Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution:
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ."
Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of
this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good
enough for me, end of story!!!!

Regards,
John


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -0400, Dave Hall
| wrote in :
|
| snip
| No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.
|
| And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.
|
|
| Unless your partner is infected.
|
|
| snip
| Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
| main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
| required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
| United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
| Constitutional Convention.
|
| Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
| the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
| as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.
|
|
| You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.
|
| Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the
| appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones
| who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious
| faith.
|
| Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues.
|
| http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3
|
| http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html
|
| http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php
|
|
| Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
| maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.
|
|
| snip
| The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.
|
| Not "officially",
|
|
| Or "unofficially".
|
| The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree.
|
|
| Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a
| majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not
| subject to a majority vote.
|
| I think this page says it best:
|
| http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues
|
|
| but our whole government is littered with Christian
| references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.
|
|
| As well as religious symbols of other faiths.
|
| Such as?
|
|
| Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court
| bench.
|
|
| The swearing
| on the Bible,
|
|
| And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
| passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
| an Oath of Affirmation.
|
| What passage have you quoted?
|
|
| Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?
|
|
| And how does that diminish the fact that
| swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
| influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?
|
|
| Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.
| The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
| what you claim. It was added because, at the time, some states had
| oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
| God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
| that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
| didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
| of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
| and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
| beliefs.
|
| And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent.
|
|
| snip
| Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution.
|
| No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a
| badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts
| that do not further your agenda.
|
|
| What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago
| I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all
| enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I
| took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I
| swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath
| yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be
| having this conversation right now.
|
| And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to
| that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it
| comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of
| people claiming to be Christians.
|
|
| snip
| If you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
| have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
| of all marriages end in divorce,
|
| Not true. You are not keeping current.
|
| http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls
|
|
| No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
| Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
| place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
| for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
| rate of marriage:
|
| http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf
|
|
| and a large number of people get
| married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
| are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
| traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
| that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
| had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
| concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
| the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
| definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
| on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
| Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.
|
|
| Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
| unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.
|
|
| It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave. If the foundation of
| your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
| both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
| would affect the value of marriage. And after such a comparison, gay
| marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about
| it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
| factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
| with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.
|
|
| snip
| The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
| not mean that a gay marriage should be now.
|
|
| I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
| Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.
|
|
| snip
| Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
| lowered then my degree becomes more valuable.
|
| Only to you.
|
|
| Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
| meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
| the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.
|
|
| After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
| degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
| doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
| Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
| current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
| study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
| will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
| diminished in value.
|
|
| Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.
| But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
| years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.
|
|
| Here's another analogy:
| If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
| happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.
|
| That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be
| applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems".
| One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison
| between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed.
|
|
| I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. How you
| feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
| yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
| couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
| marriage.
|
|
| snip
| I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
| you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
| I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
| practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
| as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.
|
| But I did notice.
|
|
| I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
| I simply don't have the time to play your game. So if you want to
| start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
| posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
| crap you use to water down the topics.
|
|
| snip
| Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,
|
|
| Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.
|
|
| Even if it's bad?
|
|
| Moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----