Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Dec 6th 2012 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: (Quote) David-364112 said: I know that. But we're talking about American po...
(Quote) John-220051 said:
Quote:
David-364112 said:


I know that. But we're talking about American politics and God's law cannot be instituted as the law of the land here. (See the First Amendment of the US Constitution and associated jurisprudence.)



Incorrect.

Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that

"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious

Page 143 U. S. 471

subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth.

Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892)

supreme.justia.com

--hide--


OK Clarence Darrow. You have the perspicacious legal mind. So you win.


But I was talkingabout using the passage from Exodus or Lecviticus which he quoted above as a basis for public policy. Do you really want the Christian equivalent of Sharia in this country?


Public opinion wouldn't tolerate a law based on old testament strictures - so how would it get through Congress? And if it did get passed into law, the Supremes would probably shoot it down - not on the 1st amendment but rather on equal protection and due process grounds. The Court is edging dangerously in that direction now.



Dec 6th 2012 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: But I was talkingabout using the passage from Exodus or Lecviticus which he quoted above a...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


But I was talkingabout using the passage from Exodus or Lecviticus which he quoted above as a basis for public policy. Do you really want the Christian equivalent of Sharia in this country?


Public opinion wouldn't tolerate a law based on old testament strictures - so how would it get through Congress? And if it did get passed into law, the Supremes would probably shoot it down - not on the 1st amendment but rather on equal protection and due process grounds. The Court is edging dangerously in that direction now.

--hide--


>> That's what the Blue Laws pretty much were. We had blasphemy laws enforced and on the books until the 1950s.

Public opinion today pretty much is whatever the media tells people to believe. Critical thinking has gone out the window, so people think whatever they are told in the agitprop shows they watch.

The legal system has pretty much been dumbed down by jurists who have been trained using Marxist critical theory rather than classical jurisprudence.

www.law.cornell.edu

Dec 6th 2012 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: >> That's what the Blue Laws pretty much were. We had blasphemy laws enforced and on th...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

>> That's what the Blue Laws pretty much were. We had blasphemy laws enforced and on the books until the 1950s.

Public opinion today pretty much is whatever the media tells people to believe. Critical thinking has gone out the window, so people think whatever they are told in the agitprop shows they watch.

The legal system has pretty much been dumbed down by jurists who have been trained using Marxist critical theory rather than classical jurisprudence.

www.law.cornell.edu
--hide--


Oh, and you're the only smart one still standing?


Do you really want blasphemy laws? Are you nuts?? Apart from being a very clear violation of First Amendment free speech rights, do you think they'd be used to protect Catholicism? Heckno. They'd be used against Catholics not in support of them.


What planet do you live on? scratchchin

Dec 6th 2012 new

Oh and the supremes shot down blue laws 30+ years ago.

Dec 6th 2012 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Public opinion today pretty much is whatever the media tells people to believe. Critical thinking...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

Public opinion today pretty much is whatever the media tells people to believe. Critical thinking has gone out the window, so people think whatever they are told in the agitprop shows they watch.
--hide--


Public opinion is coin of the realm for legislators considering a bill. Do you really think someone would actually propose legislation in the US congress orand state legislative assembly advocating the enactment of Old Tetstament strictures against homosexuality? Stone all the hairdressers and dance directors? What do you think would happento our own clergy under such a law?

Seriously, stop thinking and learnto perceive.

Dec 7th 2012 new

(Quote) Celia-821539 said: This is a very interesting issue, and one that I have faced extensively. My brother is gay and ha...
(Quote) Celia-821539 said:

This is a very interesting issue, and one that I have faced extensively. My brother is gay and has a partner of many years. It has been an ongoing personal debate for me.
In reflecting, I think that my tendency to be an outspoke advocate for groups who are in the minority may get in my way of seeing this issue clearly.

As much as I have, in the past, denied it, the fact is that the Bible does teach that this is wrong. You can debate in all kinds of ways how this may not apply, but it comes down to one thing: it either says it or it doesn't.


