Don't like it? Get out!
 

Aussie Gov't Ministers have stated their position on Muslim extremism. This is pretty amazing stuff:

A lot of people are cheering this as the "line to be crossed" and note they think the US should make the same statement. I think that's great! So when I made minor changes to the article to reflect the changes they suggested, their opinion changed, suddenly.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which based on religious law or a theocratic state, then The United States is not for you."

Huh. I wonder why they didn't like that? ;)

Under current trends, the statement here would probably come out something along the lines of, "If you don't like a government founded and run on Christian principles, then perhaps the United States is not for you."

Sheesh.

Or, in an attempt to seem inclusive, "Judeeeeeeoooooo-Christian Values," as Bill O'Reilly says.

Sad but true, Patrick! And 3 cheers for Australia! Pakistan and Northern Indian have had endless problems because there are two sets of laws - secular versus religious. In the more rural, Muslim areas of these two nations, the Muslim clerics seem to win out.

Freedom of religion does NOT mean the freedom to impose your religious views on others. I don't care if every single person in the US except for one was an Evangelical Christian. The 800 million or so would have no right to impose their system of belief on the one who chose to believe differently.

The core problem is that religious law can easily be at odds with secular law. Additionally, secular law tends to be far more egalitarian where enforcement is concerned. Last time I read the U.S. Constitution, it did not really mention christian values or even the christian god. So many people base the fact that the original writers of the constitution were christian, but really, that was just coincidence. If Hindus had gotten here first...well, you get the point. Besides, we'd offed all the local american indians, so they didn't really get a chance to help. In any event, good for the Aussies. Now if only those barbarians down in New Zed would get the point...

Look, man...if you're going to be rational, there's no place for you in the New Christian Right. Now, get in lockstep and start spouting the party line about our Christian Founding Fathers, and be quick about it! :lol:

Oh. When I saw this thread I thought it was meant for the AG people. Pity.

Who the heck are these "AG" people I keep reading about..

Guess I don't frequent this place as much as I ought to.

In the last week, we've had an influx of several people from AudioGalaxy, a site that shut down. They are looking for a new home and came here. There's been a period of "adjustment" since then.

Oh boy that sounds like loads of fun [/sarcasm] :lol:

:lol:

This is why I voted for Kitsune as a Dwellar that I'd like to meet...:beer:

You're insane for that vote, but I will buy you a beer for that.

Well, if you heathens don't like it, we've lots of good Catholic Mexicans to take your place. :p

Don't forget Canada. Quebec has accepted sharia law for their Muslims that prefer it.
If you do some reading on the "Founding Fathers", I think you'll find the influential ones, the ones that contributed most to the Constitution, were in fact not really Christians, or at best, Christian light.

Either way, they definitely wanted a separation from religion influencing the government, or being promoted by the government. That makes sense because they had seen all the shit, the mixing of the two had caused in Europe.

If I recall correctly, Sharia law is a set of specific rules and punishments that exist outside the "law of the land" of Australia (An out of my ass example would be: If you are Muslim, and you steal, you get the Australian punishment, but you also get the Sharia punishment, like your hand gets cut off.)

Please explain to me, since we're using Christianity as an example, what religious laws in the United States are you referring to?

OC?! *drops dead of shock*

Well, I can think of one in the news, recently.

I wouldn't call that a Christian law. :confused:

Right, but the people proposing it would.

Since there's no non-theocratic reason to have it, and the people clamoring for it call themselves Christian, it counts.

From your own source:
(emphasis mine)

That is an assumption, not backed by fact.

There is a non-thoecratic reason, namely economics. One example is: Insurance companies don't want to have to cover same sex relationships.

(all emphasis mine)

Samuel Adams:
signed the Declaration and said:
George "the father of our country" Washington's Farewell Address excerpts:

How about Benjamin Franklin?

speaking to the Constitutional Convention, on June 28, 1787:

Another delegate to the convention wrote these observations about Franklin's speech and its effect on the convention:

Franklin's resolution was passed and implemented enthusiastically. From that moment on, the deadlock was broken and rapid progress was made on the constitution.

