Maybe this is a bit of an oversimplification but I ask this question when I examine my decisions, "Am I doing the RIGHT thing, the RIGHT way, at the RIGHT time, for the RIGHT reasons?" Regardless of what the bad guys are doing, or the media is doing, or the bosses are doing, I try to base my decisions on this simple rule. I try to not let these outside influences push me in one direction or another.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Reckon Mrs. Davis did the same thing?
Very possible. I don't question her motives, just her ability to carry out the duties of that office.
I was wondering the same thing. I didn't see anything especially childish.
Oh dang. Was it me?
A long time ago, I don't remember when, I started to seriously question my beliefs and my position on things. In doing so I was forced to change my stance on some issues, while on others I reinforced my position.
I believe that oftentimes the "otherside" has some reasonable merits and premises that are valid, yet their logic is flawed. However, sometimes the "otherside" is more right than I am, so I am forced to mull things over for awhile and course correct. In course correcting sometimes my position is reinforced, sometimes I have to put in a variance, and sometimes my position is changed.
I guess that in some regards I am always willing to learn, and in learning be introduced to new ideas that my run counter to my own. Some may call this being "thick skinned" while others may call it "waffling." The way I look at it is that as new information or facts are learned I have to reevaluate my position on things. I have no problem with this.
I have learned that some people have a severe reaction to the concept of changing their position. For some they believe that what they learned from mommy and daddy was wrong, therefore mommy and daddy were wrong, and wrong = bad. Not true, but it is an emotional response. I have several friends with whom I can have good debates and discussions. We all try to learn from one another and think through our positions. I don't always "win" but I don't always "lose" either. We sometimes get really wrapped up, but it is all among friends. All except one (1). I have one (1) friend who gets very agitated and stressed if we get into a debate. He has a lot of emotional resistance to changing his mind. He gets defensive and "doesn't want anyone brainwashing him." He sees college as a place to avoid because they "brainwash" you. He actually fears learning because he equates new facts and new information as something that could damage him. In some way he sees changing his mind as being "weak" and abandoning a current position.
I am not saying everyone who gets emotional about this change is like my friend. Some just have a very low self esteem and get defensive at any suggestion that goes counter to their beliefs. (NOTE: I am not suggesting these answers for ANYONE on these boards! Everyone I have seen on here normally tries to have have well reasoned, logical positions. I only logged in and saw the question, so I am answering for those outside of INGO.)
Personally, I don't understand it myself. I enjoy learning and being exposed to new ideas and concepts. Some I think are neat, some crap, and others need to be tweaked a bit (or a lot.) I guess I've gotten more tolerant as I've gotten older. I try to look at the "big picture" on issues and in so doing I have not entrenched as deeply. The only place I have entrenched more is on the idea of the protection of our rights being our top priority AND the treatment of others as we would wish to be treated. That's me, today.
Regards,
Doug
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
A long time ago, I don't remember when, I started to seriously question my beliefs and my position on things. In doing so I was forced to change my stance on some issues, while on others I reinforced my position.
I believe that oftentimes the "otherside" has some reasonable merits and premises that are valid, yet their logic is flawed. However, sometimes the "otherside" is more right than I am, so I am forced to mull things over for awhile and course correct. In course correcting sometimes my position is reinforced, sometimes I have to put in a variance, and sometimes my position is changed.
I guess that in some regards I am always willing to learn, and in learning be introduced to new ideas that my run counter to my own. Some may call this being "thick skinned" while others may call it "waffling." The way I look at it is that as new information or facts are learned I have to reevaluate my position on things. I have no problem with this.
I have learned that some people have a severe reaction to the concept of changing their position. For some they believe that what they learned from mommy and daddy was wrong, therefore mommy and daddy were wrong, and wrong = bad. Not true, but it is an emotional response. I have several friends with whom I can have good debates and discussions. We all try to learn from one another and think through our positions. I don't always "win" but I don't always "lose" either. We sometimes get really wrapped up, but it is all among friends. All except one (1). I have one (1) friend who gets very agitated and stressed if we get into a debate. He has a lot of emotional resistance to changing his mind. He gets defensive and "doesn't want anyone brainwashing him." He sees college as a place to avoid because they "brainwash" you. He actually fears learning because he equates new facts and new information as something that could damage him. In some way he sees changing his mind as being "weak" and abandoning a current position.
I am not saying everyone who gets emotional about this change is like my friend. Some just have a very low self esteem and get defensive at any suggestion that goes counter to their beliefs. (NOTE: I am not suggesting these answers for ANYONE on these boards! Everyone I have seen on here normally tries to have have well reasoned, logical positions. I only logged in and saw the question, so I am answering for those outside of INGO.)
Personally, I don't understand it myself. I enjoy learning and being exposed to new ideas and concepts. Some I think are neat, some crap, and others need to be tweaked a bit (or a lot.) I guess I've gotten more tolerant as I've gotten older. I try to look at the "big picture" on issues and in so doing I have not entrenched as deeply. The only place I have entrenched more is on the idea of the protection of our rights being our top priority AND the treatment of others as we would wish to be treated. That's me, today.
Regards,
Doug
As I see it, the two most difficult people to confront with differing perspectives are those who have chosen to believe something 'administratively', if you will, who are not truly convinced themselves, much like 'Christians' who marched down the aisle, prayed the 'repeat after me...' and got dunked because that's what grandma thought they ought to do rather than from genuine belief, and the others are those who have no doubts about their positions which are based on solid substance who are simply sick and tired of hearing the same BS over and over and over from the same types of people who swallow BS whole without thinking and believe you should too. I would point out that the latter group is generally more open to reasoned presentation of alternate views, just not being doused with anyone's koolaide.
Dave,
I don't know if I agree with this assessment or not. I am going to have to think about it. My kneejerk reaction is "no" to the first group and "maybe" to the second.
The first group, administratively, doesn't really believe in anything. They go through their routine with whatever it is and move on, like water in a stream. They vote democrat or republican because that is what mommy and daddy did. I have met a few of these, but not many. They are lazy thinkers. If they do what mommy and daddy did they are relieved of the burden of thinking about the choices they make. They don't have to consider that this republican isn't really conservative or this democrat isn't liberal, they just push the button and move on. Those few I've met really aren't emotionally involved in their decisions because they haven't wrapped up much in it.
The problem with the second group is that they fail to acknowledge that they are NOT standing on solid ground, they are standing ONLY on faith. There is no objective way they can prove their position. Faith is not enough to win an argument.
Now, faith is a wonderful thing!!! I really mean this. Faith can assuage the anguish, give comfort to those in need, provide moral support where none other exists. Yet from some I have met they refuse to acknowledge that their position is based upon a position only of belief. In several of my philosophy classes when debating points of ethics we were not allowed to use religion as the foundation of a position, not because religion was derided, but because every religion has equal value. Christianity is no better nor worse than Islam which is no better nor worse than Buddhism which is no better nor worse than Thor or Zeus. So it was not allowed to be used as the foundation of an argument, which was very reasonable in my opinion.
The people I have had trouble debating are those who have invested SO much of their life/lifestyle/beliefs into a holy book that they fail to remember that it is their own faith, and not something that everyone else embraces or even accepts. When these "righteous right" people debate they get extremely defensive, because they see any attack on their chosen holy book as a personal attack on them, and they respond emotionally and with great anger. You see this in the Middle East, where the holy men are being challenged by western ideals and progressive movements. A secular Muslim is no better nor worse than a secular Christian nor a secular Jew. Each of these accepts the possibility that they are wrong, or at least they understand the whole world doesn't see things their way. It is the fundamentalists of each religion that are chaffing and balking at the challenges to their beliefs.
