Post Reply
Page 36 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Yet another "evangelical Christian" caught in sexual affair
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 9:07AM #351
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,700

Jun 3, 2010 -- 7:52AM, REteach wrote:


Thomas Jefferson--founding father--said that unless someone is breaking my leg or stealing my pocketbook, I should let them do as they wish.  So, GC, you disagree with Jefferson?  How are gay people having the same rights as you stealing your pocketbook or breaking your leg?

Jesus said to worry about your own planks, so apparently you disagree with Jesus as well.  If same sex orientation is something you perceive as a plank in you, feel free to work on it.  But since you have posted we are all sinners, you apparently have enough planks of your own to be so worried about the specks of others.


So you neither believe the founder of Christianity, nor of the US.




ReTeach, I've already said many times that I don't vote against equal rights for gay people.


And, yes, I work on my own planks pretty often. But, we are also told to speak out. If no one ever spoke out because of their own planks then this country wouldn't evolve.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 9:08AM #352
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,700

Jun 3, 2010 -- 8:53AM, TemplarS wrote:


Larosser-


Good post, restating some things which, though obvious, we can tend to forget.


But- there are grey areas.  There are laws, which I'd bet the vast majority of people would not want to change, which do not neatly fit the criteria you mention.


For example- it is very hard to see what harm would come to anybody if you or I were to walk down the street naked. Yet I know of noplace where this is legal, nor of any widepsread sentiment to make it legal, even though the current law might be said to infringe on the personal rights of somebody who might wish to do so.


Closer to the contentious issue at hand: polygamy is illegal, though it does no harm to anybody; the vast majority of us, again, want to keep it so, at the price of infringing on the rights of a few individuals in Utah.


These are laws, perhaps, of social convention. To some degree, behaviors like this do impact what  we consider to be the norms of our society, so in that sense they might be thought of as doing collective harm, though not personal harm.


But social conventions can change; and when they do, there is no point to hanging on to anachronistic laws.  


The converse is true also; in the old days, smoking was legal anyplace, on the theory that it harmed none but the smoker.  Now we know better; and our laws has been changed to reflect that.


 




I agree. I would include keeping marijuana illegal in the list of laws that don't match Larosser's criteria.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 9:14AM #353
rabello
Posts: 22,234

Jun 3, 2010 -- 9:07AM, Girlchristian wrote:


But, we are also told to speak out. If no one ever spoke out because of their own planks then this country wouldn't evolve.



Are you sure you mean "evolve"?


Evolve would be if people could rise above their negative judgements of others, base their opinions on facts instead of those negative judgements, and learn to live and let live.  That would be evolution!!


A more accurate term to have used is "conform" -- "conform" to other people's negative judgements.

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:19AM #354
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 2, 2010 -- 9:03PM, Girlchristian wrote:

It's evident in this thread even, those who are demanding respecting and tolerance aren't willing to give it.




I don't see any evidence to support this claim. Mainly because I don't see anyone in this thread demanding respect and tolerance. What I see in this thread is people pointing out yours and others disrespect and intolerance of others. Just because people point out your disrespect and intolerance of others doesn't mean they are demanding respect and tolerance.


Feel free to continue being as disrespectful and intolerant as you please. But don't expect people to sit quietly while you disrespect them and are intolerant of them. It's a two way street, girlchristian. If you want respect and tolerance then you have to give it, but you don't. It's quite obvious that you are well aware of your own disrespect and intolerance otherwise you wouldn't perceive others as demanding something you already give them.


I have all the respect and tolerance in the world. I have zero respect and tolerance for prejudiced bigots who blame their religion of choice for their prejudice and bigotry.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:33AM #355
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 2, 2010 -- 11:04PM, Larosser wrote:


Jun 2, 2010 -- 10:14PM, Girlchristian wrote:


 Society creates laws all the time that says someone else can't do something because it's not how we want them to behave.




Hi, GC.  If you're talking about american society, I have to respectfully disagree with your point - at least in theory. While I think that all to often we DO try to pass laws to make people behave the way we want, I DON'T believe that is the intended role of law in our society. Among the first principles of American society are individual liberty, equality under the law, and freedom both of  and from religion. For a law to be appropriate for America, it really needs to meet the following criteria:


- It needs to be necessary to the orderly function of society - often by enforcing  some key element of common law (don't kill one another, don't steal from one another, don't destroy one another's property).


- It must not infringe on individual liberty unless it can be clearly shown that such infringement is necessary to promote the common good.


- It must treat and apply to all citizens equally


- It must not limit voluntary religious expression, unless it unless it can be clearly shown that such limitiation is required to protect the fundamental rights of other citizens


- It must not under any circumstances enforce a religious practice  or belief on the populace.


You might argue that laws still come down to forcing people to behave in ways that they'd rather not. That's true, but the limitations listed above (along with others described in the constitution and elaborated in the judicial record) are intended to ensure that we don't do that lightly. There are lots of ways in which I don't want people to behave - I don't want them to drive poluting, gas guzzling SUVs,  I don't want them to mock people's faiths, I don't want them to drink to excess and act like fools.  But my personal desires that people behave prudently and compassionately aren't a reason to make a law - unless I can back it up by demostrating that the law is also required to ensure the public good.


Sorry for standing up on my soap box, but I think this is a big problem in America right now - we think we can legislate our personal preferences, and we don't recognize what a dangerous road that takes us down. I think that's really where a lot of the anger at Souder is coming from. He espoused legislation that did not protect individual liberty, equality of citizens, and religious freedoms. When it turned out that he isn't even practicing what he is willing to oppress others to legislate, that touched a nerve.


Best,
La




 


Here's what the courts use to determine whether a law should stand or be struck down (compliments of Wikipedia):


 


Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to a level of scrutiny applied by courts when deciding cases presenting constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a court applies when engaging in judicial review. The higher levels of scrutiny include intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Rational basis is the default level of review; [1] however, rational basis review does not usually apply in situations where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated.


The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.[2] [3] Under this standard of review, the “legitimate interest” does not have to be the government’s actual interest. Rather, if the court can merely hypothesize a “legitimate” interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand the rational basis review


 


Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the middle level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous).


In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.[1] This should be contrasted with strict scrutiny, the higher standard of review which requires narrowly tailored and least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.


 


Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law. Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards employed by courts to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or principle that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue.


To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:


First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

 


As you can see, there's far more to it than simply "Society creates laws all the time that says someone else can't do something because it's not how we want them to behave." There are very fine rules as to when OUR society can and cannot create a law in an attempt to control how people behave.


As a footnote, laws do not control how people behave...they simply make certain behaviors unlawful or they provide privileges, rights, responsibilities, benefits, etc.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:37AM #356
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 2, 2010 -- 11:04PM, Larosser wrote:

There are lots of ways in which I don't want people to behave ...I don't want them to mock people's faiths...



 


If people of faith don't want their faith mocked, then they should keep their faith to themselves, especially those who use their faith as a scapegoat for supporting discriminatory laws that deny others their civil rights.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:47AM #357
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 3, 2010 -- 8:53AM, TemplarS wrote:

For example- it is very hard to see what harm would come to anybody if you or I were to walk down the street naked. Yet I know of noplace where this is legal, nor of any widepsread sentiment to make it legal, even though the current law might be said to infringe on the personal rights of somebody who might wish to do so.



Public nudity is legal, in certain forms, everywhere in the United States...but the catch is there has to be certain criteria met for it to be allowed. One way is for it to be in the form of artistic expression. As long as the nude person is part of the artwork, it is legal AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.


 


Closer to the contentious issue at hand: polygamy is illegal, though it does no harm to anybody; the vast majority of us, again, want to keep it so, at the price of infringing on the rights of a few individuals in Utah.



They aren't only in Utah, and there are far more than you believe.


I believe they will one day have their day in court and they very well may lose their case, mainly because there is a compelling government interest to limit a CONTRACT like a marriage contract to two parties...one of those compelling interests being that the administration of a multi-party contract for things like end-of-life decisions, medical decisions for an unconscious spouse, etc becomes nightmarish. These types of nightmarish scenarios do not come into play with a two party contract. It's one reason why gay couples will most likely win their day in court because contractually the government has no compelling interest to identify the parties involved based on what organs they find between their legs.




I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:51AM #358
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 3, 2010 -- 9:07AM, Girlchristian wrote:

ReTeach, I've already said many times that I don't vote against equal rights for gay people.



You may not vote against equal rights for gay people, but you certainly have a prejudiced disdain for them.


 


And, yes, I work on my own planks pretty often. But, we are also told to speak out. If no one ever spoke out because of their own planks then this country wouldn't evolve.



If everyone focused on their own planks, there wouldn't be anything for you to speak out about, gc.


It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:54AM #359
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

I would note that one cannot claim to "be okay" with equal rights for GLBT people while supporting and voting for candidates who deny those rights.


It is an oxymoron.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2010 - 10:58AM #360
Sirronrex
Posts: 2,675

Jun 3, 2010 -- 9:08AM, Girlchristian wrote:

I agree. I would include keeping marijuana illegal in the list of laws that don't match Larosser's criteria.





What does that mean? Do you support the continued illegalization of marijuana or do you support legalizing it?


If you support the continued illegalization of marijuana, what rational argument can you provide to support that position?

I've been on a journey to nowhere...
and know that's the best place to be...
now...here...




If my faith isn't leading me inward, then my faith is leading me astray.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 36 of 39  •  Prev 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook