Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

[KevinKat78]

Homosexuality and Abortion! It doesn't matter how anyone feels about these two issues! It will change nothing! People are going to do what they want to! We can change the law but these things will go on! I don't like it that people are so different that it causes trouble! But that's the way it is! As for Bush, Don't buy his Farm! The hogs and cows are all sick! The water has sulfer in it! He has no tobacco Base and The grass has to be reset several times each year! You can believe his sales pitch but that's all it is! Bush is into it for the Money and power! He's no good!

[BlueCat]

KevinKat78 said:

Bush is into it for the Money and power! He's no good!

Whether he is in it for the money or not really doesn't matter so long as he pushes a moral agenda. I'd love to think that Bush is a good christian man, and he may be. That is between he and God. I am proud however that he is standing up for the pricipals that most christians embrace regardless of his own reasons.

[BlueCat]

secfever said:

My thoughts exactly! I just do not understand how the secularist minority has managed to over run the US with such an agenda. There is an ever growing Secularist Viewpoint that is starting to grip this nation and personally, it is scary. Many people think that the Constitution is a living, ever changing document. Many people think that if the Founding Fathers were alive today that they too would have different opinions. This is only one man's opinion; however, after reading some of the utter, for a lack of a better term, chaotic dissertations that are out there, I really wonder where the moral compass of this great nation is pointed. One of, if not the key, ideals that this country was founded upon is the Separation of Church and State. Over 230 years ago, this was brought about to prevent Americans from being forced to attend or pay tribute (tithes or taxes) to the Clergy of the Church of England. In other words, our Founding Fathers were setting this country up with the premise that a church would not control the masses; ie: Separation of Denomination and State. The Founding Fathers of this country were religious men. In fact, the vast majority of the people who first settled in this country, did so as a means to escape not only a tyrannical government, but a controlling Church Institution as well. In today's views, thanks to a secularist bias, people want to distort the Ideals of our Founding Fathers to fit their own patterns of belief. Sadly, the modern meaning of the phrase is "Separation of Christianity and State". It argues that Christian political views should be kept private. Our nation should not be a nation "under God," according to this viewpoint, but under the guidance of autonomous Secular Humanist ideals. That's the real goal. In the name of that doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that public schools cannot even post a copy of the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall. If you can prove that a single signer of the Constitution believed in this kind of "separation," I want to see it. (hint: it does not exist). The modern doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" is a myth. An evil, destructive lie. To be on the side of this doctrine is to be on the side of the destruction of our nation. OK, getting down off of the soap box now

Nice post Fever. Very true, very true indeed.

[secfever]

This could possibly be the wrong line of thinking to some, but to me atleast, there are a lot of Americans that were lulled into that "I'm gonna lie to you, get caught and you are going to like it" mentality. Now that there is actually someone in office who does exactly what he says he is going to do, it frightens people. To me, I would be more frightened of someone like Kerry who has yet to take the same stance on the same issue twice. I haven't agreed with everything that Bush has done, but when looking at the options, I honestly do not think that there is another choice out there that is willing to follow a moral agenda. Will an amendment get passed? Doubtful, it is extremely difficult to pass an amendment, but I am glad to see that he is not afraid politically to speak his mind.

[KevinKat78]

The Flip Flop thing is just Republican Propaganda to control voters! It's no more true for Kerry than for Bush! Really they are all pretty Slimey! The problem is who's going to hurt us all the most, and I say it's Bush! He's no more a Chirstian than my Dog! Bush just says what he thinks the ignorant mainstreme wants to hear, then he doesn't act on it! He really doesn't care!

[secfever]

KevinKat78 said:

The Flip Flop thing is just Republican Propaganda to control voters! It's no more true for Kerry than for Bush! Really they are all pretty Slimey! The problem is who's going to hurt us all the most, and I say it's Bush! He's no more a Chirstian than my Dog! Bush just says what he thinks the ignorant mainstreme wants to hear, then he doesn't act on it! He really doesn't care!

I can agree with parts of that Kev. Money has taken over politics in this country, but only someone with a disorder would believe that Kerry is going to be the one to fix it Just kidding. Seriously, it's coming down to the worse of the two evils IMO and even Kerry's own party is finally starting to figure him out. It would not shock me a bit to see him outsted at the convention. OK, enough hijacking, LOL. ( sorry).

[BlueCat]

KevinKat78 said:

He's no more a Chirstian than my Dog! Bush just says what he thinks the ignorant mainstreme wants to hear, then he doesn't act on it! He really doesn't care!

Thanks KevinKat for pointing out to me that I'm ignorant. I didn't know that. Oh by the way it's spelled mainstream, not mainstreme.

[KY Kid]

Dems should have nominated Edwards.

[truth]

BlueCat purred:
... I know by the wording of our forefathers that this great nation of ours was founded on his (God's) word by christian men, and was founded on the basis of spiritual freedom from the Church of England, not from chrisitanity....

and then,
secfever pitched:
...Many people think that the Constitution is a living, ever changing document. Many people think that if the Founding Fathers were alive today that they too would have different opinions. ... One of, if not the key, ideals that this country was founded upon is the Separation of Church and State. Over 230 years ago, this was brought about to prevent Americans from being forced to attend or pay tribute (tithes or taxes) to the Clergy of the Church of England. ... the modern meaning of the phrase is "Separation of Christianity and State". It argues that Christian political views should be kept private. ... If you can prove that a single signer of the Constitution believed in this kind of "separation," I want to see it. (hint: it does not exist). The modern doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" is a myth. An evil, destructive lie. To be on the side of this doctrine is to be on the side of the destruction of our nation. ...

Well. I disagree. By no means can I claim to be an expert on historical writings or even to be well read on the topic of the separation of church & state; but these claims (and others like them in this thread) smack of the "straw man" approach to presenting your argument. One presents a weak portion or misrepresentation of the opposing side's position - a straw man - and then argues against that as if that were the other's stance.

First, it is clear that these United States WAS NOT founded upon singular Christian principles - or "God's word", or Christianity - however one wants to phrase it. Certainly, some of the founding principles - personal freedom and responsibility, shared resources, etc. - are also principles of some sects of Christianity; but the same principles are also seen in non-Christian societies and are thus, not inherently Christian. Why do I think the USA was not founded on/by/for/with Christianity? Simple. Two documents from that era: the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli.
Constitution - Don't have to preach much to this choir about the worthiness of the Constitution. As a governing document, it has certainly been successful in creating the environment for a free society to flourish, build, create, grow, learn, self-regulate and more. An interesting thing about our Constitution - and y'all really should look at it to appreciate this - it doesn't use the word "god" (nor the concept!). Oh, sure it's used in the formally stated date, afterall, the document was drafted in this world. No, what is important is that in the entire Constitution, no deity - Christian or other - is invoked for support or justification!!! Not so for the documents possibly used as reference for the Constitution: most of the existing state constitutions invoked some god (typically Christian); as did the Constitution's forerunner, the Articles of Confederation; the Declaration of Independence uses "Nature's God", "Creator", "Divine Providence" - deistic concepts moreso than Christianity; I suspect other nations' governing charters argued that they were supported by some god (or maybe plural). In spite of this god-ful environment, our god-less Constitution arose. Don't think one could ask for a bigger, brighter signal as to the intents of the framers: the Constitution IS NOT a Christian document (but it's not anti-Christian either).
Treaty with Tripoli - You can find the historical background of this early- nationhood treaty just about anywhere. The treaty was drafted near the end of George Washington's second term, ratified unanimously by the Senate, signed and proclaimed by John Adams on 10 June 1797. In other words, the influence of the founding fathers is clear. Article 11 of the treaty reads:
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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

I'm one of those "many" who think "that the Constitution is a living, ever changing document." Sorry, but I'm not for sure if you agree with that or not secfever. It would be hard to argue against the expectation to changes to the Constitution given the presence of it's Article V. I'm also confused as to why secfever and BlueCat claim that the general concept of Separation of Church and State applies only specifically to the Anglican Church and not others. Uhhh, it applies to all religions, wouldn't it? As to the scope of the meaning of the separation clause - secfever's 'modern meaning' - I'm more comfortable with the explanation from the Supreme Court:
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Sorry to be so long-winded about all this; guess that shows that some perspectives can't be as simplified as some would have it.

