Re: Big stink in Green Bay
  By: Ross Cassell to Daniel Prather on Sat Jan 05 2008 08:13 pm

 > Doesnt mean non-existent words in the constitution are in force.

I follow the meanings of the words to their conclusion.

 > They have had Chaplains forever and a day.

I know.

 > Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of
 > Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."
 >
 > Since the election of Rev. Linn in 1789, the House has been served by
 > chaplains of various religious denominations, including Baptist (7),
 > Christian (1), Congregationalist (2), Disciples of Christ (1), Episcopalian
 > (4), Lutheran (1), Methodist (16), Presbyterian (15), Roman Catholic (1),
 > Unitarian (2), and Universalist (1).

This shows that the members of Congress choose the Chaplain they want to
work for them.  Now, were there to be a time when someone opposes the
appointment of the Chaplain on religious grounds, I don't know what would
happen.  I don't know if it ever has happpened.

 > In 2005, The Chaplain was paid a salary of 40k a year.
 >
 > You got a long road to how to get this shit changed...

It's a long road to get a lot of things changed.  It took a war to end slavery.

 >  DP> I think symbolism is wrong because it implies impartiality.
 >
 > You meant partiality, yes?

Err, yes,  Mean to say it does NOT give the impression of impartiality.

 > Its an issue for me, but its not as big of one, because I know people like
 > yourself are suffering from irrational fear.

Until it affects you personally, of course.

 > I dont see it as a federal issue, I see more of it on the state and local
 > levels, and since our blue laws have begun to dissolve, I have worried
 > about it less and less.

It's being invoked at the federal level.  The federal government is interfering
more and more with our rights.  That said, states will likely do the same thing
if the federal government doesn't do it for them.  But, with a smaller federal
government, local people would likely have more control over their own lives.

 > Like when a Federal Court ordered the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme
 > Court to take the monument of the 10 commandments down?
 >
 > Notice how his defiance cost him his career?

Yes, because the position was absolutely indefensible.  However, it took a
pissed off person to file the lawsuit to get it done.  If everyone was like
you, it wouldn't have happened and the Justice would've been able to continue
with his propaganda.

 > Since I am technically on the same side as you in the
"belief" dept, how am
 > I being oppressed?

Oppressed with regard to what?  The 10 Commandments?  They aren't laws.  Only a
handful of them even are.  By placing them in the courthouse, the court is
giving the impression that it considers them to be important, and that people
who live in contrast to them (but not to the law) may be punished differently,
regardless of whether or not you're religious.

 > The sky is falling...  Chicken Little

As I said before.  You've made it very clear that you don't care, and you don't
perceive the problem.  That's fine and your decision.

 > As long as politicians have to spend thousands if not millions of dollars
 > to get elected or have to pander to specific demographics, our govt will
 > never be based on reality, dont blame this phenomena on religion.
 >
 > Religion is just another demographic in this context as are people like
 > you.

Other things have a basis in reality, though.  Yes, they're going to pander to
different people to get money.  That's something inherently wrong with the
system.  However, at least it's something that's up front and debatable, unlike
religion.

I'm not anything special except that I don't want other people's religious
views, without any basis in reality, being imposed on me.  I don't really see
why that's so much to ask.

 > This doesnt require the redefining of marriage.
 > Same sex couples can have their own designation, call them civil unions.

Separate but equal, right?  I think we've been down that path, and it doesn't
work.  What should happen is that marriage == religious, civil union ==
government.  The government legalization/recognition of ALL relationships
should be civil unions.  Marriages are what you get from a church, and have
nothing to do with government or legal recognition of relationships.

 > But unfortunately abortion advocates often try to sell it as I described.

A lot of people describe a lot of things badly.

 > Not every opponent of abortion comes from the right, but you knew that.

I'm not a proponent of abortion, but I'm a proponent of a woman's right to
choose.  I think the fewer women need abortions, the better.  But I don't think
the government has any right to tell them when they can or can't have one, and
that's between a woman and her doctor.

-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD