OK Supreme Court: 10 Commandments must come down

[Dialogos]

That's the $100k question! Though, removing public, dogmatic, religious commandments seems a laudable start.

I see and then we can begin to disqualify Christians from public office and keep them from the voting booth because the wall of separation was "in your view" designed to keep the state safe from the religiosity of its citizenry like the great wall of china was meant to keep the chinese from the moguls.

Sounds pretty frightening if you ask me.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the IRS is used like a branch of some secret police to make sure that people tow the state ideological line...

 

[quip]

I see and then we can begin to disqualify Christians from public office and keep them from the voting booth because the wall of separation was "in your view" designed to keep the state safe from the religiosity of its citizenry like the great wall of china was meant to keep the chinese from the moguls.

Sounds pretty frightening if you ask me.

Don't wig-out on me here.

No, you can't easily parse the ideology from the ideologue.

What I'm proposing (and perhaps the state as well.) is an insistence upon keeping religious matters.... private.

 

[bybee]

Don't wig-out on me here.

No, you can't easily parse the ideology from the ideologue.

What I'm proposing (and perhaps the state as well.) is an insistence upon keeping religious matters.... private.

It can't be done. The atheist demands the right to have his wishes followed entirely. Let there be nothing.

 

[quip]

It can't be done. The atheist demands the right to have his wishes followed entirely. Let there be nothing.

Then the atheist needs to get over him/herself.

Neither side needs to take the "separation" idea quite so literally. This is more the high-wire balancing act and less a complete disembodied, beheading. :shocked:

 

[bybee]

Then the atheist needs to get over him/herself.

Neither side needs to take the "separation" idea quite so literally. This is more the high-wire balancing act then less a complete disembodied, beheading. :shocked:

Well ya! That's what I've been saying!

 

[PureX]

So in your view then, anyone who considers themselves part of a "church" should be excluded from determining the direction of the state?

I don't see why this is so difficult for people. All it means is that the purpose of the state and the purpose of religion are not the same purpose. Therefor, they are and should be kept functionally separate. The rules that govern a religious lifestyle are not the same, nor should they be, as the rules that govern civil order. There is no compromise needed. There is no balance required. All we need to do is understand that they are different endeavors, and act accordingly regarding each.

Religion says that homosexuality is a sin. Civil laws say that it is the right of any consenting adult in a free society. There is no need for compromise, or argument, or debate. Civil laws protect the rights of free citizens. Religious laws admonish behavioral limits for their adherents. So there is no overlap. There is no point for contention. The religious adherents can refrain from homosexual behavior while the non-adherents can decide for themselves what the pursuit of happiness entails, for them.

Why is this so difficult for religionists to grasp?

 

[Lon]

Religion says that homosexuality is a sin. Civil laws say that it is the right of any consenting adult in a free society. There is no need for compromise, or argument, or debate. Civil laws protect the rights of free citizens. Religious laws admonish behavioral limits for their adherents. So there is no overlap. There is no point for contention. The religious adherents can refrain from homosexual behavior while the non-adherents can decide for themselves what the pursuit of happiness entails, for them.

Why is this so difficult for religionists to grasp?

Well, as I've said before, in this case, it is because the state adopted 'marriage' instead of just using a secular term like "civil union." Because the state redefined 'marriage' it transgressed its own separation of church/state clause (and again, we are only talking about a couple of thousand people across 50 states, that was a LOT of tax payers money and the largest problem of it, instead of shoving it down throats and angering people, would have been resolved if they were have to ASKED ME what they should do. I'd have said "Civil Union" All states will recognize from now on is not the religious concept 'marriage' but the legal concept "civil rights and property union" the only thing they 'can' legally be interested in. Nobody asked me, go figure :Z

 

[PureX]

Well, as I've said before, in this case, it is because the state adopted 'marriage' instead of just using a secular term like "civil union."

If the state had been properly separated from religion in the first place, this would never have become an "issue". People could have co-habitated as they chose, either according to their religious beliefs, or according to their secular beliefs. And the state would have had nothing to do with it. Every one of the "issues" we are now having with religious interference in the process of government wouldn't have been an issue if we had separated the two, properly, in the beginning. But we were not able to do so because even though we recognized the wisdom of the ideal of the separation of church and state, we were not able to recognize the depths of our own religious bias, from the founders on down.

This is why we need to keep struggling to identify our religious bias, and separate it from the power of the state. Not make excuses and justifications for keeping them confused and entwined.

Because the state redefined 'marriage' it transgressed its own separation of church/state clause …

The state should never have defined marriage in the first place. That was never it's purpose. People should be doing that for themselves, through their churches, or otherwise.

 

[quip]

Well, as I've said before, in this case, it is because the state adopted 'marriage' instead of just using a secular term like "civil union." Because the state redefined 'marriage' it transgressed its own separation of church/state clause...

I suppose Chrisianity (or is it all religions) own the rights to the concept of marriage....or is this just another arrogant Lon-ism?

 

[bybee]

I suppose Chrisianity (or is it all religions) own the rights to the concept of marriage....or is this just another arrogant Lon-ism?

"Ownership" is such a temporary thing. One, in this country, is free to subscribe to the religion of one's choice. The state, on the other hand, forces one to obey the law.
I do not find Lon to be arrogant.

 

[Lon]

I suppose Chrisianity (or is it all religions) own the rights to the concept of marriage....or is this just another arrogant Lon-ism?

Some of us may have a right to arrogance and others not so much. I do indeed think I'm fairly intelligent, but 1) I try to downplay that, except for when I can't, and 2) Didn't make it an issue here, so thanks once again for the swollen cranium that is neither here nor there, nor my personal issues fodder for every post in any particular thread lain:
The websites of the internet are messing with the 'definition' but it had always (since man began writing) meant: Man/wife, family. Latin from the Catholic Church definition maintained it in the biblical sense such that the state simply adopting the term, not only messes up the term in the U.S. but the rest of the English-speaking world. Either the state or the church has to move to another term if the dictionary definition is obscured to something else. It would obviously have to because the strict sense is all Scripture gives. It is unfortunate that the state didn't think this all through to the logical problems and just bull-headed and steam-rolled. We are in a reckless age that doesn't 'need' to move quite that recklessly or fast. "Civil-union" would have been the better, causing a lot less problems. There may yet have been a few complaints, but the new term wouldn't have rankled like the SCOTUS hand-me-down inept hammer fest. I think they need a better check/balance because the Constitution didn't really envision 'inept' from all 9 justices. They are too pop culture and too easily swayed by media and entertainment themselves.

 

[bybee]

Some of us may have a right to arrogance and others not so much. I do indeed think I'm fairly intelligent, but 1) I try to downplay that, except for when I can't, and 2) Didn't make it an issue here, so thanks once again for the swollen cranium that is neither here nor there, nor my personal issues fodder for every post in any particular thread lain:
The websites of the internet are messing with the 'definition' but it had always (since man began writing) meant: Man/wife, family. Latin from the Catholic Church definition maintained it in the biblical sense such that the state simply adopting the term, not only messes up the term in the U.S. but the rest of the English-speaking world. Either the state or the church has to move to another term if the dictionary definition is obscured to something else. It would obviously have to because the strict sense is all Scripture gives. It is unfortunate that the state didn't think this all through to the logical problems and just bull-headed and steam-rolled. We are in a reckless age that doesn't 'need' to move quite that recklessly or fast. "Civil-union" would have been the better, causing a lot less problems. There may yet have been a few complaints, but the new term wouldn't have rankled like the SCOTUS hand-me-down inept hammer fest. I think they need a better check/balance because the Constitution didn't really envision 'inept' from all 9 justices. They are too pop culture and too easily swayed by media and entertainment themselves.

Indeed! They are the veritable Rockette's of the Bench"!

 

[gcthomas]

Some of us may have a right to arrogance and others not so much. I do indeed think I'm fairly intelligent,

We noticed.

Either the state or the church has to move to another term if the dictionary definition is obscured to something else.... We are in a reckless age that doesn't 'need' to move quite that recklessly or fast. "Civil-union" would have been the better, causing a lot less problems.

No new terms are needed: church marriage and civil marriage are terms in use and well understood. It's quite clear that the SCOTUS rulings apply to civil weddings, not church weddings, so they don't impact on religious communities, except for those communities who want to control how other people live.

 

[quip]

...thanks once again for the swollen cranium that is neither here nor there...

No. Thank you Lon.

Who needs Saturday toons and Sunday comics when they've got ToL! :up:

 

[PureX]

The websites of the internet are messing with the 'definition' but it had always (since man began writing) meant: Man/wife, family. Latin from the Catholic Church definition maintained it in the biblical sense such that the state simply adopting the term, not only messes up the term in the U.S. but the rest of the English-speaking world. Either the state or the church has to move to another term if the dictionary definition is obscured to something else. It would obviously have to because the strict sense is all Scripture gives. It is unfortunate that the state didn't think this all through to the logical problems and just bull-headed and steam-rolled. We are in a reckless age that doesn't 'need' to move quite that recklessly or fast. "Civil-union" would have been the better, causing a lot less problems. There may yet have been a few complaints, but the new term wouldn't have rankled like the SCOTUS hand-me-down inept hammer fest. I think they need a better check/balance because the Constitution didn't really envision 'inept' from all 9 justices. They are too pop culture and too easily swayed by media and entertainment themselves.

