Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (94846)	11/8/2008 4:44:19 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541428

You want social control over social laissez-faire not because their conduct harms you, but because it offends you, and you want to substitute your moral judgment for theirs. It's not a matter of being offended. I think the behavior brings harm to the individual. I just tried to explain this in a post to Rambi.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (94846)	11/8/2008 4:55:42 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 541428

One of the challenges of the First Amendment is that we've created this process by which beliefs are protected... the government ends up calling some religions cults (e.g., Waco) and gives full legitimacy to others whose beliefs can be every bit as odd to a non-believer. IMO, the main reason is largely economic because we have created tax free status for churches that meet certain political and non-religious criteria. As an agnostic, and ecclesiastic head (and only member) of the Church of the Cosmic Force (COTCF), the distinction is a bit thin sometimes. So where is my tax exemption? Well, I don't get one because while I'm free to create the COTCF, the government's legitimization of it is a different matter and is actually determined by a bureaucracy, the IRS, and not a religious review board evaluating it on its merits. 150 years ago Mormons were a cult. Now they aren't. What changed? Either what they believed is true or it isn't, logically. All religions claim to be true but differ on so many factual details that the vast majority have to be wrong part, if not most, of the time, especially on the specific details of what is sin or how the world was created, or who met whom and when. They all disagree, frequently in the details of their own internal dogma. I raised this point earlier about the term "legitimizing" any of them, meaning "bringing them in under the law". Prop 8 specifically aimed to legitimize a religious ceremony, which I argue is entirely unnecessary under the First Amendment. The only reason to create a legal definition is to alienate those who are less politically powerful, because when you get down to brass tacks, the differences between marriage in different religions can be huge. So, the question is why didn't Prop 8 say "between men and women"? Because the majority wants to legitimize religious-based male-female monogamy and not religious-based polygamy, or religiously sanctioned homosexual unions. Again, the distinction and rationale is highly questionable and driven by religious dogma. A man can legally have 5 serial ex-wives, all with kids, 5 simultaneous and pregnant girlfriends, but not 10 simultaneous wives. Why? Local social custom as law. That is wrong and discriminatory, IMO. So, when we create laws, there is almost always somebody putting somebody down. The same is not true when we DON'T create laws. I'd love to see a First Amendment challenge to Prop 8 based upon the logic I present above. All we have to have is a church that determines marriage is a blessed union of adults, and it is toast. IMO.