Town won't let unmarried parents live together

[Lilith]

BLACK JACK, Missouri (AP) -- The City Council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the City Council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

[wyndhy]

oh shit.





damn dominionists.

[alspals69]

that's unbelievable!
what's going on over there?

[osuche]

Just lie. Claim the kids are complete strangers, but are willing to work for food and shelter. :p

[Sugarsprinkles]

Ridiculous! And this town is just outside of St. Louis. I would have expected this out in the boonies, like closer to where I am......but not so close to the "big city". I love this......they'll split a family up, just to push their version of "Family Values". *shakes head, wandering out of the thread*

[sodaklostsoul]

So either they move or get married?

[Soundman]

I've been in places like that. In fact, where I went to college, the town had an ordinance against more than "3 unrelated females living in the same house". Guys could have as many as they could pack in. Apparently, they considered more than 3 women in the same house to be a "Brothel". So in this college town, the sorority houses were meeting places for the sororities, but none of the girls could live there. On the contrary, the fraternity houses actually housed the guys who were members and wanted to live there.

Some double standard, huh?

[wyndhy]

those kinds of ordinances are not uncommon anywhere in the US, left overs from the days of puritans, quakers, and calvinists, i suspect - some of whom had a big hand in forming this country, but they are rarely enforced in modern times. if they are it's usually against a party house, known drug house, or something equally disruptive to the safety of the community, not against a family.

it is truly disturbing that they would do this but it sounds like maybe the mayor is alone on this issue, i hope so anyway. i don't think the special council will follow through. but it's a mighty scary allegory that reflects much of what is going on in the fight between the "neo-cons" at one extreme, and the "radical left" at the other. the rest of us - the majority of us - are caught in the middle.

please excuse the diatribe, but i fear a lot of people don't realize how close this country is to being turned into a "democratic theocracy". the backlash against the attempt is just as bad. and like i said, the majority of us - the sane, the tolerant, the hardworking, the accepting, the progressive, the ones who don't have some agenda or vendetta against the other - we're being railroaded into a government, on both sides, that doesn't even represent its people's values anymore. it's like watching two kids fight over a stuffed animal and at the end all they're left with is clumps of stuffing.

[scotzoidman]

but it's a mighty scary allegory that reflects much of what is going on in the fight between the "neo-cons" at one extreme, and the "radical left" at the other. the rest of us - the majority of us - are caught in the middle.

please excuse the diatribe, but i fear a lot of people don't realize how close this country is to being turned into a "democratic theocracy". the backlash against the attempt is just as bad. and like i said, the majority of us - the sane, the tolerant, the hardworking, the accepting, the progressive, the ones who don't have some agenda or vendetta against the other - we're being railroaded into a government, on both sides, that doesn't even represent its people's values anymore. it's like watching two kids fight over a stuffed animal and at the end all they're left with is clumps of stuffing.
Wow...

It's like what I've been thinking for a long time, but couldn't put into words...

oh wow...

[Aqua]

What.the.fuck?

[NirvanaJane]

Wow.


I'm absolutely stunned. Honest to god, the US is going backwards and quickly.

I'm sorry, but that's honestly how it looks from up here in Canuckistan.

[lakritze]

Wyndhy has it partly right. We are not turning into a Democratic Theocracy,just a Theoracy.There is no DEMOCRACY found anywhere.Those of us found in the middle between two radical idealogies realize what we all need is DEMOCRACY.... We have a collective voice and we should be shouing this from the roof tops of America. There are on line petitions to be signed for just about every occasion.Remember that 2006 and 2008 are very important election years giving us the opportunity to vote these right wing ASS WIPES out of every office from city council to the criminal "president" who has opened the door wide for these religious NUTS to change the landscape to THEIR way of thinking. Those of us stuck in the middle are PRO DEMOCRACY and it is high time we are HEARD. GWB's popularity is at an all time low of 29% and the neo-cons are beginning to be questioned. Let the people who love DEMOCRACY turn this into our favour.

[Lilith]

btw I should have added it to my original post but IAK provided this news item.

[wyndhy]

Wyndhy has it partly right. We are not turning into a Democratic Theocracy,just a Theoracy.There is no DEMOCRACY found anywhere.
hence the quotes.

[Soundman]

...criminal "president" who has opened the door wide for these religious NUTS to change the landscape to THEIR way of thinking.... Let the people who love DEMOCRACY turn this into our favour.

The wonderful thing about Democracy is that Everyone has a voice. The bad thing about Democracy is that Everyone has a voice. There are opinions on both sides of this issue. Lakritze has one, I have another.

I believe that since we began systematically removing God from our society -- from the schools, the courts, the public places -- we have seen a tremendous growth in the amount of violence and disregard for human life. Kids have always brought weapons to school -- I can remember as a young middle-school student comparing pocket knives with the other kids and carving little figures during recess. Sure, there were occasions where one child would cut or even stab another, but by and large, there was respect for others. Now there are police and armed guards patrolling our schools and there are kids bring handguns, riffles and shotguns to school with the sole purpose of hurting and killing as many others as possible.

What changed? We changed. We said we didn't need God and didn't need to "influence" our children with "all that religious nonsense". You know, things like "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or "love one another", or "honor your father and mother". Where did those come from? From the Bible. From God's Word.

Does that mean I think the "religious right" has all the right answers? Well, no. Is the "liberal left" all a bunch of crazy lunatics? Well, maybe ;) . But the answer is somewhere in the middle. Lakritze mentioned "tolerance". Well, tolerance works both ways. Answers to most complex questions are almost never at the extremes, but usually somewhere in the middle.

That's my $0.02 worth.
-Soundman

[Lilith]

My problem comes when people in power feel it necessary to tell society what "God's" views are on an issue.

Last time I checked, God didn't really make reference to the sin of more than three people living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

Does this town have nursing homes?

[Soundman]

My problem comes when people in power feel it necessary to tell society what "God's" views are on an issue.

Last time I checked, God didn't really make reference to the sin of more than three people living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

Does this town have nursing homes?

I agree, Lil. Just as I feel that we should not intentionally remove God from our society, I also feel that we should not legislate "false morality". I like your example of nursing homes. In the town I referenced earlier, I found it amusing that we COULD have dorms where hundreds of girls lived together, but not houses where ten lived together. Like many laws, many of them are not well thought out.

I am a Christian, and I make no apologies for it. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus is the only way into Heaven, and that apart from Jesus, there is no other way into Heaven. And if asked, I am more than willing to tell anyone about it. But I can not and will not force it on anyone. It is their choice - I cannot make it for them. I will gladly show them the door. But they must walk through it. And I believe it is wrong for anyone to force their religion on anyone else. But I also think it is wrong for anyone to force their lack of religion on anyone else.

[wyndhy]

lack of religion does not equal lack of morals.

the original reasoning behind separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church's business, but why is it now ok for the churches to get involved in the state's? we start making laws based on one religion's dogma and we enter into the one thing soundman said we should not do: forcing religious laws onto people who do not adhere to that dogma. the tenets mentioned in his post are not unique to any one religion or ism; they are universal ideas that ensure a safe and prosperous society. it's the other stuff, the stuff based on the sketchy prophecies and even sketchier translations of a book that was commissioned and edited by a group of men, politicians, with an agenda. their goals may have been noble to them at the time, but many of them no longer apply to modern times. to borrow a phrase, the road to hell...

the bible is, in many places, contradictory to itself and it's an individual followers prerogative to decide what they believe to have been the true word of their god, not a bunch of legislators and theocrats to duke it out in federal courts. an eye for an eye? turn the other cheek? generally applied, they are good concepts, but lets’ take a look at the doctrines of the prophet ezekiel (broken down into very general ideas) - should we begin a 1000 years of christian rule, incite the armageddon, just so that jesus may return to earth and we can have 1000 years of peace? and because it's diffucult to draw a line in the sand and say "do not cross", there would be those that say it's all or nothing, you either accept the dogma in its entirety or you accept none of it. can you imagine the debates that this would spark? it’s this kind of practical problem that has people worried about allowing any form of religion into the politics and foreign policy of one of the world’s superpowers. a superpower, i might add, that has no problems forcing their ideas of governance upon a people so why would we stop at governance? what’s to stop us from constituting a court that would, say, enforce certain legal restrictions on non-catholics or non-cristians? that’s been tried, it was called the spanish inquisition. and, sadly, there are those out there that would be all to happy to start another one; they have no place in government.

[scotzoidman]

I'm becomming more & more awed with wyndhy's posts, I couldn't have stated my views any better...



...well, ok, maybe I would have used a little more capitalization ;) but the idea's all there...

[Jude30]

At least this was in MO and not Kansas.

I don't know if race really is or was an issue here but the man is black and the woman is white in this couple. If I know small town MO like I know small town KS there are a lot of trailers filled with unwed white trash. I don't see anyone kicking them out of town.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Why the anti-religious remarks? As far as I can tell, religion was not the basis of the dispute. There was no reference to religion in the news article that Lilith posted. Perhaps I have overlooked something, but I don’t see the coercive power of the state enforcing any Divine preferences. I get the feeling that some unwarranted inferences are being made here.

If anyone is interested, here is the mayor’s statement (http://www.cityofblackjack.com/default.asp?sectionID=42&MENUID=738&pageID=10116&lMnu=) about this development. There is no reference to religion in it.

As to the remarks about some impending American theocracy, the evidence does not support such a conclusion. Actually, the data supports the opposite conclusion. The U.S. is becoming more secular, not less. Refer to the second chart in this study published by Georgetown University (http://cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf) last year. Mass attendance has been in a steady decline since a high in 1957. That’s the last two generations. Down. Not up.

The same holds for Canadian (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/catholicism/churchattendance.html) and English (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=15566) Catholics.

Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination, with more than a billion adherents. Still, for those who think that Catholic religious practices are unrepresentative of Christians in general (and there are those who do), consider the overall U.S. church attendance documented in January of this year. It also shows a negative year-on-year growth trend line (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_48.html), this one with a high in 1944. Here is the home page (http://www.adherents.com/).

This decline in weekly church attendance holds true for most industrialized countries.

Further, even these attendance figures are overstated (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm).

While insensitive behavior such as that displayed by the Black Jack City Council is unfortunate and distasteful, rather than waste too much time in complaining about a problem which when examined is only a mirage, permit me to suggest that a better investment of effort would be in electing those who more closely reflect the views of the citizens they represent. As windy and lakritze suggest, the answer lies in the ballot box, and that is within the reach of almost everyone who cares enough to want to make a difference.

[wyndhy]

just anti religion-in-our-government remarks. church attendance has nothing to do with the obvious (to me) trend our government has been following that is putting dogmatic laws into practice, or rather re-practice. it is hard for me to see that this description of "family" is not about morality and sin (i.e. religion) no matter what the mayor's statement says. i didn't see where he said it wasn't about religion either, so making either conclusion may be false. i just call 'em as i see 'em.

it's just a debate, jseal, and that's never a waste of time.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

In some ways, I couldn’t agree with you more … any debate or discussion that proceeds civilly is not only not a waste of time, but is valuable – at least to the people involved.

In other ways … “just anti religion-in-our-government remarks”?
… these religious NUTS ...
Perhaps statements such as the above do not appear anti-religious to you, but there are other reasonable points of view on that matter. Additionally, I note that Sugarsprinkles’, yours, and Lilith’s posts presume a religious agenda on the part of the authorities, although religion is mentioned in neither the original post nor the mayor’s statement.

I don’t contest that you call ‘em as you see ‘em. Respectfully, I suggest that in the absence of supporting evidence you are seeing what you want to see. If what Jude30 reports is correct, there is a depressingly familiar and equally likely explanation – racism.

Dogmas, those doctrines or codes of beliefs accepted as authoritative, come in many flavors (http://www.cqpress.com/product/Dogmas-and-Dreams-A-Reader-in-Modern-2.html).

I am surprised that you see no relevance of declining church attendance on the purported trend you refer to. I suggest it indicates that the current administration’s practice of utilizing faith based organizations to direct some federal aid money is a temporary one, which will be curtailed when a Democratic administration is elected. The reason it predicts such a change is because the fundamental support - attendance - these faith based organizations receive is declining over time.

If government is to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, then if those people have religious sentiments, it will be impossible to exclude religion from that government. Trying to do so is doomed to failure. The best you can achieve is to constrain and limit the States’ annoying tendencies to meddle in religious practices. This is what the First Amendment to the Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/) does reasonably well, I think.

[scotzoidman]

-----zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz------------

[wyndhy]

jseal, i love it when we agree to get valuably involved. ;) :D but i spoke for myself in my previous post; not lakritze, or anyone else for that matter.

when i say debate, i don't mean the timed, formal, standardized kind we all learned in highschool, i mean an exchange of differing ideas and opinions...the key word there being opinion. and while i can respect, understand and welcome your penchant for finding documentation and statistics to support your ideas, they do not and will not sway me - it's just not how my mind works. but, if you’d like some footnotes, i suggest you check out the yurika report (it’s online) and some of what katherine yurika and her colleagues have to say: their opinions are chalk full of footnotes and documentation that support their ideas. then again, give me – or anyone - enough time and they could likely locate documents to support any idea - as the saying goes: figures lie and liars figure. i just like to go with my gut and i know you can appreciate my style as much as i can appreciate yours. heck, i'll even try to throw an honest to goodeness reference in this ... eh-hem ... rebuttal. :D

pointing out again that the mayor’s statement nor the article itself say that religious reasons were behind the splitting up of a family, although true, is wayward (although i still stick to my point that neither did it not say it.) this article is what led to this discussion, no need to wonder why or say it shouldn’t have or couldn’t have. it did.

the point of the link to the reader entitled "dogmas and dreams", while interesting, was sorta lost on me. unless you only meant to point out that dogma can also mean a set of beliefs, not just religious beliefs. but i would have thought that what i was referring to when i referenced dogma was obvious because of how it related to what i was opining about. but to clarify the point, i meant it as this: - noun - the doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church (copied from dictionary.com) to put it in more bluntly and in my own words: the practice of certain churches to command that the rules set forth by the mortal leaders of the church automatically become religious law, accepted and upheld by their god, because that is a power that their god granted them as the chosen.

perhaps things will change when a new general assembly, president and local officials are elected, perhaps not. i don't mean to try and precict what will happen in the future, only what i see right now.

faith based initiatives have been around since, well since the beginning of faith, but they have never before been supported by a standing president, although i’m not sure if they have been attempted before. either way, they are now because…and i quote from the white house web site…” all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations. President Bush believes that besides being inherently unfair, such an approach can waste tax-payer dollars and cut off the poor from successful programs. Federal funds should be awarded to the most effective organizations—whether public or private, large or small, faith-based or secular—and all must be allowed to compete on a level playing field.” i.e. he has changed what the government - for almost two centuries - has done before him because it’s not fair. fair to whom, i wonder? the poor? there have always been places they could seek support. the churches? they receive money from private donors and if that has declined - as your statistics show - then so be it. if that latter is the reason for these monies, does that mean our government is subsidizing religion now? i have a personal problem with faith based initiatives taking money from our government but to take it a step further - what if they use this money to proselytize? is that o.k.? what if they already are? i suggest to you that it (FBCI) was begun as a personal expression of his own belief that churches must take a bigger role in the stabilization of our society and need money to do so.

the establishment clause of the first amendment is not as clear-cut to me. yes, it says that “the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. but that could be reasonably argued to mean any religious over any non-religious institution or philosophy in general.

respecting - trans. verb - relating to
establishment – noun - institution

so perhaps it means the congress shall make no law that has to do with an institution of religion, not the actual establishment (i.e. appointment) of any one religion as a state or national religion.

and perhaps the attempt to keep religion out of policy is doomed, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried or at the very least bitched about. :D especially when said pollicies, even if they are supported by the majority, are turning good people into criminals or second class citizens. an apropos quote that puts a nice literary point on my opinion (and this may be paraphrased, i can not remember the quote exactly) … "the majority *never* has right on its side. never, i say! that's one of the social lies that a free, thinking man should and will rebel against. who makes up the majority in any given country? is it the sage or the fool? we must agree that the fools are in a terrible overwhelming majority all the world over. damnit, it can never be right that the stupid should rule over the clever!" ~ henrik ibsen, "an enemy of the people."

i suppose i consider myself a freethinking woman and must rebel against any majority. ;) not to mention the problem i have with the machiavellian nature of many religious leaders who are trying to take a bigger role in the forming of u.s. policy. if a person believes that what they are doing is right and good, then why try to hide the reasoning behind the actions? (please refer to the article titled “the despoiling of america” - it’s about a third of the way down the home page of the yurika report - for footnotes on why i believe this to be true.).

a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is such a beautiful phase and has come to be as representative of the american way of life as the bald eagle has but it is so vaque to me...what does that mean, anyway? i put these ideas to you: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would be a direct democracy not a combo liberal/representative democracy with the nebulous term republic thrown in to confuse us all. in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people 50456169 would not be more than 50996116. in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people a president wouldn’t make a mockery of the congress by attaching more signing statements to bills than the previous 42 presidents did before him combined. a government of the people, by the people, and for the people wouldn’t make judgements on a citizens’ choices as long as those choices were fairly harmless to a prosperous society, after all, no matter what one's choices are, one is still one of the people this government is supposed to be for.


(def went over my time on that^^^ ;):D)

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Wow! Gotta love it! :)

I’m pleased that you welcome honest debate. I do try to base my arguments on independently corroborated data, using them to warrant the inferences supporting my positions. I try to avoid shooting from the hip. I accept that this does limit how vivid my prose may be. An age related failing perhaps. :rolleyes:

I read your paragraph in re the developments in Black Jack City as acknowledging that there is no reason to assume that these actions had a religious agenda.

Accepting your definition of dogma above, it is not immediately obvious to me what dogmas are being realized in law. If you are not referring to laws, but merely the enabling of faith based organizations to compete in the effort to direct federal aid, then, as you have said, the next administration will either return to tradition or it will not. It is, I suggest, the responsibility of those who care about the future to work to ensure that this experiment is not part of the set of beliefs implemented by the next administration.

I agree with you that this initiative began as a personal expression of his own belief that churches must take a bigger role in the stabilization of our society, though not that they needed money to do so, only that they are on occasion better adapted to do so than a federal bureaucracy. Yes I know that in doing so we are speculating about what goes on in GWB’s mind, but it is all in fun, no? It is also, I think a sop thrown to some of his voters.

Again, I suggest that this is transient and will pass away with many other unique and special features that he has graced our nation with over these last few years. I remember the huge brouhaha that surrounded GWB’s predecessor when it came to light that he was cheating on his wife – and on company time at that! This will pass also.

Yes, I am convinced that attempting to exclude the interior activity (religious beliefs) of the electorate from the external activity (politics) of the electorate is doomed to failure. I suggest that history supports that conclusion. If we can agree on that, then the question becomes one of “what is the best way to do so”, rather than “how shall we prevent it from happening”? Keep in mind that any policy, when implemented, turns the transgressors into criminals.

In re the attempts of religious leaders to influence policy: there’s nothing inherently wrong with doing so, insofar as that does not lead to the establishment of a state religion or towards suppression of another. Their voices are as valid a part of the national debate as are yours and mine.

[wyndhy]

as for there being nothing inherently wrong with religious leaders influencing policy as long as it does not lead to establishment of a state church, note from my previous post that i’m not sure i believe that the establishment of religion is what was intended by the so-called establishment clause. for religious leaders to have any say in the making of policy is, by my interpretation, very wrong…that being said…yes! everyone has a valid voice. and no-one should be expected to leave their faith at the door because, as you said, it’s part of who they are. to separate the two inside an individual is impossible. to separate the two in policy is trickier, but not unworkable: make sure that the laws made do not inherently exclude any moderate member of society from achieving the right to liberty based on any lifestyle choice or biological characteristic.

the problem i have with any voice that comes too close to implementing religious law as legislative law is much the same as what lil said: when their policies force religious tenets onto the people who may or may not adhere to said tenets. and i would also argue that if the government can not do as good a job as a church in re to social services, then it is time to start changing the bureaucracy, not throwing money at the churches. private and secular orgs. can do the job just as well. this opinion also comes from a person (me :rolleyes: ) who thinks it’s a bunch of crap that our local school taxes are used to bus local kids to parochial schools. i am, i admit, a separationist. :D

a good and timely example of such legislation would be gay marriage. sacred is often a word bush - and others who oppose it - uses when defending his stance on the subject and furthering his push for an amendment to the constitution to limit the definition of marriage to mean a union between a man and a woman. we could argue that the definition of sacred could just mean venerable or exclusive, but we must admit that the connotation of the word and its generally accepted definition tie it to religion and faith immutably. if he meant exclusive or venerable, he should have said so. i think the use of the word sacred is very telling in and of itself. hence, we have legislation that has a root in religion.

and, yup, you are correct to assume that i have eschewed the original article in favor of a more general debate on religion in politics inclusively, but – to beat a dead horse :D - i could argue that whether the reason for the split-up of a family was for religious or bigoted reasons, the root cause is the same. religion, whether it was intended to or not, causes people to become intolerant: intolerant of other religions, intolerant of other races, intolerant of other lifestyles. many hatreds arise from religion and a zealot’s interpretation of that religion. religion is regularly used to incite war, terrorism, and genocide.

i am beginning to sound like an atheist, although i’m not that extreme.

but when people start doing things in the name of or on behalf of religion or ethnicity, i can’t help but think of the crusades, the massacres in rwanda, the bombing and assassination of abortion clinics and their doctors, the hate-drunk westboro church, the ongoing fight between isreal and the palestinians, darfur, the fighting in northern ireland, al qaeda, bosnia…the list is endless.
so seeing a trend in this country that seems to be moving toward more religious policy, i worry. can it be reversed? if laws ar changed, the constitution changed, will we be able to change it back? how fast? one believer, one church … not usually a problem, they do much good for this world, but get a lot of like-minded people together with righteous credence on their side, and you get a mob. or one religious zealot with the power to mold men's minds and you have another jim jones.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Thank you. I shall consider your decision to move consideration of the purported religious agenda of the Black Jack City Council towards Mr. Loving and Ms. Shelltrack to the hypothetical as resolution of the original dispute.

I trust you will not take it amiss if I revert to form and use data to substantiate a few details in this post. I'll try to not overdo it.

The tenor of your comments suggests to me that you would find the writings of James Madison appealing. As a staunch separationist, you may find some of his quotes (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/madison.htm) engaging.

As for legislation with roots in religion, there is much of it, not all of which are bad. Here are examples from the Koran (http://www.theholybook.org/en/a.33074.html) and the Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus20.htm) (verses 13 & 1).

Some contemporary history may call into question some assumptions about what happened when.

The federal government's Defense of Marriage Act affirmed that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. Congress passed DOMA in 1996 during the Clinton Administration.

During GWB’s administration, Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to allow same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of homosexual marriage. Massachusetts became the first state in America to legally permit homosexual marriage.

As for the general impression that George W. Bush is unusual in his avowed religious perspectives - a disturbing aberration, why has the hand God played in Woodrow Wilson’s idealism and Harry Truman’s Cold War crusade been so easily forgotten? Surely you are aware of the religious sentiments of Jimmy Carter?

In 1911, a year before he entered the White House, Wilson (the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers) declared that the U.S. was born a Christian nation “to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture”. He also referred to the “Covenant (a carefully selected biblical word) of the League of Nations”.

After FDR’s death in 1945, Harry Truman took the oath of office on a closed bible, but in his 1949 inauguration, it was opened to the Ten Commandments. Twice, in 1947 and the early 1950s, he enlisted the aid of the Vatican to combat and contain communism. Here is the conclusion of his 1949 inaugural address”… Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty we will advance toward a world where man’s freedom is secure. To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God’s help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony and peace”.

Who do these statements, and foreign policy initiatives from previous presidents remind you of?

There are three tests employed by Federal judges to measure a law against the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Burger's 1971 opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602#612), contains them. These tests are, of course, not inviolate, nor are all always applied.

Religion is not ethnicity. Religion is also not as lethal as the policies realized by Nazi Germany (20 million), the Soviet Union during the late 1930s (8 – 9 million) and the People’s Republic of China (14 million).

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Sorry, that would be verrses 13 & 15.

John

[wyndhy]

I trust you will not take it amiss if I revert to form and use data to substantiate a few details in this post. I'll try to not overdo it.
:D of course i don’t mind; i can appreciate discussion in all its forms…don’t hold back on my account. ;) and thank you, i enjoyed some of madison’s quotes very much.

i do agree entirely that not all religious influence upon law is negative, indeed much of it is not. but i maintain that the tenets adopted were not adopted because of their ties to religion, but instead because of their universal applications that help ensure a safe and prosperous society.

yes, the state may institute same sex marriages as legal. however, the federal government does not recognize them as such and therefore does not grant them the same rights as other marriages/civil unions in regards to tax benefits and laws, medical benefits, etc.

the defense of marriage act (a ridiculous term in itself - as if marriage is under attack somehow) in re to federal benefits usurps any law from the states and instead puts federal law above it in precedence. i realize that gays and lesbians who marry are not considered criminal by the federal government and therefore the defense of marriage act’s preeminence does not violate the constitution, but it’s still curious to me – as is the title of the act: it casts moral judgement where none should be cast. i do not imply that religion in politics is singular to republican politics - doesn’t matter whether a democratic or republican controlled congress enacted it, i am a non-partisan separationist. as it currently stands though, if the push to amend the constitution by the current administration is successful, then the states’ rights will be usurped.

federal marriage amendment version 2004
1.Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

again, i find this all or nothing approach odd. it writes discrimination directly into the constitution. it usurps state’s rights to regulate marriage. if ohio law could be used as precedent here, it could conceivably downgrade domestic abuse in same sex households from a felony to a misdemeanor. aclu claims that the second sentence of the amendment is superfluous and will only lay the ground work for the supreme court to begin re-interpreting all kinds of marriage laws. it would also deny the opportunity for religions which approve of same-sex marriage to perform legally binding same-sex marriages: a much more clear violation of separation of church and state.

i am not ignorant of the roll that religion has played in any of the presidents you mention, or many other politicians for that matter. (i wasn’t around then, or i would have bitched about that, too.:D) all but three presidents (lincoln, jefferson and johnson) considered themselves followers of a certain denomination, and even those three were spiritually connected to their god, if not specifically affiliated. but most were just as happy to leave it behind in re to politics. some examples of early polititans who did so: ben franklin, thomas paine, thomas jefferson, james madison, john adams. even hamilton, who played with the idea of forming a christian commonwealth came to the conclusion that “neither philosophy nor religion, reason nor faith, love nor grace, can be relied upon to influence human conduct.” hamilton and madison compared religious sects to political factions in their tendency to fanaticism. franklin believed religion to be something better left to the middle ages. i remember learning in poli-sci 101 that four of america’s foundational documents (common sense, paine; declaration, jefferson; federalist, hamilton and madison: defense(of the constitution), adams) drew upon philosophers such as locke, hume, and adam smith, who cautioned against using scripture as a source of law. it is my opinion that if founding politicians wanted to make a stronger case for religion in america’s political culture, they would have done so clearly and concisely. the role of the state was - is - not to carry out god’s will but simply to protect life and property.

besides, religion and democratic politics are incongruous: if there is one idea central to most religions, it is that the eternal leads to the spiritual, but any politician who thinks beyond the immediate tenor of the nation – and their chances for election or re-election - would not be a politician. ;)

certainly your mention of the climate then reminds me of the political climate today, but perhaps wilson (et al) truly did have the majority on his side. allow me to go back to another of your postulations a few posts back in regards to the clinton scandal: if - as many believe - the majority of the people today hold that religious morality is essential to our society then why were the people praising clinton for the u.s.’s economical state at the same time he was busted for having sex in the oval office? if i recall, it was the republicans who cried outrage and tried to get the country to follow suit. is it just coincidence that they were members of the minority party? i suggest politicians want religious morality to prevail only if it in some way compliments their own quest for personal/political satisfaction.

carter was indeed a born again christain, but i believe he said so during an interview with playboy. the fact that he even allowed himself to be interviewed by such a magazine, and many of the things he said during that interview, prove that he was tolerant of behaviors that did not jive with his own religious beliefs.

Religion is not ethnicity. Religion is also not as lethal as the policies realized by Nazi Germany (20 million), the Soviet Union during the late 1930s (8 – 9 million) and the People’s Republic of China (14 million).

in re to the latter two, no, not inherently religious. i did not intend to say that genocide is mutually exclusive to religion, but much of it is inspired by religion. as for the first you mention… hitler believed he was furthering the prosperity of his god’s chosen people with his nazi politics.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

Conjectures about the origin of benevolent religious tenets (particularly as they serve to inform legislation) introduce a chicken or egg situation. Were/are they good due to being handed down from on high, or were they assumed to have been handed down from on high because they were/are good. That might warrant a separate thread.

My overarching response to the Federal issue of marriage is that it, the institution of marriage, does not naturally fall under the purview of the Federal government. The human relationships described by marriage are sufficiently local to be better managed by governments sufficiently local to the people involved. Why should marriage in Massachusetts be bound and limited by the opinions of people in Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, and Florida? Insofar as institutions such as the SSA & VA must have policies to deal with spouses, some accommodation will be necessary, but it should be an accommodation of the Federal to the State, not the other way around.

Yes, there are many whose ideals of marriage are challenged when marriage is reconstructed without a presumption of opposite sex.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is anti-American. Read an analysis (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/040923paper.html) from an arch-conservative organization.

To the degree to which the examples in my previous post suggested I thought you were ignorant of the roll religion has played in the politics of presidents, let me apologize. Such was not my intent. What I do believe these examples illustrate is that the religious beliefs of the American electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect. I think it reasonable then to expect similar opinions in the federal Legislature and Executive. By inference, I expect the same from the federal Judiciary, as its members are nominated and confirmed by those branches. Frankly, in a political system based upon representative democracy, I would be surprised to discover otherwise.

Consider the alternative. "There exists a specific component of an individual's life which, although it is found in almost everyone, SOMEONE ELSE will decide is inadmissible to practice in the body politic." If we can agree that a liberal government is one which limits the use of its policing powers to compel and control the public behavior of its citizens, then policies as the quoted one are illiberal. I prefer a liberal to an illiberal government. What of the overseer of politically correct ideas? Elected or non-elected? I prefer a democratic process, even if once removed, to an undemocratic process.

Respectfully, I believe that a closer reading of the history of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism fails to support the proposition that the Nazi Holocaust was a war of religion.

[wyndhy]

national socialism does not mean religious socialism. however, much of hitler’s philosophy came from the bible, his religious upbringing, and more specifically from the german christain social movement. he concentrated his effort in politics, not religion, but through his political reasoning he established the german reich christian church, uniting the protestant churches under national german christianity. hitler could not have come into power without the support of the protestant and catholic churches and, yes, the german populace, but just because he was elected bythe people does not mean his policies were right.

"hence today i believe that i am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator: by defending myself against the jew, i am fighting for the work of the lord."

"christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars."

both of the above are quotes from mein kampf, published circa 1925, about ten years before hitler rose to power in germany.



it’s interesting to me that you think that religious beliefs of the american electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect when so much of it is left un-discussed. do we elect politicians because they say they will fill bills with pork? accept bribes form lobbyists? let taxpayers pay for a jet flight to some swanky vacation spot? get bj’s in the oval office? forge evidence? employ illegal aliens? and yet they do all those things and more.

when it comes to politics, dissemination is the name of the game. religion in politics is slightly different: politicians may say they are a follower of this or that denomination, but what does that truly say a bout a person? not much. i can say i am protestant, but does that mean that i agree and prefer to follow the five solas? reject roman catholic dogma? or could it be that i prefer to follow a religion that has a history of attracting anti-semitics and was indeed founded by an anti-semitic (“on the jews and their lies”, luther, 1543) or it could mean that i am calvinist or baptist or methodist or lutheran or quaker…all denominations that easily fall under the broader category of protestant. what is more obscure still is how a politician’s religious beliefs will affect his/her policy forming, and whether those policies will benefit or derail. it is impossible to know unless and until it does so. the election of an official with religious beliefs does not mean that the people have given absolute authority to that elected official to make policy based on those beliefs without censure. when the people feel that their elected leaders have strayed from initial expectations, they will speak up…as many people are doing today.

i do not argue which came first, the need or the god, or from whence it came. i only argue that certain truths are universally necessary to ensure a safe society. making murder and theft illegal keeps citizens safer - physically and in the knowledge that criminals will not only not be tolerated, but will be removed from law-abiding society, thus acting as deterrent. we have not turned exodus 13 and 15 into law, or we would have turned 1 through 12, 14, and 16 through 26 into law, too. we have made laws that help ensure a prosperous society, not ones that put restrictions on society. that they are simultaneously religious tenents is not coincidence, but only re-inforces my assertion that they are universal.

I prefer a democratic process, even if once removed, to an undemocratic process.
as do i, but it is not without its faults: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been before." ;) ~ winston chuchill

[jseal]

When most think of Nazi killing, genocide immediately comes to mind, particularly that of "6,000,00 Jews".

Besides Jews, the Third Reich murdered near 2,400,000 Poles, 3,000,000 Ukrainians, 1,593,000 Russians, and 1,400,000 Byelorussians. These people were overwhelmingly Christian.

Hitler’s government first finessed the Catholic Church in the Concordat of 1933. The Holy See had tried and failed to secure a concordat with the Weimar Republic. The sticking point was the church’s desire for state support for Catholic schools and for Catholic religious instruction in the public schools. This was unacceptable to Weimar’s parliament, especially to the Socialists, who thought that it violated the separation between church and state.

(Sound familiar? No really!)

Besides assuring that civil authorities would not interfere in the naming of bishops and pastors, as had happened in the immediate past, Hitler’s Reich also promised financial support to the church’s schools and that it would make Catholic religious education available in the public schools—religious education taught only by instructors approved by the bishops.

Having bought off (or bought, depending upon one’s point of view) the RC church, the Reich then focused on the Protestant sects. This led to the persecution of those who kept Christian ideals, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (http://www.crossroad.to/Persecution/Bonhoffer.html). Inevitably, the Vatican’s pact with Hitler frayed, and Catholic religious found their way into the concentration camps (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/kolbe2.htm).

Hitler had hundreds of top Nazi SA's (Sturmabteilung) assassinated in June and July 1934, who under Ernst Rohm were becoming a strong competitor to the SS (Schutzstaffel). He had perhaps 5,000 Germans executed after the 1944 plot on his life and attempted coup d'etat. Indeed, it is why critics, pacifists, homosexuals, conscientious objectors, campus rebels, dissidents, and others throughout the twelve-year history of the regime in Germany, were executed. What is the religion of a pacifist? What is the religious denomination of a homosexual? Of what sect are critics?

No. I believe that when the record is examined at leisure, when the data is reviewed, you’ll find that Nazis were absolute racists (http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/fivmil.htm), especially among the top echelon; they believed completely in the superiority of the "Aryan" race.

I think it reasonable to describe the results of an election in which the candidate who secures the largest vote count as a “summarization” of the individual ballots cast. No two voters think exactly alike, but the aggregate, or the sum, of their votes is what is secured by the election winner. Yes, summarization does seem apt. What would you call it?

In re Exodus 13 and 15: As gently as I can – you can’t be serious, can you? These chapters from the Pentateuch are at the core of Jewish heritage.

Exodus 13 (http://www.itim.org.il/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=CeremonySubTopic^l43&enPage=BlankPage_E&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enInfolet=ViewObject_E.jsp&enZone=CeremonySubTopic), Redemption of the First Born is very real and very now (http://www.jewishmag.com/51mag/pidyanhaben/pidyanhaben.htm). The presentation of Christ in the Temple (Luke 2:22) is a New Testament restatement of Ex 13, so Christians are down with that too.

Exodus 15 is Israel’s’ jubilation song of salvation from Pharaoh’s charioteers, so I will agree with you there, it would be surprising to see that legislated.

In re Churchill’s commentary on democracy: Yes’m. No arguments from me ‘bout that!

[wyndhy]

i did not intend to turn this into a discussion about nazi politics and hitler's influence upon it, however, i can't resist ;)

i believe that much of his intolerance and ethnocentricity was learned from the german christian social movement and his religious upbringing. hitler's ultimate goal was for his god's chosen people to create a master race here on earth wiht him as their leader. the nazi party was his means. it's amazing what one can justify when one believes god is on one's side. killing the christain or the disabled or the dissenter doesn't mean it wasn't a religious extermination...after all, those he had exterminated did not believe in, or were seen to somehow hinder, his own agenda (a typical calvinist justification of what would normally be considered a sin: if it furthers the plan, anything goes)
a quote pulled form one of your links (http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/fivmil.htm)
“Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the Nazis very early.”


I think it reasonable to describe the results of an election in which the candidate who secures the largest vote count as a “summarization” of the individual ballots cast. No two voters think exactly alike, but the aggregate, or the sum, of their votes is what is secured by the election winner. Yes, summarization does seem apt. What would you call it?

forgive me, but i am unsure of what you mean here or how it relates. :o please explain


In re Exodus 13 and 15: As gently as I can – you can’t be serious, can you? These chapters from the Pentateuch are at the core of Jewish heritage.




my apologies - should have proofed better - that would be exodus 20, verses 13 and 15 - the same verses you referred to a few posts back.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

When I think of an “ideology”, I think of the ideas describing social needs and goals of a group, a class, or culture, or possibly the doctrines or beliefs of a political or economic system. When I think of a “theology”, I think of inquiry about or the study of God and / or religious truth.

Generally then, ideology is about humans, and theology is about God.

Referencing again Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust (http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/fivmil.htm), “Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology.” Hitler’s National Socialism was an ideology, not a theology. It joins Capitalism and Communism and Socialism in that domain. None of them are theologies.

Ref:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=ideology
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idealogy
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=38923&dict=CALD

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theology
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=82351&dict=CALD

If the body of evidence that the theory of racial types (http://www.answers.com/topic/aryan-race), with the “Aryan race” conveniently perched at the pinnacle was NOT at the heart of Nazi ideology, then I’m afraid the best we will be able to do is to agree to disagree. The evidence has persuaded most, if not all, people to that end.

Your post “it’s interesting to me that you think that religious beliefs of the american electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect..” above was the reason I explained the electoral summarization process, as I believe it to work. Starting with an electorate of N different points of view (while granting that many of these points of view differ only slightly), an election summarizes them to 1 elected lawmaker. Whether there is a small or a large amount left to be discussed is irrelevant; a summarization occurs when the ballots are counted.

Exodus 20, verses 13 and 15 are examples of religious teachings which have indeed been written into what many people think are good secular laws.

[WildIrish]

Can we go back to talking about sorority houses? :hot:

[jseal]

WildIrish,

In due course, yes sir. :)

[Lilith]

Can we go back to talking about sorority houses? :hot:

I said nursing homes ya perv! :D

[wyndhy]

jseal, one cannot study theology without taking into account the ideology of the believers. ideology can be a group of religious beliefs - what sociologists of religion informally call cultus. furthermore, the term ideology can be, and usually is, supplied in favor of the term theology, because the general application of the word theology refers to the study of religion (as you pointed out) and the less to the secondary meaning of a group of religious beliefs. the definition of christian theology, for example, is practicing theology from a christian viewpoint. there is no definition for christian ideology although it is a common term, so it must be broken down into its separate parts –
christian: professing belief in jesus as christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of jesus.
ideology: the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
so christian ideology must mean the body of ideas held by those who believe in jesus as christ

nazi ideology refers to their social ideas, i agree, but it does not necessarily exclude religious ideas. i’d also like to point out that ms. schwarts preceded the above quoted line with the one i referred to: “Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped.” she, too, must have believed that hitler and the nazis had a religious agenda.

i do not disagree at all that the crux of the nazi philosophy was to place the aryan race above all others, i only say that they strove to do so on the fantastical belief that they were their god’s chosen people. they were using their god’s will as a justification.

besides quotes galore from mein kampf in which hitler himself cites christianity, jesus, and the christian god as inspiration and justification for his war, he said at wolfsschanze in 1941: “I am Fuhrer of a Reich that will last for a thousand years to come. No power can shake the German Reich now. Divine Providence has willed it that I carry the fulfillment of a Germanic task.”

and in a speech at reichstag in 1938: “the work that christ started but could not finish, i - adolf hitler – will conclude”

walter langer from the u.s. office of stratigic services was commissioned in 1943 to develop a psychological profile of hitler, he concluded:

“A survey of all the evidence forces us to conclude that Hitler believes himself destined to become an Immortal Hitler, chosen by God to be the New Deliverer of Germany and the Founder of a new social order for the world. He firmly believes this and is certain that in spite of all the trials and tribulations through which he must pass he will finally attain that goal. The one condition is that he follow the dictates of the inner voice that have guided and protected him in the past.”

a few authors who also make the connection:

the holy reich: nazi conceptions of christianity, by richard steigmann–gall,

hitler's millennial reich: apocalyptic belief and the search for salvation, by david redles.

explaining hitler: the search for the origins of his evil, by ron rosenbaum

even most hitler biographers who do not make a direct connection between nazi politics and religious justification and zealotry do not deny the religious influences evident in hitler’s speeches and books.

i’d also like to note one last thing - after hitler’s rise to power, mein kampf was second in copies sold only to the christian bible, the people had to have been very aware of his christian ethics.

i could go on, but suffice it to say that no, not all people are convinced that hitler and the nazi’s did not have religion at the heart of their hatred. searches on google using any number of phrases that link hitler’s philosophy with religion turn up tons of sites.

i’ll stop now, no need to beat a dead horse…we definitely disagree. ;)



i understand the electoral process as you explain it, but i still cannot make the connection from voter-for-candidate to transparency-of-candidate and how an electoral process precludes any misrepresentation of a candidate to his/her constituents.


mesopotamian law (the sumerians’ king ur-nammu, the babylonians' code of hammurabi), ancient greek law (draco and solon), and ancient chinese law (the ch’in and tang dynasties) - all b.c. civilizations - dealt with the punishment of murderers and thieves without the book of exodus to use as a guide.

[jseal]

wyndhy,

There are many things worse that disagreeing with you. :) I experienced one just this week. :(

Even if, for the sake of argument, we set aside the 20 million Hitler had killed, there remain the details of the 22 – 23 million communist Soviet and Chinese ideological mass murders to tend to.

No, on balance, I believe that it makes for a rather less strained explanation to assign blame where it belongs. Humans are quite comfortable with killing each other. They have done so since the dawn of time, are happily doing so today, and will, barring some unexpected (at least by me) change in the essential human psyche, continue to do so until the sun enters its Red Giant phase and brings to an end this aspect of the Universe Aware of Itself.

...i understand the electoral process as you explain it, but i still cannot make the connection from voter-for-candidate to transparency-of-candidate and how an electoral process precludes any misrepresentation of a candidate to his/her constituents...
I don’t recall making such a connection, or any preclusion.

Permit me to refer to the opening paragraph of the The Code of Hammurabi (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM)

“When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.”

Seems to me that the code was handed down by the guy that the gods put in charge. I wonder if they influenced his laws…

Come to think of it, that has a vaguely Biblical ring to it. :)

[wyndhy]

yes! yes we are quite happy to go around offing those who disagree, get in our way, or just look different. i only say that much of it is done in the name of religion, the same religions that advocate peace and love and tolerance.

"I don’t recall making such a connection, or any preclusion."

nope, i did as a couterpoint when you said that the people's beliefs are reflected in the candidates they put in office.

i only pointed out those ancient laws to illustrate that way before christianity, there were laws that dealt with crime...mdern civilization does not apply the laws we spoke of because they are set forth in the bible (specifically exodus, as you mentioned) or any other religious text, we do so because they have been, and always will be, a means of contolling a human's baser nature that we both have agreed exists.


on a personal note, let me add that i am sorry your week was tainted by something unpleasant.

[Admiral]

I have to admit i profound admitration to both of you for keeping this conversation civil, wyndhy for your stunning dipiction of veiws i partly myself share.

jseal for your passionat and heartfelt comitment to your own views displayed whit respect to peopel who dont share it.

Most of the time from both sides this is not the case, mostly probobly becase we dont understand each other, you both show a level of tolerance that i wish was the norm for the world.

Alas it is not.

My problem whit religon in politics and while it dont say it i'm fairly sure that this law is based on a religus moral depictment from the past brought back to justefy an arcaic morality not befiting todays sosaity... my problem is that there is no evidents that a lack of 'god' is the reason for a 'Moral' decay In sweden for exampel we have a very very low religus movment and we do not see the kind of violence that we see over there... so from our point of veiw the reason for your violence and decay (i'm not sure i agree that it's as bad as that) is the cause of state being to closly knitted together whit the religus movments.

It's all about prespectiv, I belive strongly that peopel should have the right to belive what they want, they should be alowd to practis that to the full exstent of there belifes... but it need to stop at my door, and my life... if i dont want it i should not have to deal whit it.

Belife should be a private desition of faith, it should not be in school... however i do belive peopel should be tought ABOUT religon they should learn about all the faiths... about all cultures about the wounderfull stories depicted in their words...

I'm an Athiest, today regretfully that have turned in to a bad word, shamefully when asked when peopel would trust the least they answered "an Athiest" An Athiest is a person who belive that there is no God. atleast by my definition and most peopel i know, i respect religon and while i dont belive i love to read about it... i'm even considering becoming a teacher of religon on highscool level... and i would teach about all the wounderfull things of those religons i would teach the history and what they belive, even if i dont.

I kind of got side tracked alittle but i think i'm point would be that, Religon is not what should be the bases of Morality, becase Religon can be interpreted so very much by difrent peopel... Morality most be based on sound judgment of right and wrong... peopel should not be evicted becase they dont fall under a morality system that say that it's not right for two peopel to live together becase they want to... and dont want to be married.

To me Morality is not something writen in a book and interpreted by a belife system... it must be written in our hearts and minds and conected by truths and justice.

Admiral

[jseal]

… you both show a level of tolerance that i wish was the norm for the world.

Alas it is not.

Admiral,

Thank you. I too wish that more people were tolerant towards people who are different. I must, however, agree with you that many are not.

While atheism may not currently be as attractive as you feel it should be, be patient. In the minds of many, it was, for many years, closely associated with Communism, and may have picked up some negative connotations from that discredited ideology.

[Admiral]

Comunisem is probobly part of the problem, but mostly i think it have to do that peopel have been presented whit the wrong view of what an Athiest is we are often said to be argoant and selfrightus becase we belive that "there is noting greater then ourself." that we are moraly inept becase we dont supply to an idea that make us acountabul to something ells and... this is something that i feel insulted about. "If we dont belive in hell what stopping us from just comiting murder and theft if we dont belive that there is any ramefications to our actions."

This is not the belife of any bealivers of any faith that i call freinds, but it's still the most frecuent question i get when i visit USA.

Our belive's are what we make thenm, our life's are what we make then... and most importantly it's our actions not our words that should define us and that apply to both side of the line of faith.

I think my point to all this is very simpel, the peopel who are enacting this law show a level of personal action that we by any sencabul defenition of morality wheter based on faith or personal convition are WRONG!

And i think that is something that men and women of all faith whit a sence of morality and ethics that belong ín our time can agree on.

[jseal]

Admiral,

I agree that atheism has a bit of an image problem. You’ll need to market the ideals differently if you want to “sell the product” as we say in business.

At the risk of being obtuse, what law are you referring to?

[Admiral]

Town won't let unmarried parents live together :) what this post was origonaly about

[jseal]

Admiral,

Well, in the event that I were to be in a position where my vote would influence the outcome of such a development, and I was also in a position to vote my conscience, (a most unlikely chain of events) then I too would vote to enable the Lovings and the Shelltracks of this world to live together, as they wish.

That being said, I think that if you do the research, you will find that that what is at issue is not a law, but the fact that Ms. Shelltrack's and Mr. Loving's cohabitation arrangements are at variance with occupancy regulations for Black Jack City housing (http://www.cityofblackjack.com/default.asp?sectionID=42&MENUID=735&pageID=10113&lMnu=).

Occupancy regulations are well within the scope of local governmental authority. Here in Baltimore, a family can be evicted from subsidized housing if any of the occupants are convicted of drug trafficking. A bit draconian in my opinion, but there you are.