Sure. It’s free advertising to non-atheists, but hey, the enemy of my enemy…
Ex-Mormons to hold convention in Salt Lake Published: October 11, 2008 The 2008 annual Ex-Mormon Foundation Conference, Oct. 17-19 at The Embassy Suites in Salt Lake City, will once again present a program designed to give support and information to those who no longer consider themselves Mormon. The program will feature Steven Hassan, a nationally known mental health counselor. He is the author of two critically acclaimed books ? “Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves” (2000) and “Combating Cult Mind Control: The No. 1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery From Destructive Cults” (1988). The weekend will also include several other speakers, including Ken Clark, former bishop, Church Educational System instructor and institute director. Following the formal program each evening, attendees will have a chance to meet and mingle with others who have come from all over the United States. For more information, visit the Ex-Mormon Foundation Web site at www.ExmormonFoundation.org.
Tinker,
What’s your point?
Are you saying all assumptions are equally reasoned?
Tinker,
Nope. Its a deliberate choice of wording. Dismissing it as semantics shows a failure to see purpose in its very specific communication.
Are you anti-semantic? Because I warn you, we don’t cotton to no antisemantic bastards around these parts!
Ahem…if you will recall, we were rebelling against rule by a king who was supposed to have Divine rights of power, or some such shit. And that there was a “ruling class” and a “servant class”. The writers of the founding document just wanted to make clear that these things did not apply here in the colonies any more, and that we were a people who could govern ourselves. They were not assuming they/we had rights. They were stating they/we had rights based on their knowledge of what had been stripped from them under British rule, and trying to guarantee that history would not be repeated.
Im confused tinker….are you a good witch or a bad witch….thanks by the way for making me re read the declaration…..I think Jefferson knew his audience…I think he uses the term God only because he knew his audience….
DVanWechel – I disagree. Whether you say God, Allah, Supreme Being, creator the writer’s intent remains the same … that certain rights transcend government. Christians still think “creator” indicates God, so what’s the difference? And No. Clearly not all assumptions are as equally reasoned. My basic point is that it’s all built on assumption.
Charlie – a good witch … no wait. A bad witch? Which way do your witches fly … ???
Karen – they actually were assuming that the Brit’s were wrong. Cause if not assumption, don’t you get into a tricky area of “where did these rights come from”? … I mean, I’d be interested to know where your idea of “rights as an (absolute) fact” come from?
godless s – I don’t know where I stand on same sex marriage, for this reason; I don’t see it as a civil rights issue.
Every person in this nation is permitted under the law to marry any other person of the opposite sex as long as both parties are of legal marrying age. We’re not talking two separate drinking fountains here. We’re talking everyone drinks from the same water fountain … and now a group of people want a new fountain.
Now, as to wills, trusts, power of attorney, shared medical benefits, etc. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that those things can be shared and protected under the law in same sex couples through avenues such as “domestic partnerships” etc. Is this incorrect?
That being said, I think the argument for the public square is framed wrong; rights have NOT been denied and love is not a legal standing.
Tinker,
They believe it indicates their God. That’s the difference. Their God and the rights it has granted us is specific to their religion, the writers of the D.I. were purposefully vague in this regard.
As Karen pointed out, they were separating themselves from the oppressive English rule of divine right. The evidence for this lies in how vague the D.I. is regarding rights. And, none of the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are addressed in the Constitution. Since the Declaration of Independence has ZERO legal standing regarding our rights as citizens of this country, you can’t argue they believe there were some rights that transcended government, otherwise, they would have stated them in the constitution ? which is the foundation of our laws and how our rights are protected.
Tinker,
And just for the record, there are no absolutes when it comes to rights. Society defines what our rights are. The concept of every human having the “right” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a relatively new concept in society.
tinker
I may be going against the grain of my compadres here, but I am of the opinion that “rights as an absolute fact” is not something innate, but merely something we decided at one point to bestow upon ourselves after we started to become civilized animals. Who decides what our rights are? We do, and we delineate them in our Constitution-and amend them as we see fit. Other countries do the same. Well, some do. Even the “inalienable” rights are not really as described. We alter the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness all the time: capital punishment, slavery, Japanese internment, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, etc.
I don’t know what your point is.
And they were assuming the Brits were wrong? About what? The divine right of kings? About ruling classes? Are you serious? What is your argument for the Brits being right?
