ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

[guest]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
I do agree that the Founders wrote exactly what they said keeping the government out of the religion business.
I am not sure that Jefferson was the diest you believe he was, since he along with many others went to weekly Church serves in the Capital Building along with 12 (I believe) other Churches, don't sound like much of a separation during his administration.
I can see why you are baffled, but what a minister does and the government does don't have to be in sync, if a minister (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) wishes to reject the teaching of thier churches that is on them, the government is under no obligation to recognize that "union"

You say that you agree, but then you demonstrate that you don't.

You can't have it both ways.

[guest]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well if the government would stick to what it is Constitutionally obligated to do we all would be better off. and many of the woes of this nation would be gone

Again, where do you get off thinking that "freely expressing your faith" includes being able to use the government to force other people to follow your religious beliefs? It's like you read the free exercise clause, but not the establishment clause, or rather you very poorly rationalizes it away.

Also, the Bill of Rights provides for restrictions on government activity, not for obligations of things that they must do.

[Act 1 Unconstitutional]

The Courts have spoken!

[guest]

Act 1 was ruled Unconstitutional in Arkansas. Now we just need the "one man one woman" thing in Arkansas ruled Unconstitutional. Obama's reelection may secure that, depending on how many more U.S. Supreme Court justices he gets to appoint. Freedom and liberty will win!

[chief22]

guest wrote:

<quoted text>That is a quote from the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson (I'm sure you don't want to talk about his beliefs as you have refused to do so in the past). Also, the Declaration of Independence isn't the law. It was before the U.S. Constitution. Such talk was proposed by some of the Founders for the U.S. Constitution and rejected. You won't find God there. Except for the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment, which you reject (and the part about there being no religious tests for holding public office). God didn't write our Constitution. Men did. You can try to take those rights away if you want, but please have the integrity to admit that that is what you want, and good luck.

God didn't pen the Constitution, however his finger is all over it. I would love to discuss Jefferson's beliefs, he may have not been the Greatest Christian ever, But, God was in his heart. He knew the importance of God in our new nation, he knew the importance of keeping government out of the Religion business, having witnessed the problems that The Church of England caused. The 2 clauses, establishment and free expression are meant to compliment each other, if the liberal and progressive mentality is used the two clauses contradict.

[guest]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
God didn't pen the Constitution, however his finger is all over it. I would love to discuss Jefferson's beliefs, he may have not been the Greatest Christian ever, But, God was in his heart. He knew the importance of God in our new nation, he knew the importance of keeping government out of the Religion business, having witnessed the problems that The Church of England caused. The 2 clauses, establishment and free expression are meant to compliment each other, if the liberal and progressive mentality is used the two clauses contradict.

You can say whatever you want about the U.S. Constitution, but you can't back it up. I can. Also, Jefferson was a Deist. And the free exercise and establishment clauses don't contradict according to liberals or anyone else, unless you want to spew as much. But you usually seem to want to just ignore both the establishment (use government to force others to follow your religious beliefs) and free exercise (prohibiting pastors from marrying gays) clauses at will. Though that's another issue.

[ThomasJ]

In one of his many letters to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (in comparing the supernatural beleifs of Christianity to an Ancient Greek Mythological story where someone grew inside of someone's brain and emerged from their head fully clothed and grown) said:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

Thomas Jefferson was attacked as an "infidel" by many Christians when he ran for President because of his deist beliefs and the separation of church and state issue. For example, in 1800 the New England Palladium (a major newspaper) wrote:

"Should the infidel Jefferson be elected to the Presidency, the seal of death is that moment set on our holy religion, our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of goddess of reason, will preside in the sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the most High."

In response to those attacks:

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

[munum]

youtube.com/watch...
Lord strike that poor boy down!

[Strel]

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
God didn't pen the Constitution, however his finger is all over it. I would love to discuss Jefferson's beliefs, he may have not been the Greatest Christian ever, But, God was in his heart. He knew the importance of God in our new nation, he knew the importance of keeping government out of the Religion business, having witnessed the problems that The Church of England caused. The 2 clauses, establishment and free expression are meant to compliment each other, if the liberal and progressive mentality is used the two clauses contradict.

Good Lord, is this thread still going?

Is chief still insisting he is write despite all the law and facts?

Has the median IQ in Paragould actually gone down, again?

[Paragouldian]

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
Good Lord, is this thread still going?
Is chief still insisting he is write despite all the law and facts?
Has the median IQ in Paragould actually gone down, again?

I'm afraid that it has, again.

[you were wrong]

America 1st wrote:

Where in the Bill of Rights (or anywhere in the Constitution) might one find a right to become a foster or adoptive parent?
Hmm....it's not there is it. Therefore, laws setting forth qualifications to become a foster or adoptive parent don't violate the Constitution.
Case closed.

On April 16, 2010, the law was overturned by Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza.

The ruling was upheld unanimously by the Arkansas Supreme Court on April 7, 2011

[guest]

you were wrong wrote:

<quoted text>
On April 16, 2010, the law was overturned by Circuit Court Judge Chris Piazza.
The ruling was upheld unanimously by the Arkansas Supreme Court on April 7, 2011

Good luck getting America 1st to recognize Unanimous U.S. or Arkansas Supreme Court decisions that he doesn't like as legitimate, but don't be surprised when he holds up split decisions that he likes as handed down from God to those learned men in the Majority.

[time warp]

The really interesting thing about Act 1 is that it ultimately discriminated on the basis of whether or not one was having sex (because as long as you're weren't having sex with anyone, then your ability to adopt or foster was not affected by Act 1)-- as under the Act 1:

----------

Homosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.

Heterosexual single (unmarried and not cohabitating with a sexual partner) wanting to adopt --- an adoption is fine.

Cohabitating roommates that are not having sex, whether they are heteroxexual or homomosexual (or both)--- an adoption is fine.

Under the amendment,(cohabitation + sex)- marriage = no adoption.

----------

The only way to give any effect to this amendment was for the government to peer into the bedroom and see if cohabitating roommates (or presumably even housemates) are having sex or not -- because cohabitating roommates of any sexual orientation who are not having sex could adopt under this Act.

This issue got started when a law prohibiting homosexuals from adopting or fostering was UNANIMOUSLY declared Unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court (in 2005 I believe). In 2006 there was an attempt to get an outright ban on homosexual adopting and fostering passed in the Arkansas legislature AND IT FAILED (with the reasons being that it would be Unconstitutional). And that prompted Act 1 -- which was a thinly veiled attempt to appear to not be blatantly Unconstitutional by sacrificing the rights of some heterosexuals in order to prevent some homosexuals from adopting and fostering.

Here is the flyer that was created by the creators of Act 1 (whos name is on the Petition that the CEO of Wal-Mart signed) and was distributed all over Arkansas (including on my front door):

http://adoptionact.familycouncilactioncommitt...

Notice how there is an entire section that describes how Act 1 was going to "Blunt the Gay Agenda" -- just as it was advertised in every other way that it was advertised. The "Act One Blunts the Gay Agenda" paragraph says (among other things) that "Arkansas has no law to prevent adoptive or foster children from being placed with homosexual couples."

And the case against Act 1 was in no way relegated to homosexuals -- Act 1 violated the exact same rights of "privacy" and "equal protection" and "due process" of the heterosexual cohabitating sexual partners who aren't married as it did with the homosexual ones.

...not to mention the rights of the children that were being violated...