From that day on, Chaplins were established in both the House and Senate. Prayers have opened both houses of Congress ever since.

** In the usage of the time, "Providence" referred specifically to God's fortuitous intervention in events. It was considered so much a characteristic of God's dealings with men that the word was always capitalized in print to emphasize that it was referring to specific acts of God.

How about John Quincy Adams?

On July 4, 1837, in a speech celebrating the 61st Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration, John Quincy Adams proclaimed to the inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport:


After the "Articles of Confederation" didn't work, the Constitutional Confederation was convened. One law of interest passed into law under the new Constitution 1789 is the Northwest Ordinance (passed during the period that the first amendment was being deliberated). The NWO is the law that lays down the rules that you had to follow to become a state. This portion of the Ordinance requires the state constitutions to include statements to this effect:

AND

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. THE UNITED STATES
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
February 29, 1892

Religious Clauses in State Constitutions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delaware; Article 22 (1776) "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...also make and subscribe the following declaration, to whit:
'I,_____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration'"
Delaware; Article VIII, Section 9 (1792) "...No clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this State, or of being a member of either branch of the legislature, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral or clerical functions."
Georgia; Article VI (1777) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."

Georgia; Article LXII (1777) "No clergyman of any denomination shall be allowed a seat in the legislature."

Georgia; Article VI (1777) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county,...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."

Kentucky; Article II, Section 26 (1777) "No person, while he continues to exercise the functions of a clergyman, priest, or teacher of any religious persuasion, society of sect...shall be eligible to the general assembly..."

Maryland; Article XXXII (1776) "...All persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection their religious liberty...the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general tax and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion."

Maryland; Article XXXIV (1776) "That every gift, sale or devise of lands, to any minister, public teacher or preacher of the gospel, as such, or to any religious sect, order or denomination [must have the approval of the Legislature]"

Maryland; Article XXXV (1776) "That no other test or qualification ought to be required...than such oath of support and fidelity to this State...and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."

Massachusetts; First Part, Article II (1780) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe..."

Massachusetts; First Part, Article II (1780) "The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless...he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

Massachusetts; Chapter VI, Article I (1780) "[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

'I,_____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth...'"
New Hampshire; Part 1, Article 1, Section 5 (1784) "...the legislature ...authorize ...the several towns ...to make adequate provision at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality..."
New Hampshire; Part 2, (1784) "[Provides that no person be elected governor, senator, representative or member of the Council] who is not of the protestant religion."

New Jersey; Article XIX (1776) "...no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right...; all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect...shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature."

New York; Section VIII (1777) "...no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretense or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within this State."

North Carolina; Article XXXI (1776) "That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function,"

North Carolina; Article XXXII (1776) "That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,...shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Pennsylvania; Declaration of Rights II (1776) "...Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged to any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship."

Pennsylvania; Frame of Government, Section 10 (1776) "And each member [of the legislature]...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder to the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'"
Pennsylvania; Article IX, Section 4 (1790) "that no person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."
South Carolina; Article III (1778) "[State officers and privy council to be] all of the Protestant religion."

South Carolina; Article XII (1778) "...no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion."

South Carolina; Article XXI (1778) "...no minister of the gospel or public preachers of any religious persuasion, while he continues in the exercise of his pastoral function, and for two years after, shall be eligible either as governor, lieutenant-governor, a member of the senate, house of representatives, or privy council in this State."

South Carolina; Article XXXVIII (1778) "That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed...to be the established religion of this State."

Tennessee; Article VIII, Section 1 (1796) "...no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either house of the legislature."

Tennessee; Article VIII, Section 2 (1796) "...no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State."

Vermont; Declaration of Rights, III (1777) "...nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment...; nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day..."

