[QUOTE=Archaea]Ernoznick is a Con law case that I remember from the Gunther book more than twenty years. It was in the Con law section under Due Process and Equal Protection repudiating the argument that selective enforcement was unconstitutional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archaea
The Church can only advocate what one can do. The anti-gay legislation is doable. The other stuff, not that I agree or disagree, is NOT doable. You know that and that is why the Church won't act upon battles already lost. Perhaps this one is lost as well.
Do the doable. We can't even get by the easy, minor stuff. That's why families are doomed. The big stuff, divorce, abuse, deprivation, selfishness, substance abuse, will never be addressed politically and probably not socially.
|
Whoa there. Are you suggesting that the church should only advocate causes that are "doable?" If so, you have already determined that the church should not be fighting for this amendment. There is ZERO chance of passage for this amendment. Republicans have gained 5 seats since the last vote on this amendment, and they only increased the votes for the amendment by 1. That doesn't even begin to take into account the 3/4 of states that would need to ratify.
I don't know why you think certain battles are already lost. Trying to make certain actions unconstitutional is already lost, because it is a dumb way to try to fix the problems. Persuasion through missionary work and good policy is effective, however. If those issues were already lost issues, the church would have abandoned the missionary program years ago. Instead of focusing on amending the Constitution, let's stick with what we do well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archaea
This is a red herring. First, unconstitutionalizing them, is not doable. Second, are you saying the Church is NOT against these things? If so, you must be attending a different church than I.
|
Umm, no. You are saying that. See my arguments above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archaea
"Bigotry toward gays" card. Pulling out your nukes are you. Anybody who doesn't bf another guy is a bigot. Great intellectual discussion.
The Church can only do incremental assaults, if it can do anything.
In a world where American Idol is a big seller, how can any of the virtues of the Gospel be sold? I don't see it. And our missionary efforts in the US are failing.
|
First of all, I don't know HOW you can read anything I have said and come to the conclusion that I am calling all non-homosexuals bigots. If that were true, I would be calling myself a bigot. Let's try to keep this discussion a bit more honest. Bigotry is a very real problem within the church. I think much of it stems from the church's strong stance against homosexuality. I have no problem with them saying homosexuality is a sin. If it is a sin, call it a sin. I think they may need to emphasize tolerance of homosexuals as individuals more, however; either that, or the membership needs to pay attention when they say it.
How do you come up with these false dichotomies? The world can either have American Idol or the virtues of the gospel? I didn't know American Idol was the new symbol for godlessness in the world. I am not a fan, and it seems lucky for me! I knew I could feel the hellfires when I flipped past that show!
I don't know what your paragraph is trying to say. You claim we can't sell the gospel anymore and that our efforts in the US are failing (is ANYTHING succeeding ANYWHERE in your opinion?????). Assuming that is true, is it your position that we should therefore legislate our beliefs so people can be compelled to do what is right? If not, I simply don't see how this ties into our discussion at all.
FWIW, I think the church is doing a very good job of spreading its message through missionary work- far better than any other organization out there (which is how I think they should work to prevent gay marriage).