Originally posted by AlexAmore Ok so we have a perfectly fine belief system but it's illegal. That is the point and it's stupid to be illegal. What happened to land of the free? So you're saying the government should control peoples belief and oppress it if it doesn't conform...or atleast that it's ok? It doesn't matter. There are so many sects, who cares if it has a smaller population. Who cares if they don't follow the Church. That isn't what America is about. If it hurts nobody (other than yourself) then why is it illegal? That's stupid and oppressive just like oppressing Polygamy. Again, that isn't what America is about. Many people say if narcotics were legalized then America wouldn't be such a big market for criminals. Instead the government could regulate narcotics instead of criminals which would make it safer for us people seeing as narcotics aren't going away. Also pharmaceutical companies could create hallucinogenic drugs that wouldn't be so bad. Religion has been rewritten so many times in the past. We have so many religions with marriage legal (it was made law) for THEM but not Polygamists. They have it legal so why make Polygamists second class citizens and not make it legal for them? You say rewrite religion but really they are just reinterpreting it like everyone else does.
You're being VERY unfair and very unamerican. You sound like you support oppression of religion/beliefs. Urge...to....use...Godwin's....Law...
Wow, AlexAmore. Every time you post it seems that you take everybody's ideas out of context and only reference them tangentially in order to take some retarded circuitous route to prove a point that makes little sense.
First of all you claim that it's stupid if Polygamy is illegal. I can see you don't understand how society works. In a society, people have to follow the same set of rules. (ie LAW). This allows people to work together. If people don't follow a set of rules, it's called anarchy. I can't believe I'm having to explain this rudimentary stuff to you. In our society, the law was written by people who shared the same beliefs about things. Things like 'killing is wrong' and 'you cant steal other peoples stuff' and 'you're only allowed to have one wife' . Laws are based on the fundamental beliefs that make up our society.
"what happened to land of the free?" Guess what, that's a line in the anthem. If you are so naive to think that calling it the 'land of the free' means that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, then you should just leave the country.
"So you're saying government.." Listen, read what I said, and then you will realize what you said has nothing to do with it. Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be slow to grasp these concepts. What I said basically means: Laws should not be changed based on a minority of a minority that doesn't like it that way. That's how democracy works, look it up. The majority of people in the US think polygamy is wrong.
This goes back to the whole society thing above. To live in a society (say, the US), you have to obey by that society's rules. The majority of the society (atleast in democracy) gets to decide the rules, and which ones are kept/changed as time goes on. If the majority don't like the rules, then they get changed. When a minority of the society doesn't like the rules, it's too bad. If you don't like the rules of the society, leave. Nobody is going to change national law because a minority of a minority thinks they should be allowed to do something illegal.
Do you even live in America? You don't seem to have as firm a grasp of the situation there as other people do. You don't seem to understand that America and it's laws are largely influenced by religion. The majority of people in the US are Christian. The majority gets to say (by vote) who goes into office, and who makes the laws. Is it a giant shock to your tiny brain that one of the reasons Bush got elected was because he appeals to Christians views?
Let me say again incase you're still having trouble grasping the concept. A minority group which is involved in illegal practices, especially those viewed as being 'perverse' or 'backward', can not dictate majority law. That's democracy. For someone who goes on about being american so much, you don't seem to understand how democracy works.
Democracy works for a society because the majority of the society gets to dictate the policies. In this case, the majority of society has dictated that polygamy is wrong and illegal. Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean you can ignore it. There are plenty of other places in the world with different laws. Find one that you like.
As for being unfair. Well oh no, I'm being unfair to a group which is breaking the law, a group I consider to be blasphemous and immoral. Do I want to be fair to them or fair to the majority of the society which doesn't break the law and I dont' feel as being immoral? I will hardly feel bad if they are oppressed for breaking the law. Do you think we should let all criminals go because putting them in cells would oppress their beliefs?
The fact that you don't like a law does NOT give you excuse to break it. They are simply trying to use religion to put weight beind their weak defense.
And for the record, I'm not even American at all. I've never even set foot in the country. Strange that it seems I know more about being an american than you do.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr And for the record, I'm not even American at all. I've never even set foot in the country. Strange that it seems I know more about being an american than you do. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy you [Derogatory Name]. Democracies are dangerous because like you said it gives the majority ultimate ruling power. Our Constitutional Republic which is based on whats written in our Constitution and Bill of Rights makes sure that doesn't happen.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Alex, you didn't reply to any of his (excellently worded and valid) points, you only attacked his right to state them fairly.
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." - Edward R. Murrow
Originally posted by Merodoc Alex, you didn't reply to any of his (excellently worded and valid) points, you only attacked his right to state them fairly.
None of it matters because it was on the basis that we live in a democracy and infact we don't.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by Blurr Okay this time some of you are actually quite wrong on this. The point here isn't whether polygamy is wrong. The point is that it's illegal, and these people are trying to get it changed on the basis that it's their religion, when in fact they are a splinter sect from the official religion. The fact that they cling to a practice abandoned by the church generations ago just serves to diminish their credibility. This is exactly the same situation as if I went and took the Bible, and I erased a few things then wrote in "To find heaven, everyone must smoke crack. And everyone is allowed to buy or sell narcotics because they are helping people find heaven." It wouldn't be hard to find 50,000 people who want to be allowed to buy/sell/use drugs whenever they want without consequences. We'd call it Narcoticatholicism and wear pointy hats (but we'd have 3 points instead of 1, it's more religious that way). Then we'd all go march on the government and say "You have to make drugs legal because it's our religion". Who would it hurt? Nobody. We would believe that smoking crack is the path to heaven. It doesn't hurt people to try and find heaven, right? The point is, you can't just rewrite a religion and then demand that anything you changed be made law. That's wrong, plain and simple.
So you're saying that polygamy in the Bible is wrong? Abraham = polygamy.
And as far as splinter sects goes, what major religion today isn't a splinter sect?
The point here isn't whether polygamy is wrong. The point is that it's illegal, and these people are trying to get it changed on the basis that it's their religion, when in fact they are a splinter sect from the official religion.
Yeah... I totally agree... And morally i think Polygamy is wrong as well... But How do you show that it's illegal. A man is legally married to ONE woman... and he sleeps with others as well... Wouldn't we also have to start arresting people like collin ferrol, hue heffner.... etc...?
Secondly your statement Is exactly my view of religion and government. But I can't help but touch on gay marriage for that one. "...it's illegal, and these people are trying to get it changed on the basis that it's their [belief]...."
So as far as i'm concerned... Since we're on the way to legal gay marraige.. My argument against legal polygamy doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Sometimes there are laws that are made that are unconstitutional. And it takes some time for them to be challenged.
People in America are free to practice their religion. Whatever it may be. I don't care if they created one today, they are still free to practice their beliefs. The only time they aren't is when they are infringing on another American's rights.
These people aren't hurting anyone. If they believe their religion says it's okay, then they have a right to practice that way. They'll win out in the end, because the Constitionality of the law is what it all boils down to.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it does not go against the Constitution. And it will be challenged. That's why we have a judicial branch to review laws.
I don't understand why people stay in America if they can't stand freedom. This isn't a nation where you impose your beliefs on someone else. If that's too hard to understand then it's not in your nature. Go somewhere else to live that suits you more.
Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by AlexAmore Ok so we have a perfectly fine belief system but it's illegal. That is the point and it's stupid to be illegal. What happened to land of the free? So you're saying the government should control peoples belief and oppress it if it doesn't conform...or atleast that it's ok? It doesn't matter. There are so many sects, who cares if it has a smaller population. Who cares if they don't follow the Church. That isn't what America is about. If it hurts nobody (other than yourself) then why is it illegal? That's stupid and oppressive just like oppressing Polygamy. Again, that isn't what America is about. Many people say if narcotics were legalized then America wouldn't be such a big market for criminals. Instead the government could regulate narcotics instead of criminals which would make it safer for us people seeing as narcotics aren't going away. Also pharmaceutical companies could create hallucinogenic drugs that wouldn't be so bad. Religion has been rewritten so many times in the past. We have so many religions with marriage legal (it was made law) for THEM but not Polygamists. They have it legal so why make Polygamists second class citizens and not make it legal for them? You say rewrite religion but really they are just reinterpreting it like everyone else does.
You're being VERY unfair and very unamerican. You sound like you support oppression of religion/beliefs. Urge...to....use...Godwin's....Law...
Wow, AlexAmore. Every time you post it seems that you take everybody's ideas out of context and only reference them tangentially in order to take some retarded circuitous route to prove a point that makes little sense.
First of all you claim that it's stupid if Polygamy is illegal. I can see you don't understand how society works. In a society, people have to follow the same set of rules. (ie LAW). This allows people to work together. If people don't follow a set of rules, it's called anarchy. I can't believe I'm having to explain this rudimentary stuff to you. In our society, the law was written by people who shared the same beliefs about things. Things like 'killing is wrong' and 'you cant steal other peoples stuff' and 'you're only allowed to have one wife' . Laws are based on the fundamental beliefs that make up our society.
"what happened to land of the free?" Guess what, that's a line in the anthem. If you are so naive to think that calling it the 'land of the free' means that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, then you should just leave the country.
"So you're saying government.." Listen, read what I said, and then you will realize what you said has nothing to do with it. Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be slow to grasp these concepts. What I said basically means: Laws should not be changed based on a minority of a minority that doesn't like it that way. That's how democracy works, look it up. The majority of people in the US think polygamy is wrong.
This goes back to the whole society thing above. To live in a society (say, the US), you have to obey by that society's rules. The majority of the society (atleast in democracy) gets to decide the rules, and which ones are kept/changed as time goes on. If the majority don't like the rules, then they get changed. When a minority of the society doesn't like the rules, it's too bad. If you don't like the rules of the society, leave. Nobody is going to change national law because a minority of a minority thinks they should be allowed to do something illegal.
Do you even live in America? You don't seem to have as firm a grasp of the situation there as other people do. You don't seem to understand that America and it's laws are largely influenced by religion. The majority of people in the US are Christian. The majority gets to say (by vote) who goes into office, and who makes the laws. Is it a giant shock to your tiny brain that one of the reasons Bush got elected was because he appeals to Christians views?
Let me say again incase you're still having trouble grasping the concept. A minority group which is involved in illegal practices, especially those viewed as being 'perverse' or 'backward', can not dictate majority law. That's democracy. For someone who goes on about being american so much, you don't seem to understand how democracy works.
Democracy works for a society because the majority of the society gets to dictate the policies. In this case, the majority of society has dictated that polygamy is wrong and illegal. Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean you can ignore it. There are plenty of other places in the world with different laws. Find one that you like.
As for being unfair. Well oh no, I'm being unfair to a group which is breaking the law, a group I consider to be blasphemous and immoral. Do I want to be fair to them or fair to the majority of the society which doesn't break the law and I dont' feel as being immoral? I will hardly feel bad if they are oppressed for breaking the law. Do you think we should let all criminals go because putting them in cells would oppress their beliefs?
The fact that you don't like a law does NOT give you excuse to break it. They are simply trying to use religion to put weight beind their weak defense.
And for the record, I'm not even American at all. I've never even set foot in the country. Strange that it seems I know more about being an american than you do.
I don't see where Alex said anything wrong.
Our laws are based on our founding doctrines. The Constitution of United States.
Go and read the Constitution. Nowhere does it say that people have the right to impose their beliefs of right or wrong on someone else. We have the right to do as we please and to worship as we please and practice our religions as we please as long as we don't infringe on other peoples rights. These people aren't imposing on your rights whatsoever. You can still practice your religion how you want to.
It's America. I know it's still a pretty revolutionary system we have here, so if you can't handle go to one of the other countries more suitable to you. Here we believe in personal responsibility and freedom to use it.
Wow, IMO this is worse than gay marriage. Marriage is meant to be between two people. If there are more than two, then it really isn't a marriage. You aren't bound to the other person, but instead, you are simply their fuck-buddy.
Originally posted by Merodoc Alex, you didn't reply to any of his (excellently worded and valid) points, you only attacked his right to state them fairly.
Yes he did.
All you have to do is go to the Constitution.
If you want to learn more about how to live in a free country where you take care of yourself and let others live their life the way they see fit, then read things by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine.
Originally posted by WizGamer Wow, IMO this is worse than gay marriage. Marriage is meant to be between two people. If there are more than two, then it really isn't a marriage. You aren't bound to the other person, but instead, you are simply their fuck-buddy.
And these people would disagree with you. And they have a right to live how they see fit.
I don't think the Bible calls Abraham's wives "f**k buddies."
This article is about gay marriage, but it also addresses the Constitutionality of the issue of polygamy. Maybe it will clear up some confusions that some people are having about what living in a country based on personal freedoms is all about.
Richard A. Epstein is a professor of law at the University of Chicago, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
Two recent developments have returned same-sex marriages to center stage. At one pole lies the conservative effort to steer a Family Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex marriages, through Congress; and at the other, the implementation of the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Health, which requires equal treatment for same-sex marriages.
These two parallel episodes offer powerful evidence of an unhappy wedge between the majoritarian and libertarian wings of conservative legal thought. Generally -- and here the illiberal FMA is a jarring exception -- conservatives insist that most important structural questions in the U.S. should be decided through the democratic political processes, in the separate states. The libertarian wing regards democratic government as an imperfect means in service of the larger end of personal liberty, and thus strongly pushes the guarantees of individual rights to their logical conclusion. Both sides struggle to accommodate the rival impulse: All majoritarians recognize some limitations on government. All libertarians recognize that there are some inherently political decisions that no personal rights can trump. But how to draw the balance?
Conservatives regard the Goodridge decision as unprincipled meddling of the worst sort. After all, current canons of constitutional interpretation require judicial deference to legislation. The courts must uphold any statute, however unwise, as long as a rational basis can be discerned. But after Lawrence v. Texas last year, in which the Supreme Court struck down a longstanding Texas antisodomy law, social conservatives are right to ask why -- if such laws are struck down as unconstitutional -- the prohibitions on same-sex marriages won't be next on its agenda, notwithstanding the Court's own disclaimers on this explosive question.
Constitutional libertarians hold that the state must always put forward some strong justification to limit the freedom of association of ordinary individuals. Those justifications might include stopping pollution and cartels, but they cannot include the offense that the majority takes to practices they regard as contrary to public morals. Their remedy is to refrain from participation in the practices they dislike, not to stop others from doing as they please.
When President Bush, for example, talks about the need to "protect" the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against. No proponent of gay marriage wants to ban traditional marriage, or to burden couples who want to marry with endless tests, taxes and delays. All gay-marriage advocates want to do is to enjoy the same rights of association that are held by other people. Let the state argue that gay marriages are a health risk, and the answer is that anything that encourages monogamy has the opposite effect. Any principled burden of justification for the ban is not met.
But it is said that marriage is different because it is more than a private association; it is an institution licensed by the state. To which the answer is that any use of state monopoly power must avoid suspect grounds for discrimination. So the state must explain why it will favor some unions over others -- without resort to claims of public morals. The restraints on state power are the same as when the state uses its monopoly power to license drivers, or grant zoning permits.
The question here is not just whether the courts will impose their views on the people of the several states. It is whether they will allow a majority of the public to impose its will on a minority within its midst in the absence of any need for a collective decision. The claim for same-sex marriage is no weaker than any other claim of individual rights on personal and religious matters.
But since the state bans polygamy, some ask, why not also ban same sex marriages? Turn the question around, however: Why ban the former, especially by constitutional amendment, when agreed to by all parties?Incest is a different matter, with the high dangers from inbreeding. And people and poodles can't tie the knot because one half in the relationship (some would say the better half) lacks the capacity to enter into a contract.
The case against state prohibition of same-sex marriages becomes clearer when we ask how much further we are prepared to take the principle of democratic domination. Where is the limiting principle on majority power? Suppose that the proponents of gay rights get strong enough politically to require traditional churches to perform gay marriages, or to admit gay individuals into their clergy. Or to demand that people accept gay couples as tenants in their homes, even if they regard their relationship as sinful. Now the shoe is on the other foot. I think that the paramount claims of individual liberty should not have to yield to democratic decisions intended to impose an alternative enlightened view of public morals.
My fear is that the American left chiefly understands liberty by carving out some preferred class of "intimate" associations of two (but in an unexplained burst of traditionalism, most definitely not more) individuals. After all, even on associational freedoms, the American left has become far more statist in rejecting freedom of association claims in the Boy Scout and campaign finance cases. Its support for gay marriage, therefore, looks opportunistic because it refuses to apply the same standard of free association to economic legislation for fear of what it will do to unions and their fiefdoms.
In its own way, the moral left is as authoritarian as the moral right. Judged against the left's own fractured standard, the conservative criticisms of judicial activism hit the mark. But the conservatives' plea for democratic federalism in defense of traditional values, and then for a constitutional amendment, is wholly misguided. Restore individual liberty to center stage, and this state restriction on same-sex marriages falls to the ground with the same speed as the full panoply of employment regulations, and the extension of antidiscrimination laws into ordinary social and religious affairs.
The path to social peace lies in the willingness on all sides to follow a principle of live-and-let-live on deep moral disputes. Defenders of the illiberal FMA should look to their churches, not Congress and the states, to maintain the sanctity of the marriage.
That's the whole point Alex, you avoid answering the hard questions by trying to dismiss an argument on some small point.
The fact is though, it being a Constitutional Republic only strengthens my points. I was using the word Democracy because Bush doesn't say "we are spreading constitutional republics" he says "we are spreading democracy". It's the commonly used term for the basis of your government.
Perhaps you should watch those videos yourself. I hate using quotes to prove my points (I find people who can't come up with their own ideas to be limited in scope of thought), but on this special occasion, since you seem to like to point to other peoples thoughts so much more than your own, I have some for you.
Taken from Wikipedia section on Constitutional Republic "..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law; popular vote is limited to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law.."
Law.
That means if you want to be part of the Constitutional Republic, you have to obay the laws.
A little more info from Wikipedia relating to the people in the article: "Although Latter-day Saints believed that their religiously-based practice of plural marriage was protected by the United States Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court had already specifically held in 1878 that LDS polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, in the case of Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), under the longstanding legal principle that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." (Id. at 166.) [24] "
"..until the Church ordered the discontinuance of the practice in 1890."
"..Church president Joseph F. Smith to issue his Second Manifesto against polygamy in 1904. This manifesto clarified that all members of the LDS Church were prohibited from performing or entering into polygamous marriages, no matter what the legal status of such unions was in their respective countries of residence."
"Since that time, it has been Church policy to excommunicate any member either practicing or openly advocating the practice of polygamy. It was considered a divine revelation from God to discontinue the practice, and Joseph F. Smith was considered to be the spokesman (prophet) of God according to the Mormon faith."
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that it is improper to call any of these splinter polygamous groups "Mormon." LDS.org, the official site of the LDS church states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split...".[26]" [Regarding the 'fundamentalist' splinter groups]
Most of those quotes were taken from Wikipedia's page on Polygamy and it's section on Mormonism, which can be found Here
What do you have to say now AlexAmore? Do you support these people breaking the law of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr That's the whole point Alex, you avoid answering the hard questions by trying to dismiss an argument on some small point. The fact is though, it being a Constitutional Republic only strengthens my points. I was using the word Democracy because Bush doesn't say "we are spreading constitutional republics" he says "we are spreading democracy". It's the commonly used term for the basis of your government. Perhaps you should watch those videos yourself. I hate using quotes to prove my points (I find people who can't come up with their own ideas to be limited in scope of thought), but on this special occasion, since you seem to like to point to other peoples thoughts so much more than your own, I have some for you. Taken from Wikipedia section on Constitutional Republic "..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law; popular vote is limited to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law.." Law. That means if you want to be part of the Constitutional Republic, you have to obay the laws.
What do you have to say now AlexAmore? Do you support these people breaking the law of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America?
Dude, you missed the whole point of what you cut and pasted there. It says "popular vote is limited to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law." That's referring to the representatives. They're supposed to abide by laws that put the people first, not the government. We are a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people. Therefore, we are intended to be the ones in control of our own lives, not the government in charge of us. That's why it says representatives must govern within limits of overarching constitutional law. They're meant to have limits to their power. That's what that means. You didn't read it right.
Just keep this in mind. In America you are supposed to take care of yourself. It's not the governments job to nurture you, take care of you, or tell you how to live. You're free to decide upon what's right or wrong for you and your family on your own. And if you feel that polygamy is right for you then you are free to live that way. The government is not here to tell you right or wrong. The only time they are to step in is when you infringe on someone elses rights to freedom and liberty. These people aren't infringing on anyone elses rights. So they are well within the Constitutions protection in their actions.
Like alexamore, you too seem to nitpick the small things and ignore the big things. Look again at the quote that says
"..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.."
It's in your constitution that there is a Judicial branch of the government, and this branch sets the laws. You, as a citizen, are governed by the laws that this branch sets.
According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." -- REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
Read that again because it's the whole point here. You know what, just so you understand, I'll put it down again.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." -- REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
If you know your constitution reavo, then you know it IS the government's job to tell you what you can and, more importantly, cannot do. The government IS here to tell you right and wrong. They just can't tell you what to believe in. You can't do anything illegal, whether it infringes on someone elses rights or not. You especially can't do something illegal by calling it your religious belief. The constitution does NOT protect these people's actions, because they are illegal by law.
reavo and alexamore, you are going against your own constitution by promoting illegal activities. It's that simple. The government said No. If you don't like it, get the law changed, but until then, you aren't allowed to do it. You can believe it's okay to have a meth lab in your basement, but the law says NO. Until it's changed, you are subject to the penalties of performing those illegal activities.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Ah reavo Like alexamore, you too seem to nitpick the small things and ignore the big things. Look again at the quote that says "..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.." It's in your constitution that there is a Judicial branch of the government, and this branch sets the laws. You, as a citizen, are governed by the laws that this branch sets. According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." -- REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878) Read that again because it's the whole point here. You know what, just so you understand, I'll put it down again. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." -- REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878) If you know your constitution reavo, then you know it IS the government's job to tell you what you can and, more importantly, cannot do. The government IS here to tell you right and wrong. They just can't tell you what to believe in. You can't do anything illegal, whether it infringes on someone elses rights or not. You especially can't do something illegal by calling it your religious belief. The constitution does NOT protect these people's actions, because they are illegal by law. reavo and alexamore, you are going against your own constitution by promoting illegal activities. It's that simple. The government said No. If you don't like it, get the law changed, but until then, you aren't allowed to do it. You can believe it's okay to have a meth lab in your basement, but the law says NO. Until it's changed, you are subject to the penalties of performing those illegal activities.
You are so wrong. This scares me to know people are thinking that this is what our country is all about.
I am not nitpicking, you are reading the things you're posting wrong.
"..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.."
"Citizens are not governed by the majority of the people." This is so that everyone is given equal protection by the law. And the law of the U.S. is individual freedom and liberty. That includes the right to freedom from an oppressive government that is trying to tell you how to live and make decisions for you pertaining to your own well being. That's what freedom and liberty is all about. Our founding fathers were trying to escape from oppressive government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War against England and it's tyranny under a king system. They knew about big governments threats and they also believed in the peoples decision making power when it came to personal matters.
"but by the rule of law." Here is where you're getting lost. You have to go and find out what that rule of law is in America. It is laws setup to protect our freedoms and to strip decision making power away from the government and give it to us. Our founding doctrines and their laws promise the power to go to the people. To minimize government intervention in American citizens lives. Our laws are not made to oppress us or make decisions for us. That's why laws such as this will be challenged on their constitutionality and changed. It just takes time sometimes. But that's part of the evolution of our system. It's meant to break down oppressive laws. And telling people how they can worship is an oppressive law. These people are not infringing on anyone elses freedoms or liberties, therefore they are acting within Constitutional parameters. Their case will be up for review by the Supreme Court and they will find the law banning polygamy illegal. Just because something is a law does not mean it is Constitutional. That's the reason we have a review system.
Originally posted by Blurr That's the whole point here. The same point I've been saying but you two have seemed to miss time and again. You cannot change law based on religious belief, because then everyone could write their own laws and call it religion.
Everyone is allowed to practice their religion in this country as they say fit. The only time they can't practice their religion is when they are trampling on other American's rights to freedom and liberty. That's the reason these people are going to challenge this law and it will be found unconstitutional. Because imposing this law on people is illegal under our Constitution. It's trumped by the Constitution.
You've got to learn what American principles and ideals are. Our laws do not come from an oppressive foundation. They are supposed to protect our freedoms. Our government is not there to put limitations on us, but to instead to act to protect our freedoms. Our system has just become bloated and distorted. And with people looking at it the way you are it's no surprise.
reavo once again you totally miss the point, so I'm gonna spell it out simply for you
To live in the USA, do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Yes
Is polygamy currently illegal in the USA? Yes
Does that mean if you are a polygamist, you are breaking the law? Yes
Should you be punished for breaking the law? Yes
Can the law be changed later? Yes
If you don't like the law, should you challenge it in court? Yes
Do you still have to obey the law until it is changed? Yes
Are you allowed to believe whatever you want, religion-wise? Yes
Are you allowed to do something illegal if you say it's part of your religion? No
What part of that don't you get reavo? The US Supreme Court (see above) specifically said that the government is allowed to say yes and no to religious practices, because otherwise anyone could get away with anything and call it religion.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr reavo once again you totally miss the point, so I'm gonna spell it out simply for you To live in the USA, do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Yes Is polygamy currently illegal in the USA? Yes Does that mean if you are a polygamist, you are breaking the law? Yes It was never the law to begin with if it's unconstitutional. Should you be punished for breaking the law? Yes Read above. Can the law be changed later? Yes If you don't like the law, should you challenge it in court? Yes You challenge it in court if you get caught. Then set up your case and if you have the Constitution on your side then you win. Unfortunately you have to argue your case in front of humans and who knows if they understand what you're talking about. Do you still have to obey the law until it is changed? Yes Read above Are you allowed to believe whatever you want, religion-wise? Yes Are you allowed to do something illegal if you say it's part of your religion? No Read above. What part of that don't you get reavo? The US Supreme Court (see above) specifically said that the government is allowed to say yes and no to religious practices, because otherwise anyone could get away with anything and call it religion.
The problem with you is you don't understand and underestimate the Constitution.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by reavoSo you're saying that polygamy in the Bible is wrong? Abraham = polygamy.
And as far as splinter sects goes, what major religion today isn't a splinter sect?
I'm proud of you going to the bible for help .. But i'll have to correct you on this one. God never blessed abraham for his polygamy... That relationship was brought about by flesh, from flesh...
Sarah couldn't have children so she let Abe have a child with the other lady.. It wasn't a GOD told me to go sleep with the maid.... and marry her... Abraham was highly regarded by God... but this doesn't mean that God believed that everything Abe did was good...
Jesus also favored a lady-of-the-night over priests...... Please refrain from taking the bible out of context...
I can also show places in the bible where there was murder, theft, adultery, fornication, lies.. whatever you can think of... That doesn't make it right just because it's in the bible... You have to READ the bible to understand that it's a guide and a history lesson... Not a book of "Do this"
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
You know, you guys sound like a broken record, yet you never seem to come up with any backup. You just cry "constitution constitution" like it's holy salvation.
Persumably so you don't have to think for yourselves.
How about some information on where exactly it says in the constitution that any religion allows you to ignore the laws of the land? I've already provided proof that says otherwise.
Or don't you guys have a leg to stand on?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr You know, you guys sound like a broken record, yet you never seem to come up with any backup. You just cry "constitution constitution" like it's holy salvation. All I hear from you is "Sieg...Heil! Sieg...Heil! Sieg...Heil!" Persumably so you don't have to think for yourselves. Apparently you support laws that govern/oppress the people....so they don't have to think for themselves. How about some information on where exactly it says in the constitution that any religion allows you to ignore the laws of the land? I've already provided proof that says otherwise. You ignore everything that reavo says and you ignore the Constitution expert. Reavo has already proven that the Constitution supports Polygamy even the act of it. Or don't you guys have a leg to stand on?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
It is unconstitutional for the government to impose restrictions on a citizen'ss religion as long as that religion and the actions/rituals involved do not interfere with other people's liberties. k?
The government BROKE the LAW (Constitution) and did impose restrictions anyways. k?
We the people who are ABOVE the government do NOT have to put up with it. k?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Comments
QFT, and as long as no one is forced to do anything.
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Wow, AlexAmore. Every time you post it seems that you take everybody's ideas out of context and only reference them tangentially in order to take some retarded circuitous route to prove a point that makes little sense.
First of all you claim that it's stupid if Polygamy is illegal. I can see you don't understand how society works. In a society, people have to follow the same set of rules. (ie LAW). This allows people to work together. If people don't follow a set of rules, it's called anarchy. I can't believe I'm having to explain this rudimentary stuff to you. In our society, the law was written by people who shared the same beliefs about things. Things like 'killing is wrong' and 'you cant steal other peoples stuff' and 'you're only allowed to have one wife' . Laws are based on the fundamental beliefs that make up our society.
"what happened to land of the free?" Guess what, that's a line in the anthem. If you are so naive to think that calling it the 'land of the free' means that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, then you should just leave the country.
"So you're saying government.." Listen, read what I said, and then you will realize what you said has nothing to do with it. Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be slow to grasp these concepts. What I said basically means: Laws should not be changed based on a minority of a minority that doesn't like it that way. That's how democracy works, look it up. The majority of people in the US think polygamy is wrong.
This goes back to the whole society thing above. To live in a society (say, the US), you have to obey by that society's rules. The majority of the society (atleast in democracy) gets to decide the rules, and which ones are kept/changed as time goes on. If the majority don't like the rules, then they get changed. When a minority of the society doesn't like the rules, it's too bad. If you don't like the rules of the society, leave. Nobody is going to change national law because a minority of a minority thinks they should be allowed to do something illegal.
Do you even live in America? You don't seem to have as firm a grasp of the situation there as other people do. You don't seem to understand that America and it's laws are largely influenced by religion. The majority of people in the US are Christian. The majority gets to say (by vote) who goes into office, and who makes the laws. Is it a giant shock to your tiny brain that one of the reasons Bush got elected was because he appeals to Christians views?
Let me say again incase you're still having trouble grasping the concept. A minority group which is involved in illegal practices, especially those viewed as being 'perverse' or 'backward', can not dictate majority law. That's democracy. For someone who goes on about being american so much, you don't seem to understand how democracy works.
Democracy works for a society because the majority of the society gets to dictate the policies. In this case, the majority of society has dictated that polygamy is wrong and illegal. Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean you can ignore it. There are plenty of other places in the world with different laws. Find one that you like.
As for being unfair. Well oh no, I'm being unfair to a group which is breaking the law, a group I consider to be blasphemous and immoral. Do I want to be fair to them or fair to the majority of the society which doesn't break the law and I dont' feel as being immoral? I will hardly feel bad if they are oppressed for breaking the law. Do you think we should let all criminals go because putting them in cells would oppress their beliefs?
The fact that you don't like a law does NOT give you excuse to break it. They are simply trying to use religion to put weight beind their weak defense.
And for the record, I'm not even American at all. I've never even set foot in the country. Strange that it seems I know more about being an american than you do.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
- Edward R. Murrow
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
And as far as splinter sects goes, what major religion today isn't a splinter sect?
Yeah... I totally agree... And morally i think Polygamy is wrong as well... But How do you show that it's illegal. A man is legally married to ONE woman... and he sleeps with others as well... Wouldn't we also have to start arresting people like collin ferrol, hue heffner.... etc...?
Secondly your statement Is exactly my view of religion and government. But I can't help but touch on gay marriage for that one. "...it's illegal, and these people are trying to get it changed on the basis that it's their [belief]...."
So as far as i'm concerned... Since we're on the way to legal gay marraige.. My argument against legal polygamy doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Sometimes there are laws that are made that are unconstitutional. And it takes some time for them to be challenged.
People in America are free to practice their religion. Whatever it may be. I don't care if they created one today, they are still free to practice their beliefs. The only time they aren't is when they are infringing on another American's rights.
These people aren't hurting anyone. If they believe their religion says it's okay, then they have a right to practice that way. They'll win out in the end, because the Constitionality of the law is what it all boils down to.
Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it does not go against the Constitution. And it will be challenged. That's why we have a judicial branch to review laws.
I don't understand why people stay in America if they can't stand freedom. This isn't a nation where you impose your beliefs on someone else. If that's too hard to understand then it's not in your nature. Go somewhere else to live that suits you more.
Wow, AlexAmore. Every time you post it seems that you take everybody's ideas out of context and only reference them tangentially in order to take some retarded circuitous route to prove a point that makes little sense.
First of all you claim that it's stupid if Polygamy is illegal. I can see you don't understand how society works. In a society, people have to follow the same set of rules. (ie LAW). This allows people to work together. If people don't follow a set of rules, it's called anarchy. I can't believe I'm having to explain this rudimentary stuff to you. In our society, the law was written by people who shared the same beliefs about things. Things like 'killing is wrong' and 'you cant steal other peoples stuff' and 'you're only allowed to have one wife' . Laws are based on the fundamental beliefs that make up our society.
"what happened to land of the free?" Guess what, that's a line in the anthem. If you are so naive to think that calling it the 'land of the free' means that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want, then you should just leave the country.
"So you're saying government.." Listen, read what I said, and then you will realize what you said has nothing to do with it. Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be slow to grasp these concepts. What I said basically means: Laws should not be changed based on a minority of a minority that doesn't like it that way. That's how democracy works, look it up. The majority of people in the US think polygamy is wrong.
This goes back to the whole society thing above. To live in a society (say, the US), you have to obey by that society's rules. The majority of the society (atleast in democracy) gets to decide the rules, and which ones are kept/changed as time goes on. If the majority don't like the rules, then they get changed. When a minority of the society doesn't like the rules, it's too bad. If you don't like the rules of the society, leave. Nobody is going to change national law because a minority of a minority thinks they should be allowed to do something illegal.
Do you even live in America? You don't seem to have as firm a grasp of the situation there as other people do. You don't seem to understand that America and it's laws are largely influenced by religion. The majority of people in the US are Christian. The majority gets to say (by vote) who goes into office, and who makes the laws. Is it a giant shock to your tiny brain that one of the reasons Bush got elected was because he appeals to Christians views?
Let me say again incase you're still having trouble grasping the concept. A minority group which is involved in illegal practices, especially those viewed as being 'perverse' or 'backward', can not dictate majority law. That's democracy. For someone who goes on about being american so much, you don't seem to understand how democracy works.
Democracy works for a society because the majority of the society gets to dictate the policies. In this case, the majority of society has dictated that polygamy is wrong and illegal. Just because you don't like the law, doesn't mean you can ignore it. There are plenty of other places in the world with different laws. Find one that you like.
As for being unfair. Well oh no, I'm being unfair to a group which is breaking the law, a group I consider to be blasphemous and immoral. Do I want to be fair to them or fair to the majority of the society which doesn't break the law and I dont' feel as being immoral? I will hardly feel bad if they are oppressed for breaking the law. Do you think we should let all criminals go because putting them in cells would oppress their beliefs?
The fact that you don't like a law does NOT give you excuse to break it. They are simply trying to use religion to put weight beind their weak defense.
And for the record, I'm not even American at all. I've never even set foot in the country. Strange that it seems I know more about being an american than you do.
I don't see where Alex said anything wrong.
Our laws are based on our founding doctrines. The Constitution of United States.
Go and read the Constitution. Nowhere does it say that people have the right to impose their beliefs of right or wrong on someone else. We have the right to do as we please and to worship as we please and practice our religions as we please as long as we don't infringe on other peoples rights. These people aren't imposing on your rights whatsoever. You can still practice your religion how you want to.
It's America. I know it's still a pretty revolutionary system we have here, so if you can't handle go to one of the other countries more suitable to you. Here we believe in personal responsibility and freedom to use it.
All you have to do is go to the Constitution.
If you want to learn more about how to live in a free country where you take care of yourself and let others live their life the way they see fit, then read things by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Paine.
I don't think the Bible calls Abraham's wives "f**k buddies."
This article is about gay marriage, but it also addresses the Constitutionality of the issue of polygamy. Maybe it will clear up some confusions that some people are having about what living in a country based on personal freedoms is all about.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2737Live and Let Live
by Richard A. Epstein
Richard A. Epstein
is a professor of law at the University of Chicago, a senior fellow of
the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.
Two recent developments have returned
same-sex marriages to center stage. At one pole lies the conservative
effort to steer a Family Marriage Amendment, banning same-sex
marriages, through Congress; and at the other, the implementation of
the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Health, which requires equal treatment for same-sex marriages.
These two parallel episodes offer powerful evidence of an unhappy
wedge between the majoritarian and libertarian wings of conservative
legal thought. Generally -- and here the illiberal FMA is a jarring
exception -- conservatives insist that most important structural
questions in the U.S. should be decided through the democratic
political processes, in the separate states. The libertarian wing
regards democratic government as an imperfect means in service of the
larger end of personal liberty, and thus strongly pushes the guarantees
of individual rights to their logical conclusion. Both sides struggle
to accommodate the rival impulse: All majoritarians recognize some
limitations on government. All libertarians recognize that there are
some inherently political decisions that no personal rights can trump.
But how to draw the balance?
Conservatives regard the Goodridge decision as
unprincipled meddling of the worst sort. After all, current canons of
constitutional interpretation require judicial deference to
legislation. The courts must uphold any statute, however unwise, as
long as a rational basis can be discerned. But after Lawrence v. Texas
last year, in which the Supreme Court struck down a longstanding Texas
antisodomy law, social conservatives are right to ask why -- if such
laws are struck down as unconstitutional -- the prohibitions on
same-sex marriages won't be next on its agenda, notwithstanding the
Court's own disclaimers on this explosive question.
Constitutional libertarians hold that the state must always put
forward some strong justification to limit the freedom of association
of ordinary individuals. Those justifications might include stopping
pollution and cartels, but they cannot include the offense that the
majority takes to practices they regard as contrary to public morals.
Their remedy is to refrain from participation in the practices they
dislike, not to stop others from doing as they please.
When President Bush, for example, talks about the need to "protect"
the sanctity of marriage, his plea is a giant non sequitur because he
does not explain what, precisely, he is protecting marriage against. No
proponent of gay marriage wants to ban traditional marriage, or to
burden couples who want to marry with endless tests, taxes and delays.
All gay-marriage advocates want to do is to enjoy the same rights of
association that are held by other people. Let the state argue that gay
marriages are a health risk, and the answer is that anything that
encourages monogamy has the opposite effect. Any principled burden of
justification for the ban is not met.
But it is said that marriage is different because it is more than a
private association; it is an institution licensed by the state. To
which the answer is that any use of state monopoly power must avoid
suspect grounds for discrimination. So the state must explain why it
will favor some unions over others -- without resort to claims of
public morals. The restraints on state power are the same as when the
state uses its monopoly power to license drivers, or grant zoning
permits.
The question here is not just whether the courts will impose their
views on the people of the several states. It is whether they will
allow a majority of the public to impose its will on a minority within
its midst in the absence of any need for a collective decision. The
claim for same-sex marriage is no weaker than any other claim of
individual rights on personal and religious matters.
But since the state bans polygamy, some ask, why not also ban same
sex marriages? Turn the question around, however: Why ban the former,
especially by constitutional amendment, when agreed to by all parties?Incest is a different matter, with the high dangers from inbreeding.
And people and poodles can't tie the knot because one half in the
relationship (some would say the better half) lacks the capacity to
enter into a contract.
The case against state prohibition of same-sex marriages becomes
clearer when we ask how much further we are prepared to take the
principle of democratic domination. Where is the limiting principle on
majority power? Suppose that the proponents of gay rights get strong
enough politically to require traditional churches to perform gay
marriages, or to admit gay individuals into their clergy. Or to demand
that people accept gay couples as tenants in their homes, even if they
regard their relationship as sinful. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
I think that the paramount claims of individual liberty should not have
to yield to democratic decisions intended to impose an alternative
enlightened view of public morals.
My fear is that the American left chiefly understands liberty by
carving out some preferred class of "intimate" associations of two (but
in an unexplained burst of traditionalism, most definitely not more)
individuals. After all, even on associational freedoms, the American
left has become far more statist in rejecting freedom of association
claims in the Boy Scout and campaign finance cases. Its support for gay
marriage, therefore, looks opportunistic because it refuses to apply
the same standard of free association to economic legislation for fear
of what it will do to unions and their fiefdoms.
In its own way, the moral left is as authoritarian as the moral
right. Judged against the left's own fractured standard, the
conservative criticisms of judicial activism hit the mark. But the
conservatives' plea for democratic federalism in defense of traditional
values, and then for a constitutional amendment, is wholly misguided.
Restore individual liberty to center stage, and this state restriction
on same-sex marriages falls to the ground with the same speed as the
full panoply of employment regulations, and the extension of
antidiscrimination laws into ordinary social and religious affairs.
The path to social peace lies in the willingness on all sides to
follow a principle of live-and-let-live on deep moral disputes.
Defenders of the illiberal FMA should look to their churches, not
Congress and the states, to maintain the sanctity of the marriage.
That's the whole point Alex, you avoid answering the hard questions by trying to dismiss an argument on some small point.
The fact is though, it being a Constitutional Republic only strengthens my points. I was using the word Democracy because Bush doesn't say "we are spreading constitutional republics" he says "we are spreading democracy". It's the commonly used term for the basis of your government.
Perhaps you should watch those videos yourself. I hate using quotes to prove my points (I find people who can't come up with their own ideas to be limited in scope of thought), but on this special occasion, since you seem to like to point to other peoples thoughts so much more than your own, I have some for you.
Taken from Wikipedia section on Constitutional Republic "..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law; popular vote is limited to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law.."
Law.
That means if you want to be part of the Constitutional Republic, you have to obay the laws.
A little more info from Wikipedia relating to the people in the article: "Although Latter-day Saints believed that their religiously-based practice of plural marriage was protected by the United States Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court had already specifically held in 1878 that LDS polygamy was not protected by the Constitution, in the case of Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), under the longstanding legal principle that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." (Id. at 166.) [24] "
"..until the Church ordered the discontinuance of the practice in 1890."
"..Church president Joseph F. Smith to issue his Second Manifesto against polygamy in 1904. This manifesto clarified that all members of the LDS Church were prohibited from performing or entering into polygamous marriages, no matter what the legal status of such unions was in their respective countries of residence."
"Since that time, it has been Church policy to excommunicate any member either practicing or openly advocating the practice of polygamy. It was considered a divine revelation from God to discontinue the practice, and Joseph F. Smith was considered to be the spokesman (prophet) of God according to the Mormon faith."
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that it is improper to call any of these splinter polygamous groups "Mormon." LDS.org, the official site of the LDS church states: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split...".[26]" [Regarding the 'fundamentalist' splinter groups]
Most of those quotes were taken from Wikipedia's page on Polygamy and it's section on Mormonism, which can be found Here
What do you have to say now AlexAmore? Do you support these people breaking the law of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Just keep this in mind. In America you are supposed to take care of yourself. It's not the governments job to nurture you, take care of you, or tell you how to live. You're free to decide upon what's right or wrong for you and your family on your own. And if you feel that polygamy is right for you then you are free to live that way. The government is not here to tell you right or wrong. The only time they are to step in is when you infringe on someone elses rights to freedom and liberty. These people aren't infringing on anyone elses rights. So they are well within the Constitutions protection in their actions.
Ah reavo
Like alexamore, you too seem to nitpick the small things and ignore the big things. Look again at the quote that says
"..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.."
It's in your constitution that there is a Judicial branch of the government, and this branch sets the laws. You, as a citizen, are governed by the laws that this branch sets.
According to the United States Supreme Court, polygamy is not protected by religious freedom. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." -- REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
Read that again because it's the whole point here. You know what, just so you understand, I'll put it down again.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." -- REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
If you know your constitution reavo, then you know it IS the government's job to tell you what you can and, more importantly, cannot do. The government IS here to tell you right and wrong. They just can't tell you what to believe in. You can't do anything illegal, whether it infringes on someone elses rights or not. You especially can't do something illegal by calling it your religious belief. The constitution does NOT protect these people's actions, because they are illegal by law.
reavo and alexamore, you are going against your own constitution by promoting illegal activities. It's that simple. The government said No. If you don't like it, get the law changed, but until then, you aren't allowed to do it. You can believe it's okay to have a meth lab in your basement, but the law says NO. Until it's changed, you are subject to the penalties of performing those illegal activities.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
That's the whole point here. The same point I've been saying but you two have seemed to miss time and again.
You cannot change law based on religious belief, because then everyone could write their own laws and call it religion.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I am not nitpicking, you are reading the things you're posting wrong.
"..in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.."
"Citizens are not governed by the majority of the people." This is so that everyone is given equal protection by the law. And the law of the U.S. is individual freedom and liberty. That includes the right to freedom from an oppressive government that is trying to tell you how to live and make decisions for you pertaining to your own well being. That's what freedom and liberty is all about. Our founding fathers were trying to escape from oppressive government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War against England and it's tyranny under a king system. They knew about big governments threats and they also believed in the peoples decision making power when it came to personal matters.
"but by the rule of law." Here is where you're getting lost. You have to go and find out what that rule of law is in America. It is laws setup to protect our freedoms and to strip decision making power away from the government and give it to us. Our founding doctrines and their laws promise the power to go to the people. To minimize government intervention in American citizens lives. Our laws are not made to oppress us or make decisions for us. That's why laws such as this will be challenged on their constitutionality and changed. It just takes time sometimes. But that's part of the evolution of our system. It's meant to break down oppressive laws. And telling people how they can worship is an oppressive law. These people are not infringing on anyone elses freedoms or liberties, therefore they are acting within Constitutional parameters. Their case will be up for review by the Supreme Court and they will find the law banning polygamy illegal. Just because something is a law does not mean it is Constitutional. That's the reason we have a review system.
You've got to learn what American principles and ideals are. Our laws do not come from an oppressive foundation. They are supposed to protect our freedoms. Our government is not there to put limitations on us, but to instead to act to protect our freedoms. Our system has just become bloated and distorted. And with people looking at it the way you are it's no surprise.
reavo once again you totally miss the point, so I'm gonna spell it out simply for you
To live in the USA, do you have to abide by the laws of the land? Yes
Is polygamy currently illegal in the USA? Yes
Does that mean if you are a polygamist, you are breaking the law? Yes
Should you be punished for breaking the law? Yes
Can the law be changed later? Yes
If you don't like the law, should you challenge it in court? Yes
Do you still have to obey the law until it is changed? Yes
Are you allowed to believe whatever you want, religion-wise? Yes
Are you allowed to do something illegal if you say it's part of your religion? No
What part of that don't you get reavo? The US Supreme Court (see above) specifically said that the government is allowed to say yes and no to religious practices, because otherwise anyone could get away with anything and call it religion.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Sarah couldn't have children so she let Abe have a child with the other lady.. It wasn't a GOD told me to go sleep with the maid.... and marry her... Abraham was highly regarded by God... but this doesn't mean that God believed that everything Abe did was good...
Jesus also favored a lady-of-the-night over priests...... Please refrain from taking the bible out of context...
I can also show places in the bible where there was murder, theft, adultery, fornication, lies.. whatever you can think of... That doesn't make it right just because it's in the bible... You have to READ the bible to understand that it's a guide and a history lesson... Not a book of "Do this"
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
You know, you guys sound like a broken record, yet you never seem to come up with any backup. You just cry "constitution constitution" like it's holy salvation.
Persumably so you don't have to think for yourselves.
How about some information on where exactly it says in the constitution that any religion allows you to ignore the laws of the land? I've already provided proof that says otherwise.
Or don't you guys have a leg to stand on?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
It is unconstitutional for the government to impose restrictions on a citizen'ss religion as long as that religion and the actions/rituals involved do not interfere with other people's liberties. k?
The government BROKE the LAW (Constitution) and did impose restrictions anyways. k?
We the people who are ABOVE the government do NOT have to put up with it. k?
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American