I do believe someone can be a "fundamentalist" on certain issues and be justified in getting mad, but on issues that do not require faith alone as the foundation of their premise. For example, I consider myself most a fundamentalist on gun rights. I believe the right to keep and bear arms is based upon the natural right of self preservation. If I debate someone on the issue I can use objective facts to defend my position, such as where gun control is strong and crime is higher than in places where gun control is minimal. This "belief" of mine is NOT based upon faith alone, but on facts and logical reasoning ALONG with the core beliefs I have on natural and civil rights.
Anywho's, that is my general answer to Jamil's question in the first place. The fundamentalist cannot accept that gay marriage might not be wrong, because that goes against what the man in the pulpit has been teaching them for the last many years. And IF the man (or woman) in the pulpit is wrong about this, what else could he or she be wrong about? Oh my, that would require a LOT of thinking if someone invested a lot of their self identification in that belief system.
Regards,
Doug
Last edited:
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
From David Barton a few hours ago.
Perhaps the single most important issue in the Kim Davis situation (the County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses) -- an issue about which most observers and commentators have been completely silent -- is the flagrant violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers.
By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything.
Significantly, the Founders -- and thus the Constitution -- did not give power to the Judiciary to enforce any of its decisions -- they deliberately made it powerless in this regards. They made the Executive Branch alone responsible for enforcement.
So while Judge Bunning can (and did) issue his personal opinion regarding Kim Davis, his personal opinion does not have the force of law. (By the way, check any civics book: a law must originate as a measure proposed in the House or Senate, be passed by both, and then signed by the president. Only then and by this means does anything become law.) Bunning must thus ask (not order) the Executive Branch to enforce his opinion, and if it agrees, it can order its marshals to do so, but the Judicial Branch may order no such thing.
Sadly, not only did the Judicial Branch first take on itself the role of the Legislative Branch by issuing its ruling in the homosexual-marriage decision, but now it has assumed the role of the Executive Branch by attempting to enforce its own opinion. The Founding Fathers vehemently objected to this practice. As George Washington warned:
"[T]hose entrusted with its [the nation’s] administration [must] confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
James Madison similarly charged:
"The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves."
Samuel Adams agreed:
"In all good governments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are confined within the limits of their respective departments. If therefore it should be found that . . . either of the departments aforesaid should interfere with another, it will, if continued, essentially alter the Constitution, and may, in time, . . . be productive of such convulsions as may shake the political ground upon which we now happily stand."
Thomas Jefferson thus admonished that we must "cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [i.e., the Constitution] has established" and that if we ever move away from its separation of powers that "we shall be in danger of foundering."
Perhaps political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu -- a favorite of the Founders, and the most-cited human source in the political writings of the Founding Era -- said it best when he declared:
"There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
So while the Kim Davis travesty continues, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the entire controversy is that Judge Bunning personally ordered her to jail, thus blatantly violating one of the Constitution's most important provisions for securing the liberty of the entire people.
DB
Perhaps the single most important issue in the Kim Davis situation (the County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses) -- an issue about which most observers and commentators have been completely silent -- is the flagrant violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers.
By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything.
Significantly, the Founders -- and thus the Constitution -- did not give power to the Judiciary to enforce any of its decisions -- they deliberately made it powerless in this regards. They made the Executive Branch alone responsible for enforcement.
So while Judge Bunning can (and did) issue his personal opinion regarding Kim Davis, his personal opinion does not have the force of law. (By the way, check any civics book: a law must originate as a measure proposed in the House or Senate, be passed by both, and then signed by the president. Only then and by this means does anything become law.) Bunning must thus ask (not order) the Executive Branch to enforce his opinion, and if it agrees, it can order its marshals to do so, but the Judicial Branch may order no such thing.
Sadly, not only did the Judicial Branch first take on itself the role of the Legislative Branch by issuing its ruling in the homosexual-marriage decision, but now it has assumed the role of the Executive Branch by attempting to enforce its own opinion. The Founding Fathers vehemently objected to this practice. As George Washington warned:
"[T]hose entrusted with its [the nation’s] administration [must] confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
James Madison similarly charged:
"The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves."
