Comments for: “Coming Attraction!: First Freedom First Event To Play In Theaters Nationwide”

Awesome, and right to the heart of the matter. Now you’re talking!

Separation of church and state ensures literally hundreds of freedoms — many of which you might not even be comtemplating using right now.

Amost by definition, separation of church and state protects us from the most stupid and least defensible attacks on our liberties. Think about it — laws and public policies that are truly rationally defensible do not need religion to justify them. Rationally justificable policies stand on their own.

It is the irrational,, the pointless, the prejudiced policies that exist or are proposed that need religious arguments to support them.

Separation therefore serves as a barrier to many of the least thoughtful and most reactionary policies that find their ways through legislatures.

Fantastic! Sounds interesting, fun and educational! I’ll be there!

Hi I am Paulina. I am doing project in one of my classes about religion in public schools and the separation of church and state. I read one of your blogs: http://blog.au.org/2008/03/12/.....ationwide/ and thought it went well with my topic. We were asked to interview two people, and I was wondering if i could ask you a few questions about your opinion on church and state. Email me back at this address and let me know if you are interested! Thank you for your time.

I don’t see an email address to email you at.

Paulina: You might not want to put your e-mail address in a public place like this. Try clicking the link at the bottom of the page for “students”. There is a section for each grade level.
http://www.au.org/site/PageSer.....igh_school

You could try the e-mail address on that page - campus (at) au (dot) org.

Sounds like an interesting project, good luck!

Excellent! Too many people are confused about these issues. And it shows. Just today, I read this letter to the editor in the Baltimore Sun:

State can’t redefine nature of marriage

“All men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

So say our founding documents, and so believed our Founding Fathers, who understood it as “self-evident” that our rights derive from God, not from government.

Government, therefore, may not deprive us of or grant us any rights that nature and nature’s God have not granted.

And nature and nature’s God have ordained that marriage, which is the basis of the family, is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.

Government no more has the power to redefine marriage so that two or more people of the same sex may marry than it has to grant to men the right to bear children (”A new tack for gay rights,” March 6).

What gays seek is to radically redefine marriage in their own image, not in the creator’s image - a right that is not granted by nature and nature’s God and therefore can never be granted by any government.

Joseph Melchor
Catonsville

The usual conflation of Nature’s God with fundamentalist god, among other historical misunderstandings. *sigh*

Paulina, I agree with Alan on not posting your personal e-mail. We sometimes get some very radical people here who you may not want contacting you. Follow Alan’s suggestion and I am sure you will get a great response. Best to you.

Dave C, I agree–same old rant, but that same logic can be turned on them. Prove that these rights are ordained by God (without using the Bible). I am here to tell you that marriage is not a requirement for a family. I have a family and no husband. Was never married to the provider of the genetic marterial. Now how can that happen if marriage is the basis for the family?

Dave C, nice letter from Mr. Melchor of Catonsville, It is amazing to me that someone would state, as if it were an incontrovertible fact, that “nature and nature’s God have ordained that marriage, which is the basis of the family, is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.” His belief certainly but not a fact. Once again, we are back to the insistence that we base laws upon someone’s unproven belief.

In the long run, the government needs to get out of the marriage business. “Marriage” is a religious sacrament and should never have been endorsed by government. It was an over-mingling of C/S from the beginning. Our government should endorse civil unions only, blind to gender. If people want the religious ceremony, I believe there will remain plenty of churches to perform this ceremony for the usual fee.

“The usual conflation of Nature’s God with fundamentalist god, among other historical misunderstandings. *sigh*”

Dave, I echo that sigh. I hope a lot of Americans get to see the film, and really think about it. On a side note, I’d be interested in seeing how Mr. Melchor would react if one his government-granted rights were to be violated. I wonder if he’d apply to “nature and Nature’s God” or if he’d appeal to the godless government for protection of those rights.

Titania, I think people like author of that letter are either ignorant or pre-history, or are under the impression that there was a wedding chapel right inside the garden of Eden.

Correction: that should read “people like the author of that letter are either ignorant oF pre-history…”.

I think you’ve caught my disease, Jax. When I make a typo, you can be certain it will turn the meaning of the entire damm sentence upside down.

Ouch! I can’t believe this isn’t going to be shown anywhere in DC, MD or VA (except in Richmond)! Any chance of expanding the list of theaters before the 26th?

RE: Ouch! DC/MD/VA

That would make in convinent for Mr. Melchor of Cattonsville. I’d swing by and give him a ride, if he was willing to go!

Sky, I could not agree with you more!
The government should get out of the marriage business and simply allow civil union contracts. I don’t know why we still insist that the government, of all unlikely things, be the guardian of this blessing. For if marriage is truly a theological concept, as Melchor and others insist, why is it not left to the church?

We would be much better off if churches and secular organizations unaffiliated with the government granted “marriage licenses” separate from civil unions. Then they could argue over who can and cannot be married to their heart’s content. Nobody’s civil rights would be denied because of another’s religious convictions. And we can all call upon our own conscience to discern whether two people are married in truth or not.

Titiana and Alan: The email adress at the page doesn’t work very well. I tried it already.
Dave: I have the same assignment, is there anyway I can contact you safely to interview you, or do you know of any group (lawyers, teachers, things like that) that would be a decent “expert” source?

As for the article, hopefully I can go and see it. Maybe it would count as a source!