Charlemagne II:
Nor have you, in spite of the 1st Amendment, remembered that the Constitution can be amended (and has been amended) by those powerful enough to do it, by hook or by crook, as with Roe v Wade and the recent health legislation passed by Congress that will be challenged in the courts and eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.
Actually yes I do know that the consititution can be amended but I didn’t think I’d actually need to go that far into it but here we go anyways I guess. As you know that establishment clause covers freedom of religion but it also covers freedom from religion even if atheism isn’t specifically spelled out. Either way lets just say that somehow it came up for debate in the government even if we happen to know better than that. It would still require two-thirds support in each house of congress and ratification by 38 of the current 50 states which has only happened 27 times. It is
extremely difficult to do. There would have to be such an anti free speech/religion/press/etc sentiment in this country that it wouldn’t even be considered the United States anymore and at that point we’ve got bigger problems to deal with anyway.
Doing something like that would also be completely self defeating becuase getting rid of the establishment clause also means that atheists aren’t free to be non-believers either so everything could potentially be illegal.
You are sooooo trusting of a fundamentally atheistic science community.
It sounds like you’re saying that atheists in general are untrustworthy here or am I just misinterpretting this?
I’m not sure what the rest of it even means. It just sounds like a made up phrase designed to sound impossing or ominous. There’s nothing fundamental about science, it’s just science. Also when it comes to atheism or being an atheist, either you are or you aren’t. There isn’t really any wiggle room to be even
more atheistic than the other atheists that make him a fundamentalist atheist. I’ve never heard of such a thing. Sure some people are more outspoken and well known than others but I fail to see how that makes them somehow untrustworthy.
The founders would also roll over in their graves if they knew that their Constitution had been invoked to justify marriage between members of the same sex.
Actually I’d be amazed if they gave a **** one way or another. I’m sure they had bigger things to worry about besides who was allowed to get married, like putting the country together and trying to keep it from falling apart soon after. But, if we really want to have this discussion, the constitution also says:
“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
The Constitution says “Creator” it doesn’t say Abrahamic God or Jesus or holy ghost or anything like that, they left it open on purpose to accomidate a wide range or belief systems. The amendment that specifically banned gay marriage was based on religious dogma and specifically within one lineage of religion and that is Christianity/Catholocism/Mormons/Whatever - abrahamic religions either way. So what if a gay or lesbian person has a religion but that religion doesn’t specifically say one way or another if they can get married or if they don’t have a religion at all? Can they just go to a courthouse and get married like anyone else in this country? Nope because now it’s not just against the church, it’s against the law. It doesn’t matter if the gay couple believes in the abrahamic god or not, the church still got its way in specifically getting a constitutional amendment passed to specifically deny the rights of a group of people based on religious dogma regardless of what they may or may not believe.
THAT I think would make the founders turn in their graves.
The next time you’re wondering who really wears the pants in this country all you need to do is show up to church and be reminded on a weekly basis.
You apparently have not read B.F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
Never heard of it but even if I did read it there’s no saying I’d agree with what the guy had to say.
Nor have you read the many atheist tracts that predict and relish the end of religion in America.
I’d hardly call it many. It’s usually people like Same Harris and maybe a couple other guys that are fairly vocal. Even then they seem to be referring to a time when people didn’t try to create law or base educational decisions (like creationism) on religion or even worse specific religions to have those views imposed on the rest of the population. I’d relish that myself actually, it would be a nice change.
