Set religious affiliation aside to work for more peaceful country

You are the poster above! Congrats!

So if you are against same sex marriage than you are not for peace?

Liberals always amuse me.

Larry- That’s not what the author said at all, but not a bad effort by you.

It’s nice to finish a letter and not have to roll my eyes. Thank you!

Unfortunately, for most religious people God comes before country. Thus, your argument requires them to abandon their teachings and beliefs for the “common good,” to support the beliefs of those who claim to be Christians and then turn their back on any Christian teaching that is inconvenient for them.

Good luck with that.

I keep hearing this “country that is founded on … and the separation of church and state” but yet I find no reference to “separation of church and state” in any founding document, can someone show me where it is?

I do know the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Bold added) Which makes me wonder why Marla (and people like her) are always complaining when other exercise there 1st Amendment rights?

owned in the first reply

I will direct bill to Wikipedia; you should always check its sources, but they are there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

God should be thankful for people like Marla.

Mark, wikipedia is always a suspect source at best and as stated by you the sources should always be checked. I am (and was) aware of the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association and was actually hoping someone would reference it, as wikipedia does, using the quote “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” as the starting point of the phrase “separation of church and state”. What wikipedia and others do not reference is the original letter written to Jefferson by the Danbury Baptist Association. The Danbury Baptist Association letter was written to keep government out of religion and not the other way around which is what the phrase is being used for today. “But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been out laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgemnets, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen”. So Danbury Baptist and Jefferson were seeking to keep government out of religion and not seeking to keep religion or religious people out of government.

Hey Bill, why don’t you check the Treaty of Tripoli (which was unanimously passed by Congress). ARTICLE 11:

//As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries//

Since it wasn’t founded on the Christian religion I doubt it was founded on any other as well. Church and State should always be separate. I’d be pissed if a Jewish lobby outlawed Pork because it is against their teachings just as I am pissed that Christians force others through legislation based solely on their beliefs.

Wow NP that was a sorry attempt. When was this country founded? Hint, it wasn’t June 7, 1797 which is when the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified Thus this is NOT a founding document. Next, is that reference in the 1806 Treaty ,answer: NO. And how about the 1815 Treaty with Algiers , again the answer: NO

I would guess that people living 6 years after the Bill of rights was ratified would have a better idea of the founders intentions v. people on a message board 216 years later.

Ummmmm, NP, were gonna need you to come in on Saturday, because you got owned.

How will it affect you, the social conservative, if gay marriage is passed? Will you have to give up on your hetero marriage or your plans for one? Will it usher in the foreseen events depicted in Revelations? Will a gay man propose to you on the street? If you oppose gay marriage, then Jesus Christ, don’t get one! Letting it happen wouldn’t do anyone on Earth any disservice, I don’t care what that idiot Faas tries to say.

Mark “would guess”, well if you are guessing can you guess this? Which document was sent to the States to be ratified The Constitution or the Treaty of Tripoli? And since you are clearly an expert on the Treaty of Tripoli and the intention of it’s being ratified maybe you can explain to me this:

“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.” (bold empathizes added)

NOTE REGARDING THE Barlow TRANSLATION

If voting on the gay marriage issue is what is holding it up, then please find a way to allow gay marriage without having the conservatives vote on it? Oh, I forgot, we vote for things we believe in, and against things we don’t, and our society is based on that. And more than 50% of the people of CA voted for banning gay marriage, yet more than 50% voted for Obama. So are those that voted for Obama but against gay marriage conservative? I love how the liberals pin this on conservatives.

Look, it’s all about what you believe in. Why does anyone have to justify what they believe in to anyone else? Only those who are trying to push their position on others feel the need to express their beliefs. And maybe that’s the problem, the liberals in this case were too aggressive.

I’m middle of the road, but confronted by a bunch of rainbow flag waving protesters would quickly push me to vote to ban gay marriage.

But I live in TX, so I will likely never have to make that choice.

So gay marriage supporters – stop demanding that people explain why they are opposed to it. It’s none of your business, and you aren’t going to change their mind, you’re only making it worse on yourselves.

You know TP, your answer actually makes a good deal of sense, but you must remember that not everyone who voted for Obama was not a liberal either. I do agree on your point about excessive aggression though, which is why I would encourage homosexuals not to participate in this “Call in Gay” thing on Wednesday. It’s just a shot in the foot to miss work like that.

woops, i meant not everyone who voted for obama was a liberal in that first statement.

Is that guy above arguing for a theocracy?

if you mean me no i support gay marriage

Bill Lumberg:

No…the constitution doesn’t say word for word that ‘there shall be a separation between church and state’.

It does, however say that…
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’. Any reasonable person with half a brain can see that those 10 words prohibit the United States from making laws based on religous beliefs alone.

I completely agree with Marla.

I do not mean to belittle any religious beliefs by supporting gay marriage, however by not supporting gay marriage are you not belittling my beliefs?

Our country’s lore speaks about the idea of religious freedom, that no religion should supersede another. By forcing the entire country to conform to a particular religious belief completely negates this founding principle.

Furthermore, there already exist products and laws that are supposedly “against” various religions. Many Jewish people are kosher, however does that stop the production of pork? Many Catholics do not believe in abortion, however they are currently legal in the US. Obiviously these blantant infractions haven’t prevented anyone from practicing these religions. Haven’t threatened their existence, or completely disreguarded thier importance.

Just because you don’t agree with something, doesn’t mean it isn’t right. You can still hold your religious beliefs in a world where gay marriage is legal.

So grow up a little and shallow your pride. Just think if it was the opposite way around, and only same-sex couples were allowed to marry. What if the celebrated union to your husband or wife was suddenly anulled because somebody else decided it was against THIER beliefs.

I’m pretty sure most the people against gay marriage would cry, “Injustice!” in under thirty seconds.

I’m male, straight, a theatre major and I’ve been laid more times than you. True this is only a hypothesis, but I base it Einstein’s theory of relativity… “people who defend their beliefs with shallow stereotypes are relatively virgins.” I think that’s roughly how that theory goes… How much can a virgin really know about sexuality?

If I’m not convincing anyone, maybe I’m good for a laugh?

PWNED