Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

Tom Boucher wrote:

 

> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:08 PM

> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Marriage and religion

>

>

> On Feb 5, 2004, at 3:16 PM, Diana Duncan wrote:

>

> > I know, I know, very sensitive topic.  But I am truly at a loss with

> > the current arguments that marriage is the province of the churches,

> > therefore shouldn't be recognized by states unless churches approve.

> > As Craig and I are both atheists and our ceremony explicitly did not

> > include the word "God", why is our marriage recognized by the

> > governments?  It was certainly not sanctified by any church.  In fact,

> > the state is in the business of providing secular marriages at court

> > houses and judge's offices.  How does calling the union of two people

> > a civil union differ from these secular marriages?  Will the current

> > proposed changes to state and federal constitutions inadvertently

> > reclassify all such marriages as civil unions?

> >

> > I truly am curious about serious answers to these questions.  I don't

> > know that any of you know the answer, but it's worth a try in this

> > diverse forum.

> >

>

> I find it appalling that a belief systems viewpoint (Christianity)  is

> being applied by the federal government, and I was raised catholic so

> it's not like I don't have a faith in the same religion that some folks

> believe should be imposed on everyone

 

Just some questions and thoughts on this.  Your statement seems awfully broad.  Is it equally appalling to you that the country was founded under the Christian belief that all men are created equal with Creator endowed rights?  

 

> But then again, I think about things more than some people do.   Bush

> sure doesn't seem to stick to the old republican doctrine of 'less

> government is better'

 

That's because the current members of the Republican establishment are so afraid of being accused of not caring.  Therefore, they spend billions of dollars of our money to prove that they are compassionate.

 

> I also have problems with the so-called 'homeland security' which I

> feel is an attempt to suspend the bill of rights for the convenience of

> the law enforcement folks to spy on citizens.

 

As I posted many weeks ago, this is a grave situation.  These new laws need to be examined very closely and I would like to see a full accounting of the prosecutions being done using these new laws.  I am willing to bet that not very many "terrorists" are being prosecuted with them and that average citizens are.

 

You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. — Lyndon B. Johnson

 

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. — William Pitt

 

> However I'm all for tagging & checking incoming visitors - though I

> want it done for all visitors, friendly countries or not.  All some

> idiot that wants to get into the country without being checked is get a

> passport in england or france or one of our other 'friendly' countries

> and they are in.  If I recall correctly (and I may not be) but a few of

> the idiots that flew the planes into the buildings had passports from

> countries that are now not tagged

 

I do agree that we need some sort of better border control and some better method of accounting for where visitors to the US are.

 

> And if you're not a US citizen, you don't deserve our bill of rights

> protection.   there should be some type of way to separate these two.

> I don't think Guantanamo type of incarceration is right either, but we

> should not be able to secretly get wiretaps for our own citizens,

> visitors sure, but not people born or legallized.

 

I’m probably really weird here, but I believe that anyone who enters into the United States or our territories should have the protection of our Constitution.  Otherwise, to me, it seems hollow to say that we believe X and Y…except for you visitors…

 

> There are a lot of things that have happened the last few years that

> the current administration has done.   I will *not* vote for him -

> AGAIN.

>

> Not that it matters in this state I believe, too many people think the

> republican party is the 'christian' party and vote that way, they

> forget that right now the only thing the republican, or really the

> democratic party believe in is businesses or interest groups that pay

> their way.

> But i'll vote democratic come november

>

> ---

> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!

> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list

> To unsubscribe visit

> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers