[Hoot Gibson]

No. California had no right, vote or not, to "lessen the status and human dignity" of gays, just like the court said. Some things are not debatable, nor left up to the voting public to define. The constitution has no language that gives states the right to take away citizens having equal rights. Just like the conservatives reading things into the constitution that gives states the right to take away citizens rights to be treated equal? No state has a right to define marriage, if it treats American citizens as lesser, unequal citizens. We will see where this goes, when it reaches the Supreme Court. BTW, when did you leave the computer business and get into constitutional law. I would say that there are 9 justices that will disagree with your supposed knowledge. We will see.

That is pretty fast back peddling that you are doing, RV. If you support allowing the majority to vote on issues that do not involve a constitutional right, then you support that principle, even when you do not agree with the outcome of the vote. You just told me that I would not find anything about gay marriage in the US Constitution, now you are saying that the Supreme Court will find Proposition 8 unconstitutional. I disagree with the outcome of many public referendums, but I respect the rule of law.

If Obama is able to stick another justice or two onto the court that does not believe in our Constitution, then they may prove you right. That is one of the many reasons why this is the most important election in many, many years. Our founders thought that they were giving us a nation of laws, not of men, but Obama is challenging that notion every day.

[Hoot Gibson]

Gay marriage needs to go ahead and be allowed in our country. Times change, it's not 1940 anymore. Let them do what they want. It doesn't effect us, straight people, at all...so who are we to tell people what they can or can't do when it comes to marriage?

And the birth control thing...not really my place to give judgement on that.

The controversy is a contrived one that really has nothing to do with contraception. Listen to Democrats over the next few months repeatedly claim that Republicans want to deny women access to contraception. Some will even claim that Republicans want to outlaw contraception. The timing of this stunt is probably tied to Rick Santorum's rise in the polls.

The following headline is from the Huffington Post. If you read the article, it becomes clear that Santorum does not support banning contraception or sodomy. What he supports is the right of states to pass laws that are not unconstitutional. I agree with him, along with the majority of voters in this country. If Santorum wins the nomination notice how often he is portrayed as somebody who wants to ban contraception and homosexuality. That is why Obama picked a fight with Santorum's religion. Women already have easy access to contraception. Access and "free" are not synonymous. I have access to more condoms than I could ever possibly use but I have no constitutional right to make somebody give me a Wilt Chamberlain bulk package of them at no cost - and neither does Barack Obama.

[INDENT]

Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court.

In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Santorum said he also opposes the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a ban on sodomy in Texas and 13 other states. Even though he would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right.

"I thought that law was an improper law ... but that doesn't mean the state doesn’t have a right to do that," he said.

<---SNIP--->

"You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things," he told Tapper. "You should let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things, get rid of the legislature and replace them."

[/INDENT]

[SKINNYPIG]

One thing's for sure, we are not a theocracy. Luckily, in 20 years, this equal rights thing won't be an issue. The people are speaking. Now, if "we the people" can get to working on, a person being able to smoke a little herb in the privacy of their own home, legally.




That's what I don't get about republicans. They don't want the government or anybody else to get in their business, yet they want to get in everybody else's business.

Look TRV, I'm not the smartest knife in the drawer, but I think I know the difference. When we, as citizens, vote on legislation in Washington we can call our form of government a democracy. As long as we elect representatives to represent us in Washington we will be a republic. Just because we have elected these morons does not mean they will vote the way the majority of their constituents want them to.

If a bill doing away with federal income tax were to come up for vote and your congressman knew 80% of his constituents wanted it passed, do you think he would go along? I think not. If a bill were introduced that decreased his pay by 75% and 100% of his constituents approved, would he oblige? I doubt it.

There is a huge difference between a democracy and a republic. Sometimes I wonder if we are getting represented at all. And we keep electing these scrotum sniffs for some reason.

[TheRealVille]

Look TRV, I'm not the smartest knife in the drawer, but I think I know the difference. When we, as citizens, vote on legislation in Washington we can call our form of government a democracy. As long as we elect representatives to represent us in Washington we will be a republic. Just because we have elected these morons does not mean they will vote the way the majority of their constituents want them to.

If a bill doing away with federal income tax were to come up for vote and your congressman knew 80% of his constituents wanted it passed, do you think he would go along? I think not. If a bill were introduced that decreased his pay by 75% and 100% of his constituents approved, would he oblige? I doubt it.

There is a huge difference between a democracy and a republic. Sometimes I wonder if we are getting represented at all. And we keep electing these scrotum sniffs for some reason.

I'm glad you said so, and I didn't have to tell it on you.

[SKINNYPIG]

Gay marriage needs to go ahead and be allowed in our country. Times change, it's not 1940 anymore. Let them do what they want. It doesn't effect us, straight people, at all...so who are we to tell people what they can or can't do when it comes to marriage?

And the birth control thing...not really my place to give judgement on that.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but when should we say " It's not 2012 anymore, let brother and sister, father and daughter or mother and daughter marry, let them do what they want." After all, times will change, right?

[SKINNYPIG]

I'm glad you said so, and I didn't have to tell it on you.

You have no idea how grateful I am. Thank you so much for not telling it on me.

[TheRealThing]

Where is that view in American law, or the Constitution or it's Amendments? Or, on paper anywhere on a US law level? It just hasn't been pushed before. But, it is now.

Have you ever considered the term unnatural? Dogs hang out with dogs, birds fly in the sky, boats run up the lake, cars do much better on the road, and men naturally are meant to be with women. The whole legal battle with regard to gay marriage doesn't have the first thing to do with rights. It's about legislating the respect society has withheld from gays that they so desperately crave. The bad news is no man made law will ever ease the conscience of people who have chosen to live the lifestyle God has called abominable. Innumeral volumes of juris-imprudence will never be able to fill up the void within the hearts of these folks. No matter how many laws man makes decreeing homosexuality a legally viable alternative to the way God intended, it still won't be right.

I do agree whole heartedly with your argument that gays have the right to live any way they want. The only thing we disagree on is legislation at any level supporting depravity. They'll have a hard enough row to hoe when they stand at God's judgement bar as it is, the last thing they need is for people that stand for the truth to salve their wounds by telling them what they want to hear, let alone, the federal government. Since I am not without sin I don't want to start throwing stones, no, what I am saying is, that which God has called sin, man has no business calling (or legislating) good or legal.

[TheRealVille]

Have you ever considered the term unnatural? Dogs hang out with dogs, birds fly in the sky, boats run up the lake, cars do much better on the road, and men naturally are meant to be with women. The whole legal battle with regard to gay marriage doesn't have the first thing to do with rights. It's about legislating the respect society has withheld from gays that they so desperately crave. The bad news is no man made law will ever ease the conscience of people who have chosen to live the lifestyle God has called abominable. Innumeral volumes of juris-imprudence will never be able to fill up the void within the hearts of these folks. No matter how many laws man makes decreeing homosexuality a legally viable alternative to the way God intended, it still won't be right.

I do agree whole heartedly with your argument that gays have the right to live any way they want. The only thing we disagree on is legislation at any level supporting depravity. They'll have a hard enough row to hoe when they stand at God's judgement bar as it is, the last thing they need is for people that stand for the truth to salve their wounds by telling them what they want to hear, let alone, the federal government. Since I am not without sin I don't want to start throwing stones, no, what I am saying is, that which God has called sin, man has no business calling (or legislating) good or legal.

Unnatural or not, it's not mine, or your business what gays do. What's natural sexually, or what's not, isn't yours, mine or our government's place to say. This nation isn't ran by christian law. That's the rub TRT, everybody doesn't believe in your God(me for one, and many more like me), or his law, and this free America has no right to legislate "his law or thoughts" into our government. You believe that the gay will stand before your God, but that doesn't make it so, or even real. Even so, it's not up to you to try to make gays live your God's way. It's none of your business what they do. Again, American laws are not your God's laws. He has zero place in our government not because he's yours, and others peoples God, but because he isn't everybody's God, in the American law sense of the word. In America, you can't force your god on me, legally most of all.

[nky]

Love the one you're with
treat them with respect as you would want to be treated
I'm not your moral compass, I'm not your judge, it's not my place, it's not my right just don't infringe upon my rights and well be OK

[TheRealVille]

Love the one you're with
treat them with respect as you would want to be treated
I'm not your moral compass, I'm not your judge, it's not my place, it's not my right just don't infringe upon my rights and well be OK

Well said. :Thumbs:

[TheRealThing]

1 Unnatural or not, it's not mine, or your business what gays do. What's natural sexually, or what's not, isn't yours, mine or our government's place to say. This nation isn't ran by christian law. That's the rub TRT, everybody doesn't believe in your God(me for one, and many more like me), or his law, and 2 this free America has no right to legislate "his law or thoughts" into our government. You believe that the gay will stand before your God, but that doesn't make it so, or even real. Even so, 3 it's not up to you to try to make gays live your God's way. It's none of your business what they do. Again, American laws are not your God's laws. He has zero place in our government not because he's yours, and others peoples God, but because he isn't everybody's God, in the American law sense of the word. In America, 4 you can't force your god on me, legally most of all.

Wow, and I thought left wing activist professor Irwin Corey had a gift for double talk. My post was not intended to get you all riled up, I contend our founding fathers minds were illuminated by a personal knowlege of God, further, we cannot know real truth apart from God since He is the Creator of all things---

John 1:1-4 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

the truly illuminated mind is the mind 'lighted' by Him. Jefferson said as much in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

As to the bolded in your post---

1 I said as much when I mentioned I am not without sin and would not throw stones

2 Haven't you been reading my posts? Government shouldn't try to legislate what is and is not moral.

3 I said I agree whole heartedly gays have the right to live any way they want

4 Hardly, that would be taking a page out of the liberal play book. I would never advocate for government to legislate you into submission legally. It wouldn't count anyway, you have already made your choice very clear.

[TheRealVille]

[/B]
Wow, and I thought left wing activist professor Irwin Corey had a gift for double talk. My post was not intended to get you all riled up, I contend our founding fathers minds were illuminated by a personal knowlege of God, further, we cannot know real truth apart from God since He is the Creator of all things---

John 1:1-4 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

the truly illuminated mind is the mind 'lighted' by Him. Jefferson said as much in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.

As to the bolded in your post---

1 I said as much when I mentioned I am not without sin and would not throw stones

2 Haven't you been reading my posts? Government shouldn't try to legislate what is and is not moral.

3 I said I agree whole heartedly gays have the right to live any way they want

4 Hardly, that would be taking a page out of the liberal play book. I would never advocate for government to legislate you into submission legally. It wouldn't count anyway, you have already made your choice very clear.

You do realize Jefferson was more of a deist than anything, right? Although he didn't try to subscribe to any particular religion, he identified more with deists, so that quote is more of a general term, than anything else. BTW, I can quote some Louis L'amour if you want me to.

[TheRealThing]

You do realize Jefferson was more of a deist than anything, right? Although he didn't try to subscribe to any particular religion, he identified more with deists, so that quote is more of a general term, than anything else.

What quote? This one? "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".

The deist claim is a common argument used by secular history revisionists that attempts to distract attention away from the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were committed Christians. The deist view is impossible to support by any known credible source.

[TheRealVille]

What quote? This one? "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".

The deist claim is a common argument used by secular history revisionists that attempts to distract attention away from the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were committed Christians. The deist view is impossible to support by any known credible source.

The words "his god" should ring a bell in your ears. You do realize that nature's god is a deist term, right. Try as you might, christians can't make Jefferson into something he wasn't. There are many credible sources that reviewed his religious beliefs, and most come up with more of a deistic type view. he viewed and wrote of god in a general sense. His bible eve'n deleted the miracles of Jesus. Below are just a few quotes from your "christian Jefferson. nicker: Deny all you want, his words tell all.

In spite of right-wing Christian attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete. For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that "God" can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

If anything can clear of the misconceptions of Jeffersonian history, it can come best from the author himself. Although Jefferson had a complex view of religion, too vast for this presentation, the following quotes provide a glimpse of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the corruptions of Christianity and religion.


Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782


What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)


Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")


I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789


They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814


If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

More to follow.

[TheRealVille]

Let's let his words decide. Anytime a christian hears the word god, they automatically think that people are talking about their god. Not always so.

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816


You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819


As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819


Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.
-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.


I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825


May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

[TheRealThing]

^I'm familiar with the argument. Jefferson was no Southern Baptist but, he did believe in God. He likely was not one of 27 founding fathers (out of 56) thought to have a seminary degree.

[vundy33]

Not trying to be a smart ass, but when should we say " It's not 2012 anymore, let brother and sister, father and daughter or mother and daughter marry, let them do what they want." After all, times will change, right?

Are you really stupid enough to think they letting gay people marry and be their gay married happy selves will lead to something like that? Really??

[vundy33]

This is ridiculous...I can't believe we have people as close-minded as this still around today..makes me sick.

[TheRealVille]

^I'm familiar with the argument. Jefferson was no Southern Baptist but, he did believe in God. He likely was not one of 27 founding fathers (out of 56) thought to have a seminary degree.

TRT, stay away from the "christian nation" websites, they will rot your brain. Harvard, Yale and Princeston started out as a seminaies. A lot of the colleges of the day started out as seminaries, that offered secular degrees. Are you following some guy named Barton? He counts any degree that the Fathers got as seminary degrees, even if they were in law, which most of them were. If they went to a college that started as a seminary, he claimed they got a seminary degree, even though they really weren't. Isn't the information age wonderful? You can shoot down bogus stuff all day long. BTW, I believe in God, where will that "Jefferson believing in God" argument take you?

[SKINNYPIG]

This is ridiculous...I can't believe we have people as close-minded as this still around today..makes me sick.

Who knows if it will lead to things like that? Would gay marriage have ever been considered 175 years ago? Incest today is just as taboo as homosexuality was 200 years ago. Times change, we can't do anything about time, but how do we limit change, or is there a limit?

I agree 100%. We're all closed minded to some things, and whether you want to admit it or not, you are too. One thing is for sure, gays getting married is the least of our worries at the moment. Frankly I don't understand why we waste our time discussing it.

[TheRealVille]

What quote? This one? "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State".

The deist claim is a common argument used by secular history revisionists that attempts to distract attention away from the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were committed Christians. The deist view is impossible to support by any known credible source.

You would be well served to go to the Library of Congress page to study up on the letter you keep posting to prove your point. It actually proves mine, but thanks though. You might want to read the letter they sent him, that caused his response that you keep posting. Part of the reason for his letter to them was in response to religious people dogging him about doing away with "days of fasting and thanksgiving". Your insistence to keep posting that letter, that actually proves your view(of a christian nation) wrong, it also shows your lopsidedness. You should study the whole context of it. A copy of their letter is easy to find on the net.

[TheRealVille]

The deist claim is a common argument used by secular history revisionists that attempts to distract attention away from the fact that the majority of the founding fathers were committed Christians. The deist view is impossible to support by any known credible source.

:thatsfunn That's a riot, and highly provable wrong. Stay away from the kool-aid, TRT. You are putting yourself in the ranks of the kooks with statements like these. All believed in some sort of supreme being, but most were not Christians.

[TheRealVille]

:thatsfunn That's a riot, and highly provable wrong. Stay away from the kool-aid, TRT. You are putting yourself in the ranks of the kooks with statements like these. All believed in some sort of supreme being, but most were not Christians.

I take all that back and apologize. I have to show you more respect than I do another poster or two here. You are respectable, and treat others with respect. But, you are wrong on the quoted post about committed Christians. If you do the research, away from "christian revisionist" websites, you will see that you are wrong. All believed in a supreme being. Some claimed to be christians, but a lot of them didn't even attend church. Most kept religion at "arms length".

[TheRealThing]

You would be well served to go to the Library of Congress page to study up on the letter you keep posting to prove your point. It actually proves mine, but thanks though. You might want to read the letter they sent him, that caused his response that you keep posting. Part of the reason for his letter to them was in response to religious people dogging him about doing away with "days of fasting and thanksgiving". Your insistence to keep posting that letter, that actually proves your view(of a christian nation) wrong, it also shows your lopsidedness. You should study the whole context of it. A copy of their letter is easy to find on the net.

Only in your own mind RV. The reason I "keep posting" the Danbury letter is because you originally quoted from it. I thought I would stay with one of your sources. I hope you're not trying to suggest that today's Harvard, Yale and Princeton in any way resemble the Ivy's of that era. All the research I have done clearly defines the seven Ivy league schools founded prior to the American Revoution as conservative.

All the redefining of the basic principles intended by the founding fathers we are seeing these days is the result of the modern liberal movement which started in the late 40's and banged second gear in the 60's. The Bill Ayers et-al types who dispise the America I love and in which I grew up, roam the halls of congress and represent the interests of today's liberal. Why they hate the greatest country the world has likely ever known is a mystery to me, but they do.

As I have pointed out before, the liberal representatives serving in congress up until the modern liberal began to run for office, were men and women of fiber. This is why I draw the distinction between the democratic party of my Grandfather and today's democrat. Respect ruled in the halls of congress up until the days of late. Democrats would never have gotten on national TV and talked about their Republican counterparts as if they were so much dog doo-doo. If you cannot or will not see, or admit, the dems have started a verbal war and, that war is destroying our land you've got to be biased. I don't hate the liberal, I just disagree with him.

Our system of checks and balances has been weakened by this 'war of words' which, has divided our people and our land. I believe you said you believe in God recently? His words---"A house divided against itself cannot stand" Now, if folks can't understand what that means, there's no wonder why we are in trouble! If I'm trying to build an addition on my home and my son keeps coming behind me with a sledge hammer knocking down the framework, the addition is doomed util and if, we would begin to agree. This is how I see the present day melee which now defines the houses of congress. The Dems are trying to take a sledge hammer to the framework of our land, the US Consitution, all the while blaming the Republicans for not cooperating with them and calling them out to be obstructionists. :please: The guy with sledge is the one I want to see stop the shennanigans, not the ones trying to preserve our country.

Why are we changing everything? Where do we go from number one in the world and number 1 in the history of the world? The only way to go is down, for crying out loud! It would be different if our history books and the memories of our own lives were not filled beyond measure with the blessings and success of having lived the American dream. It's not uncommon for the "REAL MAN" (your humble discription of yourself), to live in a very nice home, own 2 or 3 vehicles, one to pull his 70 mph bass boat, a garage thoughly equipped in which to accomplish any project reasonably immaginable, a pool etc. Working for what one has is out of vogue to some extent these days. If a guy can come up with a good enough cover story he can avoid work and the rest of us will pay his way. The City Parks of our country have become festering sewers polluted by the Occupy derilict who has become the new darling of the liberal politician. Why do the Dems embrace and provide substance to these training camps for future Woodstocker's? Vote buying of course.

You explain it to ME RealVille, where does it go from here? The Dems hate the Repubs, Obama calls out the Repubs during EVERY speech he gives. The people are so polarized that those who vote Dem will only listen to Dems and vice versa. The train will eventually run out of steam if the engineer and the stoker can't get past bickering and do their jobs. Can we agree the infighting is a national shame and embarrassment? Once we were that shinning fortress of alabaster, fields of grain and the most formidable adversary imaginable. No wonder the other nations of the world's attitude toward us has gone from jaw dropping awe to scorn, as the workings of government look more like an elementary school food fight than the great nation we very recently were.

Seriously, I have never in my life heard a sitting (or former) president talk like Obama does. He wihines and blames and demagogues at a level no president has ever done, or even remotely come close to doing. It is truly hard for me to imagine how a president could reasonably hold to the claim he loves this land while talking more like a would-be dictator than an American President, blaming ANYBODY who dares not to agree with his extreme positions for every ill this country faces. If people agree with Obama they are wonderful human beings, everybody else is stupid, uneducated, just plain wrong or course, conservative and therefore worthy of any poison he sees fit to belch their way.

[TheRealVille]

Only in your own mind RV. The reason I "keep posting" the Danbury letter is because you originally quoted from it. I thought I would stay with one of your sources. I hope you're not trying to suggest that today's Harvard, Yale and Princeton in any way resemble the Ivy's of that era. All the research I have done clearly defines the seven Ivy league schools founded prior to the American Revoution as conservative.

All the redefining of the basic principles intended by the founding fathers we are seeing these days is the result of the modern liberal movement which started in the late 40's and banged second gear in the 60's. The Bill Ayers et-al types who dispise the America I love and in which I grew up, roam the halls of congress and represent the interests of today's liberal. Why they hate the greatest country the world has likely ever known is a mystery to me, but they do.

As I have pointed out before, the liberal representatives serving in congress up until the modern liberal began to run for office, were men and women of fiber. This is why I draw the distinction between the democratic party of my Grandfather and today's democrat. Respect ruled in the halls of congress up until the days of late. Democrats would never have gotten on national TV and talked about their Republican counterparts as if they were so much dog doo-doo. If you cannot or will not see, or admit, the dems have started a verbal war and, that war is destroying our land you've got to be biased. I don't hate the liberal, I just disagree with him.

Our system of checks and balances has been weakened by this 'war of words' which, has divided our people and our land. I believe you said you believe in God recently? His words---"A house divided against itself cannot stand" Now, if folks can't understand what that means, there's no wonder why we are in trouble! If I'm trying to build an addition on my home and my son keeps coming behind me with a sledge hammer knocking down the framework, the addition is doomed util and if, we would begin to agree. This is how I see the present day melee which now defines the houses of congress. The Dems are trying to take a sledge hammer to the framework of our land, the US Consitution, all the while blaming the Republicans for not cooperating with them and calling them out to be obstructionists. :please: The guy with sledge is the one I want to see stop the shennanigans, not the ones trying to preserve our country.

Why are we changing everything? Where do we go from number one in the world and number 1 in the history of the world? The only way to go is down, for crying out loud! It would be different if our history books and the memories of our own lives were not filled beyond measure with the blessings and success of having lived the American dream. It's not uncommon for the "REAL MAN" (your humble discription of yourself), to live in a very nice home, own 2 or 3 vehicles, one to pull his 70 mph bass boat, a garage thoughly equipped in which to accomplish any project reasonably immaginable, a pool etc. Working for what one has is out of vogue to some extent these days. If a guy can come up with a good enough cover story he can avoid work and the rest of us will pay his way. The City Parks of our country have become festering sewers polluted by the Occupy derilict who has become the new darling of the liberal politician. Why do the Dems embrace and provide substance to these training camps for future Woodstocker's? Vote buying of course.

You explain it to ME RealVille, where does it go from here? The Dems hate the Repubs, Obama calls out the Repubs during EVERY speech he gives. The people are so polarized that those who vote Dem will only listen to Dems and vice versa. The train will eventually run out of steam if the engineer and the stoker can't get past bickering and do their jobs. Can we agree the infighting is a national shame and embarrassment? Once we were that shinning fortress of alabaster, fields of grain and the most formidable adversary imaginable. No wonder the other nations of the world's attitude toward us has gone from jaw dropping awe to scorn, as the workings of government look more like an elementary school food fight than the great nation we very recently were.

Seriously, I have never in my life heard a sitting (or former) president talk like Obama does. He wihines and blames and demagogues at a level no president has ever done, or even remotely come close to doing. It is truly hard for me to imagine how a president could reasonably hold to the claim he loves this land while talking more like a would-be dictator than an American President, blaming ANYBODY who dares not to agree with his extreme positions for every ill this country faces. If people agree with Obama they are wonderful human beings, everybody else is stupid, uneducated, just plain wrong or course, conservative and therefore worthy of any poison he sees fit to belch their way.

But, these very schools are the reason that your post of "26 of the fathers had seminary degrees" is wrong. They may well have had degrees from these schools, which started as seminaries, but they had no such seminary degree like you wanted it to sound. Liberty is a seminary, but it has many secular subjects taught, other than religion. If I got a degree from Liberty in a secular subject, I might could legally say I had a seminary degree, but it would really be a dishonest statement. You were making it sound like they had degrees in biblical type studies, which is false. And yes, those Ivy school started out as being called seminaries.

As for the Danbury letter, if you take it in whole, and with the letter Danbury sent to Jefferson, which elicited his response, it would be plain to you that he was in fact separating "church and state", as well as separating "state and church. Context means everything thing in writings, and the context is plain in those. The Danbury letters prove my point, not yours. To draw on the context theme, one could look no further than the "Word of Faith Movement", out of the very religion you espouse, Christianity, to get a picture of taking stuff out of context.

[TheRealThing]

I take all that back and apologize. I have to show you more respect than I do another poster or two here. You are respectable, and treat others with respect. But, you are wrong on the quoted post about committed Christians. If you do the research, away from "christian revisionist" websites, you will see that you are wrong. All believed in a supreme being. Some claimed to be christians, but a lot of them didn't even attend church. Most kept religion at "arms length".

I appreciate that RV. I'm certainly not saying the position you take about the founding fathers religious beliefs is not supported by folks of like mind. I don't agree with that position, obviously. Some day it will all get worked out and one of us will be proved right. Until that time I prefer to not be particularly influenced by the 60's folks who have proffered opinions they developed during my own lifetime. The picture they paint of America during those days is way off from the way I remember it and, I was sober or not stoned most of the time! You have to remember, the lion's share of these guys were walking around in sandals and wearing roach motels around their necks in lieu of normally accepted practices of personal hygene, and I know their routine front and back.

[TheRealThing]

But, these very schools are the reason that your post of "26 of the fathers had seminary degrees" is wrong. They may well have had degrees from these schools, which started as seminaries, but they had no such seminary degree like you wanted it to sound. Liberty is a seminary, but it has many more subject taught, other than religion. If I got a degree from Liberty in a secular subject, I might could legally say I had a seminary degree, but it would really be a dishonest statement. You were making it sound like they had degrees in biblical type studies, which is false. And yes, those Ivy school started out as being called seminaries.

As for the Danbury letter, if you take it in whole, and with the letter Danbury sent to Jefferson, which elicited his response, it would be plain to you that he was in fact separating "church and state", as well as separating "state and church. context means everything thing in writings, and the context is plain in those. The Danbury letters prove my point, not yours.

Maybe, I don't interpret everything the way you do. For instance, when Jefferson wrote the words "between a man and his God" I don't see "his" as meaning 'his god of choice' like he has a choice from among Buddah, Allah, or Jehovah. I see that as meaning 'his God by submission to the truth' and that the relationship between man and God is PERSONAL. Like a man and his wife.

[TheRealVille]

Maybe, I don't interpret everything the way you do. For instance, when Jefferson wrote the words "between a man and his God" I don't see "his" as meaning 'his god of choice' like he has a choice from among Buddah, Allah, or Jehovah. I see that as meaning 'his God by submission to the truth' and that the relationship between man and God is PERSONAL. Like a man and his wife.

That's fine for you, and I respect that you have strong religious beliefs. But, me and many, many more besides me, don't. That's supposed to be the beauty of America. It is a melting pot of different types. Supposedly equally treated Americans. But, with your "type", you don't want all citizens treated equal. You keep saying that you don't want the alternate, "ungodly" things pushed on you, yet your type insists on pushing your religious stuff on the rest of us. Recognizing other peoples equal rights will not diminish yours. The gays marrying will do absolutely nothing to your rights as an American. But, your way of thinking definitely does something to their equality. It's sad that you can't see the double standard you push. The good thing is, that in 20 years, probably a lot less, this won't be an issue. It's another sad thing, that the early settlers were trying to get away from a state religion, and religious persecution, and your type of people are trying to put us right back in the same boat that they left, and fought against.

[TheRealThing]

That's fine for you, and I respect that you have strong religious beliefs. But, me and many, many more besides me, don't. That's supposed to be the beauty of America. It is a melting pot of different types. Supposedly equally treated Americans. But, with your "type", you don't want all citizens treated equal. You keep saying that you don't want the alternate, "ungodly" things pushed on you, yet your type insists on pushing your religious stuff on the rest of us. Recognizing other peoples equal rights will not diminish yours. The gays marrying will do absolutely nothing to your rights as an American. But, your way of thinking definitely does something to their equality. It's sad that you can't see the double standard you push. The good thing is, that in 20 years, probably a lot less, this won't be an issue. It's another sad thing, that the early settlers were trying to get away from a state religion, and religious persecution, and your type of people are trying to put us right back in the same boat that they left, and fought against.

I'm amazed that you could misinterpret my views by so great a margin.

-I have made no secret that I believe God's Holy Word to be error free and that the truths contained therein apply to all and, if any man choose to accept those truths, by faith believing in the Son and His perfect sacrificial death on the cross, he is thereby extended the gift of eternal life.

-You will not be able to cite a single time when I have suggested that belief should be forced on anyone whatever. Rather, it is my contention that the redefining of long held interpretations of the US Constitution is the real "rub" between those who want to change America into something different just for the sake of change and those who want to sail our ship of state by "staying the course"

If I said I am against gay marriage it is on purly religious grounds and yet, I believe the US Constitution and the law of the land, to be based on the conservative values of our founding fathers. Therefore, I do not accept the validity of the court ruling on matters that are basically an argument between man and God. God has said gay folks are living an abominable life style, they don't like that and have gone to the courts to seek a ruling otherwise. It was never an argument among men, though there has been enless debate on the matter, it is men rejecting God's Word. Somehow, I guess, they feel like things will be better for them if a judge distorts the meaning of the scriptures on this moral perspective. As I have said, no man can change the truth of God no matter how many laws he may pass to that end. All I am doing is pointing out the ramifications for doing so. I will abide by the laws of the land because God hasn't charged me with enforcing His laws. He does expect me to warn people by speaking out against sin though.

-Equal treatment certainly does not mean I must change my mind about what is right and wrong by supporting laws and candidates who I believe are wrong on these matters.

-No matter how many people turn gay I will not feel they are pushing "UnGodly stuff" on me. I can avoid judgement on such matters by voting for candidates that most closely share my views.

-My way of thinking is just as much my right as they have the right to think their way. I'm not going to hurt them in any way, but, I will never agree with them or support their view. You want to support them go ahead, you'll never hear me criticize you for it unless you call me out for the way I believe.

[TheRealThing]

I take all that back and apologize. I have to show you more respect than I do another poster or two here. You are respectable, and treat others with respect. But, you are wrong on the quoted post about committed Christians. If you do the research, away from "christian revisionist" websites, you will see that you are wrong. All believed in a supreme being. Some claimed to be christians, but a lot of them didn't even attend church. Most kept religion at "arms length".

I can totally accept this. The argument that there were up to 27 with seminary degrees is not completely out of the question though. Even using my numbers, most of the founding fathers may well have shown respect for the church without really having had a personal relationship with God. So, your point that most kept religion at arms length is not only possible, I find it very likely.