Vermont; Frame of Government, Section 9 (1777) "And each member [of the legislature],...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I do believe in one god, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.'"

Snopes:

Also snopes:

I know it's alot to read, but its there if anyone cares to read it.

I'm not advocating everyone being forced to be religious, but I think it's clear that the "founding fathers", many of the significant ones, if not most of them were, in fact, very Christian men, and with the (state) Constitutions stating what they do, BY LAW, I would have to assert that America was a very Christian country, back in the day, and I note in my research that it started to shift about the time of Darwin's theory coming out.

But that's another thread.

;)

:love2: miss me?

Yes. Hi, girl.

:lol: Insurance companies don't want to cover anything, even if they already do cover it. That's not a reason.

Insurance companies will cover anything they can make money on.....strictly business.

Every successful politician knows (has known) that nothing keeps people in line like the fear of God. You can hide from the law but you can't hide from God.
Also, nothing justifies authority like religious/moral superiority.
The wild, wild west was subdued not by lawmen but by the importation of women and their churches. ;)

Found this one via BoingBoing. That solid red block scares me. I guess that's why the call it the bible belt.

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo...rch_bodies.gif

After looking at the image, I'd call it an "irritating rash in the country's nether regions". Living in the middle of it, I assure you, is no picnic, either.

Long time/no see, OC! That's a lot of material to read and not enough coffee to go with it. Whoa.

:coffee:

source

76% of the population in the United States identifies themselves as "Christian".

If that 76% voted according to the candidate that stood on a platform of "Christian principles", and elected representatives and senators based on that platform, this would be a politically "Christian" nation, and laws regarding abortion, same sex marriage (which I concede is predicated on religious opinion, but deny it's an exclusively Christian viewpoint), etc would be passed overwhelmingly.

Think of the uproar when the Christian president said "If you don't like our 76% Christian nation and it's laws, get out." Would you be heralding him like you are the Aussie guy?

Just food for thought.

I know it is, Kitsune. But I wanted to show the folks here that America was, indeed, founded on Christian principles and the separation of church and state was never a policy in the time of the founding fathers, and is not found in the Constitution. (As I'm sure you're aware.)

So Mr. Guy (or Ms. Girl, whichever the case may be) who says it's just a "coincidence" does not seem to have read much about American History.

Leave it to me to attempt to enlighten. :)

(By the way, James Madison was fiercely about leaving religion out of politics. He was outvoted alot. Democracy at work!)

I'm not going to agree on the "not found in the Constituion" bit, but I will agree that you have an interesting analysis of the founding of this country and some good points. Still, I find the religious ideals that were erroroneously woven into our country's early laws to be just as invalid today as the then accepted "legal" concept of racial inequality, slavery, and the ownership of human beings. It is rare that I hear the suggestion that because the current majority of this country is white and the founders were white that the 13th amendment should be marked as invalid or that the United State's government should be recognized for the original interpretation of "all peoples" as white male land owners. There are plenty of laws that were written in to make the early governments of this country popular to the citizens that would be asked to adopt them, both federal and state, just as today laws are proposed to appeal to the masses. Neither excuse, however, makes them "correct" under the central idea that our government is a government of the people and representative of all.

I don't want the United States to ask those that demand religious-based laws, government sponsored religion, inequal rights based upon religious ideas, or a theocracy to "get out".

...but they sure as hell better get used to not getting what they want.

Right, I was using two meanings of "cover", as the incurance companies do. They'd love to cover1 gay marriages, but once they have they'll try and find ways that they aren't actually covered2. But that's no different from straight marriages, or hurricane or flood insurance for that matter.

1. Collect insurance fees from
2. Eligable to recieve money

Gay relationships are notoriously unstable, even in a culture where straight relationships are about as reliable as a Colorado weather report (i.e., not so much). The additional load of drama upon society would be crippling: the divorce rate would quintuple, insurance companies would crumble under the weight of millions of claims due to hair-pulling and slapping.

