Well, nobody's gotten out of hand yet. And as long as nobody starts flamming, this thread might not get nuked.

Quote (LightningBoy @ April 28 2004, 9:00 pm)

As for the separation of church and state, show me where it says that in the consititution. It doesn't. I says that there will be no government sponsored religion. Not that all religious sets of idealism will be ignored. Judeo-Christian beleifs are not only a set of religious beleifs, but also a philosophy, and that philosophy is what our consitution and country's structure is based off of.

The First Amendment :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The two clauses are referred to as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

(this means 'all religious sets of idealism' will be ignored,
where the 'making of laws' is concerned)

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

also :  U.S. treaty with Tripoli , signed by President Adams in 1797..
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty was written under the 'Washington' administration;
it was ratified by Congress under John Adams, signed by Adams.

(this means : the united states was NOT founded to be a 'judeo-christian' nation)

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

all that stuff about "under god" and "in god we trust" was added in the 1950's.

the original constitution makes no reference to a god, or king,
or any other "higher power" (other than : "WE THE PEOPLE").

that was the whole point.

Quote

The First Amendment : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

But why is having more than one wife illegal. That is outlawing peoples religious beliefs. So saying church and state are always seperated is incorrect. If people get to kill baby's because it's there beliefs then why can't I have the ability to have more than one wife. If it is a matter of choice then I should be able to have that choice and nobody should be able to tell me how many wifes I can and cannot have. Same arguement but one is already illegal to do. Which is more ethically wrong killing babys or having multiple wifes?

<edit>
Hitler was the first that I remember to do abortions, does doing what he started really appeal to that many people?
</edit>

(I could be wrong, but I don't think Hitler ever personally recieved OR administered an abortion himself)(LOL)

Quote

"..doing what he started"

it IS true that Hitler legalized abortions, in germany, in 1933.
and he also legalized abortions in german 'occupied' countries (like Poland) in 1941.

but he didn't think up the idea on his own; he didn't "start" it;
he wasn't the first to "Do" abortions. hehe

he only legalized something, which was already taking place.
(something which was, in fact, contrary to his own poilcy,
of increasing the aryan population at ALL costs)

(hitler himself was "ANTI-choice" by nature)

(granting his people 'abortion-on-demand' was not something he did BECAUSE he was "hitler" ;
this was something he did to get ELECTED)

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

btw: the United States did the same thing (legalized abortion) in 1973 when the supreme court ruled on 'Rowe vs. Wade'

you seem to be comparing the US supreme court to Hitler
(comparing the judicial branch of american government to 'dictatorship')

I can't see the connection.

oh ya : and the reason we aren't allowed more than one wife =>
=> because then women would be allowed more than one husband (heh)

and we ALL know how THAT would turn out


(seller's market  ===> buyer's market) ((LOL))

I said he was the first that I remember doing it not that it was.

I'm not comparing the US court to Hitler, I was saying he was for it and I also believe he also did it to unwilling woman in the concentration camps and even to the extent of removing the uterus completely(you can't get pregnant that way  ).

No comment on my main post?
{never mind spoke to soon}

(sorry I didn't really address it ,I just made a joke)(heh)
--------------------
I agree there are a lot of laws out there that seem to reflect religious attitudes. like the one about monogamy, as you said. that probably came from religion.

maybe these laws should be changed, if it turns out that there's no social reason for them, other than religion*

(if indeed thats what 'we the people' decide that they want)

but something tells me that in the end,
guys like Hugh Hefner would be the only ones married (LOL)

in the end, I think that marriage would become a financial institution more than anything else*

(like it is now in arab countries, where the number of wives is seen as a status symbol, and the poor can't "afford" to reproduce)
(that would be unfortunate)

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

* interesting to note: a switch to polygamy would effect the structure of our economy.
so monogamy can be seen as reflecting our economic values, as well as "religious" values.
(if you want to look at it that way)

* also interesting to note : this is one of the arguements that is used in the debate over 'gays and lesbians' being allowed to marry ==> marriage is seen, more and more, as a financial instituion NOT a religious one.  and gay/lesbian couples want their tax benefits just like everybody else.

I wonder..
as governments begin the process of "redefining marriage" for the benefit of 'sexual orientation'..
(and since 'seperation of church and state' is often used to argue the gay position)..
I wonder if the debate over polygamy (in Utah) will also enter the picture, on the same grounds?

i don't know. i go out for the day and come back to this.