Civil Unions disallowed in ACT

Pages

AuthorTopic: Civil Unions disallowed in ACT
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
Profile Homepage #25
quote:
Originally written by Mc 'mini' Thralni:

Well, apart from the fact that it could get your old grand mother a heart attack, its for the president in office (Bush at the moment), a very wise thing to do, politically spoken. He'll have masses of people which agree with him and he will need that if he wants to stay in office.
Well, we all know Bush's view on the subject, but he doesn't need to stay in office, you know. He's in his second term. American presidents may only serve 2 elected terms.

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

I defy you to find any place in the constitution that says that there should be a seperation of church and state. Go ahead and look. It isn't there.
I think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" sums that up pretty well.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 07:36: Message edited by: Tyran ]

--------------------
"You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus
Spiderweb Chat Room
Avernum RPSummariesOoCRoster
Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things.
Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #26
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

1) They did not make it a sin, but they took far too much out of context in order to justify it. All that was needed was the phrase that men should not spill their seed, i.e. perform in sexual acts that does not have the potential result of impregnantation.
The traditional reply to this is, of course, what about infertile straight couples? What about women after menopause? What about birth control? What about all the heterosexual intercourse that clearly isn't intended for reproduction?

There are those who say that sex should be completely limited to reproductive purposes (and teh Bible sez so!!!1111), but I think they're crazy.

EDIT: And Tyran's absolutely right about separation of church and state.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 07:46: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #27
quote:
Originally written by Tyran:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

I defy you to find any place in the constitution that says that there should be a seperation of church and state. Go ahead and look. It isn't there.
I think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" sums that up pretty well.

No it doesn't. There is no mention of a seperation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations. Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

1) They did not make it a sin, but they took far too much out of context in order to justify it. All that was needed was the phrase that men should not spill their seed, i.e. perform in sexual acts that does not have the potential result of impregnantation.
The traditional reply to this is, of course, what about infertile straight couples? What about women after menopause? What about birth control? What about all the heterosexual intercourse that clearly isn't intended for reproduction?

There are those who say that sex should be completely limited to reproductive purposes (and teh Bible sez so!!!1111), but I think they're crazy.

EDIT: And Tyran's absolutely right about separation of church and state.

Infertile straight couples are discouraged, but is allowed. Having sex with women after menopause is allowed. Both because of the risk of greater sinning than just spilling seed. Birth control, no. Same for your last example. Both because those are the result of that greter sinning.

Give me proof. He failed to do so.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 07:54: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
Profile Homepage #28
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

There is no mention of a separation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations. Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.
It is true the word separation does not appear, but the gist of the first part of the first ammendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;") is that the government shall neither pass laws that force people to adhere to a specific belief (Prohibiting gay marriage sounds just like that to me) or that prevents people from practicing their own beliefs. It seems to me that two people of the same sex getting married does not prevent anyone from practicing their beliefs. Religious beliefs are a personal thing. When you try to force your beliefs on others, you'll get nothing but trouble.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 08:03: Message edited by: Tyran ]

--------------------
"You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus
Spiderweb Chat Room
Avernum RPSummariesOoCRoster
Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things.
Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #29
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

No it doesn't. There is no mention of a seperation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations.
That's not what that sentence means. That sentence means that the state can't establish a state religion. Without a state religion, you have separation of church and state.

quote:
Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.
Um, no. Marriages don't have to take place in religious places. If the government of the United States starts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, those same-sex couples can go to anyone who is certified to perform marriages, including a Justice of the Peace or whatever. If the U.S. legalizes same-sex marriage, individual people who are certified to perform marriages can still refuse to perform individual marriages, just as they do now.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #30
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

No it doesn't. There is no mention of a seperation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations.
That's not what that sentence means. That sentence means that the state can't establish a state religion. Without a state religion, you have separation of church and state.

quote:
Originally written by Tyran:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

There is no mention of a separation of government and religion. All that says is that the government shall not interfere in the laws already in place in religious organizations. Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.
Would you mind explaining that one to me?

Replace the word an with the and you get your interpretation. As it stands it says that it will not impose upon any religion, not it will not impose upon the state a religion.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Which just so happens to be what you propose doing.
Um, no. Marriages don't have to take place in religious places. If the government of the United States starts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, those same-sex couples can go to anyone who is certified to perform marriages, including a Justice of the Peace or whatever. If the U.S. legalizes same-sex marriage, individual people who are certified to perform marriages can still refuse to perform individual marriages, just as they do now.

Only if you don't consider marriage to be religious in nature.

EDIT:
quote:
Originally written by Tyran:

True the word separation does not appear, but the gist of the first part of the first ammendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;") is that the government shall neither pass laws that force people to adhere to a specific belief (Prohibiting gay marriage sounds just like that to me) or that prevents people from practicing their own beliefs. It seems to me that two people of the sex getting married does not prevent anyone from practicing their beliefs. Religious beliefs are a personal thing. When you try to force your beliefs on others, you'll get nothing but trouble.
Exactly. It shall neither pass laws that force people to adhere to a specific beleif or that prevents people from practicing their own beleifs. That sounds a lot like it shall not interfere in organized religion to me. And by allowing people to perform a religious ceremony when they do not qualify sound like imposing your own beleifs upon others. I'm not against legal unions, but marriage is strictly off limits.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 08:07: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #31
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:
Um, no. Marriages don't have to take place in religious places. If the government of the United States starts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, those same-sex couples can go to anyone who is certified to perform marriages, including a Justice of the Peace or whatever. If the U.S. legalizes same-sex marriage, individual people who are certified to perform marriages can still refuse to perform individual marriages, just as they do now.
Only if you don't consider marriage to be religious in nature.

There's a flaw in your argument here... not everyone in the U.S. does consider marriage to be inherently religious. Particularly with the volume of government benefits bestowed upon married couples, it could almost be considered a governmental institution. I mean, the only real benefit you get from a religious perspective is the privilege of being married in a church/mosque/synagogue/place of worship, and many people (same-sex couples in particular) are willing to forego that benefit in order to get treatment that all other married couples get.

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #32
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Only if you don't consider marriage to be religious in nature.

I'm not against legal unions, but marriage is strictly off limits.

(What Ephesos said.) Neither the church nor the state seem to be kicking up a fuss about civil heterosexual marriage.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #33
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

quote:
Um, no. Marriages don't have to take place in religious places. If the government of the United States starts granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, those same-sex couples can go to anyone who is certified to perform marriages, including a Justice of the Peace or whatever. If the U.S. legalizes same-sex marriage, individual people who are certified to perform marriages can still refuse to perform individual marriages, just as they do now.
Only if you don't consider marriage to be religious in nature.

There's a flaw in your argument here... not everyone in the U.S. does consider marriage to be inherently religious. Particularly with the volume of government benefits bestowed upon married couples, it could almost be considered a governmental institution. I mean, the only real benefit you get from a religious perspective is the privilege of being married in a church/mosque/synagogue/place of worship, and many people (same-sex couples in particular) are willing to forego that benefit in order to get treatment that all other married couples get.

Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #34
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?
Sigh... here we go.

It's an evolutionary benefit from way back when some sort of mate-bonding system was the best was to raise the kids and keep them alive. Really, it's not quite as essential as it used to be, but that's most likely where it came from.

And there's a natural reason for governments to want to encourage this sort of thing, since they want to keep up a stable population base, so they should encourage the evolutionary trick that's so good at raising well-adjusted kids (in a basic, "we can cope with the culture around us" sort of sense). So you see, it doesn't have to be religious at all in origin.

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
Profile Homepage #35
quote:
Originally written by Wikipedia:

In one form or another, marriage is found in nearly every society. The very oldest records that refer to it speak of it as an established custom. Despite attempts by anthropologists to trace its origin (such as the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity), evidence is lacking.


--------------------
"You're drinking liquor because you're thirsty? How nasty is your freaking water?" —Lazarus
Spiderweb Chat Room
Avernum RPSummariesOoCRoster
Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things.
Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #36
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

[QUOTE]Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?
No-one has yet explained why homosexuality is a sin (at least in Christianity). Spilling the seed, maybe, but then what about lesbians? (Who involuntarily "spill" their seed every month anyway.)

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #37
quote:
Originally written by Ephesos:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?
Sigh... here we go.

It's an evolutionary benefit from way back when some sort of mate-bonding system was the best was to raise the kids and keep them alive. Really, it's not quite as essential as it used to be, but that's most likely where it came from.

And there's a natural reason for governments to want to encourage this sort of thing, since they want to keep up a stable population base, so they should encourage the evolutionary trick that's so good at raising well-adjusted kids (in a basic, "we can cope with the culture around us" sort of sense). So you see, it doesn't have to be religious at all in origin.

You are mistaking "union" with "marriage".
quote:
Originally written by Tyran:

quote:
Originally written by Wikipedia:

In one form or another, marriage is found in nearly every society. The very oldest records that refer to it speak of it as an established custom. Despite attempts by anthropologists to trace its origin (such as the hypothesis of primitive promiscuity), evidence is lacking.

At least the wiki article has the good grace to say "In one form or another".
quote:
Originally written by Thin Air:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

[QUOTE]Tell me: Where does the idea of marriage come from if not religion?
No-one has yet explained why homosexuality is a sin (at least in Christianity). Spilling the seed, maybe, but then what about lesbians? (Who involuntarily "spill" their seed every month anyway.)

???? Totally seperate issue from the one you quoted, but whatever. Exactly, involuntarily. I rest my case.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #38
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

[QUOTE]???? Totally seperate issue from the one you quoted, but whatever.
Yes, it was unclear. What I meant was, why is sexual preference relevant to marriage anyway?

[quote]Exactly, involuntarily. I rest my case.[/quote]So why can't lesbians get married??? I don't mean union here, I mean marriage.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #39
quote:
Originally written by Thin Air:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:
[QUOTE]Exactly, involuntarily. I rest my case.
So why can't lesbians get married??? I don't mean union here, I mean marriage.

Because the law against spilling seed wasn't a case against homosexual marriage. It was a case against homosexuality in general.

According to Judaic laws concerning marriage, marriage is a union between man and woman. Not woman and woman.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 09:05: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #40
Granted. But in civil law I see no reason for this to be so. Still waiting for the Christians to speak up also.

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #41
The only objection I have to civil law marriage is that it is considered to be marriage. Which it's not.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 09:13: Message edited by: radix malorum est cupiditas ]

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #42
Am I understanding you correctly? You are against civil marriage in principle because it's an abuse of the word "marriage"?

If so, we can just use a different term. We can call them "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
BANNED
Member # 4
Profile Homepage #43
I'll spare most of my words on this subject. Just, what I do feel is thus (which I tried to indicate by my Tom Tomorrow snippet):

Okay. So marriage is a religious and romantic union that means the world to you. That's great. But isn't your personal (hell, perhaps even spiritual) choice being cheapened when you require government involvement to verify its worth?

Ultimately, two people are going to be economically dependent on one another and will require unions for non-romantic, platonic/filial/familial purposes. For instance, siblings who are living in their parents' house. That is as much as ANY relationship (with the exception of children) should mean to the state. To support infringement on people's relationships any further is to assert that the relationships are hollow and weak enough that state involvement is necessary for their continuation, which I think is absurd.

--------------------
*
Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #44
Was that an argument against civil marriage on the ground that it cheapens the relationship? If so, that's kind of silly. Marriage is important in today's society for various legal purposes, including what happens when those relationships end (divorce) and what happens when someone dies (inheritance, etc.). Abolishing it would create horrible problems in family law.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #45
Separation of church and state:

quote:
From the Australian Constitution:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Australia is most definitely not justified in applying its non-existent state religion.

Infernal, you can try to split semantic hairs about the meaning of the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause that follows), but hundreds of years of interpretation have made it very clear that the Bill of Rights expressly forbids legislation imposing religion. "No law respecting" means "no law with respect to." (That's not entirely true, because religions can be subjected to control when religion and civil law conflict, but laws can't be passed solely about religion, I believe.)

"A wall of separation between church and state" is explicitly stated in a 1947 Supreme Court decision anyway.

In my opinion, the state has no business dealing with marriage. A purely legal and contractual agreement between two partners for any reason they'd like would work quite well and not rile up the religious. Call it whatever you like.

—Alorael, who is not an expert in the evolution of homosexuality. However, because it appears in several animal species and has therefore stuck around for millions and millions of years, and because it does appear to be at least partially genetic, it's quite likely that homosexuality comes with benefits. They could be either for heterozygous carriers or homozygous heterosexuals. Who knows? Maybe one day genetic hiring bias will mean companies screen to weed out the worthless heterosexuals.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #46
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Am I understanding you correctly? You are against civil marriage in principle because it's an abuse of the word "marriage"?

If so, we can just use a different term. We can call them "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" or whatever.

