A Mother's Reflections

[Rich Parsons]

The Constitution has an amendment that ended slavery Rich (13th amendment). That superceded the 2/3 vote issue. Article IV still stands. There are no "Blue Laws" in the Constitution or rules that are no longer enforced like there are in State Laws. Old rules are amended.

You cannot remove peoples beliefs from law making. People make laws so there will always be personal (and political) beliefs involved.

Tom,

Let me clarify, the 2/3 (two thirds) was for census, and is still there. The 2/3 thirds vote, was not mentioned by me, as I can only assume you mean 2/3 thirds of congress, and yes teh 13th admendment is in place, not requiring a vote. And I believe that was law, and might nto have been in the US Constituion or admendments.

Yet, in the northern states, all it took was a proclamation from the President, and the Slaves were free. It was not until after the war, I believe that the 13th was ratified.


Yet, I see no one argue that my logical approach and or looking at the possibility that in the future they might be on the discriminating end, if this is allowed to continue.

 

[michaeledward]

Doesn't the Constitution read three fifths?

Article I - Section 2 - Clause 3

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Doesn't the Constitution read three fifths?

Article I - Section 2 - Clause 3

My Memory is not correct.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Tgace]

This article shares a lot of my opinions regarding politics and religion.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032905B.html

A Double Standard

Now, some liberals might object that it is one thing for religious intellectuals to weigh in on matters of public policy, but quite another for redneck Bible thumpers to do so. Yet why should the educational level of a person supporting a particular policy matter to the evaluation of the policy itself? If a policy can be supported with serious arguments made by serious thinkers, what does it matter whether someone who is uneducated also supports it for less sophisticated reasons? Do liberals and secularists think twice about supporting their own favored policies simply because some uninformed and inarticulate rock star or Hollywood starlet might favor them too? Why does the liberal always judge his own creed in terms of its most sophisticated representatives, and yet insist on judging rival creeds -- conservatism and traditional religious belief, for example -- in terms of their least sophisticated representatives?

It will not do either to try to justify the liberal double standard concerning religion by regurgitating tired and tiresome clichés about religion's tendency to lead to wars, persecution, Inquisitions, Crusades, Galileo's house arrest, etc. For one thing, most of those who appeal to such clichés know very little about the actual history of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or the Galileo episode, and about how beholden the simpleminded popular image of these events is to Reformation and Enlightenment era polemics rather than to serious and objective historical inquiry. For another thing, the body count generated by such committed metaphysical naturalists and secularists as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other acolytes of the Marxist counter-religion is far higher than anything even the most fanatical jihadist has been capable of.

Finally, it is no good either to suggest that since we live in a pluralistic society, religious believers ought to keep their convictions off the table where public policy is concerned. For this point cuts both ways. Traditional religious believers have far more in common with each other, after all -- at least on questions concerning abortion, euthanasia, sexual morality, and the like -- than they do with secularists, and they are more numerous then secularists, at least in the United States. So why, if we are going to play the "pluralism" card in the first place, shouldn't the secularists be the ones required to keep their deepest convictions to themselves and out of the public square? And if it is legitimate to mix secularism and politics, pluralism notwithstanding, how can it be any less legitimate to mix religion and politics?

This is not to deny that the fact of pluralism poses a serious political problem: it does, and I frankly confess that I have no idea how to solve it. But then, neither does the liberal, whose favored "solution," as I have argued elsewhere, basically amounts to the proposition that all views in a pluralistic society can be tolerated only so long as they submit themselves to the liberal's own idiosyncratic and highly contestable conception of justice. That this peculiar brand of liberal intolerance ought to be regarded as superior to the religious variety is a proposition the liberal seems strangely uninterested in trying to justify. Perhaps he bases it on faith.

However I also agree with this point

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pol-rel.html

Pluralism in this Country

This country was founded on the idea of a tempered pluralism that allowed for a civil debate among the citizens. Although we take this pluralism for granted, it is instructive to remember how radical this concept was in the history of political philosophy. In the past, secular political philosophers argued that a legitimate state could not tolerate much freedom and diversity. After all, how would the dictator or monarch rule effectively if that much dissent were allowed?

Foundational to this idea is the belief that government should not be the final arbiter of truth. It should not be an institution that settles by force the truthfulness of an issue. This is why the framers of the Constitution specifically provided freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Government should not have power to impose its version of truth by force.

Christians should be strong supporters of this idea. We believe that God governs this world by His grace. His final judgment awaits, and we should not take His judgment into our hands. Overly anxious Christians often want to pull up the tares in the field instead of allowing the wheat and the tares to grow together.

Tyranny results when an authoritarian leader comes along who wants to impose his brand of truth on others. It is wrong for secularists to try to remove religion from the public sphere, and it is equally wrong for religious leaders to impose religion on others by force. In either case the political arena becomes a religious battleground.

What we should develop is a civil debate where Christians are allowed to promote biblical morality without imposing it. This has been made more difficult by the current anti-religious climate in our society.

Richard John Neuhaus talks of the "naked public square," where religious values have been stripped from the public arenas of discourse. In this case, the tempered pluralism of the framers has been replaced by a radical pluralism which assumes that all values are relative. Public moral judgments, therefore, seem out of place. In recent years, we have seen a great deal of prejudice against such pronouncements simply because they are rooted in biblical morality.

So, the "naked public square," where religious values are excluded, is wrong. Likewise, the "sacred public square," which seeks to impose religious values, is also wrong. What Christians should be arguing for is a "civil public square" that allows an open, civil debate to take place. In such an arena, controversial ideas can be discussed and debated in a civil manner.

This form of pluralism must be more than just window dressing. Christians and non-Christians alike must be dedicated to maintaining a pluralism that allows vigorous interchange and debate. Unfortunately, there is some indication that many in our society see pluralism as merely a means to an end. English historian E. R. Norman believed that "pluralism is a name society gives itself when it is in the process of changing from one orthodoxy to another."

If this is what secularists really want, then pluralism is in trouble. When religion is excluded in the name of pluralism, then pluralism no longer exists.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Tom et al,

They (* Homosexuals *) can "Love" whom ever they want. But they cannot have sex, as they is considered wrong in many states, and or local laws.

Rich,

Actually, they can have sex in any state they want without penalty. The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Texas had to update their laws on their web site the last time I checked, but regardless the law they had is null and void. Homosexuality amongst consenting adults is legal everywhere in the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

Oddly, that ruling got almost no press...and when the "talking heads" on the cable news channels were asked what the big news stories were for the year, they mentioned Kobe Bryant, Lacey Peterson, Michael Jackson...nothing about the Supremes and their decision.

You'll note on that one site that many of the states in which sodomy was illegal were reasonably fair...even a heterosexual couldn't sodomize a consenting person of the opposite sex. I confess, I so looked forward to breaking the laws in those states. I'm bummed in a way. The Supremes took all the fun out of my civil disobedience. How can one become iconoclastic with them periodically going all progressive on us?

I too am pleased, and surprised, to see some of the conservatives here addressing this issue as they have.

In the last year I've had two of my former students "out" themselves to me. I thought well of these two men prior to their revelation, and think even better of them now. Both are tremendously moral men with great gifts. Neither is emotionally flawed, nor suffering any psychological disorder. I don't believe, and they don't believe, that they "chose" this orientation. Its the way they were wired. Homosexuality isn't learned...it isn't a choice...it isn't a disease...and it isn't the business of government to meddle in the affairs of Gays and Lesbians.

For the straight folks here...it is worth noting that many of those who which to clamp down on homosexual behavior also want to clamp down on heterosexual behavior. Prudery in this country is not rare. There are those who would make illegal the "gentlmen's club," censor Playboy and Maxim, attempt (vainly) to crack down on the internet, and make Angelina Jolie wear more clothes when she's on the silver screen. Personally, I have a problem with that...and the fact that she's dating Brad Pitt and not calling me, but I digress....

Francis Shaeffer, a Christian theologian, wrote that we can have "too much feedom." I submit that we can not have too much freedom if our behavior involves consenting adults. If the individual--be he Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist--wishes to exercise restraint in the name of morality...then they ought. The rest of us should be allowed to go our merry way, and flirt with Hell if and when we please.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A recent episode of Tripping the Rift looked at this issue, but in reverse. Chode and crew visit a planet where hetrosexuality was illegal, punishable by death in fact. Despite the shows parody nature, it did show an alternate view on this issue. A viewpoint that in the reverse, is seen as "right" by a small group of narrow minded bigots.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

By the way, Bob...you said that for posting things like this people say you're Gay.

Well, if you're Gay, then I think you need to stop all this heterosexual behavior I've seen you displaying whenever I come to Buffalo. Stop it RIGHT NOW! Its deviant and unbecoming a Gay person.



Regards,



Steve