And what is the difference if the FF came to the conclusion about rights based on an assumption, if that is even what happened? It feels to me like you’re hinting at the old faith argument here. But the men in question would not have been working with an empty assumption. It would have been based on experience and prior knowledge of facts.
ROFL!
You.have.got.to.be.fucking.joking.
Why not go a step further and demand that only people of the same race can marry each other like it was prior to the 1960s. I mean after all we are giving everyone the right to marry within their own ethnic group so why should people get uppity and demand the right to marry the person of their choice regardless of skin colour (or gender)?
Tinky Winky
Then you wont mind at all if the law only allowed atheists to marry? Because we would all have that same right under the law … right?
How old are you?
Bigot.
No, wait.
Sexual bigot.
OT
Omer Goldman has gone to jail as a conscientious objector. She is the daughter of a former head of Mossad.
How ironic that the orthodox Jews – so very militant about displacing the Palestinians – are excused from military service.
Yeah, like those pesky women that wanted the right to vote and to control their own destiny. Silly new fountain wanters.
Ahh, the supremacist white attitude is alive and well.
Have a feeling that Tinkler won’t be back.
You’d think by those YouTube links that it’s illegal for a black person to run for president. I’m sure there are some back-ass southern folk who think so.
Personally, I’m worried for Obama’s safety when he’s the pres.
KA – Not very thought provoking, are you? p.s. It’s not bigoted to state what the law currently is.
WHAT – “Then you wont mind at all if the law only allowed atheists to marry?” … I see your point and can see why same sex couples are mad about the current law.
Just out of curiosity – if it’s true that our rights are determined by society, as Karen suggests, then how is “bigotry” ever a reality?
I support everyones right to be as bigoted as they wish and as a matter of fact I am so bigoted towards religious folks that I have eliminated most of them from my life. If you are bigoted toward gays thats also totally fine and you have no obligation to associate with us or support our cause. Having said that, what you are advocating are restrictions on other peoples liberty based on your own bigotry which is not just wrong but it is unAmerican. Institutionalised government bigotry isnt the same as personal bigotry.
tinker,
Uhhh, what does bigotry have to do with rights? We all certainly have the right to be bigots, except in specific circumstances (for instance, who gets a government job can’t be decided upon based on race).
If that isn’t what you’re talking about, I don’t understand your question.
Tinker,
Huh?
phreedm,
Um… three years ago all we ever did was fight over evolution. It didn’t matter what the original topic was, ever… alway degenerated into a flame war between creationists and smart people. Why? Because that’s what was in the news back then – remember Dover?
So what’s going on in the news these days? Oh yeah, there’s an election going on! So here you are still hanging out on an atheist blog and you’re complaining that there are too many liberals? You might as well have complained that there were too many evolutionists three years ago. I mean, sure there are some conservative atheists (more like libertarian, usually) but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that atheists are generally going to steer away from any party that openly promotes theocracy.
Tinky Winky
I can’t make sense out of your question. DVW said it best – huh?
Interesting side note:
The word ‘bigot’ originates from the old english for ‘by God.’
Seems to me Tinker’s doing a good job playing devil’s advocate. I’m curious, if the same sex marriage advocates had the same as marriage with out the word marriage would there be complaints?
foot152
Do you mean like if blacks had the same schools just separate under the law would they be satisfied?
Our country did away with the separate but equal slippery slope long ago.
Just what exactly is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? My husband and I were joined in a civil ceremony by a justice of the peace, but we have a marriage license.
Same thing for my parents. And for his parents, I think. Course, his dad’s been married six times, I suppose one of them might have been a church wedding.
Do gay couples get a “civil union” license?
If civil unions grant all the perks and responsibilities of marriage, then what’s different, other than the word?
you just got to love joseph smith i mean calling the angel ‘moroni’ was a clear sign he thought his followers were morons.
i nominate joseph smith for atheist of the nineteeth century.
Thanks Karen, I think you put it better than I did. If all couples got the same from the government would it matter what it’s called? I think the substance ie: the rights and responsibilities and rights are much, much more important than what it’s called. I said this before, let the jesus freaks have the word, but let all people have the contract. I don’t see the problem but I’m just an outsider looking in.
I think the issue here is that by labeling them differently (marriage vs. civil union), the door is still open to restrict the rights of homosexual couples.