3 of 3
3
Polygamy
Posted: 09 July 2008 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Maybe tomorrow, I’m pretty exhausted… I really did stay up all night last night. Damn kid!

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2008 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

zacks: “ Inncluding two mothers that heard voices from ‘God’ or the ‘Devil’ telling them to kill there children.
The whole state should probablly go back to Grammer School and start over.”

LOL hahahahaha! lmao.

Looks like it’s not just the Texans who might need to go back to Grammar School.
(He who is grammatically and spelling-challenged ought not cast stones at the Texans and their children.)

Bruce,
I think these ideas are key in creating a statute prohibiting illegal conduct under the guise of religious practices:

“the government may prohibit religious conduct and practices motivated by those beliefs.” and,
“...religiously motivated conduct is subject to a balancing test that weighs the interests of the religious group against the state’s interest in regulating or forbidding the activity.”

It also seems important to include the reasons for said statute.

No religious group has the authority or constitutional protection to act contrary to or in disregard of the law. To permit illegal actions based on religion “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

Start tweakin’!

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2008 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
isocratic infidel - 10 July 2008 06:43 PM

Bruce,
I think these ideas are key in creating a statute prohibiting illegal conduct under the guise of religious practices:

“the government may prohibit religious conduct and practices motivated by those beliefs.” and,
“...religiously motivated conduct is subject to a balancing test that weighs the interests of the religious group against the state’s interest in regulating or forbidding the activity.”

It also seems important to include the reasons for said statute.

No religious group has the authority or constitutional protection to act contrary to or in disregard of the law. To permit illegal actions based on religion “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

Start tweakin’!

I would hesitate to specifically reference “religion” in any such statute. That would be inviting a constitutional challenge, and actually make it appear as though the legislature had targeted religious belief. If you make it religion neutral, but identify specifically the actions that you are seeking to prohibit, you have a better chance of surviving a challenge. So if you want to tweak my draft, you might want to be more specific in the type of behavior you are concerned about. Looking back at the draft, you might want to flesh out the types of actions cults engage in to coerce minors. So, you get the next stab at it - take the model I drafted and add to it. I’m not going to do all your work for you, especially without pay!!! What kinda lawyer do you think I am?!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2008 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Bruce: “So, you get the next stab at it - take the model I drafted and add to it. I’m not going to do all your work for you, especially without pay!!! What kinda lawyer do you think I am?!”

Quid pro quid buddy,
signed,
Your Editor.

(speaking of which, I’ll be working on chapter two tomorrow)

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2008 05:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

You expect me to spell right use good Grammer and think independantlly of cult leaders all at the same time?

Yes. It shouldn’t be too difficult. Especially when you’re attempting to insult the education system of another state. Hence, the laughing off of my ass in my earlier post. (Did you really just misspell ‘grammar’ again, even though its correct spelling was right under your nose?)

That said, no one asked you to “think independently of cult leaders” either.

You are also expected to know what the topic is.

And, if you don’t know the difference between their, there and they’re without thinking about it, you really ought to brush up on the basics… this isn’t Utube.  cool smirk

next thing you’ll expext me to chew gum and walk at the same time

This isn’t about my expectations, but, yes, I would “expext” you to be able to do the above “task” with little to no thought.

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2008 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
zacherystaylor - 10 July 2008 01:48 AM

That small but big improvement may be the best that they can do in Texas for now. In order to teach rational thought the teacher has to be rational. I don’t get the impression that the majority in Texas are rational. There have been a lot of strange stories coming out of Texas many of them related to religion. Inncluding two mothers that heard voices from “God” or the “Devil” telling them to kill there children.
The whole state should probablly go back to Grammer School and start over.

I live in Texas along with several other posters on this forum. I must sadly agree that superstitious belief systems seem to be the norm in the far west Texas area where I reside. In my opinion, the more rural communities seem to be less tolerant of opposing viewpoints. The state is large and diverse, however. In Austin, for instance, one may find a completely different mindset more commonplace.

I spent the last 2 weeks in Maine, N.H., and Mass where my family and I had a wonderful vacation. While my agnostic views were tolerated more openly in New England, the majority of people I encountered still professed to be Christians.

One history teacher/sailor in Gloucester told me, “People gotta have faith in something.”

I responded with the question, “Why?”

He just said, “Cause that’s the way it is.”

I gave him the blessings of the great spaghetti monster. He probably has an even lower opinion of Texans now.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2008 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
zacherystaylor - 16 July 2008 06:29 PM

I’ve heard of several paople from the bible belt that are not impressed with religion which means that it may not be that bad but they often say as you do that they hesitate to speak up about it.

Did I ever say that I am hesitant to speak up about my lack of faith? My neighbors wish I would keep my mouth shut. They don’t want my kids sharing their godless beliefs with their kids. Being nonbelievers certainly keeps us from being invited to any barn parties. Nobody here wants to get drunk with an atheist.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 August 2008 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2008-08-03
zacherystaylor - 12 July 2008 01:29 AM

All right I’ll mention the topic. Who cares about poygamy as long as it is between consenting informed adults? The problem with polygamist cults isn’t the polygamy it is the Cult. The coersion and the taking advantage of children. The indoctrination is the problem. The doublestandard is also a problem.
Did I forget to misspell any thing? Wouldn’t want to actualy spell my post right by mistake.

I’m going to echo this response. I don’t see a problem with “polygamy” in general. If I wanted to marry two females, or a male and a female, or two males, all over the age of 18, I’m not sure why the state needs to prohibit this.

I tend to think it’s an awful idea and the “marriage” would likely end badly, but there are plenty of awful ideas out there that are entirely legal. Even if the government would like to call it a civil union or something, I don’t necessarily see the downside to any of this.

I do see a problem with the hijacking of 15 year-olds for the sexual gratification of older men, but that’s not “polygamy” by definition. It’s statutory rape. The polygamy is perhaps being used as a way to further indoctrinate and subjugate women, but in all seriousness, isn’t this true of many other conventional American practices?

And, should something be outlawed because it may lead to an illegal action or socially deviant teaching? I’m going to say no. We’d have nothing left.

The reality, I think, is that laws against polygamy are rooted in religious tradition and have little to no rational value. Unless someone can rationalize it for me, that is.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed