Separation of Church and State

"I understand this. What I don't understand is WHY THIS MATTERS.

"The assertion of equal protection under the law, regardless of race (Amendment XV) probably INFURIATES racists. So what?

"The assertion of equal protection regardless of sex (Amendment XIX) probably upsets chavaunists who think a woman's place is in the kitchen. Should we care?

"The assertion of a limited government (Amendment X) probably rubs the wrong way those people who want to follow the footsteps of Hitler and Stalin and create a police state. Why does that matter?"

I don't know if you've noticed, but you've done nothing but compare athiest (or perhaps just non-christians in general) with the dregs of society. Athiesm isn't something despicable like racism, chauvinism, and stalinism, and as such shouldn't be ignored because their complaints don't matter. It's extremely offending and inaccurate to be placed along side racists and the like. Try coming up with a better example if you want to make your point, as I don't see any common ground between a racist and an athiest (besides a racist athiest, but that's their choice, isn't it? )

I'm not comparing atheism and racism on moral grounds: I'm comparing them in that their practictioners BOTH have complaints about government proclamations. These proclamations DO NOT trample the racist's rights, including free speech; I don't see how they trample the atheist's rights, including freedom of religion.

If it will make you happy, let's use a morally neutral example - gun-control advocacy - and the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

(ONE REASON, by the way, I've used the examples I have is because there's little argument over what Amendments X, XV, and XIX actually say. For the sake of this discussion, LET US ASSUME that Amendment II clearly protects gun rights. I will NOT entertain a digression here over this assumption.)

Amendment II protects the individual's right to bear arms. The pro-gun-control crowd CLEARLY disagrees, but their right to disagree and their freedom of speech ARE NOT TRAMPLED.

Likewise, IGWT asserts a belief in the Almighty. Atheists disagree, but their right to disagree and their freedom of religion ARE NOT TRAMPLED.

Do you disagree?

 

"1) Neither of us can prove he's right and the other's wrong. I can't PROVE an absolute moral law exists, but you can't prove otherwise."

Sure I can. The presence of a "law" as something "real" implies that it cannot be broken without "real" consequences. Going back to my gravity example: if you jump from a building, you will die when you hit the ground. Gravity is an immutable "law".
People on the other hand break moral laws all the time. They lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. When caught, they are punished, but only because our society defines their actions as crimes. The consequences of violating moral "laws" are not absolute, they depend on the circumstances. If moral laws were "real" in the way that physical laws were, than every time you told a lie, lightning would strike your head (or something)....do you follow what I mean? Now, is this absolute "proof" that there are no "real" moral laws? No, but it puts them into a different category than "real" laws and makes them much more intagible, and therefore more malleable. If our entire planet held that murder was acceptable, then it wouldn't be part of a moral "law".

I see what you mean: you believe the moral law is not a law because there are no inevitable consequences that follow, but of course you can't prove that, either.

If the moral law is real, it exists outside the physical universe: while the physical universe only describes what IS, the moral law describes what SHOULD BE. If the moral law thus exists outside the physical universe, it's possible that its consequences are felt ONLY outside that universe. Pointing out that there are no physical consequences proves nothing.

 

These proclamations DO NOT trample the racist's rights, including free speech; I don't see how they trample the atheist's rights, including freedom of religion.

Hope you don't mind if I simply post the same thing I said in the "In God do you trust?" thread:

Here is where the establishment clause makes the difference: the 1st Amendment guarantees an individual right to free speech, but allows the government the ability to establish laws with which some people might not agree. However, in the case of religion, the 1st Amendment not only guarantees an individual right to the free exercise of religion, it also prohibits the government from making laws to establish religion.

The 1st Amendment goes beyond protecting the individual right to practice religion by preempting any government attempt to influence citizens' religion. You could easily say that a national church organized by the government would not violate anyone's individual right to practice their own religion, as long as they were not compelled to attend services at or profess the beliefs of the national church, and as long as they were not prevented from practicing their own religion. Yet the authors of the 1st Amendment felt it necessary to forbid a national church - whether that is because it violates the individual right to free exercise, or because it is a first step to coercing citizens away from the free exercise of religion, doesn't really matter. It's pretty clear that the Constitution is taking an extra step to protect the individual right to religion - one which it does not take in protecting freedom of speech.

 

I see what you mean: you believe the moral law is not a law because there are no inevitable consequences that follow, but of course you can't prove that, either.

I'm saying that moral laws exist because we say so, as opposed to gravity, which is there whether or not we acknowledge its' activity. I make that statement on the basis that there is proof that gravity is a law in the sense that I have defined laws, whereas morality is not (in the sense that I have defined them). Since moral laws being immutable requires one to have faith in God, it becomes a mutually exclusive argument. Either you believe that God defines moral laws or you don't.

If the moral law is real, it exists outside the physical universe: while the physical universe only describes what IS, the moral law describes what SHOULD BE. If the moral law thus exists outside the physical universe, it's possible that its consequences are felt ONLY outside that universe. Pointing out that there are no physical consequences proves nothing.

Absolutely, positively no offense by what I am about to say, Bubba, but that's an utterly meaningless argument. What you are saying is black may really be white, but only outside the universe; since black is not white in the universe, that's not the way it should be. Your argument also harks to some higher reality (such as Heaven) where things are 'perfect'. That's like me saying we could all just be thoughts in some alien beings' head. Interesting thought philosophically, but an impossible argument to have.

In either case, they have no bearing on our world. We live in the physical universe, our perceptions are directly related to and limited by the physical universe; that being said, whatever is outside the universe is irrelevant when defining things like laws. Only what is inside the universe matters, and inside the universe, moral authority reigns supreme only on planet Earth.

Peace,

V-03

 

Absolutely, positively no offense by what I am about to say, Bubba, but that's an utterly meaningless argument. What you are saying is black may really be white, but only outside the universe; since black is not white in the universe, that's not the way it should be.

No, what I'm saying is this: since a moral law must come from outside the physical universe, there's NO REASON to expect that physical breaches of the moral law requires immediate physical consequences.


In either case, they have no bearing on our world. We live in the physical universe, our perceptions are directly related to and limited by the physical universe; that being said, whatever is outside the universe is irrelevant when defining things like laws. Only what is inside the universe matters, and inside the universe, moral authority reigns supreme only on planet Earth.

How did you draw this conclusion?

If it's true that everything within the universe is solely dependent on the physical universe itself, then our thoughts are utterly dependent on our surroundings.

Thus, there's no reason to suspect that any conclusions we draw are logical: they are MERELY the consequences of our surroundings.

Thus, there's no reason to believe the conclusion you drew, that "our perceptions are directly related to and limited by the physical universe."

In other words, for our conclusions to be logical, there MUST be outside the physical universe a thing called Reason, and we must be in some sort of contact with Reason. This precludes ANY notion that the physical universe is all that is OR all that matters.

 

In other words, for our conclusions to be logical, there MUST be outside the physical universe a thing called Reason, and we must be in some sort of contact with Reason.

Why must Reason be outside the physical universe for it to exist? What if Reason is some component of the physical universe that draws thoughts to logical conclusions, the same way that gravity draws objects to the earth?


EDIT:
You know, that just doesn't sound right. I think I'm confused...

 

No, what I'm saying is this: since a moral law must come from outside the physical universe, there's NO REASON to expect that physical breaches of the moral law requires immediate physical consequences.

And you've reached this conclusion how? You know what exists outside the physical universe? By what means? I was using physical consequences as a means to elucidate one possible outcome of breaching the stated condition, not the stated condition itself.


How did you draw this conclusion?

If it's true that everything within the universe is solely dependent on the physical universe itself, then our thoughts are utterly dependent on our surroundings.

I come to this conclusion based on one very simple concept from quantum physics: without space to support the structure of matter, matter ceases to exist. If I were to step outside the theoretical boundary of this universe into void, I would simply no longer be. There would be no space to support the continued existence of the atoms in my body, nor the subatomic waves/particles that constitute them.

And where are you coming up with this idea about our thoughts not depending on our surroundings? What would you have them depend on? Do all our thoughts come from God, or somewhere else first? Thoughts are due to the action and interaction of matter-electrochemical impulses between highly complex neurons are what comprise our thoughts. I could be wrong on this (electrochemical impulses may only be the footprints of thoughts, but that's another argument), but there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thus, there's no reason to suspect that any conclusions we draw are logical: they are MERELY the consequences of our surroundings.

Things often are the consequences of our surroundings. The fact that we are oxygen breathers, for example. Or that we have lungs instead of gills. Your argument stands on far shakier ground than mine; while I offer things that can be proven as a basis for reality (such as examples of gravitation and physics principles that have been confirmed through math and observation), you offer only an abstract set of moral "laws" that exist "outside" the universe and therefore cannot be proven (or disproven), tested, or even understood, since they are beyond our perceptions.

How convenient.....for you.

Thus, there's no reason to believe the conclusion you drew, that "our perceptions are directly related to and limited by the physical universe."

There's every reason to believe that. We can't see "outside" the universe, can we? Our eyes and brains are programmed to detect and process the radiation that exists in the physical universe. Our ears function on the principles of acoustics and their media, certainly a function of the physical universe... and on and on and on.

In other words, for our conclusions to be logical, there MUST be outside the physical universe a thing called Reason, and we must be in some sort of contact with Reason. This precludes ANY notion that the physical universe is all that is OR all that matters.

You spell reason with a capital "R" as if it is a living, breathing, thing, and draw a conclusion that is purely philosophical conjecture. We do not "have" to be in contact with any such thing; indeed, there is no such thing outside the universe any more than there are the "dialectical forces of history" that communist countries so often taught would spell the end of the western world.

As an alternative, has anyone ever stopped to consider that our social sanctification of life comes not from a higher authority, but from an evolutionary hold-over of a survival instinct? Most mammalian species herd together and are social creatures; why should we be any different, especially since animals do not hark to a higher law? Our abhorrence of murder and abuse of one another may simply be the result of a deep-rooted and programmed biological instinct to perpetuate the species, just like the sexual instinct. You can't have a species if its' members

 

Kimball:
Would you care to define what you mean by "religious fanatics"?

What I mean is not what you may think I mean.

When I say "religous fanatics", I refer to those people who think their religion is everything. They think about their religion all day long, and they feel the overwhelming desire (even need) to impose their religious beliefs on others, regardless of whether those others want it or not.

I realize that I might have misused the word. I can use some other word, like "religious tyrant", if you want.

Bubba:
Certainly, but if we assume that they were selfish or incompetent - in order to disqualify their other actions, such as the declaration for the National Day of Thanksgiving - we cast doubt on the Constitution itself. It's a hard to assert, simultaneously, that the First Amendment is a good and noble thing AND that its authors were corrupt or foolish.

Not at all. What people say and what they do can - and, as we see, was - be totally different.

So the courts are either selfish or incompetent for ruling that the First Amendment doesn't protect speech that poses a clear and present danger? What the hell?

I never said that. All I said was that people always sound sweeter than they actually are.

Thus, we don't have to follow the example of the First Congress.

And A LOT of that has had to do with the people in that system: judges and senators that take their jobs seriously and honestly pursue the true meaning of the Constitution and defend that meaning.

Look at McCain-Feingold: its limits on campaign ads are, I think, CLEARLY unconstitutional. Yet the Congress approved it and the President signed it for political reasons, on the hopes that the courts will excise the unconstitutional parts, AS IF the courts are the only ones with the job to defend the Constitution. If they DO NOT, then the system will failed on this issue: it will have failed because the people within it ignored its rules.

Okay.

So you admit that your rights ARE NOT being trampled, and you uphold "the system" as being a good and noble thing, but you want to override the system as a matter of principle?

No, I do think my rights are being trampled but I admit that the damage is minute.

And remember, we still don't agree on the constiutionality of things like IGWT, etc. and other forms of religion/state mixing b/c we intepret the Constitution differently.

