Related issue recently discussed at UVA. Can skip; sorry for length. My reply to an editorial in the university paper.
If Mr. Bagley's column "Extending benefits beyond the law," had been written in Virginia's era of antimiscegentation laws and about interracial marriage, it would have read: "There is no specific stipulation preventing a [white employee with a black fiance] from marrying a [white person](and thus receiving benefits).... Until such a time as the [government] has invented special rights for [blacks], the University is in no position to do so." Giving interracial couples an empty choice to abandon the love of their life for someone of their own race makes as much sense as an Iraqi election with Saddam Hussein as the only choice. This logic was recognized as prejudiced and flawed long ago (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) but he trots out the same empty reasoning some 37 years later.
He's right that "Our society has already spoken very clearly on this issue," although he's confused about the details. While the Defense of Marriage Act does not address rights for domestic partners, only marriage, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Romer v Evans (1996) "very clearly" specified that groundless discrimination against homosexuals is not acceptable. And he's right that extending gym memberships to same sex partners of employees will cost the University (an insignificant amount of) money. What he utterly failed to do was show some reason why the University ought to save money by selectively denying gym memberships only to same sex partners of employees. Obviously we could save a lot more money denying memberships to heterosexual spouses or both groups.
When one reads an editorial by a Cav Daily editor that proposes discriminating against our employees and students, I expect SOME kind of justification other than a reminder that we have a tradition of discrimination.
Disappointedly,
Ian Jenkins, MD
CLAS 97, SMD 01.
Begin forwarded message:
Date:2/10/2004 -- Extending benefits beyond the law --
By Daniel Bagley Cavalier Daily Associate Editor
THINKING back to my eighth-grade civics class, one thing that I clearly remember is the concept of "glittering generalities" -- that is to say, a political statement that is so generic and sounds so good that no one could possibly disagree with it. Such has become the fate of the term "equal rights" in recent years. The latest push for so-called equal rights comes from gay advocacy groups, pushing for "domestic partner" benefits for University employees.
Truly this demand is ridiculous as homosexual employees already enjoy the same rights that heterosexual ones do. The fact of the matter is that every employee of the University has the option of marrying a member of the opposite sex and having his or her spouse receive benefits from his or her employment here. There is no specific stipulation preventing a homosexual from marrying a member of the opposite sex (and thus receiving benefits) within the laws and customs of our society.
Truly we have moved beyond the realm of equal rights, and arrived at the domain of "special rights" or "extra rights" for some who define their sexuality differently from the rest of society. While these people are perfectly free to engage in relationships with whichever gender they chose, this choice does not render them ineligible for the benefits of marriage within our laws.
Our society has already spoken very clearly on this issue. The federal government has passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize marriage or civil unions outside of this bound. The citizens of this country are generally opposed to the creation of special new rights for homosexuals in this regard.
Understanding that little pretext exists for the recognition of such unions, regardless of name, in this state, the position that the University should support them is absolutely ridiculous. The University has no business in making such politically-charged policy decisions. These are decisions that should be left to the state.
I find it interesting that two alumni of the University would feel so dissatisfied with their alma mater that they would create a Web site entitled "DontGiveToUVA.com." Clearly such a confrontational step is little more than a publicity stunt; few if any people are going to cease donating to the school based on such a matter. One cannot deny that the founders of this site have a right to ask for money to promote their cause, but telling people not to give to the University is not going to win them over any friends.
Even more fundamental than the question of morals or ethics or policy is the simple fact of the matter that benefits from gym use to health insurance cost this University money. In this day and age of fiscal crisis, the University literally cannot afford to make a political statement by offering benefits to anyone who would like to define themselves as being in a relationship with a University employee; after all, our society has clearly defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There is no such societal definition for a domestic partnership. In addition to costing the University money, it would cost the University political capital in Richmond. We cannot afford such things at the moment.
If these well meaning alums would like to create a fund to help pay for domestic partners (or whatever the fad of the day is) of University employees to use the AFC, then there is nothing to stop them. That being said, we have no business utilizing the taxpayers' money to fund services for people who do not have a defined, legal relationship with an employee of this University.
Our society is going through a great period of change with regard to such matters, and it remains to be seen exactly where we will end up. This being said, as a public University, we are inexplicably tied to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Regardless of public opinion on the matter, we must follow the lead of Richmond.
At this fine school, we extend benefits to couples who are married within the laws of our society, and do not discriminate these benefits based on sexual preference. Until such a time as the state or federal government has invented special rights for homosexuals, the University is in no position to do so.
(Daniel Bagley is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dbagley@cavalierdaily.com.)
(Bagley's article edited for easier reading by GEM) 2-15-04
On denying rights to LGB groups
I was in a conversation with a religious figure (the person and denomination are unimportant) debating/discussing this very issue. He had all of the responses one would expect and also included his personal feeling that he didn't want his church to be the site of such unions. As indicated on this thread, my discussion surrounded equal Rights for all, freedom of religion (to wit, if the person's religion says it is OK, then there shouldn't be an issue legally because of separation of church and state), and (naturally) my belief that individual Rights, freedoms and liberties dictated by personal responsibility should always trump the "majority" or the State's desire to infringe on those Rights. (I also took from this thread's "playbook" and compared this with inter-racial marriage...IJ wrote:The changing of names and definitions is only to save face and preserve appearances for those who've been yammering about the sanctity of the institution. This doesn't make good legal sense to me, but then, it makes good political sense.
)Finally, after much discussion, the person I was talking with stated that a big part of the issue now is that it wasn't a gradual, work-people-into-it thing, it was "all at once". While I couldn't really dispute that, I did point out that individual Rights shouldn't have to be a "work-people-into-it-slowly" issue. He felt that part of the backlash that is happening is based on the fact that people, when they feel that something is being "shoved down their throat", tend to revolt against that thing. I couldn't argue with that either, but hope that the "newness" of same-sex unions would soon wear-off. Regardless, I thought I'd share the jest of the conversation here...
Take care and be good to each other...
Gene ...
Because men are sinful, there must always be a certain degree of government in the world. Sinful tendencies must be restrained to prevent anarchy. However, the required government need not always be “civil government” (what we commonly think of when we use the word “government”) if people exercise government over themselves. That is, a society where people have good character (controlling their own behavior) requires considerably less civil government than a society where people lack character and need to be controlled by another force. This is why a free society can only exist among people who have a certain degree of moral virtue.
This idea was well expressed by the eighteenth century British statesman Edmund Burke. John O'Sullivan, in his preface to the book The Loss of Virtue: Moral Confusion and Social Disorder in Britain and America , quotes Burke as follows:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites — in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.1
The main idea is that in order to avoid an all-powerful and all-controlling government, people must be willing and able to control their own sinful tendencies. The less people control themselves (by exercising self-government), the more they will need to be controlled by a powerful civil government. This helps to explain the current situation in the English-speaking Western countries: there is an increase in moral anarchy and an increase in the power of the civil government at the same time. The decline in morality helps to fuel the growth of civil government. As O'Sullivan explains it:
The decline in honesty in commerce forces government to resort to regulation, and businessmen to law, with greater frequency. The rise in crime compels the employment of more police and the building of more prisons. The increase in illegitimacy requires more welfare spending and more social workers. And the rise in alcoholism and drug abuse adds to the use and cost of health services in the public sector.2
Notes
1. John O'Sullivan, The Loss of Virtue: Moral Confusion and Social Disorder in Britain and America (London: The Social Affairs Unit, 1992), xiii–xiv.
2. Ibid., xiii
A free society can only exist where citizens have good character, that is, where citizens have a certain degree of moral virtue.Gene DeMambro wrote:All this talk and writing about scripture and what have you and it's relation to marriage, homosexual relationships or what have you is utterly irrelevent.
Public policy in Massachsuetts, any of the other 49 states or the Federal govt' is absolutely not based on any religious scripture. It is solely based on what the law makers of the government in question decide is in the legitimate interests of the populice, subject of course to judicial review.
By all means, please continue to debate holy scriptures of all types and origins. But they should bear no authority on the laws we pass. Period.
Gene
Because men are sinful, there must always be a certain degree of government in the world. Sinful tendencies must be restrained to prevent anarchy. However, the required government need not always be “civil government” (what we commonly think of when we use the word “government”) if people exercise government over themselves. That is, a society where people have good character (controlling their own behavior) requires considerably less civil government than a society where people lack character and need to be controlled by another force. This is why a free society can only exist among people who have a certain degree of moral virtue.
This idea was well expressed by the eighteenth century British statesman Edmund Burke. John O'Sullivan, in his preface to the book The Loss of Virtue: Moral Confusion and Social Disorder in Britain and America , quotes Burke as follows:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites — in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.1
The main idea is that in order to avoid an all-powerful and all-controlling government, people must be willing and able to control their own sinful tendencies. The less people control themselves (by exercising self-government), the more they will need to be controlled by a powerful civil government. This helps to explain the current situation in the English-speaking Western countries: there is an increase in moral anarchy and an increase in the power of the civil government at the same time. The decline in morality helps to fuel the growth of civil government. As O'Sullivan explains it:
The decline in honesty in commerce forces government to resort to regulation, and businessmen to law, with greater frequency. The rise in crime compels the employment of more police and the building of more prisons. The increase in illegitimacy requires more welfare spending and more social workers. And the rise in alcoholism and drug abuse adds to the use and cost of health services in the public sector.2
Notes
1. John O'Sullivan, The Loss of Virtue: Moral Confusion and Social Disorder in Britain and America (London: The Social Affairs Unit, 1992), xiii–xiv.
2. Ibid., xiii
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
That's all well and good. But find me one, controlling, mandatory legal authority that puts this into law.
Find me a single court case, find me a single statutory law that says this.
And please, also find me reliable, independant analysis of states of governments in the English speaking world vs. the non-English speaking world. Could you also stratify this into East vs. West? White vs. Non-White? Mostly Christian vs. mostly Jewish vs. mostly Muslim vs. mostly Buddhist vs. mostly "Other"?
Too many confounders to make the insulting statement that there is an increase in moral anarchy in the English speaking world....
Gene
Find me a single court case, find me a single statutory law that says this.
And please, also find me reliable, independant analysis of states of governments in the English speaking world vs. the non-English speaking world. Could you also stratify this into East vs. West? White vs. Non-White? Mostly Christian vs. mostly Jewish vs. mostly Muslim vs. mostly Buddhist vs. mostly "Other"?
Too many confounders to make the insulting statement that there is an increase in moral anarchy in the English speaking world....
Gene
Last edited by Gene DeMambro on Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
OK... define sin. For some it is sinful to eat a ham sandwich. For others it is a sin to step on a bug. Others do not let their women outside without coverings over their head. They all beleive that they are right. Can they prove they are right? No they cannot.Because men are sinful, there must always be a certain degree of government in the world. Sinful tendencies must be restrained to prevent anarchy.
If you were to ask the gay community what a sim is they would probably begin with persecuting others and not allowing them the freedoms so many othrs enjoy.
Gene my comments were not made as an insult but for edification of a differing opinion. A better comment might have been to the actual words in the Constitution of the State of Massachussettes that seem to reflect a much different opinion on religin/God and civil government ...
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. [Annulled by Amendments, Art. CVI.]
Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.]
Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
sorry for the length but it seems to fit
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
PART THE FIRST
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. [Annulled by Amendments, Art. CVI.]
Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVI and XLVIII.]
Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
sorry for the length but it seems to fit
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
...and then wew have this little piece of prose:
United States Constitution
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Here's the applicable part, in case you mised it
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And then we have this little gem, from Article VI of the same document
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Pay particular attention to the last part that says
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
So maybe you'd like to reconcile this FEDERAL consitution against the state constitution that says "several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily"?
public Protestant teachers
So Catholics must pay for state-sponsored Protestant teachers? And Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others?
And does this mean that non-Protestants AREN'T good ordered, and moral?
And your definition of moral is?????
Perhaps you'd like it in Britain, where the reigning monarch is prohibited from being Catholic, or even marrying one?
OR maybe in China, where worshippers in non-state supported churches are persecuted?
Maybe even in Russia, where Catholic bishops are forced to leave the country, 'cause the Orthodox church has such sway over the government?
And what about Marine Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse?
Killed on the battlefields in Iraq, he was the first Buddhist buried at Arlington National Cemetery
Go ahead, tell us that he, as a non-Protestant, did not have morality 'cause there was no "public Protestant teacher" where he grew up.
And I'd be willing to bet that Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution would be found to be illegal under Federal Constitutional law. Would you like some cites?
Again, do you have any case or statutory law that says that men are sinners and the only way to create a well-ordered society is to use religion as the basis for our laws? I'd be glad to produce such that say the opposite...
Gene
United States Constitution
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Here's the applicable part, in case you mised it
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And then we have this little gem, from Article VI of the same document
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Pay particular attention to the last part that says
"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
So maybe you'd like to reconcile this FEDERAL consitution against the state constitution that says "several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily"?
public Protestant teachers
So Catholics must pay for state-sponsored Protestant teachers? And Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others?
And does this mean that non-Protestants AREN'T good ordered, and moral?
And your definition of moral is?????
Perhaps you'd like it in Britain, where the reigning monarch is prohibited from being Catholic, or even marrying one?
OR maybe in China, where worshippers in non-state supported churches are persecuted?
Maybe even in Russia, where Catholic bishops are forced to leave the country, 'cause the Orthodox church has such sway over the government?
And what about Marine Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse?
Killed on the battlefields in Iraq, he was the first Buddhist buried at Arlington National Cemetery
Go ahead, tell us that he, as a non-Protestant, did not have morality 'cause there was no "public Protestant teacher" where he grew up.
And I'd be willing to bet that Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution would be found to be illegal under Federal Constitutional law. Would you like some cites?
Again, do you have any case or statutory law that says that men are sinners and the only way to create a well-ordered society is to use religion as the basis for our laws? I'd be glad to produce such that say the opposite...
Gene
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/const.htm#cart048.htm
I found the language of the Mass constitution surprising, but then, one has to look at the date. Times have changed. This is reflected in the references contained in the above quotes.
Article I, for example, was outright annulled. Here's the replacement:
"Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."
It was made more inclusive; note that the state may not discriminate on the basis of sex. If a woman may marry a man but a man may not, is the state discriminating on the basis of sex? In the literal sense, you bet. Did they mean that when they wrote it? Probably didn;t think of it. They did understand and endorse the ideal.
Article two was modified thusly:
"Article XLVI. (In place of article XVIII of the articles of amendment of the constitution ratified and adopted April 9, 1821, the following article of amendment, submitted by the constitutional convention, was ratified and adopted November 6, 1917.)
Article XVIII.
Section 1. No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Section 2. All moneys raised by taxation in the towns and cities for the support of public schools, and all moneys which may be appropriated by the commonwealth for the support of common schools shall be applied to, and expended in, no other schools than those which are conducted according to law, under the order and superintendence of the authorities of the town or city in which the money is expended; and no grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized by the commonwealth or any political division thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any other school or institution of learning, whether under public control or otherwise, wherein any denominational doctrine is inculcated, or any other school, or any college, infirmary, hospital, institution, or educational, charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and superintendence of public officers or public agents authorized by the commonwealth or federal authority or both, except that appropriations may be made for the maintenance and support of the Soldiers' Home in Massachusetts and for free public libraries in any city or town, and to carry out legal obligations, if any, already entered into; and no such grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society.]
Section 3. (snipped)
Section 4. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to deprive any inmate of a publicly controlled reformatory, penal or charitable institution of the opportunity of religious exercises therein of his own faith; but no inmate of such institution shall be compelled to attend religious services or receive religious instruction against his will (snip)."
Another relevant amendment:
Article CIII.
Article XLVI of the Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth is hereby amended by striking out section 2 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
Section 2. No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealth or federal authority or both, except that appropriations may be made for the maintenance and support of the Soldiers' Home in Massachusetts and for free public libraries in any city or town and to carry out legal obligations, if any, already entered into; and no such grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Commonwealth from making grants-in-aid to private higher educational institutions or to students or parents or guardians of students attending such institutions.
Notice that the meaning of the quoted amendments changes substantially when one reads the modifications made 90 or so years ago.
I found the language of the Mass constitution surprising, but then, one has to look at the date. Times have changed. This is reflected in the references contained in the above quotes.
Article I, for example, was outright annulled. Here's the replacement:
"Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin."
It was made more inclusive; note that the state may not discriminate on the basis of sex. If a woman may marry a man but a man may not, is the state discriminating on the basis of sex? In the literal sense, you bet. Did they mean that when they wrote it? Probably didn;t think of it. They did understand and endorse the ideal.
Article two was modified thusly:
"Article XLVI. (In place of article XVIII of the articles of amendment of the constitution ratified and adopted April 9, 1821, the following article of amendment, submitted by the constitutional convention, was ratified and adopted November 6, 1917.)
Article XVIII.
Section 1. No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Section 2. All moneys raised by taxation in the towns and cities for the support of public schools, and all moneys which may be appropriated by the commonwealth for the support of common schools shall be applied to, and expended in, no other schools than those which are conducted according to law, under the order and superintendence of the authorities of the town or city in which the money is expended; and no grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized by the commonwealth or any political division thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any other school or institution of learning, whether under public control or otherwise, wherein any denominational doctrine is inculcated, or any other school, or any college, infirmary, hospital, institution, or educational, charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and superintendence of public officers or public agents authorized by the commonwealth or federal authority or both, except that appropriations may be made for the maintenance and support of the Soldiers' Home in Massachusetts and for free public libraries in any city or town, and to carry out legal obligations, if any, already entered into; and no such grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society.]
Section 3. (snipped)
Section 4. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to deprive any inmate of a publicly controlled reformatory, penal or charitable institution of the opportunity of religious exercises therein of his own faith; but no inmate of such institution shall be compelled to attend religious services or receive religious instruction against his will (snip)."
Another relevant amendment:
Article CIII.
Article XLVI of the Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth is hereby amended by striking out section 2 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
Section 2. No grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of credit shall be made or authorized by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any infirmary, hospital, institution, primary or secondary school, or charitable or religious undertaking which is not publicly owned and under the exclusive control, order and supervision of public officers or public agents authorized by the Commonwealth or federal authority or both, except that appropriations may be made for the maintenance and support of the Soldiers' Home in Massachusetts and for free public libraries in any city or town and to carry out legal obligations, if any, already entered into; and no such grant, appropriation or use of public money or property or loan of public credit shall be made or authorized for the purpose of founding, maintaining or aiding any church, religious denomination or society. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Commonwealth from making grants-in-aid to private higher educational institutions or to students or parents or guardians of students attending such institutions.
Notice that the meaning of the quoted amendments changes substantially when one reads the modifications made 90 or so years ago.
--Ian
IJ...
thanks for the updates, the site I used was the only one I researched. The point was only to show the reference to God and/or a Supreme creator and the link between civil government and a moral code in the original words of the authors of the Mass. Constitution. They thought it was important.
thanks for the updates, the site I used was the only one I researched. The point was only to show the reference to God and/or a Supreme creator and the link between civil government and a moral code in the original words of the authors of the Mass. Constitution. They thought it was important.
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
"reference to [snip] link between civil government and a moral code in the original words of the authors of the Mass. Constitution."
I've no issue with this and put a moral code at the center of my "personal Consitution," or the rules I make for living my life. However, it's worth noting that such moral codes don't require a religious component, and I don't think one with a religious component ought to be pressed on others, given the amount of trouble scuffling over religion has caused humans over their history.
"They thought it was important." And I don't fault them for this. However, the idea that the government of Mass or the USA ought to be religiously driven or conversely ought to drive religion has been superseded by more modern ideas just as other "right for them but outmoded" ideas have been.
I've no issue with this and put a moral code at the center of my "personal Consitution," or the rules I make for living my life. However, it's worth noting that such moral codes don't require a religious component, and I don't think one with a religious component ought to be pressed on others, given the amount of trouble scuffling over religion has caused humans over their history.
"They thought it was important." And I don't fault them for this. However, the idea that the government of Mass or the USA ought to be religiously driven or conversely ought to drive religion has been superseded by more modern ideas just as other "right for them but outmoded" ideas have been.
--Ian
It is self-evident that a lot of blood has been shed throughout the ages over differences in religious beliefs. However, being moral has to do with having a set of principles guided by "right" and "wrong" behavior. And this is where religion comes in...IJ wrote:I've no issue with this and put a moral code at the center of my "personal Consitution," or the rules I make for living my life. However, it's worth noting that such moral codes don't require a religious component, and I don't think one with a religious component ought to be pressed on others, given the amount of trouble scuffling over religion has caused humans over their history.
Having a set of "moral values" means different things depending on the individual's beliefs. One person may believe that it is "morally right" to cheat on a test in order to "get ahead", while others may not. Being "spiritual" of having "personal moral beliefs" without a religious context does not give anyone else a basis for understanding where that individual actually stands or what they actually believe is morally right or wrong. Religion gives that hard and fast set of rules. Rules which sometimes go against people's individual desires. Without a religious context, morality becomes subjective and once morality has become subjective, people can find "belief systems" or "spiritual enlightenment" or "personal moral beliefs" or "excuses" to take any action they desire. Those actions may be against the common civil law, but under that person's private individual code of morality, those actions aren't wrong. Then you have people who start professing that their NAMBLA organization is "morally valid" regardless of the law (or regardless of the harm to children condemned by the rest of the population). And then sarosenc's point becomes more valid, as it becomes a necessity to enact laws to enforce a common moral code of conduct. Which is why the Founders (and other great freedom adherants of the past) understood that for a Constitutional Republic to work and survive, the populace must be comprised of people who adhere to a common moral code. At the time of the creation of this country, that code was (and for the majority of the citizenry, still is) based in Christianity.
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
I disagree.However, being moral has to do with having a set of principles guided by "right" and "wrong" behavior. And this is where religion comes in...
I personally do not need a fear of Hell to keep me acting like a civil person or from cheating on my wife, or whatever your imagination can conjour. There is an abilility to understand consequences of my actions. If I act like a selfish @ss to everyone around me... no one will like me. Cheat on my wife.. live with guilt and shame, and possibly lose my home
But seriously.... I am agnostic. Probably because I have seen how many so called "moral" religious people act. Yes there are some beautiful people who are religious as well..no argument there.Is it fear of Hell that keeps people in NAMBLA from acting out there sick desires? Or is it the fear of jail and what the others prisoners will do to them that keeps them from acting on their desires?
I think it is answer B.
Do we as a society need the bible to tell us that NAMBLA is wrong? I think not. Hurting children is bad. Most of us normal people want to protect children from psychological and physical harm... it's what we as a society understand as the norm.
I do see your point about the founders using the bible as a reference point for many of our laws. But we have to accept the fact that the bible had been the base of european laws throughout the century. But... what was before the bible and the ten comandments? It was the code of Hamarabi (ancient Sumeria). So is the bible truly the foundation?
If religion provides a hard and fast set of rules to live by, how come the vast majority of this country's slave owners were Christians? How come most of the embezzelers, cheats, liars etc are self professed Christians (by virtue of most Americans being Christian)? How come some white supremacy groups claim Christianity as their belief system?
I'm not saying Christianity causes these things, but it clearly is not a guarantee of moral behavior. Hitler was Christian. People can bend their religion to whatever they want to believe about their sins, just like Rush Limbaugh can rage about drug addicts--and be one. Like Bill Bennett can rage about various vices--and gamble away millions that could have gone to charity. Just like our Christian politicians can lie to us and start unjust wars or fund nicaraguan death squads.
Like the Constitution, the Bible needs to be interpreted by moral people. It is not the Bible but the morality which is making most Christians good people. And just because I do not read the Bible does not mean that all my choices (modest lifestyle, dedicated my work to healing, follow golden rule, protect environment, keep my neighborhood clean, help others out) are invalid, less reliable or less suitable for a foundation of a country's moral code. Personally I feel we'd be in a lot better shape if people followed my ideals rather than the evagelicals (and antienvironment industry cronies, defenders of the rich, hawks, and liars) who are running our country.
Do you have ANY info that Christianity induces good behavior that refutes the theory that good people seek out a moral code whether Christian or secular, like mine? Or that Christianity reforms behavior or that good behavior is not possible without it? I have plenty of examples of how religions lead to much trouble when not kept private (by that I don't mean "closeted," as I myself am not; I just mean practiced freely, and not forced on anyone.)
I'm not saying Christianity causes these things, but it clearly is not a guarantee of moral behavior. Hitler was Christian. People can bend their religion to whatever they want to believe about their sins, just like Rush Limbaugh can rage about drug addicts--and be one. Like Bill Bennett can rage about various vices--and gamble away millions that could have gone to charity. Just like our Christian politicians can lie to us and start unjust wars or fund nicaraguan death squads.
Like the Constitution, the Bible needs to be interpreted by moral people. It is not the Bible but the morality which is making most Christians good people. And just because I do not read the Bible does not mean that all my choices (modest lifestyle, dedicated my work to healing, follow golden rule, protect environment, keep my neighborhood clean, help others out) are invalid, less reliable or less suitable for a foundation of a country's moral code. Personally I feel we'd be in a lot better shape if people followed my ideals rather than the evagelicals (and antienvironment industry cronies, defenders of the rich, hawks, and liars) who are running our country.
Do you have ANY info that Christianity induces good behavior that refutes the theory that good people seek out a moral code whether Christian or secular, like mine? Or that Christianity reforms behavior or that good behavior is not possible without it? I have plenty of examples of how religions lead to much trouble when not kept private (by that I don't mean "closeted," as I myself am not; I just mean practiced freely, and not forced on anyone.)
--Ian