No person or group owns an idea or the term representing it. These are phenomena experienced and practiced collectively. And the idea of pair-bonding is no exception. It is not a religious idea. And religion does not "own" the terms or conditions that society chooses to apply to it.

You need to get this into your head.

Religions are represented by sub-cultures within a greater culture, and as such they can and do tend to create their own terms and conditions for cultural ideas like pair-bonding (as marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, for instance). But the sub-culture is not the determinant factor for the greater culture that it exists within. So that these specifically religious terms and conditions for pair-bonding do not apply, nor do they 'override' the terms and conditions applied to pair-bonding by the culture as a whole.

You need to get this into your head.

I agree with you regarding government and marriage: that the government never had any business defining it or labeling it in the first place. And had it stayed out of it, we would not be arguing about it, now. But you are wrong when you assume that if the government had not defined pair-bonding for everyone, that religion would, could or should.

It can't, because religionists are a sub-culture within a whole culture, and therefor do not have the power nor the ability to dictate terms and conditions for pair-bonding to the whole culture.

And you need to get this into your head.

Being that you're so smart, an all, it seems you should have understood this, already.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is this so difficult for religionists to grasp?

It helps to understand the fundamentalists' psychology. They are typically more tribal, authoritarian, and prone to black/white thinking. Put those together and apply it to this issue, and you get what we see here....a mindset that craves a government that promotes their beliefs in an exclusive, authoritarian way. And with black/white thinking, there is no middle ground, compromise, or concept of "neutral"...the government is either part of their tribe and promoting their beliefs, or it is part of someone else's tribe and is promoting their beliefs. That's why they see government neutrality as a bad thing, and a loss for their side.

IOW, they're approaching this from a completely different perspective than you. You're looking for an outcome that's fair and objective. They're looking for an outcome that reinforces their tribal superiority (and not just for them, but to make it clear to everyone else too, which is why having these monuments on government property is so important to them).

 

[Lon]

We noticed.

:up:

except for those communities who want to control how other people live.

Not sure what you mean. Other than cults, there is no control on how people live, but rather how people live, draws them together. Don't you find that to be true? Or were you talking about some of the harsher governments of the world? Or are you feeling oppressed as an atheist? :think:

 

[Lon]

No person or group owns an idea or the term representing it.

Incorrect, I'll let you figure out why (because it is obvious).

You need to get this into your head.

You need to get this into your head.

And you need to get this into your head.

Being that you're so smart, an all, it seems you should have understood this, already.

:think: You seem to be trying to tell me something, emphatically pedantically even.

I agree with you regarding government and marriage: that the government never had any business defining it or labeling it in the first place. And had it stayed out of it, we would not be arguing about it, now. But you are wrong when you assume that if the government had not defined pair-bonding for everyone, that religion would, could or should.

You realize you aren't saying 'marriage' either?
I think that, and by that, I mean you, speak for yourself that I don't need to redress it. However, lest you make a mess in the future, even 'pair' is a bit restrictive :think:

It can't, because religionists are a sub-culture within a whole culture, and therefor do not have the power nor the ability to dictate terms and conditions for pair-bonding to the whole culture.

:nono: You realize, that SCOTUS requires a rewrite of every dictionary in the English speaking world? Do justices actually have that power?
I don't think they are supposed to, but do a quick Google search on the term 'marriage.' They have all changed. It was a world concern, not simply a religious concern. The problem is much larger (and inept) than the small view here. Those 9 men were imperializing, dictating terms not to small groups, but to historical redefinition (encyclopedic), world trampling and etc. The decision was inept in that it did not count the costs and repercussion, nor see it coming, or were so arrogant that they didn't care (doubtful).

 

[quip]

:nono: You realize, that SCOTUS requires a rewrite of every dictionary in the English speaking world? Do justices actually have that power?

Well Lon, surfer dudes; Silicon Valley and congress have been doing that for years. Do they wield such power?

Me thinks you need to adjust to constant linguistic change. It's either that....or go learn a dead language. :dead:

 

[Dialogos]

No person or group owns an idea or the term representing it. These are phenomena experienced and practiced collectively. And the idea of pair-bonding is no exception.

Pair bonding?

You bigot.

Why does marriage have to be between two people? Who are you to limit the freedom of three people to marry one another?

No person or group own an idea or the term that represents it.