Rick Santorum: What does the First Amendment really protect?

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 04:56

Irrepressable bum. That's a new one. I've been called many things by many people. I might have to consider... NO, GC, you win. I am indeed an irrepressable bum. A panhandler that will not say no. I will be sure to update my title in honor or your wise categorization.

Now that the name calling is done, perhaps back to the issue at hand?

I dont' argue that abortion is a religious issue to some. Do you argue that it's a religious issue to all? Would you be willing to bet me $1000 US that I can't find an atheist member of Operation Rescue?

Gay marriage is a tricky one. Most people that respect their religion and Constitutional Law agree with me that marriage is defined, currently, as a social contract between two people seeking permanence, which homsexual lifelong partners certainly qualify for. My issue with gay marriage has little to do with the genders, and much to do with the lack of permanancy. To that end, I actually fight for making divorces harder to obtain, in the absence of abuse, then making marriage licenses harder to get. But you better stop that too, cause it also comes from my religious views.

"Readily obvious" is code, whether you're aware of it or not, for "my own views". Sorry chief, anybody who's debated politics more than a year or two knows not to use a phrase like that, unless they consider themselves 'particularly enlightened'. As you hold no belief in a higher power, I find your use of the term indicative of either an inexperienced, or confused viewpoint. Unless of course, you believe you can send me "really obvious" mental messages, which I will indeed try to look for.

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 05:16

No offense taken. I am a panhandler. I do beg for knowledge, and I'm quite irrepressable at it, so point taken. What's more, even if you meant it with a wink, I wear it with a wink.

Again, gay marriage, we agree. Me, Christian voodoo doctor, and you enlightened humanist. Woo hoo! Gays can legally marry. Now what?

I've answered your charges, yet you have steadfastly refused to answer any of mine....

Murder was wrong according to the 10 Commandments thousands of years before anybody knew there was a Philadelphia, let alone birthed a Constitution in it. Should we allow it on the grounds that this religious edict impugns on my secular freedom?

Theft was also frowned on in the Bible. I guess that's allowable, now, according to you, eh? Did you work to help Bernie Ebbers defense on the grounds that the charges of theft were unconstitutional because of religious bias?

You know, GC, you keep this up, I might be able to get away with anything. Please do....

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 05:26

Aah!!! Clever answer! As you secular fundamentalists say... prove it!!! Prove that a secular law existed against murder before a religious one did, or against theft, and I shall drop trow in front of the entire org. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy to say, atheist or not, you've lived on the backs of theists for quite some time. Maybe you ought to understand that before you banish us all.

By the way, my religious argument against murder does not stem from the Book of Exodus. I actually worship Thoth & Ra, and I choose to honor the sacred word of the Book of the Dead, dated at 2235BC. Please, enlighten me about how a secularist belief against murder existed in those days.

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 05:38

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rome.

Their law was not effective, by any means, but Murder and Theft were clearly not legal. There is no evidence to support that that stemmed from religion, although there is little doubt that most Romans were religous people.

Just as with our Government, I want our laws to stem from common-sense and logic, not Religion. If, coincidentally, common-sense, Logic, and Religion all agree on something than that's all well and dandy, but much of the time they tend to be at odds.

I hate to do this to you, but I have to go to bed. And I was so enjoying this. BUT!!! Before I go, my high priest of Thoth, or was that Ra, wants to point out that the Romans stole all their laws from us or the Greeks. They and us both acknowledge our laws are divinely inspired, only their 'divinity' is a bunch of gutter snipes and ours are the True Gods.

PS The Romans were a Theocratic society, whether they believed it or not. I challenge you to find a legal document 'NOT' addressing Jupiter or Apollo at some point.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-22-2005, 05:52

Can you name me one great athiest nation that lasted over a long period?

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-22-2005, 05:57

An Athiest nation is pure folly, as shown by the USSR.

Yet you want it removed from our government it seems? The founding fathers dont agree with you. Youve got a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment. This is the very reason they said a relgous people were nessacary for democracy to work. But of course thats all nonsense. We know better now.

**Xiahou** · 07-22-2005, 06:17

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Yet you want it removed from our government it seems? The founding fathers dont agree with you. Youve got a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment. This is the very reason they said a relgous people were nessacary for democracy to work. But of coursae thats all nonse. We know better now.

Indeed, not supporting a law because of moral or religious reasons hardly 'making a law respecting establishment of a religion'. Even supporting a law for religious reasons, in my mind, doesn't infringe on the 1A. It's like he's saying legislators can have any opinion they want- so long as it isnt a religious one.

**Ronin** · 07-22-2005, 10:07

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Yet you want it removed from our government it seems? The founding fathers dont agree with you. Youve got a very strange interpretation of the 1st amendment. This is the very reason they said a relgous people were nessacary for democracy to work. But of course thats all nonsense. We know better now.

way to ignore half of Cube´s post

*props*

he said that a nation will never be completelly atheist because there will allways be religious people.
But religion shouldn´t be the base for governamental positions, you live your own personal life based in whatever you want, christianity,islam, jewish values, wicca...whatever...

but laws and regulations should be based on logic and reasoning, that way everyone can be what they are without having anything pushed on them.