Nice attempt at a divert. Government is full of waste, not really interested in that discussion.

No but he sure has a good point. I've never been able to reason with those that come to my door, and rarely with those that don't. I would say there are far more religious folks you can't reason with than those you can. Lucky for some of us that there are those you can reason with.

Oh and by the way your great grampa burned 'human beings' who were or were not witches.. How reasonable was that?. Guess that is ok as long as they weren't christian, huh SharpShooter?

Christians are not losing the right to freedom of speech regarding religion. EVERYONE is.

Rather than allowing freedom of religion to all people, it is going the other direction.

People are being denied the right to express any religion because it may offend people of other religions.

Instead of acceptance of all faiths, we are moving in the direction of denying all faiths.

be well

i noticed you did not say anything about the statement about first time it was about the money being incorrect

nice attempt at diverting

Could look at that a few ways, including maybe denying faiths the right to walk one eachothers faith, or to push one over the other.

It seems to me that fact that we have so many in the first place is due to the fact that they never got along and could never agree, at any time in history did they? Each seperate group had one or another problem. Each wanting to dictate what others should and should not do.

Maybe if religions didn't use their religion to vilify others they wouldn't now be complaining that they are being vilified? Two wrongs don't make a right, but one can't use their faith to beat the hell out of a group of people for too long before reason and patience go rigth out the window and law makers are forced to deal with it.

If I want the right to live in peace, I must acknowledge your right to make sure that doesn't happen? Life is so strange.

Glad of that Boo, sorry to have missed your original point

How would this law affect Scientologists?They believe gay people are caused by body thetans (dead aliens)

Christians burned people alive for as much as a slight disagreement in views.

BTW, on reasoning with a religious person:

An archaeologist says to a preacher: "What do you think of this great set of dinosaur bones? If the Earth was created as you preach, then how come your bible doesn't mention anything about these huge creatures existing?"

The preacher says: "Those never existed, the god simply put these bones here to tempt you".

Archaeologist: "You know what I think? I think that God has put you with your bible here to tempt me, father!".

organized religion is a means to control a populous

i'm happy to see the community growing more rational

and that "house" pic just rocks!

I want to know if this will affect all religions,like Wicca or Scientology, or Buddhism,etc.? Is this law going to apply to them too? (Presuming it even exists)

That's an illegal invasion upon religious freedom by the Gov.

There's supposed to be a separation between Church and State.

I'm starting to think that this story falls into the catagory of "**** That Will Never Happen".

First let me say I do NOT side with the OP, the article, or even the idea that this is against any given religion, or even a religious issue.

___________________________________

With that said . . . .


The law already protects people from violent acts and already includes intent into the determination of sentencing. Hate crimes serve no purpose and only create arbitrary punishments and ambiguous legislation.


Like I said intent is already a determining factor in sentencing.


A crime of passion or circumstance is regarded as lesser in degree then one that is premeditated and where time is allotted to thinking about it so one could use there better judgment to change the course so to speak.

This is already apart of our legal system.

So ask yourself what does a hate crime gain us? People think all kinds of things, all the time. How can we objectively discover someones thoughts?

The quick answer is we cannot, a persons actual thoughts about something are private and only known by that individual.

We can explore intent by looking at physical circumstances and actions, such as murder weapons, body disposal equipment, rope, a shovel, bag of lime ect, these things are objective evidence not subjective speculation and 3rd party here-say.

Let me pose a quick scenario for you to illustrate the useless nature of hate crimes and how unfair hate crime legislation can be.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two people get into a fist fight.

Neither person knows the other what so ever. They meet for the first time at a social gathering. An altercation ensues where a fight breaks out.

Glen and Joe are our two fighters.

Glen steps on Joe's feet and when Joe turns around to find out who just stepped on his feet Glen starts to apologize to Joe, but Joe cuts him off rudely and tells him "to watch where the f__k his ugly ass is stepping Bi_ch"

Glen then tells Joe "go F___K yourself Fag"

This is a classic situation that happens all the time.

The problem here with Hate crimes comes in when Glen kicks Joe's rude ass all over the club and Joe claims to be Gay, and the insult that Glen used now has him in trouble for a hate crime when it cannot be proven one way or the other what motivated this fight.

Can we prove that Joe is Gay? No.
Can we prove that Glen didn't have previous knowledge of Joe's sexual preferences? No.
If Joe dresses like a transsexual, or even just androgynous could A lawyer then argue that it was apparent from garb that he was of a particular sexual orientation and thus allow this to be prosecuted as a sexual orientation based hate crime . . . possibly.

____________________________________

I am sorry, I see no advantage to hate crime legislation what so ever, and can come up with DOZENS of common scenarios that could be exploited to increase sentencing for someone where it would not be fair, or just to do so.

Many of you know me, Id like to see narrow minded religions such as Christianity and Islam completely gone forever, but I would fight and die for the peoples rights to hold those ideas free of prosecution. I would NEVER endorse outlawing a given set of ideas or beliefs no matter how stupid.

Ideas should not be a part of the legal system. Intent where it can be justified using objective evidence is already a part of the system and we have solid rules governing how those laws apply in given situations.

To me this is a very slippery slope. If you want to outlaw hate speech, where people ask for violence, good do it. But lets not pretend we can know a) a persons sexual, religious, or any ideological preferences, or b) the entire motivating ideas behind someone's actions.

Its idealistic to pretend we can.

Wow this Matt Barber is a trip. Don't remember the last person that was this angry, oh wait was it Anita Briant.. Barber say he is a non-coformist? I better look that up, I think he's confused.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

June 6, 2008

Taking the plunge in a pool with no water
By J. Matt Barber

As one of those pop-cultural non-conformist types, please indulge me while I go ahead and toss that stifling, mind-numbing muzzle called political correctness.

I'm going to dispense with the subtleties and point out what most are thinking but won't say for fear of the inevitable "progressive" backlash (shhhh... they're everywhere): So-called "same-sex marriage" is a counterfeit. It's a fraud and not even a good one at that. If marriage is a Rembrandt, then the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of "gay marriage" is a Rembrandt knock-off from the pages of Mad Magazine. It's a silly novelty.

I know. I'm "mean-spirited." But in light of the California Supreme Court's recent opinion — which enigmatically manufactured a "constitutional right" to "same-sex marriage" out of thin air — I think we need to come back to earth for a moment. Mind you, re-entry into reality's atmosphere will inevitably burn some folks.

When same-sex friendships (or more often, seconds-old acquaintances) are twisted and sexualized, practitioners of "the sin that dare not speak its name" are forced, at every level, to merely mimic the genuine article. They jump through a series of inelegant hoops to create a fantasy world wherein two people of the same gender clumsily imitate natural heterosexual pairings properly designed for procreation and the healthy rearing of children.

Even "gay sex" (male-male anal sodomy) is a crude, man-made imitation of the natural heterosexual reproductive process (only the fallen mind of man could concoct such depraved and foul behavior). Sadly, as millions of homosexuals have had to learn the hard way, this disordered, makeshift simulation of a natural biological process is coldly rejected by the very human biology it mocks.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has illustrated time and again, unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. Homosexual conduct — especially among males — creates an environment ripe for infectious disease and emotional and spiritual injury. This, by definition, is perversion. ("Perversion: Pathology. A change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure." — Dictionary.com)

Homosexuality is a dead end. It's emotionally, spiritually, and physically sterile. But it's not surprising that, as with most sins, those trapped in the aptly named "queer" lifestyle desperately seek affirmation of their behavioral choices. Deep down, I believe most of us know when we're doing something immoral, let alone unnatural and unhealthy, and so we want others to convince us otherwise. But that isn't how the real world works. God calls on us to repent and believe in His Son. In return, he saves us from death, giving us the gift of eternal salvation.

Consider comedian and talk show host Ellen Degeneres. After recently announcing that she intended to "marry" her friend, Portia DeRossi (a woman), Ellen sought approval from presidential candidate John McCain, whom she had as a guest on her show.

She, along with so many other self-described "gays," "lesbians," and "bisexuals," desperately want others — especially those who respect God's natural design for human sexuality — to join them in ignoring the pink elephant in the room: Homosexual conduct has always been and always will be, in every way, wrong. It is unhealthy, and it is sin.

I'll admit it, Ellen is a sympathetic figure with a quick wit. I'm sure she's a very nice person, and I don't dislike her at all. But she's playing with fire. Ellen compounds the sin of homosexuality by using the platform she's been given to lead others astray. She guides her many adoring housewife fans into rebellion against God's divine and explicit natural order by suggesting they celebrate sin and entertain, along with her, the "gay marriage" delusion.

Still, God will not be mocked. It's the height of humanist hubris to believe that man (including judges) can radically redefine that which God has created. We can never sanctify that which natural law rejects and God expressly condemns. Especially when God Himself, out of sheer love for each of us, offers us so much more.

