You also have to look up the 14th amendment

Post #145,190 by ChrisR 3/10/04 12:59:52 AM Reply	You also have to look up the 14th amendment The 14th amendment says that no state can abridge the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Courts have applied this to mean that states are prohibited from abridging Federal rights. A little [link\|http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm\|legal history] might help. And, yes, it is a right to not have religion thrust upon you by any branch of government. As a Christian of a minority sect in this region (Catholic), I do appreciate not having government institutions enforce fundamentalist dogma upon my family. Wish I could say the same for those regions where the Catholics are in the majority but alas, the majority always wants to push it's crap down the throats of others.
Post #145,260 by orion 3/10/04 11:43:10 AM Reply	Thanks for that I apparently did not read far enough to get to the 14th Admendment yet. And, yes, it is a right to not have religion thrust upon you by any branch of government. As a Christian of a minority sect in this region (Catholic), I do appreciate not having government institutions enforce fundamentalist dogma upon my family. Wish I could say the same for those regions where the Catholics are in the majority but alas, the majority always wants to push it's crap down the throats of others. Sort of like Thailand where one must be Buddist to hold office or work for the government. If you are not Buddist, you cannot work for the government there. Of course there is a big difference between forcing a religion down someone's throats and just displaying a religious icon. The later does not force religion on anyone, it is just a dislay of a religous icon. Which I see as an expression of free speech. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,272 by ChrisR 3/10/04 12:27:22 PM Reply	Religious freedom is an individual's right... ...when that individual is acting as the state though, the right of religious expression conflicts with the rights of individuals who fall within the jursidiction of the individual. In the case of school prayer, you had the state mandating that public schools direct it's participants to pray. In the case of the 10 commandments, you had an authority of state requiring you to honor religious dogma. Well, if the judge wants to display the 10 commandments in his living room or his synagogue, I have no qualms with that. However, he is displaying them as an agent of the state and as such his actions in the courtroom are restricted. Or let's put it in other terms. Let's say that said judge happens to be Roman Catholic. As a RC, said judge could easily have religious icons that would be offensive to others: A statute of the virgin Mary, or Our Lady of Guadalupe. Said judge may also like to say Hail Marys and pray the Rosary frequently. Do you think any of these icons or prayers should be officially sanctioned in a Court of Law? If not, then where do you draw the line - most likely you'd draw the line on symbols that are inoffensive to Christians of all denominations. Throw in the Jews for good measure. What about the Islamics or Hindus, or Buddhists? Well, you might profess that the US is a Christian nation, and therefore non-Christians need not apply (but then we'd get into an argument about whether to include the non-trinitarians like the LDS). And we'd also skim over the fact that the arguments between Christian communities are probably even more heated than the arguments with those outside of that domain. Before you know it, what was intended to be something to act as a cohesive force in our communities, is actually the source of divisiveness. And we haven't even started in on those rogue atheists. Personally, i'd think that the spiritual descedents of Luther and Calvin would be more cognizant of what evil lurks behind the combination of Church and State. Most of the stupid things the Church has done arose directly from the abuse of state power. Odd that a Catholic, such as myself, would be on the side of stripping religion from government, whereas the fundamentalists want to put it back in.
Post #145,299 by orion 3/10/04 1:11:26 PM Reply	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"*
Post #145,304 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:24:02 PM Reply	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.
Post #145,461 by orion 3/10/04 7:07:34 PM Reply	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"*
Post #145,468 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 7:26:28 PM Reply	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]
Post #145,474 by a6l6e6x 3/10/04 8:06:35 PM Reply	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)
Post #145,478 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 8:34:15 PM Reply	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]
Post #145,481 by a6l6e6x 3/10/04 8:41:47 PM Reply	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)

Welcome to IWETHEY!