Debate!!!

[BCgoUSC]

<p>
[quote]
thats absolutely fine if you think its a sin and dont want to do it, as long as you dont impose your views on others (i dont think you were trying to but just pointing that out

[/quote]
I don't think it should be law. I just think that it is morally wrong in my opinion and thats all I was trying to express.

[quote]
well you were being very preachy. you said i lived an immoral life and that is absolutely not your place to say considering you dont know me at all.

[/quote]
Of course I don't know you at all but what you have said about not thinking homosexuality being wrong, having a gay minister, etc... is of course going to be viewed by me as immoral because of my views. I do concede that I should have said that I thought your life was immoral not that it was. </p>

<p>I hope you don't think I am trying to be the lord and savior of CC, but I feel very strongly about my faith and it comes across in my personal views. I do however differentiate the line between what I think is good and bad and what I think the government has the right to intervene upon. That is the libertarian in me. It is hard to take someone like mine or your quotes completely in context when people clutter the thread with outrageous comments (as some of my fellow conservatives have)
There I spoke my peach</p>

[tennistennis]

<p>"Christianity is the religion on which America was founded, that's why I support the Ten Commandments being displayed in front of courthouses. Since America's founding has nothing to do with the Quran, I don't see why it would be displayed. Besides, the signifiance is not really religious, its historic. But, for example, I wouldn't have a problem with the Quran being displayed in countries whose founding religion is Islam."
Christianity is NOT the foundation of America, america was not formed as a religiuous state. It was formed so that people could practice whichever religion they wished to practice.
I am not asking if the Quran will be placed in courthouess, I am asking you if you mind it being there.
In my view, its hypocritical of you to say that it is okay for the 10 commandments to be placed outside the courthouses, while the Quran should not be.
Everyone hs the right to liberty and freedom to pursuit their religion. This is in the bill of rights. I agree with hilary, there isn't much knowledge of history on this board.</p>

[hilary6]

<p>
[quote]
You're welcome.</p>

<p>Does this support your argument too?</p>

<p>That Court, therefore, and others (Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well, yes actually... though its kind of unrelated.. obviously the government should interfere wiht those things because they break other laws even though they are "religious". you are just proving that the government can (and should) be able to prevent people from doing sketchy illegal things in the name of religion... so, okay? dont really see what that has to do with this debate but alright.</p>

<p>also, the everson case was
Everson v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (not United States)</p>

<p>Facts of the Case:
A New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.</p>

<p>Question Presented:
Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?</p>

<p>Conclusion:
No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. The law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a "general program" to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school.
[source: <a href="http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/114/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/114/&lt;/a> ]</p>

<p>thus, this case further proves my stance on separation of church and state. thanks! :)</p>

[tennistennis]

<p>" Yes someone does and that someone is me."</p>

<p>The only thing that hsa come of religion and politics meshing is death and violence. No good can come of it. Care to support your view?</p>

[hilary6]

<p>i respect your point of view BCgoUSC, so as long as you dont make generalizations i have no problem with you. i can see that youre educated on your views, and while i DO NOT agree with them at all, i respect/acknowledge them and appreciate that you arent making any more outrageous claims like some people still are.</p>

<p>tennistennis i agree with you.</p>

[BCgoUSC]

<p>All of this stuff is moot because the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional.<br>
<a href="http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm&lt;/a>
I challenge someone to actually read it or at least skim it because it is very very vital to the true study of history.
Don't go into arguments on this until you look at the link.</p>

[BCgoUSC]

<p>
[quote]
i can see that youre educated on your views, and while i DO NOT agree with them i respect/acknowledge them and appreciate that you arent making any more outrageous claims like some people still are.

[/quote]
Thats what makes America great isn't it. Being able to disagree and still respect your opponent!</p>

[uc_benz]

<p>It supports your case? Uh, ok. I don't see anywhere where it says the First Amendment refers to separation of church and state. If you would actually read some of the opinion then you would see the quote I took out of it. The quote that, according to you has nothing to do with the argument, supports "[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State." Unless someone is doing something out of religion that directly affects someone (like the stuff mentioned), then the government can't intrude.</p>

[hilary6]

<p>actually i did read it. </p>

<p>my point is that i dont care what you do at church as long as you dont try to interfere with the government (i.e. try to pass an amendment that disallows same sex marriage).</p>

[tennistennis]

<p>To add to hilary's last post:
The entire conservative argument on banning same sex marraige is contingent upon the existence of absolutes ( i.e. there is such a thign as right and wrong). However, morals and ethics are relative ( in that what some belives is right, another might belive is wrong), therefore, government cannot be allowed to legislate morals. While a banning on same sex marriage would directly and adversely affect the ENTIRE gay population, legalizing it would not affect anyone in the "hetero" community.</p>

[primitivefuture]

<p>"Hmmm thats true...I wonder why he wanted to have a debate online when he could go have one at school if he just found the Republican club on campus."</p>

<p>i think it is unwise of you to come to conclusions. about 80% of the students in my schools are liberal, 10% moderate and the remaining 10% conservative. I dont think i should insult their conservative opinions because they are outnumbered.</p>

<p>"but I'm not personally attacking people who don't agree with me."</p>

<p>I am sorry if you took what i said personally. I made the conclusion out of the way you and elcommando are making you anti-gay posts. If you take my messages differently then thats your problem and i cant do anything about it.</p>

<p>"I challenge him to go on the streets and say some of the stuff he has said on this thread and the Dartmouth one and see what kind of reaction he gets. I guarantee he would get his ass kicked."</p>

<p>if you go to Iran, Syria, Korea, or the MAJORITY of other countries in the world, they will kick your ass too. So whats your point?</p>

<p>ALSO< YOU STILL HAVENT RESPONDED TO MY POST REGARDING BUSH BEING A FLIP-FLOPPER. I guess you have nothing to defend him after all. Too bad. So stop telling me how a debate goes when you yourself arent perfoming good here as well.</p>

<p>(BCgoUSC, like hillary, i have greater respect for you for admitting that Bush is a flip-flopper. Uc_benz, on the other hand, is too scared and so he tends to divert topics frequestly)</p>

<p>I believe that this gay marriage issue has gone far enough. I believe that the issues can go both ways and so i propose debating on Bush's economic policy. (unless uc_benz or elcommando has the guts to respond to my posts, then that is another story.)</p>

[ElCommando]

<p>“I support U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, but also believe that U.S. officials, including soldiers, should be
provided some protection from politically motivated prosecutions.”
- John Kerry, Peace Action Candidate Questionnaire response, Spring 2004</p>

<p>Do you know what the criminal court is primitive?
<a href="http://www.amicc.org/docs/Bush-Kerry%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.amicc.org/docs/Bush-Kerry%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(BCgoUSC, like hillary, i have greater respect for you for admitting that Bush is a flip-flopper. Uc_benz, on the other hand, is too scared and so he tends to divert topics frequestly)</p>

<p>I dont have time right now im not allowed on comp</p>

[BCgoUSC]

<p>Let me qualify my statement about flip flopping. I think almost all politicians are flip floppers for the most part. Of course their are exceptions. I think Kerry and Bush have done and will change opinions, but I have a problem with Kerry changing positions on the keystone campaign issue of the presidential election.</p>

[hilary6]

<p>
[quote]
Do you know what the criminal court is primitive?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>relevance?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I dont have time right now im not allowed on comp

[/quote]
</p>

<p>we will miss you. really.</p>

<p>going to bed now, goodnight.</p>

[tlaktan]

<p>Hrm. I must agree -- all politicians are flip-floppers, including the President. Everyone flip-flops eventually (including myself) -- it's inevitable.</p>

<p>The flip-flopping wasn't what cost Kerry the election -- it was the fact that Kerry had no resolute plan. You may not agree with the specifics, but the President actually did have a plan to present and said: "This is what I have to offer." Of course, he was being vague when he said it -- no one really wants to state specifics.</p>

<p>President Bush cited the plan of execution; a factor Kerry was missing in his campaign.</p>

<p>In regards to the religion thing: yes, religion, theoretically, should not govern government. However, our leaders are elected EVEN though the people know they have religious beliefs. If a Senator/Congressperson decides to use religion convictions as a central platform for his/her campaign -- then so be it -- the people know this, and have a right to decide whether or not those religious tenets are suitable for the United States.</p>

<p>In essence, the very democracy that the Founders implemented does not absolutely discourage the possibility of a religious-oriented government -- hey, it's a democracy, that means the composition of government is fluid.</p>

[tlaktan]

<p>Re: the 14th Amendment</p>

<p>Granted, there is a small but sizeable minority of America claiming that the 14th amendment does not apply; but that goes for income tax too, and you don't see us repealing that anytime soon, do you?</p>

<p>I skimmed the website, by the way, and I would like to note: it's not going to come into play anytime soon. The 14th amendment has been the basis of many Supreme Court judgments, it's not even funny:</p>

<p>A list:</p>

<p>
[quote]

* Dred Scott v. Sanford
* Slaughterhouse Cases
* Civil Rights Cases
* Strauder v. West Virginia
* Yick Wo v. Hopkins
* Plessy v. Ferguson
* Lochner v. New York
* Berea College v. Kentucky
* Buchanan v. Warley
* Pierce v. Society of Sisters
* Powell v. Alabama
* Shelley v. Kraemer
* Brown v. Board of Education
* Baker v. Carr
* Griswold v. Connecticut
* Loving v. Virginia
* Goldberg v. Kelly
* Roe v. Wade
* Goss v. Lopez
* Board of Regents v. Roth
* New Orleans v. Dukes
* Lawrence v. Texas
* Gitlow v. New York

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the Supreme Court can accept the 14th amendment as a legal document, then I guess there's no real dispute as to the legality of it. True, you can continue to challenge it, but I guess the point is really moot.</p>

<p>Now, that doesn't mean the gay marriage point isn't moot; it is. The 14th amendment protects state-granted privileges. Marriage is not a chief privilege of the state. Protection from double-jeopardy, the right to an attorney, etc., -- these are the privileges that are protected, ** not ** marriage.</p>

[tennistennis]

<p>"The flip-flopping wasn't what cost Kerry the election -- it was the fact that Kerry had no resolute plan. You may not agree with the specifics, but the President actually did have a plan to present and said: "This is what I have to offer." Of course, he was being vague when he said it -- no one really wants to state specifics."</p>

<p>He had a plan, if you listened . The Bush propaganda machine ( headed by Karl Rove) managed to convince the American public otherwise.</p>

[tlaktan]

<p>Oh please. Even Michael Moore admitted that John Kerry didn't really have a solid platform. Read my comments I wrote earlier, and the quote I quoted by Michael Moore: John Kerry was a freakin' tagline.</p>

[tennistennis]

<p>So suddenlywhat Michael Moore says has credibility? If you listened to the debates, John Kerry delineated his plan well.
To each his own.
I'm out.</p>

[uc_benz]

<p>Yeah, Kerry listed his plan all right. It consisted of putting on his purple hearts and walking around the White House like he had a plan. Obviously the American people saw through this and elected the more honorable man.</p>