The fact is, it does say that it's wrong. Trust me, I looked - about a hundred times just to be absolutely certain.

It's really a disheartening thing for me, because my brother has always been like some kind of superhero to me. He's brilliant, accomplished, and clearly cares. In the beginning of my divorce - a shocker of a beginning -my brother was the one who either had the answers or knew where to find them, not unlike when we were kids and he was always there to tie a shoe or go tattle on me when I climbed to high in a tree .


I guess the only conclusion I can come to on this issue at this point in time is to say that even "superheroes" aren't perfect.

--hide--
Celia -- I'm sure you've had private discussions with your brother about this, and that he's aware of your beliefs. You don't have to accept his lifestyle or agree with it, but the fact remains he is still your brother, no matter what. That hasn't changed.

Dec 7th 2012 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: The First Amendment of the Constitution doesn't apply to the definition of marriage. The Mormon polyg...
(Quote) John-220051 said: The First Amendment of the Constitution doesn't apply to the definition of marriage. The Mormon polygamy cases already proved this, and the Supreme Court has never vacated them.

Most Americans are ignorant of their history, so they buy into whatever propaganda that gets thrown at them.

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of the United States, by the laws of Idaho, and by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries, and to call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.

A crime is nonetheless so, nor less odious, because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion.

It was never intended that the first Article of Amendment to the Constitution, that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," should be a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society.

Davis v. Beeson (1890)

If we can invalidate the male-female definition of marriage then why not polygamy?

Christ calls all to repentance. If you condone homosexual sex you are not being anymore compassionate than if you condone other sins because you become an accessory by your silence.

American Catholics seem to have forgotten that love means speaking the truth and not mincing words for the sake of souls.
--hide--
Excellent point John, that " If we can invalidate the male-female definition of marriage then why not polygamy?". There IS a moral fabric in our society that says that some things are just plain wrong, and yes, so far in the U.S. Christian ideals are strong. In Muslum nations polygamy does exist, though homosexuality is strongly repressed. That said, as I have posted earlier, the Gay community has successfully used the liberal media to portray those who oppose same-sex marriage as bigots who oppose "marriage equality". There is no equality here. homosexuality is disordered thinking and legalizing same-sex marriage does not "normalize" it!

Dec 7th 2012 new
(Quote) John-220051 said: >> That's what the Blue Laws pretty much were. We had blasphemy laws enforced and on the books un...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

>> That's what the Blue Laws pretty much were. We had blasphemy laws enforced and on the books until the 1950s.



Public opinion today pretty much is whatever the media tells people to believe. Critical thinking has gone out the window, so people think whatever they are told in the agitprop shows they watch.



The legal system has pretty much been dumbed down by jurists who have been trained using Marxist critical theory rather than classical jurisprudence.



www.law.cornell.edu
--hide--


It's sad that there is less and less differentiation between legality and morality. Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it is right. This seems to be lost today.
Dec 7th 2012 new

(Quote) Edward-512961 said: It's sad that there is less and less differentiation between legality and morality. Just be...
(Quote) Edward-512961 said:

It's sad that there is less and less differentiation between legality and morality. Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it is right. This seems to be lost today.
--hide--

I think that a number of activities that are immoral used to also be illegal,

not because of their immorality, but rather because society rightly perceived

such activities as a threat to society's continued existence. Society has

lost sight of what is good for it.

Dec 7th 2012 new
I think it's interesting that the communists were the first to push hard for "gay rights" because they viewed marriage as turning a woman into a slave of her husband.

Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society were the first gay-rights group in America. Hay and his compadres were communists who got kicked out of the CPUSA because of their homosexuality. Then the Mattachine Society went on to hatch a psychiatric study with Evelyn Hooker that "proved" that homosexuality wasn't pathological. It didn't matter that the study was riddled with statistical errors and researcher biases or that the Mattachine fellows were communists.

The ends justified the means because they got the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II in 1973. Here's an article describing their treachery. www.angelfire.com

The gay movement is built on lies and propaganda.
Posts 61 - 70 of 80