Samuel Adams agreed:
"In all good governments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are confined within the limits of their respective departments. If therefore it should be found that . . . either of the departments aforesaid should interfere with another, it will, if continued, essentially alter the Constitution, and may, in time, . . . be productive of such convulsions as may shake the political ground upon which we now happily stand."
Thomas Jefferson thus admonished that we must "cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [i.e., the Constitution] has established" and that if we ever move away from its separation of powers that "we shall be in danger of foundering."
Perhaps political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu -- a favorite of the Founders, and the most-cited human source in the political writings of the Founding Era -- said it best when he declared:
"There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
So while the Kim Davis travesty continues, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the entire controversy is that Judge Bunning personally ordered her to jail, thus blatantly violating one of the Constitution's most important provisions for securing the liberty of the entire people.
DB
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
And a good response also added to Bartons post,
But, Mr. David Barton/WallBuilders, you still haven't gone deep enough...
The issuance of a "marriage license" should be (and in the view of several court cases, is) a violation of our Rights...
NO FREE PERSON should have to ASK THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION for something like MARRIAGE.
It used to be that Marriage -- IN THE LEGAL SENSE -- was a private contract between two families or two people.
Marriage, itself, was a Religious Rite, and was SEPARATE from the actual "contract" that was created.
For instance, in 1930s Ohio, a couple would go to their Church, "get married" and then "register" that marriage with the Government (for legal purposes)...
2 separate and distinct actions.
It wasn't until the Government realized it could regulate WHO got married by taking control of Marriage (a violation of the 1st amendment, "creating laws regarding the free exercise of Religion") to stop "interracial marriage"...
So... if we fix the REAL PROBLEM and not the SYMPTOM of the Real Problem, Kim Davis could be Free...
Instead we seem to be stuck on every issue except the one that needs to be addressed: Why the Government is issuing marriage licenses in the first place...
But, Mr. David Barton/WallBuilders, you still haven't gone deep enough...
The issuance of a "marriage license" should be (and in the view of several court cases, is) a violation of our Rights...
NO FREE PERSON should have to ASK THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION for something like MARRIAGE.
It used to be that Marriage -- IN THE LEGAL SENSE -- was a private contract between two families or two people.
Marriage, itself, was a Religious Rite, and was SEPARATE from the actual "contract" that was created.
For instance, in 1930s Ohio, a couple would go to their Church, "get married" and then "register" that marriage with the Government (for legal purposes)...
2 separate and distinct actions.
It wasn't until the Government realized it could regulate WHO got married by taking control of Marriage (a violation of the 1st amendment, "creating laws regarding the free exercise of Religion") to stop "interracial marriage"...
So... if we fix the REAL PROBLEM and not the SYMPTOM of the Real Problem, Kim Davis could be Free...
Instead we seem to be stuck on every issue except the one that needs to be addressed: Why the Government is issuing marriage licenses in the first place...
MisterChester
Master
Sounds like Barton forgot that no "new" law was created, a law was struck down by the court.
INGO taught me less laws = good.
Also, even IF it passed both houses and signed by the president, he'd still complain.
INGO taught me less laws = good.
Also, even IF it passed both houses and signed by the president, he'd still complain.
Barton is a well known fraud and liar, who makes up "history" to suit his agenda. He has been consistently caught out by reputable historians and scholars and no-one with two IQ points to rub together should pay any attention to his lunacy. Hell, as Mister Chester points out he cannot even get the basics of the SCOTUS decision right.
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
Thanks for any feedback on what Barton has said, as to which you believe is correct, or not correct and why.
Also why marriage license in the first place? We know the history, couldn't this just be resolved if politicians had stayed out of the marriage business.
Also why marriage license in the first place? We know the history, couldn't this just be resolved if politicians had stayed out of the marriage business.
The government became involved in the marriage business hundreds of years ago in Europe at the behest of the churches. Churches wanted state recognition and protections, as well as more power over their worshipers. This carried on to all the colonies that were established and the churches that formed there. Nothing has changed in the intervening centuries. Churches still want their state recognition (how many do you see standing up asking for the state to dissolve the bonds between church and state? That's right, none). Licenses were part of the deal between the churches and the governments and are a good source of revenue for both of them. The politicians you so decry, weren't the ones to initially want the marriage between church/marriage and state. The churches wanted it. Until all of them shed their tax status and all the government goodies they get by being involved with the state, then things will continue as they are.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I would say that we aren't too far apart here, but I do have a few concerns:
1. In my second group, resistance to changing their positions does not necessarily indicate that their position lacks a reasonable foundation. For my purposes, whether their position on a specific issue has merit or not is irrelevant. It is the matter that someone who has actually thought it through is going to be more open to discussion. He may or may not accept the argument contrary to his position and may or may not adjust his own views, but he isn't going to stick his fingers in his ears and start humming, which is where I see the root of the biggest problem.
2. Faith, in its mature form, is not without merit as a foundation of a reasonable argument. One is generally willing to accept more on faith from a source which has been reliable when its correctness can be verified, which is the foundation under the faith of those who accept the Bible as truth for reasons deeper than because they were told to do so. I could camp here indefinitely, but will stop with pointing out that archaeology has been very friendly to the Bible in recent decades, especially regarding people and places that the learned experts scoffed and insisted never existed anywhere other than the fertile imaginations of writers of fiction. The strength of 'faith' as an argument rests on the historical accuracy of the Bible and the value you extrapolate from the accuracy of the things you can prove.
3. Regarding disagreement as a personal attack is a separate issue in itself. While taking a very fundamental view of scripture, I do not consider the disagreement of others as personal attacks unless they are trying to prevent me from freely practicing as I will or trying to force me to accept ideas or participate in actions which are contrary to my beliefs.
4. The only requirement to be a 'fundamentalist' is to, is to accept one's book as absolute truth and follow it rigidly to the best of one's ability. Being a 'fundamentalist' does not in and of itself require a person to be hard-headed about his understanding of his book, although most are invested in their understanding to the point that it isn't going to be like selling Imelda Marcos another pair of shoes.
5. The fundamentalist (or any other Bible-believing Christian or observant Jew, or Moslem for that matter) is not going to accept the possibility that *might* not be wrong, not because of a guy who stands behind a pulpit, but rather because the Bible in both old and new testaments clearly states that it is absolutely wrong. The Quran concurs on this point, which is the reason for belief that I ascribe to our Moslem neighbors rather than blindly following a cleric.
Was the method by which the judge involved the marshals any different than what they'd normally use to chase a bail jumper? If the marshals were ordered to detain her and declined (or opted not to decline), then to me that would satisfy the separation of powers.
DragonGunner
Grandmaster
In America in the beginning it was (marriage) between 2 families or the individuals. There was never a "license" or "tax". Most were done by the church, and then registered with the state. It was not until over a hundred years ago that southern democrats not wanting blacks to marry whites that the whole "law" "License" and then "tax" was started. They took marriage which was a "right" and made it a "privilege". It then stripped rights away form individuals. Same today, government takes a right, makes it a privilege, places laws and then "taxes" and if you don't comply your now breaking a law, that at one time was a right. The whole marriage license (tax) is wrong, it was never like this in the beginning. Government and politicians messed things up and now we have this mess. Because government always wants control, especially over any religious establishment….thats the history here in America.
Dave,
You threw a lot out here buddy. I will try to respond as best I can.
1. In my second group, resistance to changing their positions does not necessarily indicate that their position lacks a reasonable foundation. For my purposes, whether their position on a specific issue has merit or not is irrelevant. It is the matter that someone who has actually thought it through is going to be more open to discussion. He may or may not accept the argument contrary to his position and may or may not adjust his own views, but he isn't going to stick his fingers in his ears and start humming, which is where I see the root of the biggest problem.
I think(?) I agree with this. I certainly agree that I see severe problems with the "stick fingers in ears and start humming" being a huge problem. This is kindof how I see Kim Davis. She is sticking her fingers in and humming all the while failing to realize that legally it is over. SCOTUS rejected her appeal and as far as the rule of law today, she has lost with no hope of winning using her current tactics! She may(?) be able to win by other means, but this path is blocked.
2. Faith, in its mature form, is not without merit as a foundation of a reasonable argument. One is generally willing to accept more on faith from a source which has been reliable when its correctness can be verified, which is the foundation under the faith of those who accept the Bible as truth for reasons deeper than because they were told to do so. I could camp here indefinitely, but will stop with pointing out that archaeology has been very friendly to the Bible in recent decades, especially regarding people and places that the learned experts scoffed and insisted never existed anywhere other than the fertile imaginations of writers of fiction. The strength of 'faith' as an argument rests on the historical accuracy of the Bible and the value you extrapolate from the accuracy of the things you can prove.
I 100% wholeheartedly AGREE that faith based upon reliable sources and facts is fine. I suppose you could say I have faith in the knowledge science has brought us, but science allows for the throwing out of olde ideas and implementing new ones once new facts are introduced. Quantum mechanics and quantum physics cause us to rethink olde ideas that were considered immutable. My concern with those who base their actions on faith in holy teachings, Christians mostly that I know of, have absolutely zero (0) no clue whatsoever in how their holy book was written, interpreted, or its foundation. I would venture to guess that 99.99% of all Christians who claim to "study" the Bible have no clue who Marcion was, nor do they care. I find this problematic and severely flawed thinking. Marcion was the first man actually put together the Bible. He is the guy who chose the scriptures to put in, changed them to his thinking and organized it. He was also later charged with heresy and maybe booted out of the church, I don't recall. Then others changed the texts and reworked it and reworked it until we have what we do today. This is where I have issues.
3. Regarding disagreement as a personal attack is a separate issue in itself. While taking a very fundamental view of scripture, I do not consider the disagreement of others as personal attacks unless they are trying to prevent me from freely practicing as I will or trying to force me to accept ideas or participate in actions which are contrary to my beliefs.
4. The only requirement to be a 'fundamentalist' is to, is to accept one's book as absolute truth and follow it rigidly to the best of one's ability. Being a 'fundamentalist' does not in and of itself require a person to be hard-headed about his understanding of his book, although most are invested in their understanding to the point that it isn't going to be like selling Imelda Marcos another pair of shoes.
Again I agree. No one should be forced to believe anything nor prevented from holding their own personal beliefs. I might think someone is ridiculous for holding a core set of beliefs, but that is their right. I do have a problem with someone trying to force their belief system on others. However, where narrowly interpreted faith conflicts with provable, verifiable science I do have a problem. I think the biggest area of conflict where I have seen this is on the resistance to the teaching of evolution. Evolution has been proven, with the help of modern DNA science and a host of other studies and facts, as how mankind got where we are. There is no way anyone, in my opinion, can prove God did not use evolution as his tool, yet some still fight this due to a perceived attack on their fundamental beliefs, the most literal of which were Adam & Eve, along with Cain and Able. Science does NOT, again my opinion, disprove the existence nor the working of God, but it DOES disprove certain mythical elements of interpreted religion.
5. The fundamentalist (or any other Bible-believing Christian or observant Jew, or Moslem for that matter) is not going to accept the possibility that *might* not be wrong, not because of a guy who stands behind a pulpit, but rather because the Bible in both old and new testaments clearly states that it is absolutely wrong. The Quran concurs on this point, which is the reason for belief that I ascribe to our Muslim neighbors rather than blindly following a cleric.
I believe you are totally correct here, and this IS my problem with fundamentalists of ALL religions. They cannot accept the possibility that the book they have read has no more moral authority than Shakespeare, Huckleberry Finn, or any other religious texts. They lose sight of the reality that the book in their hand is the only source of authority because it says so. Yet, if we look at origin of all Judaeo/Christian/Muslim writings we can find a massive amount of logical fallacies and lack of any objective facts. And this is also why I believe so many, mainly fundamentalists, get so agitated when others in society go against what they see as unquestionable.
To All,
For the record I will say the same thing I have in other threads on this issue: I have always been against gay "marriage." I have always supported the idea of marriage being the sole, absolute purview of the CHURCH! I believe "marriage" to be a religious ceremony that the State cannot perform. I don't agree with judges or ships captains marrying, unless they are also holy men. I do think the State should not consider marriage in any capacity, save perhaps in spousal privilege in court. Even here though, I will claim ignorance and admit much more thought would be required than I have given it. I have always support the idea and ideal of equal protection and support gay "civil unions." Nobody should be shortchanged due to whom they love or what particular body type they are attracted to.
That said, unfortunately the State is involved and will be for the foreseeable future. Marriage is considered in almost all aspects of our laws, from tax law to benefits rights to court testimony or the lack thereof. As such, we will continue to have problems until this is changed. When and IF it is changed we WILL have different problems. No system is without flaws or without benefits.
Regards,
Doug
The categories you mention don't really address the problem, which is, we have a clerk using the power of government to enforce her personal, subjective, religious views.
Look, I get that y'all are angry about gay marriage being accepted at all, and the efficiency and impunity with which the "gaystopo" has mob-shamed their desires into being made law. I fully understand that. But your anger over that has seemed to make you conflate the things you're really angry about, with the supposed right of a clerk to enforce her religion. You favor it as a middle finger at the mob-shamers.
Fine, be angry about the former. Vehemently voice your displeasure over the SCOTUS ruling, and scream to hell with the ****ty mob-shamers. But find a different middle finger besides government. Just because you like her religion does not justify using the force of government to execute it.
Given the many discussions we've had about the role of government, and the limitations the constitution places on government, I am astonished what some of you are saying. The use of that power for that purpose is blatantly unconstitutional and you guys know it. And under different circumstances I know that you would say it.
And I want to specifically mention one very unreasonable argument some of you are using to justify the result you want. You want her to be able to continue to foist her middle finger at the law, I understand that. But justifying it by saying the law changed after she swore her oath is ridiculous on its face. And I know that under different circumstances you'd rightly reject that. The failure to imagine new laws that might offend one's conscience is not protected in the wording of the oath of office. Laws change, sometimes by legislation, and sometimes because the old law is declared unconstitutional. You can't possibly think that every office holder is only bound to execute the laws in place at the time of their oath. And I know you don't really believe that. So for the people trying to seriously use that argument, please stop lest I'm convinced you're battling cognitive dissonance.
Last edited:
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv -
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- COOPADUP
- wisboy
- MikeHoncho
- medavis428@
- shootersix
- Steel and wood
- chezuki
- slipnotz
- Latewatch
- DDadams
- Demoderb1989
- DoggyDaddy
- GunErgy
- AngryRooster
- sumphead
- El Conquistador
- renauldo
- Crash7
- Brandon
- VERT
- loudgroove
- BP84
- Waldojr
- williamsburg
- Craigh
- harvey4
- jcj54
- Creedmoor
- bcoe5371
- wrgould3
- Birch Road
- bobzilla
- rabbit hunter mab
- BeDome
- Cameramonkey
- Dog1
- 92FSTech
- ag563
- Lassiter
- lrdudley
- WebSnyper
- XDdreams
- ancjr
- Mfoster20
- DragonGunner
- d.kaufman
- GunLuver0223
- ridetoslide
- SOUP
- Leo