag waved in front of the bull of King George, and served no purpose other than, in our own eyes, legitimizing the war we were going to start.
History needs to be carefully assessed before people offer opinions that are in no way supported by the facts--and we have a tremendous amount of letters and notes from those days of the Constitutional Congress. The Court made a good, solid decision about gay marriage. It has yet to be faced with supporting or denying state laws that were enforced against the anti-gay bakers.
The reason we are forced into this position is because fundamentalist religionists have been drawing lines in the sand for years--and at last someone has called them on it. Like those at the Alamo, they find themselves surrounded, cut-off, unappreciated, no help coming, and the end in sight. They want to view themselves as heroes like the Alamo boys. What they are is just dead, spiritually and politically.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-17-2015 at 04:12 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Most people are under the misinformed position that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were created in relatively the same time frame. In fact, they were separated by eleven years. And while every colony signed on to the Declaration of Independence, at the first meeting of the Constitutional Congress, Rhode Island didn't show up.
The two documents are crafted for different purposes. The Declaration of Independence was a document that turned a rebellion into a revolution--legally. The part that everybody knows and quotes--that first paragraph, isn't even half of the entire document. The rest lists point after point (probably a score of them) of how the good King George had sold the colonists down the river with his decrees.
The U.S. Constitution, drafted eleven years later, was a point of bitter contention---among the contentious viewpoints was that this nation be founded as a "Christian" nation. Led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and backed by the most powerful figure in America at that time, George Washington, all mention of God and religion was intentionally left out of the original draft. Even the Bill of Rights was contentious, and Madison, for one, was opposed to adding them. The major familiar name associated with an attempt to have a "Christian" nation was Virginian Patrick Henry, one of the greatest orators of his day. Opposing him were to of his fellow Virginians, Jefferson and Madison, who weren't nearly as eloquent, but had pens that managed to stab through old Patrick's tongue. Henry, of course, was the one who suggested a tax on everyone to support the state religion (in Virginia) of the Anglican Church. Jefferson and Madison beat him on the Virginia Constitution, and gave him a further shellacking at the Constitutional Congress. Henry, of course, didn't show up as he was an adamant anti-federalist, preferring a theocratic government that even the people of Virginia rejected.
However, so many who were involved in the drafting would not sign without a Bill of Rights (the original document was signed by only 38 of the 70 participants (although several were ill and unavailable), it was clear that it would not receive the necessary ratification votes from at least nine of the colonies. Indeed, the final colony, Rhode Island, held out until 1789 and the vote to join the union passed by a mere two votes. Rhode Island, even then, questioned the idea of slavery existing in any of the colonies.
The bill of rights was added in 1789 to get those last states over the hump. Massachusetts had been a main hold out without those amendments. Twelve amendments were eventually offered, but only ten accepted. It was enough to swing the doubters over to the side of the Federalists who were being opposed by the anti-federalists. Ironically, those opposing the strong federal government were primarily northern states, but sixty years later it was the southern states wanting to break away from what they originally championed as a strong federal government.
All this is to make one important point. The Declaration of Independence was to start a war, not to be the law of the land. It wasn't and it isn't. Instead we have the Constitution, a godless document, that established our country as a nation, and is the longest lasting Constitution in the world today. Norway is second having been established in 1814, and then Belgium in 1831. One of the main reasons it has endured is that very early on the Supreme Court took on the job of determining the constitutionality of various laws proposed by both the federal and the state governments.
The Court varied in size until 1869 when it was established at nine. In the 1930's Franklin Roosevelt, unhappy with some of the Court's decisions overturning more than a few of his New Deal proposals, wanted to "pack" the Court with an additional six judges. Congress defeated the attempt. And John Nance Garner, Roosevelt's own vice-president, stood in the Senate holding his nose with his thumb down while the proposal was read to the Senate.
So while people today go into a whining mode every time the Court affirms something that goes against their own bias, the fact that the Court has been able to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document has helped it grow with the morality of its people. It has been willing to reverse itself numerous times, and will again in the future. The fact that there are people who don't wish to grow morally has always been around.
So if atheists are using "government" documents that institute the law of the land, they are perfectly correct in referring solely to the Constitution of the United States and the rulings of the Supreme Court. The Declaration of Independence was nothing more than a red flag waved in front of the bull of King George, and served no purpose other than, in our own eyes, legitimizing the war we were going to start.
History needs to be carefully assessed before people offer opinions that are in no way supported by the facts--and we have a tremendous amount of letters and notes from those days of the Constitutional Congress. The Court made a good, solid decision about gay marriage. It has yet to be faced with supporting or denying state laws that were enforced against the anti-gay bakers.
The reason we are forced into this position is because fundamentalist religionists have been drawing lines in the sand for years--and at last someone has called them on it. Like those at the Alamo, they find themselves surrounded, cut-off, unappreciated, no help coming, and the end in sight. They want to view themselves as heroes like the Alamo boys. What they are is just dead, spiritually and politically.
You really ought to read the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no authority to decide the definition of marriage.
Where's your law degree from again? I mean, sure, if you had an actual legal argument we might be able to evaluate that. But all you're doing is posturing here, as if your opinion as an amateur holds any weight at all. Now if you actually had the background to be properly educated on this subject you word might mean something - so show us how your prestigious legal background is better than the members of the Supreme Court.
But the people could elect representatives and a POTUS that could vote to Amend the Constitution.
If the Religious wanted to get together and act...at 75 to 80% of the electorate, they could make this country whatever they wanted it to be. Using the very system of government we have now, they could vote in whatever laws they wanted. Vote to disband the Supreme Court. Anything.
Yes, they could. And someday, maybe they will. Not in our lifetime, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
"RIGHTS" most certainly are negotiable...AND changeable.
Yes, times do change and people change with them. Unfortunately for you, the current arc of world history is against religiously governed government. Except for certain muslims. Even the european nations with official tax-supported churches are becoming less religious every year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Hey...if you wanna go by "The Government Documents"...it says our "RIGHTS" come from our Creator (Large "C"), and ONLY from our Creator. Based on that...it would figure that if one doesn't acknowledge a Creator...no RIGHTS for them!! I would suggest the Atheists quit using what "The U.S. Government Documents" say as a basis for their arguments. They shoot themselves in the foot by doing that.
You're talking about the Declaration, which is a ringing "mission statement" but has no force of law. Also, the word "Creator" is generic, and was deliberately chosen for that reason. Christianity is hardly the only religion that posits a creator. As an atheist, I'm comfortable with the word - since it was evolution that "created" us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
My prediction: Keep pushing the Religious...and when they've had enough...they WILL act together.
Keep standing in close quarters, whacking at the bees nest with a short stick...you'll find out where that gets you when all is said and done.
Read "The Art of War"...then tell me what it says about engaging a opposing force that has you outmanned 4 to 1.
Right.
You may have noticed that religions often disagree. Heck, flavors of the same religion commonly disagree - violently. There would never have been a United States of America had the founding colonies insisted on establishing an official religion. The separation principle has its roots in the european religious conflicts where christians were outlawing, imprisoning, torturing, and killing other christians over points of doctrine. Regarding religion, the only thing they could agree on was that if their own religion didn't get to be the official one, the other guy's religion didn't get to be the official one either. And that's pretty much where things still stand.
And you know what? Plenty of religious people agree with the founders that it is a *good thing* that religion isn't the government's policy arm and that government isn't the church's enforcement arm.
Your threats are duly noted. I'm less than whelmed.
So do people practicing incest or bestiality. Should I be thankful for them?
You should be thankful for everyone who pays taxes so your church does not have to.
Bestiality in your state is legal. Are you fighting for the poor pets in Texas? It might be a good use of your time. Men having sex with animals and then having sex with others is a sure way to pass disease to a human partner.
You might be doing a public service , and certainly disease prevention. You have shown you are interested in those kinds of statistics.
Are men allow to have sex with animals in your faith?
No we aren't. Not at all. We just added a bit.
Many people can't marry that might like to. Relatives, multiples, etc. Those type of things had been very common in the past. Many societies throughout history have had way more "marriage equality" than this country currently has. We have a long way to go yet.
Like I said...to a greater or lesser degree, nothing is never REALLY "equal". And I stand by that...because that is a FACT.
Homosexuals are on equal footing with heterosexuals, regarding marriage in the United States.
Lol the cost of having to change all those documents affects tax payers so that aspect alone proves you wrong.
Have you got evidence that the printing of the forums will cost more than the increased revenue? Do you have the evidence that SSM will increase the rate if HIV aids? Have you any evidence that there was a huge outcry when mention of the death threats to the two women was made? Do you have evidence that the threats were made by gay people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
