I have been putting this off for quite some time but, with the supreme court hearing on this topic, it is finally time to make my full position regarding so-called “same-sex marriage” known. Now, this task will take some twists and turns and what you think to be a final position may not be so. Just bear with me and read all the way to the end.
Marriage’s definition has been changing within society. The phrase “gay marriage” is composed entirely of words that have been changed well beyond their original meaning. Back in 2001 I recall that the definition found on m-w.com for marriage was very simple and was essentially “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. Not being able to view an old version you will have to take my word for it. I even believe the words “man” and “woman” were in there. Now, if you visit that entry, there are many more definitions, one of which says, “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”. With the ever changing meanings of words found therein, this makes Webster’s Dictionary nearly worthless. Even looking to the origin of the word “marriage” on that page is not helpful in providing more information. It only says, “Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry”. So since this Supreme Court hearing and many of the political battles are over the definition of the word “marriage” I find it very important to find out what the word originally meant. So far we have marriage -> mariage -> marier (which means to marry). This knowledge is of no help.
When things do get interesting in this search is when we, unsatisfied with basically using a word to define itself, look into the etymology of the word more deeply. Since we left off at marier (which means ‘to marry’) I began the search with “marry” and found that it’s root is the Latin “maritare”. With more searching of related words we soon find the Latin “maritat” which shares the root and means “to impregnate”. Oh my, this definitely presents a problem for those wishing to redefine “marriage” to include those who, in principle, cannot bring forth children together. Marriage, as an institution, is for the creation and raising of offspring. Some people seem to think that it is for the regulation of those who have strong sexual feelings towards one another. That is false.
As a result of this search, and according to my personal belief, marriage can only occur between a man and a woman who, in principle, have the ability to procreate together.
There you have it, case closed, matter settled right? Well, let’s look at another word that people often disagree religiously about, “Baptism”. When looking into the root of this word we find that it comes from the Greek “baptizein – to immerse, to dip in water”. Well we had better get the government into forcing those who perform baptisms by sprinkling to follow the real definition of the word. Wait, what’s that you say? There currently is no legal definition of baptism and government is prohibited from getting into such matters of doctrine and belief. Oh wow, my world is shaken. Then why is government involved with a religious institution like marriage? Shouldn’t they be prohibited from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. What’s that you say, they have been dictating and supporting one religious view over another and butting into marriage for a long time? This seems like it is beyond the scope of the proper role of government.
Can it be that the definition of marriage is a doctrinal question and that people have the right of conscience to have their own beliefs on the matter? Which is more important, the right to the free exercise of belief or enforcing my view through government? Setting aside for now the problem of children being brought into a gay union (which is a huge issue that would take far too long to address, so it is a can I will gladly kick down the road), and only focusing on the union for which it is, in principle, impossible to bring about a child, no one’s rights are infringed by allowing two other people to have such a belief or union. I therefore must conclude that there should be no legal definition of marriage just as there is no legal definition of baptism.
It is a hard thing to remember that if the view I disagree with is not protected then there is no guarantee that my own right is protected. That statement only applies to views that do not infringe on the rights of other people, meaning life, liberty, property etc. The view of a murderer or thief regarding murder and theft cannot be protected. But my views on marriage and the views of those who disagree with me must be allowed in order to have true freedom. If, for example, marriage is redefined and given status as a “right” by government then any group which believes otherwise will be seen as infringing on the rights of others and will themselves be oppressed. Currently people who believe that marriage only involves sexual attraction cannot legally act on their belief, which is wrong, no matter how much I disagree. The only way to let everyone be free is to have no legal definition of marriage and have no different treatment of non-right-infringing citizens regardless of relationship status or type. Get government out of this issue and end the political battle surrounding the enforcement of laws regarding religious belief. Any solution other than that is either idiotic or has an agenda, and likely both.
This is a great video that I believe most people do not have the capacity to grasp. I won’t spoil what the most important thing to have is, watch the video:
In an argument in a different venue someone referred me to a video that is, as the title tells you, one of the most ignorant videos I have ever seen. Our discussion was about religious principles in the system of government for the United States. The video presented to me, as an argument that the U.S. government and Constitution are not based on religious principles, was a wonderful opportunity to present many fallacies, foolish ideas and deceptions commonly used by those who disagree with me. I was salivating as I watched it. Critical thinkers watching the video should be able to quickly pick up on many of the aforementioned types of problems.
Let’s dissect this puppy piece by piece:
Our Constitution, our founding fathers and our heritage have been hijacked by the lunatic fringe. They are either lying or they’re too stupid to know any better.
No argument there.
But the Glenn Becks, the Palins and the Limbaughs are claiming our founding fathers based the Constitution on religious principles. It’s simply not so.
Wrong. It is not based on a specific religion, but it is based on religious principles. The respect for one’s fellow man and the rights of the same, are most definitely fruits of Christianity and religious principles. Most major movements to help people outside of one’s own group have been religious movements, and the American Revolution is no different. The abolition movement in the U.S. and Britain, the civil rights movement and the fight to save Indians and central Americans from slaughter have all been religious movements. The teachings of Christ really did revolutionize the world and even the most ‘rabid’ non-believer benefits from that today. In today’s world we are “born on a moral third base, and think we hit a triple.” If we look back in time at Greeks, Romans and other civilizations we will see that they would enslave those who were not Greeks or Romans and they would slaughter newborn babies for being female or less than desirable. (Granted, babies are still slaughtered in the U.S., which is unconstitutional) The abhorrence for enslavement and slaughter of those not in one’s own group is rooted in religious teaching and correct understanding of that teaching.
Not enough? OK. The phrases “taxation without representation”, “consent of the governed” and “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” can be traced to the Reverend John Wise. The coining of these phrases is attributed to the Reverend studying his Bible and preparing sermons. Nearly 50 years after his death his sermons were printed as pamphlets and passed around the colonies. 51 years after his death a certain Declaration was made containing many of his words. The principles (taken from sermons created from Bible study for religious purposes) in the Declaration are the basis for the Constitution, thus the Constitution is based on religious principles.
Still not enough for you? OK. When drafting the Constitution the delegates relied heavily upon John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which references the Bible roughly 1500 times regarding government. Locke extracted principles and wrote about them, after which, our founders based the Constitution on them.
Still, even now, not enough for you? Take a look at the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which, anyone who knows that little bit of history would also know that the U.S. Bill of Rights(1789) was based on it. Article 16 reads “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Sounds a bit like religious principles when it says, “Christian forbearance, love, and charity”.
I could go on……
Let me introduce you to the founding father and the gentleman from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson. The very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time. “Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law” – Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
The first big problem any critical thinker might come to is the fact that he says that Jefferson is “the very person who drafted our Constitution…” If you are going to single out one person, and ignore all the other delegates, as having drafted the Constitution, anyone who knows a tiny bit about history would put James Madison way out above the rest.
For the second problem let’s ignore the first. The video man says, “the very person who drafted our Constitution after the things he said at the time.” then proceeds to give a quote supporting his position. The problem is that the quote is from 1814, well after 1787 when the Constitution was completed. How could Jefferson draft the Constitution after this statement if he had not made it.
The third problem is that Christianity is not part of the common law, but that does not exclude religious principles from the common law. In fact there are specifically Christian references in the Constitution itself, but that does not make Christianity the law of the land. It only makes certain ‘principles’ found in Christianity the law of the land.
” In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.
First off – again with an 1814 quote.
Secondly, anyone who would deny that there have been bad priests who sought power and control over people knows nothing of history. That does not mean that all priests have been bad. And even if Jefferson did mean that all priests, ever, are bad, that does not make it true. This once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Thomas Jefferson Notes on Virginia 1782.
Finally, one that could have possibly been drafted into the Constitution, but it once again has nothing to do with the Constitution not being based on religious principles. This is merely a statement of fact that religions and/or people in any beliefs, are not uniform.
Why would our founding fathers want to forge a new nation under the same religious ethos that had supported the divine rights of kings and the class system that oppressed human endeavor, dignity and freedom for centuries? Still there were those who tried.
In answer to his question I just reply, “They didn’t, you idiot.” As for his follow up statement of, “Still there were those who tried.” it is moronic, unsupported here and doesn’t fit with his question.
The Reverend Dr. Jonathan Mayhew famously preached repeatedly against the divine right of kings and class systems. Mayhew is noted by John Adams as being one of the “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential in the awakening and revival of American ‘principles’ and feelings”.
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the Holy Author of our religion;’ the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and Mohammeddan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” Thomas Jefferson in reference to the Virgina act for religious freedom.
Idiots the world over think that if the Constitution is based on religious principles that a theocracy is what must result. This is an absolute abandonment of all reason, especially when a religious principle is: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” If you wish to be allowed to believe as you do you must allow others the same.
Once again this statement does not support the Constitution not being based on religious principles.
Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers weren’t anti-religious, but they recognized the inherent dangers in religious fanaticism and the importance of keeping it out of politics.
The video man seems to be conflating religious principles with religious fanaticism. Referring to religious principles as “fanaticism” is dishonest and stupid. Of course, any kind of fanatic can be dangerous; especially in politics. That still has nothing to do with “religious principles” in the Constitution.
The separation of church and state is a basic and essential tenet of our Constitution.
Wrong. The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution at all. Rather we have, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. By not using the real text of the Constitution people focus on keeping church away from state rather than state(congress) not being allowed to make a law respecting the establishment of religion(church) or prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is all it says.
To demonstrate the inaccurate interpretation of Jefferson’s words (“separation of church and state”), in the famous Danbury baptists letter, I must inform you that two days after the letter was written Jefferson went to church. He attended services at the U.S. capitol building and listened to John Leland give a sermon there. (As an interesting side note to this, since 1865 the U.S. capitol building has had a painting in the rotunda of George Washington becoming a god. That sounds pretty religious and actually very akin to Mormon teachings.)
Our Constitution does not belong to the lunatic fringe or a bunch of silly people playing dress up in 18th century costumes or shooting off replica muskets.
False; it does belong to them if they are citizens of this fine nation.
It belongs to all Americans whether your forebears came with the pilgrim fathers or on an immigrant ship from Europe or Asia. Whether your forebears were shanghaied and brought out in chains from Africa or they were of Hispanic descent and were overwhelmed by the rapacious greed of manifest destiny. The promise of the Constitution belongs to all of us and it’s about time we raise our voices in protest against those who would corrupt it’s message for their own opportunistic purposes or because they are simply to simple to understand the safeguards and the principles therein.
The principles in the constitution do belong to anyone. Even though they are based on religious principles, they can be claimed by irreligious people as well.
There is far too much of this ill-informed, poorly-argued media floating around and there are far too many simpletons ready to throw out links to such garbage in youtube comment arguments or message boards. It makes for plenty of ammo against such historically inaccurate or irrelevant arguments. This video is an atrocious example of many fallacies. To sum up this video’s argument:
There are no religious principles(A) in the Constitution(B). Thomas Jefferson(C) wrote the Constitution according to what he said. Thomas Jefferson said that Christianity(D) is not part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson said bad things about priests(E) and Thomas Jefferson noted the non-uniformity(F) of mankind, therefore there are not religious principles(A) in the Constitution. Or to put it more simply
Main Point = A is not in B C wrote B according to what C said. (which is at the very least misleading, at most just false) C said D is not in B at a date after C wrote B C said bad things about E at a date after C wrote B C said something about F Therefore A is not in B
Awful, just awful and weak. What kind of unthinking idiot would fall for this dung heap of an argument? Probably the same kind of person who thinks that simply having “religious principles” in the Constitution would make us a theocracy.
