DebateGate

Domer, while there is a component to (probably) any religion that sees itself as the answer to lifes problems, it is not accurate to state my position as viewing my religion (Mormonism in particular or Christianity in general) as the answer to all social ills.  It is a tenet of my faith that certain sexual sins are detrimental to society, but that fact (which I designate as such for the sake of argument) may be viewed independent of religious context.  Rejecting certain social ills without embracing religions which preach against such ills still carries with it a benefit.  Judaeo-Christian doctrine teaches "Thous shalt not kill" but most of the world accepts that moral view without embracing the faith.

I simply believe that resisting a change in the traditional definition of marriage will benefit society whether or not it is accompanied by mass conversions to Christianity.  That Christians fight for a particular agenda does not mean that we fight for theocracy.  That's why, in spite of my personal beliefs, I do NOT support school prayer - at least not mandatory prayer.   I do not, of course, deny that some Christians do actively seek a theocracy.  I do not support them.   

That said, however, I believe that following the tenets of God's law, as I understand it, will bring blessings oin this land and that failure to do so will bring unpleasant consequences.

. . . would jailing a homosexual improve something?

His chances of scoring?

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. 

I'm not a fundamentalist, and the reference to gay marriage and abortion was only as an example.  In fact, I'll amend that reference to include only abortion, since gay marriage has so far not been forced on us at the federal level. (But I think it is accurate to predict where that will go.)

Nevertheless, I think your response to my post was more a "retreat" than my use of two current topics as examples.  Since you seem to be saying that my analysis of the fourteenth amendment and the civil war (issues which were not ignored in my original post and were further addressed in my response) is inaccurate or incomplete, how about sharing your specific disagreements or additions so I can either be enlightened or engaged in debate?  I am not insulted by your criticisms about my style, since they are accurate.  I am, however, interested in your views. If you are going to take the time to engage me, please do so constructively.

Why didn't ya just say "Your rambling bores me?"

But while I'll be the first to admit to my own tendency to overstate a case, it is nevertheless true that people on both sides of the issue are ignorant of the history of the subject and most are too lazy to study it in any depth.  That's why they come up with silly ideas like prohibiting public displays of mangers or refusing to allow Wiccans to say a prayer.

While my content may be verbose, it is nonetheless accurate.

This is a reply to Lanya's post about the founder's intent.  It became so long (yep, folks, it's another patented Pooch pontification!) that I decided it might be better as its own thread.

Here are three historical realities:

1)  The intent of the first amendment and of Article VI was to increase religious freedom - not limit it. 

2)  The "wall of separation" as it was described by Jefferson was intended to be between church and state - not between religion and the public.

3)  The first amendment and Article VI were intended to apply only to the federal governments -not to the states.

A simple understanding of history up to the late eighteenth century clarifies the intent of the first amendment (and Article VI which states that no religious test shall be applied to public office holders).  The founding of the United States Constitution was not - in spite of popular belief - the creation of a brand new society.  It was in fact, largely a continuance of British society with revolutionary refinements.  Like eighteenth century Great Britain, the United States federal government is based on a bicameral legislation and a strong, but limited, executive power.  Like Great Britain, the legal system is based on common law rather than civil law.  Refinements concerned such things as legislative election of the executive rather than hereditary accession.  (Popular election is, as most on this site know, not part of the Constitution.)  Checks and balances were built into the Constitution to keep one branch from dominating either of the other or to keep the people of one state from controlling the people of another. Ultimately, the US Constitution was designed to balance the power of the states against the power of the federal government, in order to ultimately protect the power of the people.  This is what is known as the great compromise. 

