IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 2 active users | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New The way I see it
is that government cannot restrict freedom of speech or religion. Yet it clearly does. I did not see in the Constitution where it says representatives of State cannot express or display their religious beliefs, icons etc. All I see is the Congress not passing a law reference.

If a Ten Commandments is displayed, then other judges have the right to display their religous icons too. It has to be fair for all. This none for all, unless it is a dead religion thing just still does not make sense to me.

If Christmas items are displayed, then Chanukah, Winter Solstiace, Kwanza, etc should be displayed as well. Denying any of them is just plain wrong. It has nothing to do if it is offensive to someone or not, people can get easily offended by anything. I find no offense with Chanukah, Winter Solstiace, Kwanza, etc icons, but another Christian might. So what? Other Religions need to display their icons as well, get over it. We also have to support the Islamics or Hindus, or Buddhists etc.

The USA is not a Christian nation, we may have government leaders who are Christian, and our country may have been founded by Christians (or Deists who believe in a God but that is a debate for another time) but the USA is still a melting pot of people or all sorts of religions and backgrounds. It is that all religions should have the same rights as long as they do not break any laws (Human Sacrifice falls under murder laws, for example).

There was a law written called the "Common/Law Marriage" that defined marriage as one man and one woman who lived together for a long time would become married. It did not mention religion, and it did not include same-sex couples. While the constitution says nothing about defining marriage, the "Common/Law Marriage" law does. It was used in Frontier times and now only some states still support it.
[link|http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/family/common.html|http://www.itslegal....amily/common.html]

So basing a law on this law would not be forcing religion down someone's throat. It is the definition of a marriage, one man and one woman. Husband and wife, clearly stated.




"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Getting off into gay marriages?
I've no particular opinion on the state's definition of marriage, as my viewpoint is a tad more restrictive - i.e. marriage is a sacrament that's intended for life. But i'd rather the state not enforce that viewpoint.

It's interesting that you believe in the traditions of the judicial system and historical interpretation as it pertains to common law marriage, but eschew a similar vain of tradition which has arisen over the separation of Church and State. Indeed, one could easily argue that the question of what is or is not marriage is much more vague than the question of what constitutes establishment of religion by the state. In the olden days, if you spent an afternoon alone, you might well be considered married, regardless of whether you had consensual sex. Indeed, the idea of state sanctioned marriage is much more recent than the idea of marriage itself.

As for expression of religion, you confuse the rights of the individual to express themselves religiously, with the right of that some person to express themselves as an officer of the state. I, for one, don't care to be stopped by a police officer and have that officer hand me a flyer about the upcoming revival meeting. Now, if that same officer wants to stand in front of the mall and hand out flyers, then it's fine by me, as long as said officer is in civilian clothing.
New Sorry I brought it up
but I thought it was relevant as that is where the discussion was heading.

Traditionally it has been one man and one woman for the marriage to produce an offspring. That is why a blood test is required. Somehow that has changed as some people marry and do not want to have children. The tax form and tax laws have been for one man and one woman as well. Again not a religious definition. If approved, same-sex marriage will redefine what marriage is and offend a lot of male-female marriages. It also might open the door to having multiple spouses, or marrying a non-human, or marrying oneself. So before a decision is made on same-sex marriages, the government is going to have to think about how it effects existing marriages and the loopholes it may cause.


It's interesting that you believe in the traditions of the judicial system and historical interpretation as it pertains to common law marriage, but eschew a similar vain of tradition which has arisen over the separation of Church and State. Indeed, one could easily argue that the question of what is or is not marriage is much more vague than the question of what constitutes establishment of religion by the state. In the olden days, if you spent an afternoon alone, you might well be considered married, regardless of whether you had consensual sex. Indeed, the idea of state sanctioned marriage is much more recent than the idea of marriage itself.


Common Law Marriage is much easier to understand than the seperation of church and state for me. Good thing only certain states allow Common Law Marriage, or one can find themselves married when they did not mean to get married.


As for expression of religion, you confuse the rights of the individual to express themselves religiously, with the right of that some person to express themselves as an officer of the state. I, for one, don't care to be stopped by a police officer and have that officer hand me a flyer about the upcoming revival meeting. Now, if that same officer wants to stand in front of the mall and hand out flyers, then it's fine by me, as long as said officer is in civilian clothing.


I would just smile and say "Thanks, but no thanks." myself. The same thing I say when they stop me and ask me if I want to contribute to the Police Officer's Ball or tickets to some Police event. If you consider it an abuse of power to stop someone just to give them a flyer, then I see your point. If that person was speeding and got pulled over, and then was offered a flyer, I see it as a different thing. Nobody is forcing them to take the flyer and go to the revival, if they are being forced then I see it as a bad thing.



"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"

New Why did the blood tests go away?
It is very simple.

Medical knowledge advanced to the point where it was recognized that if the man was positive for a particular factor, and a woman was negative, there could be complications in pregnancy that threaten mother and child. Specifically, the woman could become exposed to the child's blood, and have a severe allergic reaction. IIRC, 70% of the population is positive on this factor, so problems should come up in 21% of couples.

At this point it made sense to have the blood test and be sure that the couple knew if there could be a problem.

Since then medical knowledge has progressed to the point that we know how to prevent those medical complications. So we can worry about it later.

On what you said about the religious officer, you need to consider implied threats. Whether or not that was the intention, if you're pulled over for speeding and the officer hands you religious literature, the natural tendancy is going to be to perceive (and react to) an implied threat. Therefore we prohibit the behaviour.

The State or its representatives in the line of their duty may not coerce you, explicitly or implicitly, to act in accord with any particular religious views.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Test have not gone away everywhere and it is not because of
blood type differences. It's a test for VD.
Only a few states require a blood test or a blood test and physical examination before marriage to show whether one party is infected with a venereal disease. In some statutes, for example, the clerk is forbidden to issue a marriage license until the parties present the results of the blood test.
[link|http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml|The state list].
Alex

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
New That link didn't work in mozilla :-(
At a glance it looks like they screwed up and forgot the content-type header. Through Google I was able to find and read the cached version, and it answered why they currently exist, not why they used to.

However a bit of Googling around found [link|http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/35320/35323/361888.html?d=dmtHMSContent|http://www.intelihea...l?d=dmtHMSContent] which told me that I was repeating a common myth. What I said about the health effects of RH factor is not a myth, but that it was the reason for introducing blood tests was.

Mea culpa. Live and learn. Etc.

Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New I had the same problem w/Moz.
Save as file and then Open file works however.
Alex

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom ... the argument of tyrants ... the creed of slaves. -- William Pitt, addressing the British House of Commons (1783)
     I am trying to understand seperation of church and state - (orion) - (106)
         Your religion must be dead for 1000 years - (altmann)
         You found it. - (inthane-chan) - (67)
             a few nits - (danreck)
             Aw, what the hell... - (danreck) - (65)
                 How I read it - (orion) - (64)
                     You also have to look up the 14th amendment - (ChrisR) - (9)
                         Thanks for that - (orion) - (8)
                             Religious freedom is an individual's right... - (ChrisR) - (7)
                                 The way I see it - (orion) - (6)
                                     Getting off into gay marriages? - (ChrisR) - (5)
                                         Sorry I brought it up - (orion) - (4)
                                             Why did the blood tests go away? - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                 Test have not gone away everywhere and it is not because of - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                                     That link didn't work in mozilla :-( - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                         I had the same problem w/Moz. - (a6l6e6x)
                     This is why the law applies - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                         Court rooms - (orion) - (3)
                             The legislature enacts the laws, - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                 Still more questions - (orion) - (1)
                                     Re: Still more questions - (JayMehaffey)
                     The phrase you are looking for verbatim - (Ashton) - (2)
                         Sort of "read between the lines" - (orion) - (1)
                             NO.. - (Ashton)
                     I think you are reading it quite accurately... - (danreck)
                     You could speculate or... - (ben_tilly) - (44)
                         Causes even more confusion - (orion) - (43)
                             Secular isn't vague. - (pwhysall) - (33)
                                 By that reasoning then... - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                     I didn't reason at all. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                         Do try to keep up, willya? - (ben_tilly)
                                 Not what the dictionary says - (orion) - (29)
                                     Oh yes it is. - (pwhysall) - (28)
                                         That's not a proper Engrish dictionary - (ChrisR) - (27)
                                             Which is in which country (hint hint)? -NT - (pwhysall) - (26)
                                                 United Kingdom? -NT - (ChrisR) - (24)
                                                     "United Kingdom of A, B, C and D E" - (pwhysall) - (23)
                                                         Araq? -NT - (ChrisR) - (3)
                                                             /me pulls the IFS lever. -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                             Beeria, Crikey, Disrael, and Effinghanistan -NT - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                 You've won a free IFS! -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                         Anglos, Berbers, Chinese and Damned Europeans? -NT - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                                             My IFS machine is busy tonight... -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                         Arrogant Bastards with Crappy Dictionary Examples? -NT - (admin) - (14)
                                                             STAB! -NT - (pwhysall) - (13)
                                                                 Ah... - (admin) - (12)
                                                                     Administrative Boofheads Continually Defy Elegance -NT - (pwhysall) - (11)
                                                                         WOBAFGKMRNS - (deSitter) - (10)
                                                                             Re: WOBAFGKMNRS - (admin) - (9)
                                                                                 you get a gold star -NT - (deSitter) - (8)
                                                                                     Not much of a stretch. - (admin) - (7)
                                                                                         hmm go back? exciting times for astronomy -NT - (deSitter) - (6)
                                                                                             Two reasons: - (admin) - (5)
                                                                                                 Sheeat - (deSitter) - (4)
                                                                                                     Or Scott could just get his son to teach him... -NT - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                                                                                         I'm sure Scott can handle it - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                                                             joke == missed. :D -NT - (inthane-chan)
                                                                                                     You make an assumption... - (admin)
                                                         Without googling - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                             You are correct! - (pwhysall)
                                                 In which country is the law in question being examined? - (orion)
                             The Bottom line.. - (deSitter) - (3)
                                 The footnotes to the bottom line... - (danreck) - (2)
                                     Re: The footnotes to the bottom line... - (deSitter) - (1)
                                         Jefferson is spinning like a rotisserie chicken in his grave - (danreck)
                             I didn't say that it was simple - (ben_tilly)
                             Makes me wonder... - (Nightowl) - (3)
                                 They don't make you - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                     True, but what I really meant - (Nightowl) - (1)
                                         Well, apply the Lemon test - (ben_tilly)
         It started with the Roman Empire. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
             A fallacy in your argument - (orion)
         funny you should ask - (rcareaga) - (12)
             in one area of the article, only half is revealed - (boxley) - (7)
                 and this "agriculture" stuff - (rcareaga) - (1)
                     You know, if you have to choose... - (ben_tilly)
                 Actually, less than half is revealed - (jb4) - (3)
                     China is far more advanced in this area. - (a6l6e6x)
                     When I was there - (lincoln) - (1)
                         The problem is an expired contract... - (jb4)
                 Bought/sold :-0___ you mean like IT workers? -NT - (Ashton)
             bRandishment - (Ashton) - (3)
                 for every blowdried3piecesuitlimoowning preacher - (boxley) - (2)
                     And those sammich-handing-out ones remain silent as - (Ashton) - (1)
                         nope, in their view meek get sh*t -NT - (boxley)
         Look no further than the first phrase of the first amendment - (ChrisR)
         Re: I am trying to understand seperation of church and state - (JayMehaffey)
         Also a key point that nobody else is pointing out... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
             The effect is nonlinear - - (Ashton)
         It goes back to Jefferson. - (Another Scott) - (9)
             Which goes back to the pilgrims, IIRC - (Steve Lowe) - (2)
                 Right - (deSitter) - (1)
                     Interesting sidenote - (deSitter)
             Vauge language - (orion) - (5)
                 Um, all speech and writing is subject to interpretation. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     You b*3tard... - (danreck) - (1)
                         Not meant to cause offense. - (Another Scott)
                 Not in the current context - (deSitter) - (1)
                     Your interpritation - (orion)
         Can't take the time for an appropriate clue bashfest - (Silverlock) - (2)
             If you cannot answer the question - (orion) - (1)
                 I'm not sure what your question actually is. - (Silverlock)
         sepArate <<<_______grating, that___over and over and___ -NT - (Ashton) - (4)
             Perhaps that explains why the search came up empty? -NT - (ChrisR) - (3)
                 16,300 hits in Google. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     Did you mean: separation of church and state? - (ChrisR) - (1)
                         Yup. ;-) - (Another Scott)

An easy subject, at which very few excel!
204 ms