I'm sorry (well not really) for my lack of contrived "sensitivity," but Ellen, sweetie (to borrow from a presidential candidate), no amount of wishful thinking or going through the motions will make your illicit same-sex "relationship" with Ms. DeRossi a "marriage." You may get a piece of paper that says it is, but, in the eyes of God and most of the world, your counterfeit "marriage" will never be worth the paper it's written on.

Again, I know. I'm a hateful, homophobic bigot ... yada yada yada. But for those who disagree, your gripe isn't with me; it's with your sovereign Creator who loves each of us in spite of ourselves.

While on Ellen's show, Senator McCain famously wished her "nothing but happiness." I echo his sentiment. I wish Ellen nothing but happiness. But not the kind of quasi-happiness that comes in the temporal through sinful self-indulgence. Of that, God requires Ellen — and all of us — to repent. Happiness derived from sin inevitably rings hollow. If Ellen wants real happiness, the kind of happiness that's accompanied by "the peace which surpasses all understanding," I pray she'll have a conversation with Jesus Christ. May we all follow the example of Moses who rejected the temporary "pleasure" of sin in Pharoah's court in favor of peace beyond understanding, of doing what's right even if it's a lot more challenging.

To those of you who, like Ellen, may be planning a "same-sex marriage" in order to somehow affirm your "relationship," know that you're only fooling yourselves. True affirmation comes not from me, not from society, not from government, but from God alone — and He's said, unequivocally, that none of us will get it unless we repent of our sin. The Good News is, He calls us to repent. He wants us to repent. He'll give us the power to repent and to live for Him in the joy only He can provide.

But nonetheless, what a Pandora's Box the California Supreme Court has opened. These four black-robed autocrats have engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism, abandoning their role as objective interpreters of the law and, instead, constructively legislating from the bench.

It's absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called "same-sex marriage" would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

For now, however, the court's ruling is relatively toothless. Governor Schwarzenegger is compelled by his oath of office to order officials to disregard the court's opinion until either state lawmakers or "we the people," through ballot initiative, actually legalize "gay marriage." And if Schwarzenegger directs officials to start issuing "gay marriage" licenses before that, no county clerk has constitutional authority to do so absent a change in law. The court cannot change existing statutes, only issue an opinion as to the constitutionality of those statutes. And an opinion is just that, an opinion.

Nevertheless, since the court refused to stay its own opinion — as Liberty Counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund and attorneys general from nearly a dozen states had requested — and since Schwarzenegger and many county officials in California will, by all indications, submit to the court's "supreme" will and begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos on June 17, the court's opinion will essentially be receiving a set of false teeth courtesy of the Governator. At that point, the court will have effectively imposed "gay marriage" on Californians in direct defiance of the express will of the people as overwhelmingly ratified with Proposition 22.

The court will have, for all practical purposes, "legalized" "same-sex marriage" (albeit through an arguably illegal process which paradoxically both invokes the constitutional "checks and balances" firewall and abuses it at the same time) because the other two branches of government will have waived the right of challenge.

Therefore, "same-sex marriage" will be treated as legal in California (whether or not it actually is) at every level of government. This "marriage" experiment from the Island of Dr. Moreau will have effectively, though not genuinely, been "legalized."

Undoubtedly, out-of-state "gay" duos will then "marry" in California and head back to their home states demanding their "marriages" be given "full faith and credit." Look forward to legal chaos. The California decision is the goose that laid the golden egg for Lambda Legal/ACLU types.

Still, hope remains. A measure that would amend California's Constitution to maintain the definition of marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" has been certified and will be on the 2008 ballot. And there's a good chance it'll pass.

But more must be done. Anyone who ever said that the marriage "decision should be left up to the states" and that a federal constitutional marriage amendment was unnecessary, is now eating crow. It's clear, now more than ever, that a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage is the only foolproof means by which to ensure that legitimate marriage and family are not radically redefined into oblivion.

© J. Matt Barber

Sure would be if 1913 did any of that. But the article is totally bogus with no basis in fact.

actually no where in the constitution does it say separation of church and state

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


thus it is what it is

---------------------------------------------------------------

that being said can not god take care of any issues that god wishes to be taken care of

why is it up to anyone else to push gods will upon anyone

thus why should the will of anyone out rank the will of another as long as it is not hurting anyone other than those voluntarily participating

You are quite right. The idea of separation comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It is generally accepted in legal circles as being within the intent of the founding fathers. There is also much legal president to support of the concept.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


the part that seems to always be forgotten