George Mason was a conservative of his day and his TAKE on the Constitution is NOT in any way the last word on the matter. Ben Franklin said lighthouses were more important than churches. Thomas Jefferson said he knew of no example of a priest ridden people remaining free. The Treaty of Tripoli says DIRECTLY that our country was NOT founded on Christianity. You are brainwashed and your braindead take on this issue is basically meaningless

Just as there is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that Christianity is in any way BETTER than any other faith or religion! Your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 p

bit agrees that this is what one would conclude from a plain reading of the First Amendment.

Forturnatley, much of the context of the First Amendment has been preserved as below.

It appears that the First Amendment was written with the expectation that the predominant religion was and would remain Christianity. As an example of this expectation of a predominant religion consider what
George Mason, often called the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed as the wording for the First Amendment.

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Quoted from
Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

If anyone has any reference to any document written in the U.S. from about 1776 to present time, which suggests that a Mohammedan could, would, or should be President of the U.S., bit would appreciate seeing it?

October 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am

Just as there is nothing in the First Amendment that suggests that Christianity is in any way BETTER than any other faith or religion! Your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Are you unaware that Old Testament – a part of the Bible – history covers periods of time when there were no organized religions? In Matthew Christ quotes from Genesis when He remarks that a man and a woman will be “one flesh” in a marriage. The scripture Christ quotes is certainly an event that occurred before there was religion or government.

There was marriage in the OT before there was Judaism, which certainly means there was marriage before there was Catholicism and all the little Protestant outgrowths.

Marriage is an institution that is older that religion or government. Jesus didn’t say that marriage came from Judaism or from the Romans ( the government at the time of the His quote). He said it came from the Creator.

Perhaps instead of
“The authority for natural marriage, a man and a woman, comes from the Bible, which also says why there is marriage.”

this is better.

The Bible says that the Creator instituted marriage in Genesis. Jesus endorses this view and specifically the relationship between a man and a woman being “one flesh” when he quotes Genesis in Matthew 19.

bit understands that for Christians Jesus is the ultimate authority here.

Do you intentionally misrepresent bit? There’s no hate in bit’s posts, and as far as the “…because your Bible tells you so,” you got a book, chapter, and verse for that assertion?

Or, does max-1 intentionally misrepresent the Bible, too?

BTW, what influence did your god and your religion have in the formation of the U.S.? What positives have your god and your religion contributed to the U.S.? Will these contributions continue sustaining the nation?

bit believes that without the influence of Christianity and the Bible there would not be a United States, certainly not the U.S. we know. As someone put it Judaism and Christianity practically invented Western Civilization, from which we all benefit.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written to insure that the Federal Government would not favor one Christian denomination over another Christian denomination. There’s nothing in the First Amendment that suggests all faiths or all religions are equal.

October 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm

No, that’s just simply not true. In fact, I can send you some videos in which two men or two women are becoming “one flesh” to show you how wrong you are. ;-)

October 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Well, I have to agree with Bitbit on this one. Most gay people don’t “become gay”. They were gay to begin with. Why would they want to change the way God made them? That would be anti-God!

Most gay people, now-a-days don’t get married, either. It’s not an available option in most states, and getting married to someone of the opposite sex to “hide” is much less common than it used to be in previous decades.

YOUR GOD…
YOUR BIBLE…
YOUR ETHOS…

Theocratic much?

What about
MY GOD…
MY RELIGION…
MY ETHOS…

I know, I know, in YOUR America, I don’t count. Just the same way that I don’t count in Sarah’s America either.

Pray to your god that she doesn’t peg you silly…

See, in THE United States of America, the First Amendment means I don’t have to recognize YOUR god as the “DECIDER” of all that is moral and ethical. See, in “REAL” America, Democracy depends upon differences agreed upon. And so far, we can agree, YOU HATE GAY AMERICANS BECAUSE YOUR BIBLE TELLS YOU SO.

Where did Jesus Christ instruct us to HATE our neighbors?
Where did Jesus Christ instruct us to JUDGE our neighbors?

Be the Christian Jesus is… would you?
Or leave your christofascism behind, for it is NOT America!!!

.

bitblt is a bit of an idjit, ain’t he.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I think he is so dense light actually bends around his head

Apparently most “gay” people don’t become gay and get married, either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am sorry but the level of STUPID in that statement hurts my eyes

You really are stupid bit. The numbers are not talked about because they are irrelevant. Should miscegentaion laws have been kept on the books because a low number of people wanted to marry across the races? You really are a moron you know? What do you even MEAN state imposed. Exactly where in the WORLD is the state MAKING people of ANY kind get married? You really ought to just stop posting you are so stupid you are doing your cause no good at all.

Bitofanidiot babbles again

Wonder what Ellen means when she says, “Basically, she wants to change the constitution.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most likely that a federal ban on gay marriage would violate the 14th amendment.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution was written to support immorality, and the practice of homosexuality is immorality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

According to YOUR sick, twisted, bigoted and frankly STUPID take on the issue. One that, not suprisingly, is NOT the final say on the matter.

Natural marriage, which bears the mark of the Creator, has never been “permitted” by the state. This is the way that most Conservative Christians believe: marriage is older than both religion and government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And in many ancient cultures also included gay marriage. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or is the ignorant talking point the only thing that fills your empty head?

“The authority for natural marriage, a man and a woman, comes from the Bible, which also says why there is marriage. This is the “by definition” above. This authority has long been accepted by people who don’t know or don’t care about its origin, and no court in the world can make anyone accept that two same-same gender people are married.”

Natural marriage, which bears the mark of the Creator, has never been “permitted” by the state. This is the way that most Conservative Christians believe: marriage is older than both religion and government.

Way to refute your own argument, Bitblt.

Bonus round:

misshusseinmolly Says:

bitblt Says
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution intended to regulate marriage.

Marriage was, and is, an institution apart from government.
____________________________________________________________

So by your logic, there’s no good reason for our government to make it illegal.

So that’s two instances now of you refuting your own argument.

This is like shooting fish in a shotglass… with a rocket launcher.

By the way, Jesus never once discussed homosexuality. Ouch. Fact.

bit’s sure you want to get this correct.

One can not say categorically the Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and wife abuse and alcoholics. Bible is very clear that not everything Jesus did or said was recorded.

One can categorically say that Jesus never said anything in the Bible about homosexuality or wife abuse or alcoholics.

Using your logic, it is recorded that Jesus mentioned Sodom, and he didn’t say it was a mistake.

One can categorically say that Jesus said in the Bible that the Creator intended that a man and a woman would be “one flesh” in marriage.