Since Henry VIII got the hots for Anne Boleyn the question of establishment had been the cause of massive bloodshed throughout Europe, and in Great Britain in particular.  Catherine of Aragon was deposed, Anne was eventually beheaded, Sir Thomas Moore and many other lost their lives over the Act of Supremacy.  Mary Tudor (aka Bloody Mary) murdered and persecuted protestants. Philip of Spain launched the ill-fated armada against Elizabeth,  The Pope made it legal to kill her.  Scottish Lords murdered a Papal envoy to Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots) and imprisoned their own queen.  Elizabeth beheaded Mary and persecuted many Catholics.  Cromwell ultimately deposed the monarchy altogether, and after it was restored William and Mary deposed James II,  All of these things occurred over the issue of established religion.  Of course the underlying political causes were frequently the real reasons behind these things, but the issue of religion is largely what drove the bloodshed and rallied one part of the population against another.

One of the great things about Elizabeth as a monarch was that she tried - when fear of Catholic plots was not used by her advisors such as Walsingham and the like to persuadel her - to allow religious tolerance in her realm.  She very nearly lost her life to Mary Tudor, and was loathe to persecute other over matters of conscience.  She was also practical enough to recognize the real danger of civil war over the issue.  She resisted the execution of Mary Stuart to the last, and only relented when she was convinced Mary's life was a threat to her own.  In her realm, at least theoretically, a person could openly practice their faith, irrespective of what that faith was, without fear of persecution.  There was, it must be noted, an established faith.  But other sects, notably Catholicism, were not (again theoretically) persecuted.  The caveat here, of course, is that non-Christian religions were generally not tolerated. It was far too early in the course of religious strife to recognize other faiths.as equals.

The men who debated and refined the Constitution had these events and attitudes as their immediate heritage.  With that as a backdrop, they faced a daunting task - uniting peoples of different backgrounds, interests and values in a common cause.  It was unprecedented in history.  Among the many concerns that needed to be addressed, foremost was that of matters of conscience.  The founders of America had behind them a history of centuries of sectarian bloodshed.  A large part of the heritage of the former colonies was the migration to the new world of persecuted religious groups.  Eighteenth century America was also influenced, as was Europe, by the enlightenment.  So there were conflicting ideals - religious and otherwise - inherent in the establishment of a new national government.  These conflicts lead to the great compromise in general.  In particular, they lead to an understanding that the establishment of religion or the application of religious tests at the federal level were counter to the tolerance of religion.  They wished to unite Catholic and Protestant, as well as others who may hold less traditional views, in one whole.  But they did not intend to bury religious expression, nor did they intend to apply the doctrines of the first amendment and Article VI to the individual state governments.  It was understood, in fact it was a matter of strong contention, that the rights of the states to self-government were not to be effaced by the federal constitution.  Without that understanding, the Constitution would never have been ratified. 
 
Since the civil war, the advocates of a powerful central government have all but eradicated the great compromise.  The protections against federal abuses were ignored by Lincoln and drastically weakened by the fourteenth amendment.  (As the electoral system is eroded the great compromise will be destroyed entirely, and the rights of the individual states to self-government will be completely effaced.)  The specific intent of the fourteenth amendment was to alter the relationship between the federal government and the individual states.  It was justified by the rebellion and aimed at the south, but its effect was universal.  The subsequent rise of the judicial branch and the evolution of the body of case law supporting a strong federal government over the power of the states has led to an America that would not be recognized by its founders.  As Andrew Jackson negated the authority of the Judicial branch in the Cherokee decision, Lincoln negated the power of the states with the prosecution of a civil war and his predecessors with the fourteenth amendment.  The end result was that the fight to preserve the union ultimately replaced the union with a hegemony.

What all of this history has led to is a society today that, ignorant of history, claims on the one hand that we are a Christian nation (we are not) and on the other hand that our founders intended to keep religion out of public life  (they didn't).  The fact is, it was never the intent of the founders that people not be allowed to wear crosses, say prayers at school, display manger scenes in a public park or express a love for Jesus Christ while serving in public office.  It was, rather, the intent that nobody be forced to do such things.  Allowing voluntary school prayer is not requiring it.  Allowing a President to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in public discourse is not requiring it.  Allowing the display of a manger scene in a city park, or the display of the ten commandments in a courtroom is not requiring it.  But those who view the role of government as one of protection insist that they should not be "forced" to be exposed to religious expression.  The familiar argument is "Freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion."  That is nonsense.  I have the freedom to speak English, but that does not mean I have a reasonable expectation not to hear someone else speaking Spanish.  I have the freedom choose my political party, but that does not mean I can insist no government entity post a political banner endorsing a rival party.  I have the right to practice my own sexual morals, but that does not mean I have the right to prohibit a school from posting a gay rights poster in the halls.  Yet the same forces who think it is perfectly acceptable to post something I find very objectionable would fight against my right to post a religious poster on a school wall.  Why?

The reason is that those who object to religious expression wrongly place it in a "special" category.  They incorrectly assume that religion was singled out in the first amendment as particularly dangerous.  It wasn't.  It was one of five basic means of expression for which people had been historically persecuted - all covered under the first amendment.  What that amendment assured was that the rights to speak, publish, peaceably assemble, worship and petition the government without fear of retribution would not be effaced.  These things were intended to make people free not from religion or offensive speech, but rather from fear of oppression based on matters of conscience.  So it was intended that the federal government not be given authority to restrict expression in these areas.  (The states were not held by these standards until the fourteenth amendment and subsequent court decisions.)  But in either case, there was never an intent that people be protected FROM these expressions.  One cannot simultaneously protect the right to free expression and protect others from exposure to that expression. 

Finally,Article VI protects potential officeholders from being required to believe in a particular sect or a particular doctrine in order to hold office.  This is directly linked to establishment.  But again, it does not prohibit an officeholder from having - or expressing - a particular religious view.  The President can - as many have - call upon Americans to ask for God's blessing on the nation.  He may express his love for Jesus, or Buddha or Allah if he so desires.  Those, like Brass for example, who object to such expression misunderstand a basic tenet of America's value system.  A President has an equal right to express religious devotion - irrespective of sect - and to express complete disdain for religion.  It is no more wrong for a President to say "I encourage all Americans to pray to Jesus to help us in this crisis" than it is for him to say "I encourage all Americans to stop believing in this religious nonsense and recognize that the only answers we have must come from within ourselves."  He or she must live with the political consequences of such expressions, but there is nothing inherently wrong with either statement.  The President will never make a statement representative of all Americans, so he must not be prohibited from expressing himself honestly, any more than any other citizen.  While some may argue that religious expression from the National Executive may be construed by other nations as endorsement of a particular religion (and there is some validity to that) the reality is that most Americans are religious - and the vast majority of them are Christian.  For a national leader to ally himself with a particular faith is not a violation of the first amendment.  It is, in fact, an exercise thereof.

In the end, the extremes of both sides of this argument are wrong (as is usually the case).  The founders did not intend this to be a Christian nation but neither did they intend for it to be a religiously sterile nation.  The founder's intent was that religious freedom be preserved, and many encouraged the free nation to remain true to Christian ideals.  In the end, they gave us the tools to create a free society that allowed us to make it into whatever we chose.  That does not mean that they intended for us to choose unwisely.

BT is correct.  There has not, in the past, been a need for a standard definition of marriage because it has been a common value.  When the Mormons tried to legalize polygamy, the courts held that enforcing the previously understood definiition of marriage was not violating the religious rights of Mormons.  Whose rights are violated by polygamous marriage?   There were, to be fair, allegations that women were being forced into these marriages against their will, but the truth is, such things can happen in monogamous marriages as well.  Such abuses, if they existed at all, were not inherent in polygamy, but in human nature.

Because homosexuality is not accepted as normal by the majority of people, but the courts are increasingly supporting a liberal interpretation of the Constitution , it has become necessary to amend the Constitution in order to reflect the will of the people.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this will occur, because a very large proportion of those who do not consider homosexuality to be acceptable behavior nonetheless are loathe to amend the Constitution to limit freedoms.  I completely respect this position, but I disagree with it.  I myself am admittedly inconsistent in my opinion, since I disapprove of anti-sodomy laws but approve of anti-gay marriage laws.  But when it comes to the basic institution of marriage, I believe that protection of traditional marriage is vital to society.

It is also inaccurate to make the argument that Christians do not object to adultery and strippers and the like.  In fact, until very recently adultery has been a crime in most states.  In some it still is.  In the military you can still be jailed for it.  I know a man who was discharged for the crime.  (Dummy left a love note tohis married lover on a teletype screen.)  Christian groups routinely object to strip clubs or porn shops and there are whole ministries dedicated to helping victims of pornography addicition and those involved in the sex industry.  Christians objected to making no-fault divorce and the like easier to obtain on the grounds that the institution of marriage - and thereby society itself - would deteriorate. This has, in fact, happened.  Marriages have become disposable and the children of these marriages pawns in court battles.  Christians object to divorce as a general rule, allowing that sometimes it is justifiable (in cases of abuse, for example).   But it is a battle which we have already lost.  Many Christians objected to birth control and abortion on the grounds that it would lead to promiscuity, the dissolution of marriage and the acceptance of sexual perversions as normal. This has, in fact, happened.  We lost that battle too. 

The fact, as unpopular as it is, is that the degeneration of a society follows a predictable, and prophecied, path.  This society continues along that path.  Christians have long recognized it; they have warned our nation and have exercised the vote to try to stop the slide.  There is little doubt that we will lose the current battle, because Satan has deceived many people into confusing personal freedom for license to commit evil.  This is in large part because he has also managed to confuse many Christians into confusing the duty to call for repentance for a duty to judge others.  Consequently, many believe that the excesses of a few taint the honest effort on the part of many to simply sustain the moral course that has held society together for thousands of years.  It is neither hompphobia nor hate that drives me to object to gay marriage.  It is an understanding on my part of my own place in society, and a recognition of the consequences of evil choices.  It is not wrong to vote your conscience, even if that vote offends someone else.  Those who approve of, or at least do not object to, gay marriage have the same right, and their votes are equally acceptable actions.  The ultimate consequence of our collective choices - like those of our individuakl choices - are beyond our ability to control. 

I believe that a continued moral slide will derail this entire society, and that the freedoms upon which our nation was founded will ultimately be destroyed through excesses.  By the time that happens, it will be too late to turn back.  The United States, as our founders knew it, ceased to exist starting with the civil war.  I believe the United States that we know will cease to exist altogether within our children's lifetime without a significant reawakening.  Terror attacks and a series of natural disasters aren't getting our attention.  Just like in Biblical times, anyone who tries to suggest that God is trying to tell us something is laughted down and marginalized.  Like I said, the path is predictable and prophecied.

I do not believe that Cindy Sheehan is as you describe her.  I believe she is an attention-seeking psycho who managed to stumble - through the good fortune (from her perspective) of her son's death - into a position of undeserved prominence.   I recognize that she deserves some sympathy for her loss - as any gold star mother would.  But I think she has prostituted her loss into a spotlight that dishonors, rather than honor's her son's sacrifice.

As to rank speculation, I would think "inestimable" would, by definition, preclude accusations of speculation.  I agree that the toll would start at the point where the we stand now, but I apply that same logic to the pre-war death toll during Saddam's regime.   

I agree that Bush has proven stubborn at times.  In a lot of cases I think it has hurt him, and our reputation.  But in general, I think he is right to be so.  Had he caved to Democratic pressure, they would be using that to accuse him of flip-flopping.  Had he tried pretty much any strategy, they would say it didn't work and blame him.  That is politics.  It is the same as the gutless Democrats who insist on denouncing the war as a matter of political expediency but then refuse to actually do something about it.  If they cut funding they will suffer for refusing to support the troops.  If they do what they are doing, they get accused on insincerity (deservedly so).  So Bush, in a no-win situation, takes the course he thinks is best as do the Democrats. 

Ultimately, it appears rational to say that both sides believe the funding should continue, but Bush is just willing to admit it in spite of the fact that most people disagree with him. 

Stubborn is not always a bad thing.