Where do I begin on this one? Let’s start with the most famous proposed mosque in the world. A group of innocent, well-meaning Muslims bought a plot of land that used to house a failed Burlington Coat Factory and decided this place two blocks from ground zero would be perfect for what they are calling the Cordoba Initiative. This is to be a big mosque and community center. Let’s take a minute to unwind some facts about this project and set some things straight.
1. They are not building a missile silo.
2. It is not an Al Qaeda training camp.
3. They own the land and have the right to do what they want with it.
A. Cordoba Spain is the site of a mosque built over an old Christian church when the Moors came in and conquered.
B. The Imam behind the project has questionable ties to fun people and has been known to make statements that aren’t filled with love for America.
C. Funding for the mosque is uncertain at the moment and will most likely come from foreign bodies that hate America.
All of the above mixes together for one fun-filled, good time. To sum it up simply, the Cordoba people should understand the feelings of those who are offended and not use questionable foreign money to fund this horribly-named project and they should love America more. The people who are freaking out about the mosque should be ready to accept the fact that there will be a poorly named mosque near ground zero. They should accept the fact that they own the property and can do with it as they please. The freak out crowd is very much in the wrong when they are looking to the government to find a way to get rid of the mosque. Unless there is actual illegal activity coming out of the mosque, there should be nothing done by the government. Offensive as it is to many, it should not be stopped as long as there is nothing illegal going on.
Now from one stupidly offensive act to another. This super-genius leader of the small church that wants to burn the Quran on Sept. 11 this year is a real cerebral type. Of course he is only following his “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet. The Savior definitely wants to really stick it to those who disagree with him. He is all for book burnings and attacks at other groups of people. Nothing works better to spread the gospel than hating and offending those who do not follow it. (I really hope that the sarcastic tone comes through my text.) Then of course, on the other side of this shiny coin, we have those who don’t care about a right to free speech and a level up from them we will most certainly have those looking to kill these people who are burning the Quran.
It really is exhausting isn’t it? So many idiots doing so many fun things to each other. I say, “A pox on both your houses” in a great many situations and these are no different. The real lesson I take from all of this is that we should all shop at Burlington Coat Factory more.
One thing that really drives me up the wall quicker than other things is when people use false quotes and continue to pass them on. I will begin acquiring as many of these as I can and dispelling them here. My major problem with false quotes is that I very much enjoy the truth and obviously if it is a false quote it is a lie. I may hear a quote and be inclined to use it myself. A person propagating such quotes often makes a fool of themselves. Many times if one wishes to be responsible and check the verity of a quote and its source they will run into multiple examples of people misusing the quote and think they have verified it but really have just seen multiple versions of the lie. Quotes have been given a strange place in our culture and at times can seem to have been canonized by some users of them even if false. Most misquoted people are either founding fathers of the United States or are Albert Einstein.
The first quote I will do, has been attributed to George Washington and in fact he did not say this:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”
However, the fact that he did not say this does not mean it was not said. In fact, it appears that it is very much an actual historical statement from the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli (current Libya). Some of the Muslims in the area had concerns about a new crusade being launched, and the treaty informs them to not worry about holy war, since the government of the United States is not founded on any particular religion.
Many Christians might get upset that this was actually said and if they do then they are idiots. If the United States was founded on the Christian religion then why do we not have state run confessionals or baptisms? Jesus, the founder of Christianity, said that the first great commandment was to love God and the second was to love thy neighbor. These most important laws were somehow excluded from the constitution and are not required. Strange thing to exclude when basing the government on the Christian religion. We also have another problem when trying to base the government on the Christian religion; which flavor among all the different versions is it based on? Many Christians argue bitterly over their view of what is true Christianity. I am happy to keep that kind of contention out of the body that creates and enforces laws that I will abide by. Although contention finds its way in anyway.
Christians can take solace in the fact that this line from the treaty does not mean that the founders hated Christianity or religion in general. In fact I have documented, and will document in the future, statements quite to the contrary by founders that show the necessity for religious beliefs, morals, faith and the providence of God in maintaining a free society. But with regard to government, it is always best to not jump in with certain religions.
I have been around the internets and found quite a few disturbing lies and distortions of history. Only looking at comments around the internet one would conclude that the founders of the USA were a bunch of secular, rabid atheists. Once again if you look into it, you know it is hogwash.
The one I will address now is that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist. Benjamin Franklin’s parents were Puritans and he was baptized as a youngster. He later associated with the Presbyterian Church for a short time. In 1725 he stated that he didn’t believe Christian teachings and became a Deist with a distaste for “organized religion”. He later came to be embarrassed by a pamphlet he wrote putting organized religion down. He found that he and some of his friends that he had converted to Deism had a decay in moral standards. After that he returned to endorsing “organized religion” without really ever joining one. Clearly he was not an atheist though.
Franklin even set forth what many founders called the “Religion of America” that was taught to children in school. From a letter to then Yale President Ezra Stiles he said:
“Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting it’s conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.”
Here is a video that sums up nicely, in a hilarious way, what the founders believed.
I was recently called unreasonable and unscientific for defending my position to a friend that there is a God. The way that I discuss things with this friend, no one ever means any offense and none should be taken. I have been presented with the false dichotomy between faith and reason and been referred to a very illogical video that could be used to support solipsism. I do enjoy the back and forth though. I must address one thing that my friend has said that is one of the most unreasonable statements I have ever heard and demonstrates a huge problem that atheists and the like have with their logic. The statement is “…lack of evidence is a pretty conclusive proof of lack of existence.”
For a perfect demonstration of how this is complete bull we can take an imaginary journey. Let’s pretend that we are living 3,000 years ago anywhere you like on Earth. A person then comes to us and says, “There are invisible particles shooting through your body all the time and you have no way to see them. There are also sounds occurring all around you that humans cannot possibly hear.” This person has an extreme lack of evidence as the things described cannot be seen or heard. But we now know of and can measure many different types of particles fitting that description and we can measure sounds outside of the 20-20,000 Hz range. Did these things not exist for people because of the lack of evidence, but currently because we are so advanced and have evidence they magically do exist now? No, they always existed whether humans knew they did or not. A big problem with non-believers is that they think that we know much more than we do. We still don’t have a clue about anything and just as the people 3,000 years ago had no idea about neutrinos and super-frequencies, we today have no idea that we don’t know it or what it even relates to. It has always been a common trait of theology and science to conclude that we do not know everything and the sooner someone understands that the better.
One might say, “Well, this principle doesn’t apply to religion.” Why not? If we cannot take a principle learned from scientific discovery over the ages and apply it to all things what good is it? We have a clear and sanely indisputable case of something that no person could detect until a relatively recent date. Why would we suppose that there is not any more out there that cannot be detected by us? To stop searching and declare all things known, is to cut off scientific discovery. The hypothetical man from 3,000 years ago was completely vindicated in his belief in something he couldn’t see, hear or detect.
With a different friend I once asked, “Where did belief in God come from? If it was not given to man, why would a caveman invent an elaborate scheme of a sky man or sky men that would then restrict him from living his life in a riotous way, with lots of women, killing, plundering and other fun pastimes?” My friend’s answer, “He was the caveman who didn’t get the girls.” My response, if we had not been interrupted would have been, “So you are telling me that this beta male is clever enough to not only invent this whole religious system but to then dupe his peers into going along with it just so he could get some girls? But at the same time he is so stupid that he would not just kill the alpha male in his sleep?” What is more likely, Ug the super-genius, idiot caveman or humans still just aren’t very smart? If your answer is the former then you have proven the latter.
I believe that everything has a scientific explanation even if humans are too stupid to understand the science. I must edit the aforementioned statement to say, “lack of evidence is never conclusive proof of lack of existence.”