And imagine the bridal magazines. Some things can't be unseen, remember that.




/kidding. <3

OC: Some of those passages are unmistakably Christian, but it is my understanding that a significant portion of the religious language used by the founding fathers was in reference to Deism, not Christianity.

From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">wikipedia</a>:

I know I'm going to be sorry for jumping into this, since OC's research is obviously more thorough than mine (which is to say, none), but...once we've made it illegal for queers to engage in a legally binding contract like marriage, what's to keep us from, say, revoking women's voting rights and anything else that isn't keeping with the fundamentalist notions of how everyone else ought to live?

I cannot conceive of any valid legal argument whereby any two people should not be allowed to unite their assets and obligations in a legal manner, cohabitate, and derive the same benefits as any other two people are entitled to simply by dint of their genders.

Anything else is discrimination. If it isn't, someone needs to tell me why, and the explanation can't include anything about family values (mine might not be yours, and if I'm not hurting anyone else, why should I have to live by yours), historical precedents (go far enough back in history and you'll find a great many alternative lifestyles that were quite acceptable in their time) or {insert your religion here} tenets.

Marriage is a contract. If Bob and Mary want to believe that their contract is sanctified by God, great, cool, I hope they hire me to play at the wedding. But if Bob and Joe just want to ensure that they have rights of property inheritance and insurability...why can't they? If they each married a woman, they'd be entitled to those things, so there wouldn't be any more burden on insurance companies, the government or anything else if Bob and Joe got hitched.

There's no rationale for prohibiting same sex marriage other than religious morality. By my way of thinking, if you can limit one thing on that basis, you can do anything else on that basis, and taken to that extreme, you have radical Islam, Right Wing Christianity, and so on.

It's a slippery slope, Elspode. You let 'em get married and before you know it all those faggot/lezzie children will be bitching the their separate but equal schools ain't equal and they don't want to sit in the back of the bus anymore. ;)

You know what? I agree. So why don't we just bring this down to one point: marriage is male/female, civil union is same sex. Make civil union just as legal and binding as marriage, give it the same rights and responsibilities?

I'm 100% happy with that. Semantics? Absolutely. But it goes a long way to pacify the majority of the people.

Upon further reflection, I think I agree with you. Again, call marriage male/female and call saem sex civil union. Legalize civil union. I really dont' see the problem in that compromise, but then I'm actually pretty moderate in my views.

Even better: Call it all civil union from a governmental point of view, and let individuals and/or their churches decide whether to call their unions marriages. No double standard, religious people still can put whatever restrictions they want on what they call marriage, and nonreligious people can ignore those restrictions and call themselves married anyway.

They call it marriage because civil union would be an oxymoron in many cases.:rolleyes:

I can see the merit to OC's plan, but I, for one, think that marriage should be allowed between same-sex couples. Like Elspode said, there is no valid legal argument for prohibiting it. Being bisexual, I could definitely live with OC's plan of Civil Union = Marriage by a different name, but I wouldn't like it. Especially knowing what happened to seperate but equal in the south.

I can see the merit to OC's plan, but I, for one, think that marriage should be allowed between same-sex couples. Like Elspode said, there is no valid legal argument for prohibiting it. Being bisexual, I could definitely live with OC's plan of Civil Union = Marriage by a different name, but I wouldn't like it. Especially knowing what happened to seperate but equal in the south.

There are a couple of interesting points that the Snopes articles didn't mention.

1/ There were serious and violent (Youth of "middle-Eastern-apperance" vs "Australian") riots in the Cronulla region of Sydney, late last year. There was substantial fault on both sides, massive and often divisive media coverage, followed by no real resolution.

2/ A enormously popular right wing radio talkback personality has been running an "Australia - Love it or Leave it" campaign, intermittantly for several months. Speaking very generally, the main demographic of this radio personality's audience foverlaps substantially with a big part of the Howard government's voter base.

