ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals have been forcing people to have gay sex? I've missed that one.

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
Doesn't have to be, just a right to be treated equally. The government doesn't give rights, or did you miss the entire debate surrounding the formation of our government. Nor is it limited to your interpretation of your what your god wants. In fact, it is precisely that kind of use of the church that got this little country started. Don't like it, move to a country with a state religion.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Government only prohibits ministers from preforming government recognized "marriages"
Emplain how continuing the instutition of marraige under the definition that has served Western Civilization for thousants of years establishes a religion??

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
"endowed by our CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights..."
our rights come from God
any "rights" you get from man can be taken away by man

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
"endowed by our CREATOR, with certain inalienable rights..."
our rights come from God
any "rights" you get from man can be taken away by man

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
Is God going to come down and represent you in court?
Heh.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
I reject the 1st Amendment?? You got to be kidding, I am the one saying that ministers should be allowed to preform any cermony thier faith allows, and if they reject thier faith they can even marry homosexuals, with no interference of the government. The government on the other hand sets the criteria in which it recognizes.

Strel wrote:

Anyway, you DO reject the First Amendment, at least in part.
Like most ignorant fundamentalist phucktards, you think you know all about Free Exercise (you don't) and try to pretend the Establishment clause does not exist.
Actually, fundamentalist loonies consistently pretend that things exist that do not, and ignore other aspects of objective reality as they wish.
This is only one way in which they are, to put it mildly, fucking stupid.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
In fact most Christians are fully aware of both religions clauses in the 1st Amendment, it does allow us to freely express our faith, and does ensure that the federal govenment won't establish a "Church of England" here in this country.

Judged:

1

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
have been attempting to portray homosexual sex as mainstream, and force that "education" in our schools.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
In fact most Christians are fully aware of both religions clauses in the 1st Amendment, it does allow us to freely express our faith, and does ensure that the federal govenment won't establish a "Church of England" here in this country.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you are in any position to talk about what "most Christians" are aware of.
In my DIRECT experience in dealing with this issue, professionally, "most Christians" are just like "most people."
IGNORANT.
Your description of the Establishment clause above is puerile, uninformed, massively incomplete and not even the tip of the iceberg.
Yet, like your fire-breathing ignorant fundamentalist brethren, you will come on Internet message boards like this and preach as if you actually know something about the law.
You don't.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignoring that what you have said is nonsense, you think that government force should be used to stop people from "attempting to portray homosexual sex as mainstream?" Oh please, tell me about how much you are for freedom and liberty again...

Hey wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, the phrase "church of England" isn't in the 1st Amendment.
Secondly, so you disagree with Thomas Jefferson on the content of the 1st Amendment (seperation of church and state)?
Thirdly, what about your blantanly hypocritical stance that you want both the "free exercise" of religios beliefs and you want government force to be used to stop religious leaders from performing same-sex marriages (because that violates your religious beliefs)? Are you wanting your religion "established?" Do you even know what that means?

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all the Church of England was the example of what the founders wanted to prevent, you don't have to be that explicit.
Secondly, Jefferson was writting a private letter to a church, relating to my forst statement.
Lastly: you haven't been following me on this, I have never said that the Government should prevent (or force) clergy to preform homoseuxal unions, however if they do they would have no recognition by the government.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, the Founders explicitly wrote what they meant to write, and that is explicit.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Secondly, in the referenced letter Thomas Jefferson was asked by a church what the purpose and effect of the 1st Amendment is, and he freely and non-anonymously wrote just that, which was not anything new.
Thomas Jefferson was attacked as an "infidel" by many Christians when he ran for President because of his deist beliefs and the separation of church and state issue. For example, in 1800 (way before the referenced letter) the New England Palladium (a major newspaper) wrote:
"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High."
Thirdly, you are now claiming to claim that pastors should be allowed to perform same-sex marriages, but then in the very same sentence reject that claim. Baffling! Do you not know what marriage is? Or are you confused about something else? Or what?

Judged:

1

WTF wrote:

Where do some people like chief22 get off thinking that "freely expressing their faith" includes being able to use the government to force other people to follow his religious beliefs? It's like he reads the free exercise clause, but not the establishment clause, or rather he very poorly rationalizes it away.