It's really amazing...

[notdeadyet]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

As a nation we decided that, while religion is a choice, it's a choice that we want absolutely everyone to be able to make in their own way. We took a vote, and decided this was an area where we wanted individualism and diversity. The same decision was made for freedom of speech, political affiliation, freedom of the press, etc.

The First Ammendment cuts both ways. It wasn't designed just to allow people to choose their religion, it specifies that the government can not legislate religion. This is where the entire separation of church and state comes from.

What this means is that the government can not assume everyone is Protestant and dictate accordingly. This is why even though folks who are Protestant might think that blasphemy is wrong, we could not constitutionally pass laws outlawing blasphemy. It is protected by our First Ammendment.

Likewise, you can not outlaw homosexuals getting married just because it offends your religious sensibilities. If you can make a case for why allowing homosexuals to get married is a public thread, you can certainly do so. But if you can't provide that proof, you're just passing laws legislating your religion, which is prohibited by the First Ammendment.

Remember: the First Ammendment isn't just freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. It's the crux of separation of church and state.

We decided that, in these cases, indivduality was less important than promoting the values that were widely accepted by our society.

Oh, you're just wrong here, Perrotfish. We do not pass laws promoting our Christian values, we pass laws to protect society. I can prove that not wearing seatbelts is a public safety hazard. If you can prove gay marriage is, please do so.

But you do not have the right to force me to adhere to your morals just because God told you this was right or wrong. Our constitution is pretty firm on this.

Now you're free to disagree, to fight to change those laws, but you first need to accept the basic reality that we do regulate the choices that people make in this nation.

Regulate any choices you feel are necessary for public safety. And provide proof. This is the way it works.

But just because you feel something is icky doesn't give you the right to prohibit it. That sort of authority has no place in the American democracy. Keep your hands of my freedoms unless you have a damn good right to take them away. I'm not gay, but if I let you take away their rights, it's only matter of time before anything that ain't white Protestant isn't "allowed".

"God told me it's wrong" doesn't cut it with me. Or our constitution. Let's see proof. Otherwise, let's quit moving this country backward.

 

[BigNavyPedsGuy]

We have a strict no-poontang policy in my BAS.

That would make my life SOOOO much easier.

 

[Founder]

notdeadyet: I agree with most of what you said in our discussion, so I don't really think I need to quote it all to say that. Any sort of disagreement is probably more minor than anything.

But one thing I do disagree with you on is the stance on the First Amendment. Remember there is nothing in the Constitution saying "separation of church and state." I believe that was in a letter of Jefferson's and a statement in a Supreme Court ruling.

There is a freedom OF religion in this country. Not a freedom FROM religion. The two are vastly different. Freedom OF religion means I cannot force my belief on you, I cannot tax you for not being Christian or for being Christian. I cannot put a legal ramification or consequence on you for adopting or not adopting a certain religious belief.

Freedom FROM religion does not exist. FROM religion would mean you have a right to stop me from practicing my religion if it inconvenienced you in any way, or you were offended. You could demand I take down my Christmas lights because they are visible to you. Or that I cannot wear a cross of a T-shirt saying "Jesus is Radical" (and no I don't wear such shirt, 😉). That is freedom FROM religion. Which does not exist.

There is no right saying you will not be exposed to my religion. Or me to yours. You (not you specifically, but a general you) have no right to stop me from displaying my religion or announcing it. No right to force religion to not be expressed.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, secularists believe that the Constitution will protect them from having to see any sort of religion in the public. That could not be further from the truth. There is also a logical flaw that secularists believe religion should play no part in law or government.

Yet where do many people draw their beliefs on what laws are or how government should govern? Religion.

Religion is a guiding moral code for many people. And laws are moral codes. Do not steal, do not kill, do not sell toxic mortgages, etc. We consider those wrong. Some believe they are wrong based on religious reasons, some are more Humanist and defer to reasons presented from periods like the Enlightenment.

So to make a law does a legislator have to draw on justification from a humanist perspective or can he or she use religion?

We all draw our moral codes from a certain source. Saying someone who draws their moral code from religion is wrong or has no right to do so, is hypocritical. (remember I am speaking in generalities, not directing this at you specifically)

Atheists draw their moral code from somewhere. Just because it is not religion does not make it any more correct. A religious person, such as myself, looks towards the teaching of Christ as a guide to drawing my own moral code. And if I were a legislator the reasons I would vote yay or nay for a law may be based on those religious teachings. And the reasons an atheist may vote yay or nay may be based on Enlightenment teachings.

Secularists seem to argue that those who use religion are wrong. Because those who are using religion are "imposing" it. Yet when you look at every belief system... they all come down to being a belief system which you will always seek to impose on others. Always. It's human nature to impose our views, which we think are best, on others.

Even a super left-wing liberal who thinks we should all just live and let live is imposing his or her views on a conservative. Because the left-wing person is supporting a society which the conservative may not want, thus imposing a society on the conservative. Since no one lives in a bubble, the others' society affects those who do not want that society.

Hippies from the 1960s want a free love society where you can do anything. In order to create such a society they would have to impose their beliefs on me, directly and indirectly, through laws and legislation.

We all impose our beliefs on others. The real test of "morality" is whether you can admit it or not.

Those who supported Prop 8 wanted to impose their view of society on homosexuals; that marriage is a man and a woman. Those who did not support Prop 8 wanted to impose their view of society on the proponents of Prop 8; that anyone can marry.

Both sides are imposing a belief on the other. That is all society ever does. We have one group always trying to impose a view on another. Always. It's been going on since... forever. It's just some want to claim a moral high ground (generally the liberals) and pretend their "live and let live" policy is not an imposition of morality on society. EVERYTHING is an imposition of one's morality (or a group's morality) onto the less powerful group. It comes down to who has the power to impose their views. a week ago the opponents of Prop 8 lacked the power. In 4 more years they may have the power. It is simple power. The number of voters who support your view gives it power over the opposition. You overwhelm the other's views by voting, which is an act. An act. When you act you impose. We are always thrusting our views onto others. It's just when we are in the majority it helps to give us a sense of moral "clarity", where we can justify our imposing views on others because it is "just the right thing to do" because the majority support it.

Right now the liberals are in control of the country and will impose their view on the country. Conservatives will have to accept it (and no, you just can't uproot yourself and move away, that's unrealistic). For 8 years the GOP imposed its view on the nation and so did Bush. Now it is the turn for Obama and the DNC to do that.

It's a big ass tee-teer-toter.

 

[Slevin]

I was reminded the other day about this

If marriage is so special why do 50% of them end in divorce. It can't be that special if 1 in 2 couples file for divorce. Isn't marriage really only about two people wanting to share their love and take a chance at happiness. Why deny them their chance at happiness when half of marriages fail and people are unhappy in the end.

People are against the idea of redefining marriage because it is "tradition". I challenge you this. Slavery was tradition for thousands of years. The bible even says that slavery is ok. So then why did we decide that slavery is bad? I mean If I follow the bible to the letter we should have slavery, I should go out to the corner market pick up a gallon of milk, some OJ and a slave to do my housework. I mean the bible says it's ok to do it so....

Also what is the harm in redefining marriage? We have all ready done it in the past. During slavery slaves were not allowed to be married. In the 1st half of the 20th century there were laws against interracial marriages in more than 20% of the country. But we went out and redefined it and gave the ability of people to marry whom they wish (unless of course you are gay)

Why take away the rights of someone if it doesn't harm you. I challenge someone who is against homosexuals getting married prove to me what harm they are causing. Isn't marriage between two people who love each other? (Well that's not 100% true, people in this country get married for other reasons because they accidently got knocked up, getting a green card, trying to scam money from their new spouse, etc. Prop 8 isn't about marriage it's about equality and how approving it takes away rights from a group of people.

Some may say marriage is between a man and a woman and god (regardless of religion) and that the "good" book prohibits it between individuals of the same sex. What about atheists who don't believe in god, should they be denied marriage rights. Should atheists only be allowed civil unions.

While California may vote to say prop 8 is a good thing, I am secure in my knowledge that the wheels of social equality slowly turn and eventually Prop 8 and similar measures will be over turned as the old give way to the young and the young finally decide that Prop 8 is unfair and repeal it.

 

[TRN1983]

Because California is crazy liberal right . . . that's why they just banned gay marriage.

Entitlement state. There are too many people in CA who love to vote themselves other peoples money.

 

[notdeadyet]

But one thing I do disagree with you on is the stance on the First Amendment. Remember there is nothing in the Constitution saying "separation of church and state." I believe that was in a letter of Jefferson's and a statement in a Supreme Court ruling.

You're right. But I don't think there's any controversy in the idea of "Separation of Church and State". The phrase is just an interpretation of the First Ammendment by Jefferson.

The First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." This means that there is no place for religion in government ("no law respecting an establishment of religion") and no place for government in religion ("prohibiting the exercise [of religion]). People may disagree with the phrase, but the language in the Constitution is pretty explicit about the separation. Regardless, the Supreme Court has verified this throughout the years consistently.

There is a freedom OF religion in this country. Not a freedom FROM religion. The two are vastly different.

We're probably arguing semantics. The First Ammendment DOES grant freedom OF religion ("prohibiting the exercise [of religion]) and freedom FROM religion ("no law respecting an establishment of religion").

Freedom OF religion means that you have the right to practice your religious beliefs without the government having the power to dictate otherwise.

Freedom FROM religion means that I have the right to not have anyone's religious beliefs dictated to me by the government.
Freedom FROM religion does not exist.

Disagree and almost all case law backs this up. This very much DOES exist. This is why we do not have prayer in public school, etc.

FROM religion would mean you have a right to stop me from practicing my religion if it inconvenienced you in any way, or you were offended. You could demand I take down my Christmas lights because they are visible to you. Or that I cannot wear a cross of a T-shirt saying "Jesus is Radical" (and no I don't wear such shirt, 😉). That is freedom FROM religion. Which does not exist.

Ah. I see the disconnect. Freedom FROM religion does not mean this at all. In fact, this interpretation of freedom FROM religion is actually a violation of your freedom OF religion.

The things you talk about above are all legal and protected by your freedom OF religion. What my freedom FROM religion protects is that my county courthouse will not have Christmas lights. And that the police cruisers will not have "Jesus is Radical" bumper stickers.

You see the distinction? Freedom FROM religion has nothing to do with protection from my fellow citizens practicing their faith. Freedom FROM religion has everything to do with my GOVERNMENT not practicing a particular faith.

There is no right saying you will not be exposed to my religion. Or me to yours. You (not you specifically, but a general you) have no right to stop me from displaying my religion or announcing it. No right to force religion to not be expressed.

Amen (no pun intended). And this freedom OF religion is one of the great aspects of our country and generates a lot of diversity that makes America special. We just need to respect that our GOVERNMENT shouldn't express religion.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, secularists believe that the Constitution will protect them from having to see any sort of religion in the public. That could not be further from the truth.

These people are extremists. Just like those that believe that every public school student should have to pray to a God they may or may not believe in. I think most of us are in the middle somewhere.

There is also a logical flaw that secularists believe religion should play no part in law or government.

And that's where we fundamentally disagree. The First Ammendment does state that the government will pass no laws establishing a religion. You can not pass religious laws. Period.

Religion is a guiding moral code for many people. And laws are moral codes. Do not steal, do not kill, do not sell toxic mortgages, etc.

Agreed. The problem doesn't come from passing laws that agree with the high level moral codes of a particular faith (10 commandment level, for instance). The problem comes when you pass procedural law. Like no meat on Friday and such (sorry, I don't know the Protestant equivalent of this kind of thing).

The logic is that some of the 10 commandments are not so much Judeo-Christian specific tennets of faith, but universally held concepts of what is right and wrong. This is why murder and theft are crimes. Others are very Judeo-Christian specific and are therefore not laws. That's why coveting isn't in the books. Thank God. Again, no pun intended.

A religious person, such as myself, looks towards the teaching of Christ as a guide to drawing my own moral code. And if I were a legislator the reasons I would vote yay or nay for a law may be based on those religious teachings. And the reasons an atheist may vote yay or nay may be based on Enlightenment teachings.

The only time there is conflict is when these laws are passed based on procedural beliefs which can not be argued as being held universally or nearly universal. Many fundamentalists do not smoke, but you can't outlaw smoking because it's "immoral". If Catholics were the majority, you can't legislate fish on Friday's.

And this is where the problem comes in. Many Christians believe that the concept that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is a moral law and not a procedural law. Many believe that this is universally held or nearly universally held. I believe, and many people agree, that this is not the case. It is not a universally held moral belief, it is one very specific to particular faiths and culture and even there, it's not universally believed.

Again, I'm sad Prop 8 passed, but it will be overturned. Not too long ago, blacks and women were not allowed to vote and the justification was that it just "wasn't right" for them to vote, and gee we all seem to agree that God would agree and therefore....

Times changed, folks figured out that maybe that was more MAN'S interpretation and that it wasn't really God's law and we overturned those laws. We're seeing the same thing happening now. 10 years ago, Prop 8 would have passed by an overwhelming majority. In 10 years it would have lost by an overwhelming majority. The country is progressing. I have every confidence.

 

[Slevin]

Get out of the MilMed forum, and run back to pre-osteo.

DB.

Why would I want to do that? Army HPSP LECOM 2012... Pre-osteo is done with.

 

[notdeadyet]

Even a super left-wing liberal who thinks we should all just live and let live is imposing his or her views on a conservative. Because the left-wing person is supporting a society which the conservative may not want, thus imposing a society on the conservative. Since no one lives in a bubble, the others' society affects those who do not want that society.

There will always be political disagreements, and I respect that. Some I'll win, some I'll lose. And I'll try to be a good loser.

The one's I WON'T back down on are the ones that take fundamental freedoms away. Tell me who I can marry and I'll be outraged. Tell me I can't own a firearm and I'll be outraged. Do not take away freedoms guaranteed me by the Constitution. Freedoms are easily given up but they are very hard to get back.

Those who supported Prop 8 wanted to impose their view of society on homosexuals; that marriage is a man and a woman. Those who did not support Prop 8 wanted to impose their view of society on the proponents of Prop 8; that anyone can marry.

Those who supported Prop 8 wanted to deny a right to others that they already had. I think that's a key point you're glossing over.

It's one thing if you want to pass a law that requires universal sacrifice. I may still disagree with it, but I'll respect it. But when you try to pass a law that other's sacrifice, but strangely you don't have to? That ain't jumping on a grenade, that's throwing your buddy on one.

Both sides are imposing a belief on the other. That is all society ever does. We have one group always trying to impose a view on another.

Nooooo. Not true. Who I marry is none of your business. I'm not imposing my belief on you. If I'm telling you that straights shouldn't be allowed to marry? Yes, then I'm imposing my belief. But if I want to get married? At the end of the day, it's none of your business. What happens between me and my spouse or spouse-to-be is not imposing my beliefs on you whatsoever.

Ugh. The whole Prop 8 thing just reminds me of a little kid who has a bicycle who gets pissed off because the kid across the street gets a new bicycle. Enjoy your ride and don't begrudge others. It's just none of your business.

It's a big ass tee-teer-toter.

Only administrations and elections. Overall, I think our country is moving forward. I think our country has been moving forward for many, many years.

This is why I don't sweat this one too much. It's a black eye on American freedom, but not a knockout punch. This country owned slaves not that long ago. But slaves were freed. Later they were allowed to work and serve in the military. Eventually they were allowed to vote. Then they were allowed to become president. Women followed a similar, albeit easier, trajectory. Gays too.

Overall, since its founding this country has moved towards protecting the freedom of its citizens. It's slowly but surely come to terms with recognizing that those freedoms belong to ALL Americans. Every now we get hiccups and black eyes. Every now and then freedoms are relinquished in a moment of panic and then hard fought to get back for years later. But overall, we keep moving in the same direction. We're making progress on this issue too. Not as fast as I'd like, but I believe in this country. We'll do the right thing. We're already heading there.

 

[pgg]

My pending potential nightmare is that we are set to get our "combat replacements" shortly. Where are they coming from? IRR. Great. I'm picturing 50 new fat guys with diabetes.

We got a combat replacement that turned out to be one of our own Marines that we'd deliberately left behind for psych reasons. And by "psych reasons" I mean a meltdown temper tantrum followed by a pseudo-catatonic state that occurred on a live firing range at 29 Palms during our predeployment workup.

I was, literally, flabbergastedly stunned into speechlessness when I saw him in Iraq.

One knife fight and an incident with a SAW later, we sent him home.

If they were only colocated, and not actually attached, you consider just telling them to eff off?

I didn't really have the option. Other than the surgeon/anesthesiologist/ER doc at the FRSS, I was the only physician on the base. The board-cert guys were happy to see BAS patients if I needed help or a consult, but they didn't (and shouldn't have been expected to) run my primary care sick call. I occasionally covered the KBR people too because their medical department consisted of a paramedic or PA or something like that, and the local batch of Iraqi Army. God do I have some stories about those guys ...

I had an excellent IDC and some great sick call Corpsmen who churned through the majority of that painful stuff though.

 

[AF_PedsBoy]

If you send him home you'll probably see him again since crazies tend to be high utilizers - but if he had, say, another accident with a SAW...