I think these comments from the Australian govermnent are simply political rhetoric aimed at answering the question "What's the goverment doing about all this Muslim violence at home?"

I am a proud Australian, and while I personally agree with the stated basic sentiments, I doubt they will change anything of consequence one iota.

;)

Why would non religious people WANT to call it married?
Marriage is a religious concept, located in Genesis.

If you're not religious, why would you want to call it marriage?

No, it's a social concept that's mentioned in religion, as are many other social concepts, because religion exists in a social environment. Marriage existed long before the bible was written. :cool:

Because "marriage is a religious concept" is a religious concept, and nonreligious people don't have to buy into it. Marriage existed before the Bible, and has existed outside of religion. Murder is also in Genesis, but it's not a religious concept.

Some people, to feel their marriage is valid, need to have it blessed by their church. That's fine, but it's not true for everybody.

OK. Remember that 76%? I'm thinking of this issue in a religious POV.

From a religious POV, the first murder ever recorded is in Genesis, carried out over jealousy over who's sacrifice God liked best. Murder, to 76% (+ Muslims + Jews, who use the same Genesis) is a religious concept. You don't have to be religious to carry it out, like marriage, but it is definitely a relgious concept, and the law against it is religious in nature (see Moses).

I think you may find that to a majority of people, if it's not "sanctified" by an official of some religion, that it's not a marriage, it's a civil union. Which is why I posted the compromise above.

I'm not disagreeing with your viewpoint, your opinion is as valid as mine. I'm just trying to get you to understand where the best possibility of compromise is going to come from.

(As a side note, this conversation would never have occured in the 50's, and I'm interested in your viewpoint as to WHY things have changed so much in our culture since then.)

You asked why the non-religious person would call it a marriage. What the 76% think isn't relevant.I doubt that. There are tons of lapsed Catholics who don't join another church but still get married.Actually, mine makes more sense in that respect. Just call all of them civil unions, and let individuals decide whether to call it marriage (and the vast majority, religious or not, will - they certainly do now). People who want religious blessings will get them, and people who don't won't. Having governmental "marriages" and "civil unions" which are separate but equal is a bad idea, and just an invitation for constant attempts to add more priviledges to one but not the other.

In the 50's, the argument was whether interracial marriages should be legal, and the same aguments were used. Hopefully it's a constant trend in a free society. I think the internet has dramatically helped as well in recent years, allowing people to interact with people outside their social circles.

Because we non-religious types deserve the same as the rest of y'all. :mad: I'm not a second-class citizen and I refuse to be treated as one.

The trick here, my friend, is to come up with a term that is better than the one they use. Marriage? Try forever relationship or incredi-bond!

No it isn't. Murder is a crime that transcends all religions. The only thing that varies is the dividing line between murder and lawful killing. Do you think that it was legal to murder among the Israelites before Moses brought down the tablets? No, it's just that no set of laws can be taken seriously if "don't murder" and "don't steal" aren't included.

Don't Christians refer to it as "holy matrimony"? The rest of us heathens should get to call it "marriage". :)

We use "handfasted" and "married" pretty much interchangably, as a matter of fact, but just try finding the little "handfasted" check box on your average questionaire.

What is really under discussion here is the pervasive intrusion of the predominant religion into the lives of people who do not follow that path. As long as I am not harming anyone else, why should I have to be burdened with those tenets' intrusion into my dealings with government and civil functions?

I'm thinking that everybody keeps saying "religion" when they mean "Christianity."

It's only recently (say the last half-century or less, just at a guess) that marriage has really developed in a non-religious context.

What? Jews, muslims and the people that practice the myriad of far eastern religions, don't get married? :eyebrow:

I was married by a Justice of the Peace, once. The paperwork was the same.....it said I was married.

Common-law marriage is older than that, and whether a common-law marriage is religious in nature is completely up to the individuals.

What? Man, someone needs to fix that! People shouldn't get to decide whether or not their private affairs are religious or not!:lol: