>We're in agreement about turning a new leaf, so I'm going to go back to my yesterday's point.
>
>JR (quoting Moore) >"In 1857, the United States Supreme Court did rule that black people were property. Of course, that contradicted the Constitution, and it took a civil war to overturn it. But this ruling in Obergefell is even worse in a sense because it forces not only people to recognize marriage other than the institution ordained of God and recognized by nearly every state in the union, it says that you now must do away with the definition of marriage and make it between two persons of the same gender or leading on, as one of the dissenting justices said, to polygamy, to multi-partner marriages.
>>We’ve got to go back and recognize that what they did in Obergefell was not only to create a right that does not exist under the Constitution, but then to mandate that that right compels Christians to give up their religious freedom and liberty."
>
>JR>What do you think of that? Particularly his last clause about religious freedom and liberty with implication re First Amendment?
>
>IMHO Moore was saying that slavery was against the Constitution (so no need for 13th Amendment that did away with slavery- which opinion has been called support for slavery elsewhere) and that the Supreme Court was wrong in its decision on slave ownership. Then he argues that what the Supreme Court did re gay marriage also is against the Constitution as it denies first amendment rights of religious folk. His view appears to be that marriage may now be secularized but has religious origin in which many believe dearly- so that if the state wishes to normalize gay relationships, it ought to create some other form rather than forcing religious folk to alter their take on marriage.
>
>I perceive Moore's statements as academic legalist arguments on which critics have hung their own interpretations to call him racist and other names. I almost wonder whether scholarly Moore is slightly onto the autist scale so that he focuses on the legalist aspects and can be blind to the opportunities he creates for enemies to berate him by combining his statements of personal belief with his legalist arguments.
>
>Also FWIW, the Roman Catholic church is the largest Christian denomination and teaches that homosexuality is a sin but that the homosexual is a son of God who is to be loved. While this is the same distinction you draw about criticizing the behavior, not the man... does it mean that Catholics are homophobes who should not be allowed to serve as congresswomen or senators unless they renounce their faith's teachings? Or could it be that electorates decide whether they trust a candidate to distinguish between his/her personal beliefs and their desires, assuming they differ? Finally, if you can believe that Jones thinks women should have complete control over their bodies but will respect the limitations in existing abortion legislation- then why can't Moore be trusted to do the same?

The last thing I'm going to discuss with you is the ridiculousness of religion and the hypocrisy of Christians and Catholics - last time I got into that with someone here it resulted in not only them being banned from the site, but the whole topic of religion being banned.