Comments inline ... (my comments are proceed by "HBO: ").
-----Original Message----- From: Fleischer, Beth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 1:33 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Bush Wins! > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:34 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Bush Wins! > > Where people forget about "free exercise thereof" is when people want to > have a cross atop a public hilltop. Ordering it down, as has happened to > a > 100 year old cross in my home town, violates the First Amendment's free > exercise clause, I believe. And it doesn't establish religion because it > is > not forcing any person to believe anything. > I could care less about folks putting their religous symbols on a public hilltop. However, I feel very differently about a public school leading kids in christian prayer (which happened in my school, when I was a teen, and had been brought up athiest). HBO: Ah, prayer in school ... here is the perfect example to illustrate my point: If a teacher takes class time to lead the children in prayer (any prayer), then that teacher, who is a representative of the government, is violating the Constitution. Clearly, she is establishing religion. However, if a principal prevents students from gathering on the playground to pray (we're talking non-class time and nobody is forced by the school to join), then the principal is violating the free exercise clause. But many times schools have prohibited the free exercise of religion (no-student lead prayers, no religious-based clubs, no essays about the life of Jesus), and this is wrong. > Some people believe that gay marriage is wrong. And not all believe it for > religious reasons. > > To believe and to speak out against it is absolutely their right. However, to remove the right for others to have a same sex marriage in the constitution of my state is not right. > Isn't that their right? If they do not want their > government putting it's stamp of approval on gay marriages, why should > they > be forced to accept their government doing so? > > We aren't talking about the right to gay marriage (although no one put up to vote whether heterosexual marraige should be legal) - we are talking about limiting the right in the constitution. And I can tell you that the advertisements on the television called it a crime against the bible. HBO: Where in the Constitution is this issue raised? > They should only be forced > if the majority of the voters disagree with them, shouldn't they? In the > state of California, only a minority of people want to approve same-sex > marriage. So why should they get to force their beliefs on the majority? > Uh, no. Same sex marriage doesnt' force anything on anyone. If you don't like one, then don't have one. It doesnt impose one anyones right to have a heterosexual marriage, now does it? They aren't forcing their beliefs on the majority, they want the RIGHT for themselves. HBO: Sure it does. The government is the voice of the people. It should represent their beliefs and their opinions. If the government puts its stamp of approval on same-sex marriage, then it is putting the stamp of approval on behalf of all the people who disagree with it. People who disagree with it, then, are being forced to approve it against their will. HBO: That's why I believe the issue should be taken out of the hands of the government, so that people who disagree with same-sex marriage are not forced to approve of it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
