Our Founding Fathers on Christianity

ErikLaurence wrote:I was asking for a reference from Washington about Jesus' divinity, not Washington's divinity.

I respect faith. Faith is a personal matter in which the government has no business interfering. But the moment your faith includes proselytizing it is no longer personal. As soon as ones faith starts telling other people how to live their lives we've got a problem. If you start using the government as a club to hit others over the head with the tenets of your religion then we have a BIG problem.

An example up here in Maine: Gay marriage. The Unitarian church, some parts of the Episcopalian church, many sects of Judaism all recognize gay marriage. But right now we have the Catholic church and the Mormon church (amongst others) spending ridiculous amounts of money (tax deductible money) in trying the suppress the religious freedom of others using the government as a tool.

The government has no business involved in marriage in any way. If the Catholics don't want to marry gay people, they don't have to. That's religious freedom. If the Unitarians are OK with it, they should be able to. That is religious freedom too.

But you do continue to favor the protection of the state over the protection of religion. For example, if gay rights prevail in the marriage issue in all states as I suspect they will, and the Catholic church refuses to marry gay Catholics in the church, is the resulting issue one of civil rights or will the first amendment protect the church's right not to marry the gay couple? You would defend the right of the individual over the institution. In this case, the institution would be compromised. That is not the intent of the first amendment. Is it your intent?

When the government uses the law as a big club to coerce the church to do what it wants, it becomes a BIG problem too. Not just the religious are capable of proselytizing, which by the way is not a crime.

What I see between the lines in all of your writing on religion is an undercurrent of personal disdain and a desire to isolate religion. You would insist that faith is personal to the point of excluding it from the public discourse. You would seek to marginalize it by making it so personal that it cannot be discussed or expressed publically to prevent its proliferation. You would prefer that it could not be expressed by the believer as an internalized part of his or her value system without the requirement of an underlying empiricism. This is where you dangerously differ from the founders.

I always thought proselytizing was protected as free speech. Funny how some people can turn that around.

In another thread, I talked of political party balance. I don't care if you keep the faith. I do care that we keep the balance.

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:I was asking for a reference from Washington about Jesus' divinity, not Washington's divinity.

I respect faith. Faith is a personal matter in which the government has no business interfering. But the moment your faith includes proselytizing it is no longer personal. As soon as ones faith starts telling other people how to live their lives we've got a problem. If you start using the government as a club to hit others over the head with the tenets of your religion then we have a BIG problem.

An example up here in Maine: Gay marriage. The Unitarian church, some parts of the Episcopalian church, many sects of Judaism all recognize gay marriage. But right now we have the Catholic church and the Mormon church (amongst others) spending ridiculous amounts of money (tax deductible money) in trying the suppress the religious freedom of others using the government as a tool.

The government has no business involved in marriage in any way. If the Catholics don't want to marry gay people, they don't have to. That's religious freedom. If the Unitarians are OK with it, they should be able to. That is religious freedom too.

But you do continue to favor the protection of the state over the protection of religion. For example, if gay rights prevail in the marriage issue in all states as I suspect they will, and the Catholic church refuses to marry gay Catholics in the church, is the resulting issue one of civil rights or will the first amendment protect the church's right not to marry the gay couple? You would defend the right of the individual over the institution. In this case, the institution would be compromised. That is not the intent of the first amendment. Is it your intent?

When the government uses the law as a big club to coerce the church to do what it wants, it becomes a BIG problem too. Not just the religious are capable of proselytizing, which by the way is not a crime.

What I see between the lines in all of your writing on religion is an undercurrent of personal disdain and a desire to isolate religion. You would insist that faith is personal to the point of excluding it from the public discourse. You would seek to marginalize it by making it so personal that it cannot be discussed or expressed publically to prevent its proliferation. You would prefer that it could not be expressed by the believer as an internalized part of his or her value system without the requirement of an underlying empiricism. This is where you dangerously differ from the founders.

I always thought proselytizing was protected as free speech. Funny how some people can turn that around.

In another thread, I talked of political party balance. I don't care if you keep the faith. I do care that we keep the balance.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty clear. If the catholic church doesn't want to marry gay people no one will force them to. The catholic church won't marry divorced people without an annulment, no one takes them to court over that do they? (or if they do they lose)

As for proselytizing, yes it is protected speech, no argument from me. But if your proselytizing limits someone elses free exercise of religion then your proselytizing violates their first amendment rights.

So Mike, simple question.

Do you favor marriage equality (and therefore freedom of religion)?

mikeandgerry wrote:You would defend the right of the individual over the institution. In this case, the institution would be compromised. That is not the intent of the first amendment. Is it your intent?

The purpose of government is to protect the minority from the majority. And the smallest minority is the individual.

But we have freedom of association. The church(whichever one you care to name) can and should allow or disallow whomever it wants. I have no problem with that.

That doesn't infringe on a (gay) individuals right to be married because there are other avenues for them.

IF the state is involved at all, it should just certify that "these two people are legally married". That way the two people can prove for whatever purposes(taxes, insurance, etc) that one may make decisions for the other.

ErikLaurence wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty clear.

This one is clear too:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But the right of the people is infringed upon frequently by the government.

Similarly, the incremental restrictions of government on religious institutions taking government money such as religious affiliated hospitals and schools puts a crimp in their ability to "proselytize" within their organization. You may argue that the organization doesn't have to take the money, but do the people served have to pay the school taxes? If so, then they have to pay for their education twice.

It is a clear effort by the left to control a competing ideology.

ErikLaurence wrote:So Mike, simple question.

Do you favor marriage equality (and therefore freedom of religion)?

I don't understand your simple question. Do you mean should gays be allowed to marry?

I feel that the culture that founded the US was so inherently moralistic from Christian tradition in their childhood years, despite your arguments that the majority of the Founders were in great part deists, that they could not conceive of marriage as anything but a spiritual union. Their culture would have found gay marriage reprehensible whether Deist, Christian, or Jew because of their cultural roots. Their cultural beliefs prevailed.

The Founders idea of the fence between church and state is a picket fence of respect, not a spite fence with concertina wire at the top. Marriages can be performed in both civil and religious venues. Both are binding. The government has long had the authority to allow gay marriage. There has never been a constitutional impediment to it, only cultural ones.

However, for those who practice Christianity (and other religions) and know the scripture, there is a spiritual reason for shunning the idea of gay marriage. To a Christian sin is any behavior that separates man from God spiritually. To a Christian, the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children for the glory of God. The gay relationship is a narcissistic one in many respects for the academic Christian and thus a sin because it separates man from God's will.

Homosexuality should not be unlike any other sin to a Christian. For example, in civil law we allow divorce. All Christians sin. All should tolerate sins that are legal. Any persecution of another's sin is not their role. However, teaching against such sin is their role. This is part of their religion and as US citizens, their right to practice freely and interject their beliefs, or lack of them, into cultural issues and affect lawmaking and public policy.

Civil law is tolerant of many sins. However, it is also in the people's purview to restrict such activity as criminal if culturally they feel it is intolerable. There is no constitutional right for any couple to marry. There is no gay right to anything in the Constitution. States have jurisdiction. Marriage is a cultural practice. Thus the public debate is wholly correct. It is an issue that the people can decide and their will is right.

If gays desire rights, they should pursue them in both state and federal venues to amend the Constitution.

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:So Mike, simple question.

Do you favor marriage equality (and therefore freedom of religion)?

I don't understand your simple question.

Really?

Do you think the government should be able to ban a tenet (gay marriage) of reformed Judaism, the Episcopalian church, and the Unitarian church?

All of those faiths recognize gay marriage. The various gay marriage bans prohibit the free exercise of those religions.

Freedom of religion means freedom for religions you don't agree with are free too. Or do you only believe in freedom for religions you do agree with?

Is that more clear?

I edited my post above. You should be more clear.

just got this.....this is not good!!!!.....

"Subject: Check this out.....






In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a National Day
of Prayer.

In 1988, President Reagan designated the first Thursday in May of each
year as the National Day of Prayer..

This year however, President Obama, decided to cancel the ceremony at
the White House not wanting to offend anyone.
In June 2007, Presidential candidate Barrack Obama declares the USA no
longer a Christian nation.

On September 25, 2009 from 4am until 7pm, a National Day of Prayer for
the Muslim religion will be held on Capitol Hill, beside the White
House.

If a Christian, it makes you really wonder where the REAL direction of
this country is headed.

DC is expecting over 50,000 muslims that day in DC.

However if you want to pray to God in public you can't because, well,
it may offend someone.



http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/"


http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/

mikeandgerry wrote:I edited my post above. You should be more clear.

Do you believe a ban on gay marriage is a violation of the first amendment?

Yes?

No?

Choose one.

It's a little early to debate whether it's a first amendment issue. The issue is a state's rights issue now. But given that other states recognize marriages of other states, gays may reside as married couples in any state however certain states may still refuse to marry gays.

Only recently have certain churches declared that homosexuality is no longer a sin. The majority of the world's religions still hold that homosexuality is a sin. Only in the western world have liberal churchgoers decided to write new scripture. It's a fad to be sure but one that will cause turmoil as in the interpretation of first amendment freedom of religion issues.

Tell me this, Erik, is the Rastafarian sacrement of marijuana smoking an allowable thing under first amendment rights? How about group marriage or multiple wives/husbands, beastiality, etc.?

To date culture through state and community law has the right to say "no" to certain behavior.

Do you think we should have the right to say "no" to certain behavior that you might disagree with? or perhaps some you migh agree with?

mikeandgerry wrote:read my edited post. the answer is there.

Nice way out of worming out of answering a yes or no question.

If gays desire rights, they should pursue them in both state and federal venues to amend the Constitution.

You are suggesting that gay people need a constitutional amendment to ensure their first amendment rights to free exercise of religion?

They are US citizens. Their various church allows them to marry. A ban on gay marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms.

No worming here; Just a lack of reading and comprehending on your part....I edited my post for you as I anticipated your answer.

ErikLaurence wrote:You are suggesting that gay people need a constitutional amendment to ensure their first amendment rights to free exercise of religion?

They are US citizens. Their various church allows them to marry. A ban on gay marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms.

As always, you and the left wing word twisting oportunists will not be satisfied until you have YOUR way each and every time on every issue.

Cultures can reject marginal behavior. The Constitution leaves it to the states.

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:You are suggesting that gay people need a constitutional amendment to ensure their first amendment rights to free exercise of religion?

They are US citizens. Their various church allows them to marry. A ban on gay marriage is an infringement on their religious freedoms.

As always, you and the left wing word twisting oportunists will not be satisfied until you have YOUR way each and every time on every issue.

Cultures can reject marginal behavior. The Constitution leaves it to the states.

So you are against Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.

You're leaving up to the states so the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.) means that if a gay couple marries in one state then the other 49 states must recognize the marriage.

Terrific, we agree.