Craven de Kere wrote:There is nothing wrong with a religious figure asking God for his blessing.
Even if you meant a 'government' figure, the answer is still 'of course not.'
Only when it is done with the imprimatur of the government does it become objectionable. Please read
this Washington Post article.
Craven de Kere wrote:As to the water you make it sound like a lot worse. The chaplain was not witholding water. He just had access to water and earmarked it for baptizms. And it was bathing water, it'snot like the troops lacked drinking water.
Our troops lacked water to bathe in for
weeks. In the
desert. And besides, what the water is used for does not make it OK to proseyltize under the threat of denial. You cannot be serious if you think Jesus would actually approve of this:
"Army chaplain hosts baptisms, baths"
Craven de Kere wrote:Natinal day of prayer is something I enjoy greatly, anyone can worship regardless of their religion. And if someone does not wish to worship they are not required to. Someime people act like the day of the inquisition is rturning.
The type of situation that our founding fathers sought to avoid is control of the church by the state just as much as religion having an undue influence on the government. And our society is far from the situations that they were worried about.
As I clearly expressed, go right ahead and enjoy yourself.
I disagree completely with your last sentence. It's not only much closer than you think, Mr. Temp, it's sitting in your bedroom.
Quote:"...And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. "
Many Americans are not old enough to immediately get the Griswold reference The 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut decision gave married couples in this country the legal right to access birth control. Apparently, Rick Santorum thinks this decision was a mistake. When I read this, my heart stopped. "Geez Louise," I said to myself. "If this guy's got a problem with Griswold vs. Connecticut -- what does that mean for us? Exactly how far back would he like to see the country taken?" The seventeenth century, perhaps - with lynchings in the public square?
It has become a GOP mantra lately to remind us all that there is no "right to privacy" explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. Well, explicitly, no - but the Supreme Court knew that in 1965 just as anyone who can read, knows it now. The esteemed Justices of that day, after deliberating, concluded in a 7-to-2 ruling that there was an inherent right to privacy which would subsequently grant Americans the right to make private decisions about their birth control and sexuality outside the purview of government surveillance and regulation. Stating over and over again that "there is no right to privacy in the Constitution," then, is merely fatuous and ignores the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the law. Must we all now be Constitutional "Fundamentalists" as well as Biblical Fundamentalists, to please the Republican Party?
Rick Santorum's Sweeping Social Reaction
Rick Santorum is the 3rd ranking member of the Senate, and his extremely fundamentalist Christian views have been reinforced with support by the Majority Leader and the White House.
If you would like to re-acquaint yourself of this gathering danger then please go to
www.au.org .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
-- the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
The Framers of the Constitution designed the First Amendment's religion clauses to embrace two key concepts: the government will not endorse or oppose any particular religious viewpoint (or religion generally), and will not interfere with the right of citizens to practice their faith. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the American people created a "wall of separation between church and state."
Next?
(it will be the weekend before I am able to enter any response. But I'll look forward to reading everyone else's.)