Excuse me, but members of Congress ARE NOT required to pray, NOR are they required to attend church.

They have a chaplain because THEY DECIDED to have a chaplain: every year, they can decide to change their minds. If they are biased toward one religion, it is because the majority of those 500+ members of Congress tend to that religion. <gasp>

Hrm. Still, chaplains have no more business in Congress than they do in a public school. That is to say, they have no business at all. IMHO.

You want to pursuade them to change, DO SO. You have no business going through the courts in an attempt to force them.

I never did...

Ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yes, I have. What's your point?

I think I already know what it is, but I'd prefer not to discuss it until it's out on the table.

The Declaration of Independence not only asserted that rights came from God, but it also asserted "a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence."

Does it ever explicitly say that government documents can mention God? No, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. It is ITSELF a government document (our first), and it mentions God. It sets a precedent.

The "government" that the DoI represented was the Continental Congress, which is not the same government that we have today. It is not guided by the same document (the Constitution) and as such, the DoI has no legal value.

And "precedents" mean nothing. President Adams set a stunning precedent with his Alien & Sedition Acts. Should we do the same?

John Adams did not sign the Constitution, nor did h

 

Well, Vaderize and I have had this subject discussed before on some other thread (I think the 2004 election thread) and since I just don't see anything in this thread that REALLY gets me motivated to post, just know that I am watching.

 

V-O3, allow me another attempt at what I'm trying to say.

Let's say that my thoughts lead me to conclude that equality is transitive:

IF a=b
AND b=c
THEN a=c

(For lack of a better term, let's call this Joe's Theorem.)

Let's return to what you said about thoughts:

Thoughts are due to the action and interaction of matter-electrochemical impulses between highly complex neurons are what comprise our thoughts. I could be wrong on this (electrochemical impulses may only be the footprints of thoughts, but that's another argument), but there is a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise.

If our thoughts are SOLELY caused by the external universe, then there's NO REASON to trust that Joe's Theorem is correct. If Joe's Theorem arose from our physical circumstances, a DIFFERENT set of circumstances could have brought us to conclude the opposite.

Not only is Joe's Theorem suspect: EVERY theorem becomes suspect, including your belief about our thoughts.

Or, to quote J.B.S. Haldane in Possible Worlds, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

We run headlong into the territory of contradiction: we've stumbled across a theory that says all theories are false, including the theory that all theories are false.

For THIS reason, I believe naturalism (the belief that the physical universe is all that is or matters) doesn't work.


Kuna:

Hrm. Still, chaplains have no more business in Congress than they do in a public school. That is to say, they have no business at all. IMHO.

Tell me you don't honestly believe this, that you're overstating your position.


At any rate, the Constitution is, for the most part, straight-forward. But it's not COMPLETELY "straight spelling-it-out." If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So, we MUST interpret some parts of the Constitution, and I suggest we do so by the clear intent of its authors (or the closest we can ascertain). If we SHOULDN'T do that, if doing so is "foolish," by what standard SHOULD we interpret the Constitution?


Well, wouldn't marriage be a "SPECIAL" treatment for heterosexuals, then?

Possibly, but there may be overriding social reasons for such treatment - namely, the stability of the family, which determines the behavior of future generations of children, which in turn is CRUCIAL for the survival of civilization.


And to put the comparison to an analogy, women are to Afghansitan as homosexuals are to the United States.

You can't be serious: last time I checked, homosexuals weren't forced to wear special outfits, kept out of schools, and denied the right to vote. To suggest that the treatment is equally bad is an insult to Afghani women.


Bubba, when will you realize that even if absolute morals (as well as truths) do exist, it'd be impossible to prove that they exist?

Same with God.

It may be impossible to prove - on our own - beyond a shadow of a doubt, sure. But why presume that we're working on our own? Why assume that divine revelation is impossible?

 

Possibly, but there may be overriding social reasons for such treatment - namely, the stability of the family, which determines the behavior of future generations of children, which in turn is CRUCIAL for the survival of civilization.

And if the stability of society is improved by the dominance of a particular race - say, because we think they are at the top of the evolutionary ladder and thus the most fit to carry on the species - can we give special treatment to that race?

The species - and yes, even civilization - would carry on without government-sanctioned marriage.

 

Possibly, but there may be overriding social reasons for such treatment - namely, the stability of the family, which determines the behavior of future generations of children, which in turn is CRUCIAL for the survival of civilization.


Stable families are but a small part of how children turn out. Hell you could have a stable family and still raise your kids to be uneducated bums. A stable family is not crucial to the survival of civilization.

 

The species - and yes, even civilization - would carry on without government-sanctioned marriage.

So it's only coincidental that young men are becoming increasingly dangerous as the two-parent household becomes the exception rather than the rule?

Glad to hear THAT.


Stable families are but a small part of how children turn out. Hell you could have a stable family and still raise your kids to be uneducated bums. A stable family is not crucial to the survival of civilization.

No, the only thing you've demonstrated is that a stable family may not be sufficient, but I believe that it is - on balance - necessary.

As an analogy, having bread isn't ENOUGH to make a sandwich. But that doesn't mean bread is an unnecssary ingredient.

 

So it's only coincidental that young men are becoming increasingly dangerous as the two-parent household becomes the exception rather than the rule?

Glad to hear THAT.

There's a reason I added "government-sanctioned."

Try this:

Marriage will continue without government sanction.

 

THAT I agree with, but the legal sanction DOES encourage the act (if only slightly), and such encouragement is a good thin -- and I still don't see how the legal sanction for marriage is something that needs "correction."

 

No, the only thing you've demonstrated is that a stable family may not be sufficient, but I believe that it is - on balance - necessary.


Glad you've finally started stating opinions instead of opinions disguised as fact. But I still believe you're wrong.


As an analogy, having bread isn't ENOUGH to make a sandwich. But that doesn't mean bread is an unnecssary ingredient.


That'd be a good analogy if we're talking about food and what's necessary to qualify as a sandwich, but we're talking about bi-pedal mammals that are not food, ahh yes, people.

 

THAT I agree with, but the legal sanction DOES encourage the act (if only slightly), and such encouragement is a good thin -- and I still don't see how the legal sanction for marriage is something that needs "correction."

Because if we continue down that road, we can find other acts that could use "encouraging."

If someone decides (based on religious beliefs or not) that a particular race is better, and that society would benefit if that race flourished, could they "encourage" that race to dominate by offering financial incentives to members of that race who have children?

 

That'd be a good analogy if we're talking about food and what's necessary to qualify as a sandwich, but we're talking about bi-pedal mammals that are not food, ahh yes, people.

I know we're talking about humans: that's why my point about sandwiches is called an ANALOGY. Now, my analogy may not fit the circumstances - but that has nothing to do with the fact that my analogy uses sandwiches and EVERYTHING to do with the point I was actually making.



If someone decides (based on religious beliefs or not) that a particular race is better, and that society would benefit if that race flourished, could they "encourage" that race to dominate by offering financial incentives to members of that race who have children?

I see what the point you're trying to make, but I just don't agree with that point. The differences among races are ultimately irrelevant, but the difference between the sexes are NOT.

THAT is why separating restrooms according to sex is legally permitted and ultimately sensible while separating restrooms according to race is NOT.

There is a difference between "man" and "woman," and this translates to a difference between a "man-woman" pairing and a "woman-woman" pairing. Among the differences is the fact that - since time immemorial, for the time being, and for the forseeable future - MOST humans will arise from a "man-woman" sexual coupling.

That alone could be reason enough to give "man-woman" pairings slight preferential treatment.

(I don't think that's the whole of the argument, but any more will cause a sever digression.)

 

I know we're talking about humans: that's why my point about sandwiches is called an ANALOGY. Now, my analogy may not fit the circumstances - but that has nothing to do with the fact that my analogy uses sandwiches and EVERYTHING to do with the point I was actually making.


Yes, but that analogy would never fit unless you find some moron who actually thinks that a sandwich is a sandwich regardless if it has no bread.


Involving two people neither form of parenthood is 'right' or 'wrong' try to get off that mentality and you'll see that the world isn't black or white but grey.

 

I see what the point you're trying to make, but I just don't agree with that point. The differences among races are ultimately irrelevant, but the difference between the sexes are NOT.

Well, you see, I could find someone who would insist just as vehemently that the differences among the races ARE relevant. Likewise, I can probably find people who will say the differences between the sexes are irrelevant from a legal standpoint.


THAT is why separating restrooms according to sex is legally permitted and ultimately sensible while separating restrooms according to race is NOT.

Yes, but you see, there would be no need to label restrooms if there was only one commode in each.

Stupid communal restrooms...

(Seriously, think about it: if each restroom had one commode, one sink, and maybe also one urinal, why would it need to be labeled either "men" or "women"? Does anyone care if they use the restroom after someone of a different gender, or different sexual orientation? The only time we worry about who uses the restroom is when they're in the restroom at the same time we are.)


There is a difference between "man" and "woman," and this translates to a difference between a "man-woman" pairing and a "woman-woman" pairing.

Right. And it could also translate to a difference between a "man" job and a "woman" job, and a "man" salary and a "woman" salary... couldn't it?


Among the differences is the fact that - since time immemorial, for the time being, and for the forseeable future - MOST humans will arise from a "man-woman" sexual coupling.

That alone could be reason enough to give "man-woman" pairings slight preferential treatment.

If the government's concern is the propagation of the species, there really is no need to sanction marriage; as I said, the species will continue without it. People will continue to engage in heterosexual sex and produce children, and many or even most would seek marriage in accordance with their religion. Why does the government need to help?

 

I found this while browsing the web a little while back and thought it might be of interest if I posted it here:

Joint Resolution authorizing and requesting the President
to proclaim 1983 as the ?Year of the Bible.?

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;

Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;

Whereas many of our great national leaders?among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson?paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is ?the rock on which our Republic rests?;

Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;

Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and

Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national ?Year of the Bible? in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982.

1 U.S. Cong. & Adm. News '82-29 96 Stat. 1211

I found the "word of God" part to be of interest... Correct me if I've misunderstood this, but isn't Congress effectively endorsing Christianity with this? Are they not somehow saying that all other beliefs are invalid? How does this law affect the 1st amendment, or does it not affect it at all?

 

Well, you see, I could find someone who would insist just as vehemently that the differences among the races ARE relevant. Likewise, I can probably find people who will say the differences between the sexes are irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

True, but do YOU think that the difference between the sexes is as irrelevant as the differences among races?


Yes, but you see, there would be no need to label restrooms if there was only one commode in each.

True, but I don't think that would work at a football game, where crowds are a-plenty.

Seriously, at my alma mater, the men's restrooms in the football stadium have "troughs," long urinals that allow a lot of men to relieve themselves in a very small space. This reduces and often eliminates waiting time, allowing us to quickly return to watching the game. During the game, men are glad that they are different than women (can "go" standing up) and that the university recognizes this difference.

Individual restrooms aren't always practical, and it solves a problem that doesn't really need solving in the first place.


Right. And it could also translate to a difference between a "man" job and a "woman" job, and a "man" salary and a "woman" salary... couldn't it?

In terms of salaries, no: the courts have settled that issue.

In terms of actual jobs, in most cases members of both sexes can do the job equally well, so again I don't see it. I only hold as exceptions to this general rule those jobs in which the obvious physical differences may result in different levels of performance: firefighters and soldiers spring immediately to mind.


If the government's concern is the propagation of the species, there really is no need to sanction marriage; as I said, the species will continue without it. People will continue to engage in heterosexual sex and produce children, and many or even most would seek marriage in accordance with their religion. Why does the government need to help?

Not just species propagation: the continuance of society and civilization. Let's say that the government notices an increase in crime as illegitimacy increases. The government certainly doesn't have the right to make illegitimacy illegal, but - as its job description DOES include fighting crime - it probably IS within its rights to discourage illegitimacy by encouraging marriage.

 

True, but do YOU think that the difference between the sexes is as irrelevant as the differences among races?

No, but we can't base laws just on what I think is relevant. (It would be cool if we could... )


Seriously, at my alma mater, the men's restrooms in the football stadium have "troughs," long urinals that allow a lot of men to relieve themselves in a very small space.

You realize how disgusting that sounds, right?

I'm kind of surprised that men allow themselves to be treated like animals in that manner...


This reduces and often eliminates waiting time, allowing us to quickly return to watching the game. During the game, men are glad that they are different than women (can "go" standing up) and that the university recognizes this difference.

I'm sure we could devise a "trough" for women that would be just as revolting as the men's. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.


Individual restrooms aren't always practical, and it solves a problem that doesn't really need solving in the first place.

Are we going to assume that all men are comfortable having to expose themselves to strangers, or perhaps even worse, co-workers, on a regular basis?


I only hold as exceptions to this general rule those jobs in which the obvious physical differences may result in different levels of performance: firefighters and soldiers spring immediately to mind.

But you wouldn't deny women the chance to become firefighters and soldiers just because they are women, would you? Wouldn't you let them at least try to pass the same tests that men must pass before they can hold those jobs?

By the same token, I won't ever "qualify" to marry a woman because of who I am, but why shouldn't men and women both have the same opportunity there? I'm really not suggesting that we allow government-sanctioned homosexual marriage; I'm suggesting the government get our of the marriage business altogether.


Let's say that the government notices an increase in crime as illegitimacy increases.

I'm sure you've heard that correlation does not necessarily imply causation?


The government certainly doesn't have the right to make illegitimacy illegal, but - as its job description DOES include fighting crime - it probably IS within its rights to discourage illegitimacy by encouraging marriage.

The government's job description is to protect my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As part of that job, it can outline which actions are crimes and enact certain punishments for those, but there is a limited extent to which it can prevent future crimes (e.g., strong punishments for crimes committed to act as a deterrant). If the government can start deciding what is likely to make someone commit a crime (such as race, gender, and poverty level), we can end up with some pretty nasty results.

 

Bubba:
Tell me you don't honestly believe this, that you're overstating your position. [regarding my statement that chaplains have no business in government or schools]

My point is, that no religion should touch public affairs funded by people of all religions - and no religion at all.

If people really want and need to pray, they can do it some other place and time. Why must they do it in session?

At any rate, the Constitution is, for the most part, straight-forward. But it's not COMPLETELY "straight spelling-it-out." If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Agreed. But at least they TELL you straight-up, unlike precedents. Do we have to watch and copy our leaders' every move? If all the Congresspeople pick their noses incessantly in public and urinate on the Congress floor, does that mean we have to follow their example? [i\Which[/i] examples do we follow?

So, we MUST interpret some parts of the Constitution, and I suggest we do so by the clear intent of its authors (or the closest we can ascertain). If we SHOULDN'T do that, if doing so is "foolish," by what standard SHOULD we interpret the Constitution?

We should use a modern interpretation, for modern times. Not what some dead guys who owned slaves and suppressed women said. If the US was the same way it was 200 years ago I'd kill myself before calling myself an American.

Possibly, but there may be overriding social reasons for such treatment - namely, the stability of the family, which determines the behavior of future generations of children, which in turn is CRUCIAL for the survival of civilization.

What, so homosexuals can't have "stable" families and raise children? What about heterosexual couples guarantee that they'll even have a family, let alone a "stable" one? Do you think that every couple should have kids or something?

As for "CRUCIAL for the survival of civilization", having too many children may actually prove to be our civilization's undoing. Did you ever see my thread on overpopulation?

You can't be serious: last time I checked, homosexuals weren't forced to wear special outfits, kept out of schools, and denied the right to vote. To suggest that the treatment is equally bad is an insult to Afghani women.

That wasn't my point. My point is that homosexuals and women are/were both treated second-class citizens for the US and (formerly) Afghanistan, for unjust reasons.

It may be impossible to prove - on our own - beyond a shadow of a doubt, sure. But why presume that we're working on our own? Why assume that divine revelation is impossible?

I never said it was so. God may exist. Or he may not. (Btw, my refusal to captitalize the pronoun is intentional.)

But usually we assume that things don't exist or aren't true until they're proven so. That's why we have "innocent until proven guilty" - otherwise, Bob can say that Joe killed Mary, and suddenly everyone insists that the allegation is true.

That's basically what religion does. Some guy says all these wonderful things, and people magically believe them. Because they believe what they want to believe.

I do realize that nothing can ever be proven without a shadow of a doubt. But we can come reasonably close, and the case for God is not even close to that closeness. Hell, there's more evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster exist than there is for God's existence. Ironic that some religious people say "There's no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster" - citing the lack of hard evidence like skin, bones, feces, etc., and yet dogmatically back the existence of God, who, to my knowledge, has not left behind any DNA samples for scientists to peruse.

So it's only coincidental that young men are becoming increasingly dangerous as the two-parent household becomes the exception rather than the rule?

Is there a correlation between this and that? There are many more factors contributing to the disposition of "young men" than a stable f

 

womberty

You realize how disgusting that sounds, right?

I'm kind of surprised that men allow themselves to be treated like animals in that manner...

It gets us back to the game faster.


But you wouldn't deny women the chance to become firefighters and soldiers just because they are women, would you? Wouldn't you let them at least try to pass the same tests that men must pass before they can hold those jobs?

I would certainly allow everyone an opportunity (though I'm still not certain that co-ed barracks are a good idea, knowing human nature).

But equality of opportunity does NOT imply equality of outcome. Too many people look at the disproportionate number of male fighter pilots to female pilots and see that as NECESSARILY being the result of sexist policy. They thus lower the standard for women to have a more balanced ratio, and THAT'S wrong.


I'm sure you've heard that correlation does not necessarily imply causation?

Certainly, but in this case I DO THINK there is causation. I myself am an exception to this rule, but I DO believe that a two-parent household is generally more stable; a breakdown of the two-parent family thus DOES lead, I believe, to more people with a propensity for committing crime.


The government's job description is to protect my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As part of that job, it can outline which actions are crimes and enact certain punishments for those, but there is a limited extent to which it can prevent future crimes (e.g., strong punishments for crimes committed to act as a deterrant). If the government can start deciding what is likely to make someone commit a crime (such as race, gender, and poverty level), we can end up with some pretty nasty results.

I certainly agree, but I don't think encouraging and endorsing heterosexual marriage qualifies as an example of the government overstepping its bounds - particularly if homosexuals are free to live together.


Kuna:

My point is, that no religion should touch public affairs funded by people of all religions - and no religion at all.

If people really want and need to pray, they can do it some other place and time. Why must they do it in session?

Fair enough. I simply don't think there's any overriding constitutional basis for such a hard line.

Why I asked the question is because your assertion, that chaplains have no business in Congress, could be taken too far. Chaplains are citizens too and they have the right to both petition the government and run for office, in so far as their faith allows.


Agreed. But at least they TELL you straight-up, unlike precedents. Do we have to watch and copy our leaders' every move? If all the Congresspeople pick their noses incessantly in public and urinate on the Congress floor, does that mean we have to follow their example? Which examples do we follow?

Other laws (and, if necessary, public writings/speeches) should be enough to infer the authors' intent.


We should use a modern interpretation, for modern times. Not what some dead guys who owned slaves and suppressed women said. If the US was the same way it was 200 years ago I'd kill myself before calling myself an American.

The problem is, what is a "modern" interpretation? Is every new thing the government does GOOD just because it's new? Isn't this just saying that the government should be allowed to do whatever it happens to be doing at the time?

I don't think we've UNIFORMLY improved in terms of what our government has done. It HAS improved race and sex relations, but - at the same time - it's gone into deficit spending, created a massive code of taxes and regulations, and took our money off the gold standard. ALL these fiscal polices may well be unconstitutional, but we shouldn't excuse them just because their new, "modern" policies.

(Ultimately, we can't determine how we will interpret the Constitution by the outcome of the interpretation: we can't interpret it one way just because