On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:37 PM, denstar wrote: > >> I get that general idea, but you seem to imply that most religions >> agree, which I don't think is quite the case, unless you're >> "enlightened", >> or perhaps only worried about the majority (I think a lot of the >> Constitution is there to protect the/a minority, sorta, neh?). >> > > I'm not implying that, and I would note that people don't always agree with > religious doctrine. Catholics sometimes support abortion, although it is > anathema to the Catholic Church. As for protecting the minority, read > Democracy in America (vol 1) sometime, it will open your eyes. Tocqueville > believed the single greatest threat to our democratic system lay in the > "tyranny of the majority".
Yes, The Majority is a threat... which is what I'm alluding to about the "based on religious morals". (I *love* the idea of a "silent" majority-- tickles me pink) I think that "because the [inset religious text or dogma here] tells us so" is a lame reason to support a law, basically. Even if everyone agrees, and no one challenges the Constitutionality. > >> So in my book it's got to be grounded in common sense, first and >> foremost. If it fits within your religious morals as well, good on >> you. > > > Common sense is irrelevant in this context. What matter is 1. Is it legal > under the Constitution? and 2. Will voters support it? The former matters > because if it fails that test, judges will throw it out. The latter matters > because leaders who make unpopular decisions get tossed out of office. "Common sense" is a joke, anyways. =] Again, I'd say that if the only backing you have for a law is religious belief, it is indeed un-constitutional. However unpopular that idea may be. > Gay marriage was just discussed, wasn't it? What are the common sense >> arguments for "against" there, for instance? >> > > Not so much a question of common sense as morality. Large numbers of > religious people supported the ban in CA on moral grounds. I disagree with > that view, but it is legitimate and ought to be respected. Clearly the > strategy in CA now shifts back to the courts, which already ruled once in > favor of gay marriage. I disagree that it's to be respected because some people consider it moral. Morals really are an interesting concept, you know? Something about legislating morality goes... [here]. It's just plain evil and a waste of our tax dollars. -- What it lies in our power to do, it lies in our power not to do. Aristotle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:282051 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
