Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

I see he left the door open for man-toaster marriages, though.

That's only because he wants a BSG toaster.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It has always been a part of American politics, because it has always been a part of American society.

But never has it been such a major factor in national politics. Not ever.

That is probably more due to a current shift in American culture away from religion than anything else.

Not everyone wants the shift while others insist upon it.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I see he left the door open for man-toaster marriages, though.

That's only because he wants a BSG toaster.

Oh yeah

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It has always been a part of American politics, because it has always been a part of American society.

But never has it been such a major factor in national politics. Not ever.

That is probably more due to a current shift in American culture away from religion than anything else.

Not everyone wants the shift while others insist upon it.

Has American culture ever been truly religious ?  Aren't large parts of the country not shifting away from Christianity in any real way ?

Culturally, yes. Being culturally religious does not mean they were "truly" religious - but yes, we were very much culturally religious - hence many states having had laws on the books against doing business on Sundays, selling alcohol on sundays, sodomy laws, and other things that are being removed (and many of them rightfully so).

It's not just church attendance - it's in literature as well.
Atheist Samuel Clemmins (Mark Twain) documented it fairly well - as have many other American writers.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It has always been a part of American politics, because it has always been a part of American society.

But never has it been such a major factor in national politics. Not ever.

That is probably more due to a current shift in American culture away from religion than anything else.

Not everyone wants the shift while others insist upon it.

Anyone can be an atheist if they want to. And anyone can be as religious as they want.

I fail to see why it's necessary to use the power of the state to impose a religious order on the entire country.

To keep the homos, video-game playing Satanists, and godless communists from destroying this great country. 

Its one way or the other.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It has always been a part of American politics, because it has always been a part of American society.

But never has it been such a major factor in national politics. Not ever.

That is probably more due to a current shift in American culture away from religion than anything else.

Not everyone wants the shift while others insist upon it.

Anyone can be an atheist if they want to. And anyone can be as religious as they want.

I fail to see why it's necessary to use the power of the state to impose a religious order on the entire country.

In American culture, marriage has been between a man and a woman for a very long time. Utah was not allowed into the Union until their state constitution forbid polygamy.

Like it or not, culture is influenced by religions, and many laws exist for cultural reasons.

resedit wrote:

I didn't say they were equivalent.
You imagined that just like you imagined Huckabee wanting a Theocracy.

He sure sounds like he wants one. if that's not the case, what exactly is it that you think he wants?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

That is probably more due to a current shift in American culture away from religion than anything else.

Not everyone wants the shift while others insist upon it.

Anyone can be an atheist if they want to. And anyone can be as religious as they want.

I fail to see why it's necessary to use the power of the state to impose a religious order on the entire country.

In American culture, marriage has been between a man and a woman for a very long time. Utah was not allowed into the Union until their state constitution forbid polygamy.

Like it or not, culture is influenced by religions, and many laws exist for cultural reasons.

And that is why Civil Unions are often opposed as well?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

The same thing those who wrote the declaration of Independence wanted when they appealed to God's standards.

Does the supremacy of law appeal to God's standards?

Look, they only even acknowledged God because the original colonists of this country were a bunch of religious fanatics who got their asses thrown out of Europe for that very reason. I think it's about time to be done with pandering to preachers' who've been dead for 400 years and get on with business. Now that Huckabee has stuck his big fat religious foor in his big fat pious mouth I'm pretty sure that the general franchised electorate will agree with me and shut him down right now.

If you think the dumb smurf still has a chance, put your money where your mouth is. I do PayPal.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

The same thing those who wrote the declaration of Independence wanted when they appealed to God's standards.

Does the supremacy of law appeal to God's standards?

From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,



that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance
on the protection

of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.


Endowed by our creator with inaliable rights, appealing to the Supreme Judge, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divide Providence. Those are some pretty strong links to a divine deity, and in fact are the underpinning of all our rights.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-01-17 9:22 pm)

Chickenhawk wrote:

And that is why Civil Unions are often opposed as well?

There are a lot of people with no religious ties who are opposed to it.
Personally I think that's why we have states. If California makes it legal and I don't like it, I can move to Wyoming.

I don't think the definition of marriage belongs in the constitution though. I also know that there is no way Huckabee is going to get such an amendment through.

I'd rather look at positions on issues a candidate can impact as President then what he's not going to be able to.

But that's because I'm smart enough to know that any candidate will have several positions I strongly disagree with.

Do you not think it is stupid for someone to refuse to vote for a candidate just because that candidate supports the Pro Choice movement?

Think about equal stupidity in areas that you may be passionate about that the President can't change anyway ...

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

And that is why Civil Unions are often opposed as well?

There are a lot of people with no religious ties who are opposed to it.
Personally I think that's why we have states. If California makes it legal and I don't like it, I can move to Wyoming.

I don't think the definition of marriage belongs in the constitution though. I also know that there is no way Huckabee is going to get such an amendment through.

I'd rather look at positions on issues a candidate can impact as President then what he's not going to be able to.

But that's because I'm smart enough to know that any candidate will have several positions I strongly disagree with.

Do you not think it is stupid for someone to refuse to vote for a candidate just because that candidate supports the Pro Choice movement?

Think about equal stupidity in areas that you may be passionate about that the President can't change anyway ...

Supremacy of law, yes or no? Simple question.