LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+25 25 0
Published 4 years ago with 12 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • MAGISTERLUDI
    +4

    "In a representative democracy, obviously, citizens are free to band together and campaign for changes to laws they consider unjust." The Supreme Court is the final say, Dred Scott, anyone?

    • iSpeekEngrish
      +3

      It is interesting both of the points you highlight.

      First, citizens are definitely free to band together to campaign for changes to laws they feel are unjust. However, in the case discussed in the article, repealing the new law of the land will violate the constitutional rights of those covered by the new law. And whether you agree with it or not, it has now been decided by the Supreme Court. The only way they can hope to make a change is to campaign for their local representative in Congress to make/vote for a constitutional amendment.

      Second, Dred Scott is not a really a comparable example as it deals with someone who is technically not a US citizen - as unjust as it may be. The gay people in question - whether the religious crowd likes it or not - are definitely citizens of US.

      • MAGISTERLUDI (edited 4 years ago)
        +2

        I did not use "Dred Scott" as a similar case as to content, but as my best example of which the Supreme Court got completely wrong. ...... "The only way they can hope to make a change is to campaign for their local representative in Congress to make/vote for a constitutional amendment."...... Nope.....the Supreme Court can and has reversed itself..........So while the Supreme Court may have the final say, its' say isn't always final.

        • iSpeekEngrish
          +2

          Ah yes, you are correct about the Supreme Court - they can reverse themselves. But that would require one or more of the 5 that voted in favor to either change their mind or drop dead and be replaced by Christian conservative justice(s) that would vote their religious conviction over the Constitution.

          And I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't get the Dred Scott case wrong from a legal standpoint as slaves were technically not citizens - the decision can be said to be morally wrong though.

          • MAGISTERLUDI (edited 4 years ago)
            +2

            "Curtis conducted an extensive historical review of statutes, case law, and demographic records and asserted that in five of the original 13 states, blacks had held citizenship at the time of the Constitution's ratification -- and that they had therefore voted and participated in the process of its ratification. It was "not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race,""Therefore, blacks were "in every sense part of the people of the United States [as] they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established."- Benjamin Curtis (dissent) As to Dred Scott himself, Taney's majority opinion contained obvious bias, but not totally without legal basis. However the decision went far, far beyond just Dred Scott and basically enslaved a whole population of prior free men, and then opened the entire west to slavery, by overturning existing law............."Slaves" were not citizens, correct, but there were black citizens, just not deemed as such by Taney et al. ............. Scott v. Sandford was little, in proportion, about Dred Scott and the results a travesty.

  • septimine
    +2

    I think honestly these sorts of articles are disingenuous at best. The church has always had a one man one woman understanding of marriage with the man as the head. The people misquoted the verse about obeying, in truth it's not just that the woman should obey the man, but that the man is to love the woman as Christ loved the church, in short to be willing to die for her.

    Sure, government employees should follow the law, and frankly not be jerks about it. That I agree with, but I think my problem here is that enemies of Christianity are misrepresenting what it is.

    • spaceghoti
      +2

      The church has always had a one man one woman understanding of marriage with the man as the head.

      Nope. Try again.

      The people misquoted the verse about obeying, in truth it's not just that the woman should obey the man, but that the man is to love the woman as Christ loved the church, in short to be willing to die for her.

      That's nice, but the Bible is still filled with verses emphasizing the claim that women should be subordinate to men.

      That I agree with, but I think my problem here is that enemies of Christianity are misrepresenting what it is.

      Please elaborate. What is being misrepresented here?

      • exegesispieces
        +1

        The biggest issue is that many people on each side of this debate forget that the Bible was not written in a vacuum and is not meant to be literally applied in its entirety. It's filled with passages which talk about how the original audience should have behaved in their time, but the purpose of these passages was not to dictate how all Christians should live in all contexts. A great example is Romans 16:16 in which Paul says that the Roman Christians are to greet one another with a holy kiss. Obviously Paul does not expect that all Christians should kiss each other all the time throughout all of history in every culture. Kissing was a Roman greeting. Paul was simply implying that they should greet each other as friends. Many Christians feel the same way about the household codes found within Paul's writings. It was part of the culture of that day being reflected in scripture. Many believe that the purpose of the house hold codes was not to set forth a precedent that all Christians are to always follow, but to take something that was part of the culture of the audience and use it in a Biblical context.

        • spaceghoti
          +1

          Cool. One question, though: which comment of mine are you attempting to address?

          • exegesispieces
            +2

            I was just making a comment on how things tend to be misrepresented. I actually feel like Christians have only ourselves to blame. We tend to do a fantastic job misrepresenting what we mean. I can do my part by offering up examples as to why scripture says some of the things odd things it says.

            Also, I really enjoyed that article you linked to. I have never heard of same sex unions in church history before.

            • spaceghoti
              +2

              /u/septimine made the claim that the enemies of Christianity misrepresents what it is. I asked him to clarify what the article misrepresents. We seem to have entered a tangent in which the context argument has become the focus but I would still like to hear from someone how the case against "religious freedom" arguments are misrepresenting Christianity.

            • exegesispieces (edited 4 years ago)
              +3
              @spaceghoti -

              Oh, my apologies. It seems that I have gone on a tangent. To redeem myself I'll try and bring this back on topic. I'll say that I do feel that religious freedom arguments aren't founded in the Bible. I haven't seen one yet that seems to be supported by scripture. My religious rights end when they start taking away the freedoms that others enjoy.

Here are some other snaps you may like...