Same sex marriage is not a church issue.

Christianity in crisis? · Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:09 pm

I believe same sex marriage is not a church issue when it comes to the law. Christians who try to ban same sex marriage are wrong, and should be consistent with the separation of church and state. BTW... I am an evangelical Christian against forms of legalized discrimination.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:17 am

Haven wrote:For Christians who support legislating religious morality, I have another question: would you support conservative Muslims' attempts to make Sharia the law of the land? If your answer is "no," please explain why you feel your religious morality should be granted special privilege over the religious moralities of others?

Yes if they were the majority it would be their right.

I would campaign against it, try to increase the number of people who openly oppose it, but if they outnumbered us, then they have the right to vote for people who will enforce their law, that is the way democracy works.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:39 am

Haven wrote: For Christians who support legislating religious morality, I have another question: would you support conservative Muslims' attempts to make Sharia the law of the land? If your answer is "no," please explain why you feel your religious morality should be granted special privilege over the religious moralities of others?

His Name Is John wrote: Yes if they were the majority it would be their right.

I would campaign against it, try to increase the number of people who openly oppose it, but if they outnumbered us, then they have the right to vote for people who will enforce their law, that is the way democracy works.

No, that is not how either your nor my democracy works. We both have a constitutional framework that expresses the limits of the rules that can be made by our leaders. Our rights are protected by our constitutions.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:12 pm

McCulloch wrote:No, that is not how either your nor my democracy works. We both have a constitutional framework that expresses the limits of the rules that can be made by our leaders. Our rights are protected by our constitutions.

Constitutions can be changed (for example in Hungry they just changed a bunch of their constitutions). Our rights are only protected by the mindset of the majority.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:09 pm

His Name Is John wrote: Constitutions can be changed (for example in Hungry they just changed a bunch of their constitutions). Our rights are only protected by the mindset of the majority.

It is a blessing of this country that that is a very difficult thing to do. However, in many ways the constutiton is merely being ignored rather than amended.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:42 am

bluethread wrote:
His Name Is John wrote: Constitutions can be changed (for example in Hungry they just changed a bunch of their constitutions). Our rights are only protected by the mindset of the majority.
It is a blessing of this country that that is a very difficult thing to do. However, in many ways the constutiton is merely being ignored rather than amended.

But if the majority disagreed with constitutions, why should they remain in place?

If there is no absolute morality, then what do constitutions claim to be?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:42 pm

His Name Is John wrote:
bluethread wrote:
His Name Is John wrote: Constitutions can be changed (for example in Hungry they just changed a bunch of their constitutions). Our rights are only protected by the mindset of the majority.
It is a blessing of this country that that is a very difficult thing to do. However, in many ways the constutiton is merely being ignored rather than amended.
But if the majority disagreed with constitutions, why should they remain in place?

If there is no absolute morality, then what do constitutions claim to be?

To a large extent, the constitution is there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:37 pm

Goat wrote:To a large extent, the constitution is there to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

But surely if constitutions are able to be changed by the majority, they are simply an illusion of protection, or just one extra barrier that adds a bit of time before the tyranny arrives.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:03 pm

His Name Is John wrote:
Haven wrote:For Christians who support legislating religious morality, I have another question: would you support conservative Muslims' attempts to make Sharia the law of the land? If your answer is "no," please explain why you feel your religious morality should be granted special privilege over the religious moralities of others?
Yes if they were the majority it would be their right.

I would campaign against it, try to increase the number of people who openly oppose it, but if they outnumbered us, then they have the right to vote for people who will enforce their law, that is the way democracy works.

That's why I'm glad that as an American, I don't live in a pure democracy.

His Name Is John · Post by **His Name Is John** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:33 pm

Autodidact wrote:That's why I'm glad that as an American, I don't live in a pure democracy.

Your constitutions are already being bent. Before long they will simply be ideals.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:38 am

His Name Is John wrote: Constitutions can be changed (for example in Hungry they just changed a bunch of their constitutions). Our rights are only protected by the mindset of the majority.

The formula for changing a constitution is usually significantly different than making other laws. A simple majority is not enough.