[BlueCat]

truth, believe what you like. The fact of the matter is this. Whether stated in official documents such as the Constitution, or Treaty of Tripoli or not, this country was founded, and continued to flourish under Christian values, faith, and beliefs for over 200 years. There is reason that "In God We Trust" was inscribed on all of our money; There is a reason why the Ten Commandments were displayed in just about every government building in this country including on Capitol Hill, and in the Supreme Court; There is a reason why we raise our left hand, and place our right hand on the bible and “solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” Debate the point all you want it wont change these facts. Why do we include God in almost every aspect of our government if this country wasn't founded on Christian principle? The reason we included him, and continue to do so today is because we as a nation recognized God for who he is. We then, and I believe now want his divine providence in and on our lives. After 9/11 for a time this nation as a whole once again turned toward God for comfort. He is the rock that this nation stands on. If not for him this nation like so many before would have fallen.
Now I hope you will understand that I in no way intend to offend you in what I am saying. I am pointing out my beliefs, and by faith I will stand by them.

Take Care

[truth]

truth, believe what you like.
I shall, thank you. That is after all what we are discussing: the right and opportunity of the individual to forge their own beliefs, absent government coercion.

Whether stated in official documents such as the Constitution, or Treaty of Tripoli or not, this country was founded, and continued to flourish under Christian values, faith, and beliefs for over 200 years.
Christian values, faith, and beliefs ARE one of the belief systems which have enjoyed the freedoms guaranteed by our nation AND Christians have contributed greatly to the nation's success; let's not get the cart and horse out of place. The United States is a free country, not a Christian nation. The primary concept - freedom - creates the environment for the individual to practice his Christian beliefs, his Druid beliefs, or to have no supernatural beliefs.

There is a reason ... "In God We Trust"... money. ... Ten Commandments ... government building ... swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
Right, there certainly are reasons why such incongruent mottos, displays, and oaths exist in our society - doesn't prove that what the Constitution actually says about separation of Church and State is not meant to be the case. Using such "inconsistent practices" examples doesn't strengthen the argument against the obviously clear State/Church separation. We use the Roman God names in our weekdays - doesn't make us a "Pantheon Nation". That you picked controversial examples, instances where wisdom is righting the wrong practice, is also telling. The money motto (like the "under God" addition to the Pledge) is of relatively recent vintage; I can't remember much about past decalogue postings in public buildings, sorta makes sense around the courthouse - do you know what version is used? ; and, you are aware of the availability of an alternate oath, all you have to do is ask (that request, and my answers to the standard "what magazines do you read?" question, have probably kept me off of all juries to date ).

Debate the point all you want it wont change these facts.
And, they'll also remain immaterial.

Now I hope you will understand that I in no way intend to offend you in what I am saying. I am pointing out my beliefs, and by faith I will stand by them.
Certainly. And no offense is taken. I hope that feeling is mutual. Again, the primary goal of the US Constitution framers was to assure your right to "point our your beliefs and stand by them" by safeguarding against ANY and ALL joint efforts of government and religion to support some "beliefs and stances by them". So, I as a citizen support your right as an individual to state, stand by, practice, ..., whatever, your beliefs; but, I will fight your attempts to enlist the government in furthering those beliefs.

[secfever]

Why does Congress open every session with a prayer? Just a thought.

One of the first acts of Congress was this:
1782 Earliest edition of the entire English Bible printed in America. Bears the recommendation of Congress, dated Sept. 12, 1782.
www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bible-leaves/aitken-1782-leaf.html

On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as “The Bible Congress.” Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the “Bible of the American Revolution” and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles.

www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html

Also, people usually will throw in the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Assoc (this is where many people believe that the enforcement of the SCS really started, although already written. This letter actually supports religion, rather than slamming it:

www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

To believe that this country was not founded upon religious principles is false. At the same rate, the founding fathers wanted to ensure that EVERYONE's rights were there no matter what they believed. If someone is a non-believer, that is their choice; however, I am tired of seeing my religious beliefs being infringed upon. Not trying to offend or start a flame fest, but those are my beliefs.