Yes, that was the extent of that argument, but it was only half of my thoughts on marriage coupled with law.
quote:
Originally written by Real Ultimate Designing Power:

I'll spare most of my words on this subject. Just, what I do feel is thus (which I tried to indicate by my Tom Tomorrow snippet):

Okay. So marriage is a religious and romantic union that means the world to you. That's great. But isn't your personal (hell, perhaps even spiritual) choice being cheapened when you require government involvement to verify its worth?

Ultimately, two people are going to be economically dependent on one another and will require unions for non-romantic, platonic/filial/familial purposes. For instance, siblings who are living in their parents' house. That is as much as ANY relationship (with the exception of children) should mean to the state. To support infringement on people's relationships any further is to assert that the relationships are hollow and weak enough that state involvement is necessary for their continuation, which I think is absurd.

This sums up the other half nicely.
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Was that an argument against civil marriage on the ground that it cheapens the relationship? If so, that's kind of silly. Marriage is important in today's society for various legal purposes, including what happens when those relationships end (divorce) and what happens when someone dies (inheritance, etc.). Abolishing it would create horrible problems in family law.
That wasn't an argument for why not doing so is silly. It was an argument for why doing so is necessary. Most of family laws can and should be worked around, imo.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #47
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Replace the word an with the and you get your interpretation. As it stands it says that it will not impose upon any religion, not it will not impose upon the state a religion.
I just realized why you're mis-reading this. When it talks about "an establishment," it's not talking about the Church or something — that is, it's not an establishment in the sense of a thing that has been established. It's talking about the act of establishing. These are both definitions of the word "establishment," but the latter is the definition intended, as we can tell from context.
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

That wasn't an argument for why not doing so is silly. It was an argument for why doing so is necessary.
Er, doing what, exactly?

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 09:46: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #48
Opposition to civil unions for homosexual couples is motivated by fear and hate only - there is no other explanation. "Traditional marriage" is not "under attack" - how can a formal government union of two monogamous homosexual men possibly threaten a heterosexual couple's marriage?

Fear and hate. How easy it is for so called Christians to forget the "loving thy neighbor" and "removing the log from your own eye" passages of the Gospel - theoretically more important to Christians than the OT or the letters of Paul they rely on for their hate-mongering.

Furthermore, where is the harm? All the other non-Christians can get married, be they Jews, Muslims, or even Atheists. Furthermore, homosexual marriage is not looked at as wrong by a number of Christian sects and certainly not on the part of the Unitarian Universalist church. Why should bigoty fundamentalist Christianity hold the prevailing view? Boo-urns, I say.

Frankly, I think the state probably ought to just get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. It draws in only nominal fees, and the common law has progressed to the point that comparable contract law largely makes many of the will, trust, and estate arrangements redundant. Hospital visitation rights and insurance policies could be handled just as comparably.

[ Wednesday, June 21, 2006 09:58: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
Profile #49
quote:
Originally written by Neologism of God:

Infernal, you can try to split semantic hairs about the meaning of the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause that follows), but hundreds of years of interpretation have made it very clear that the Bill of Rights expressly forbids legislation imposing religion. "No law respecting" means "no law with respect to." (That's not entirely true, because religions can be subjected to control when religion and civil law conflict, but laws can't be passed solely about religion, I believe.)

"A wall of separation between church and state" is explicitly stated in a 1947 Supreme Court decision anyway.

In my opinion, the state has no business dealing with marriage. A purely legal and contractual agreement between two partners for any reason they'd like would work quite well and not rile up the religious. Call it whatever you like.

Imposing religious values held sacred by some upon others does not impose on religion?

Thank you. The term was coined 60 years ago, approxomately 170 years after the constitution was written (give or take a few years).

I do agree with the third quoted paragraph.
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

Replace the word an with the and you get your interpretation. As it stands it says that it will not impose upon any religion, not it will not impose upon the state a religion.
I just realized why you're mis-reading this. When it talks about "an establishment," it's not talking about the Church or something — that is, it's not an establishment in the sense of a thing that has been established. It's talking about the act of establishing. These are both definitions of the word "establishment," but the latter is the definition intended, as we can tell from context.
quote:
Originally written by radix malorum est cupiditas:

That wasn't an argument for why not doing so is silly. It was an argument for why doing so is necessary.
Er, doing what, exactly?

See what I wrote to Tyran, and, in this post, Alorael.

Requiring government involvement.

--------------------
??? ??????
???? ?????
Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00

Pages