Annoyed with religious-right who don't understand the idea of a seperate church/state

[Cruentus]

I am a Catholic, and something has been pissing me off recently.

Here in Michigan, people in my church are petitioning to have a new law passed to define "marriage" so that gays can't be married.

The word "marriage" defines a religious union, and therefore the word doesn't belong in our law-books. This one little word acts as a bridge between church and state which does not belong. Call it a "Civil Union" between 2 adults, and end the debate.

I want my church to protect the sanctity of marriage, and I want my government to protect my right to believe what I want, and I want my government to protect for my church to protect that sanctity. I don't want my government intruding on my (or anyones) beliefs by dictating religious terminology like "marriage."

What morons in my church consistantly forget is the fact that Church and State is seperate for a reason. You can't impose your religious beliefs on the lawbooks unless you want to open yourself up to the government imposing it's secular morals on to your religious beliefs. It's all fine and good for the religious right to try to impose hate legislation to prevent all gays from marrying, until it backfires. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals will be allowed to "marry" eventually one way or the other. But, since the religious right is pushing for the government to "define marriage," they'll be in for a sorry suprise when it is redefined to include homosexuals. Can't wait for the descrimination lawsuits that this will leave grounds for because "your church refusing to marry homosexuals is descrimination, because our government has defined marriage."

Nice job, morons.

Wouldn't life be much easier if we stopped inviting government to meddle in our affairs?

I am wondering how the "Christians" here feel about this whole issue?

 

[CanuckMA]

Since when is marriage strictly religious? Do you have sources as to the usage of the word beyond the King James translation of the Bible?

If you want to be technical about it, the Bible, in the original Hebrew, refers to 'Kedoshin' as the union. From the root for 'Kadosh' meaning Holy. Marriage is an English term borrowed from the French, who got it from who knows where.

 

[heretic888]

I agree that it would ultimately be best if the religious and legal aspects of marriage were separated into two different entities.

 

[Matt Stone]

It certainly isn't the first time Mother Church has attempted, in an overt or covert manner, to usurp civil authority and covet that control for Herself.

Only about 300 years ago (give or take a few - think early to mid 1700s) Mother Church, by way of Papal Decree, decried separation of church and state, secular education of minors, individual vote, and Government by and for the people, as ideas originated by Satan himself... This particular rant was indirectly aimed at Catholic Freemasons who were protesting Mother Church's wayward bishops (who tried to pass themselves off as both spiritual princes as well as material ones) excesses, as well as Her support of tyrannical regimes. Mother Church retaliated by threatening Catholics with Excommunication for becoming Masons...

It didn't work, and shortly after that time a few guys rebelled against their own tyrannical government in order to create a country where "all men (and women) are created equal..." Guess who they were? :idunno:

 

[heretic888]

Need it be mentioned that a good deal of the Founding Fathers were Masons, as well?? :uhyeah:

 

[Tgace]

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/view2.htm

The part of the Bill of Rights that is most important to the separation debate is the First Amendment, in particular, the two religion clauses of the first Amendment. These clauses deal precisely with the issue of what government can and cannot do with respect to religion. Below, we lay out the wording of these clauses, and what is at issue in their interpretation.

The establishment clause makes up the first ten words of the First Amendment. It reads as follows:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

The free exercise clause makes up the next six words of the Amendment. It reads as follows:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Together, these clauses comprise the most specific statement in the Constitution about the powers of the federal government over religion. It is interesting, for example, to note that both clauses are phrased in the negative, that is, they describe what the federal government cannot do with respect to religion. Hence, if the framers gave some power to the federal government over religion, they must have specified it elsewhere in the Constitution.

While both clauses are important to religious liberty, it is the establishment clause that has become of the focus of the current debate over separation. In particular, the clause is generally interpreted in one of two mutually exclusive ways. The narrow interpretation (favored by accomodationists), holds that the clause bans only the establishment of a state church or religion. A classic statement of this position is found, for example, in J. M. O'Neill's Religion and Education Under the Constitution, p. 56, where he holds that the First Amendment proscribes only "a formal, legal union of a single church or religion with government, giving the one church or religion an exclusive position of power and favor over all other churches or denominations." On this line Congress might do any of a number of things that aid religion so long as it doesn't directly establish a state church.

In contrast, separationists favor what is known as the broad reading of the First Amendment. This reading holds that the First Amendment bans not only the establishment of a state church, but the establishment of any religious belief or practice by law. Hence, separationists would hold that, eg., when government requires prayer in the public schools, it establishes a religious practice and is, hence, illegal. The classic statement of this position is Justice Black's majority opinion in Everson v. Board of Education.

 

[Cruentus]

Hey Matt (or anyone),

do you have a reference to that papal decree?

Thanks,

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Need it be mentioned that a good deal of the Founding Fathers were Masons, as well?? :uhyeah:

Hence why I don't trust any of those bastards! :anic: :rofl:

 

[Matt Stone]

Need it be mentioned that a good deal of the Founding Fathers were Masons, as well?? :uhyeah:

No. Beyond the obvious connection to the beliefs that were a) hated by Mother Church (as they threatened Her power base) and b) part and parcel of the founding tenets of the USA, I don't think the Masonic connection has anything more to do with the topic...

 

[Cruentus]

No. Beyond the obvious connection to the beliefs that were a) hated by Mother Church (as they threatened Her power base) and b) part and parcel of the founding tenets of the USA, I don't think the Masonic connection has anything more to do with the topic...

Again, please reference for me were the Mother Church hated those beliefs when you get the chance. I'd like to read them for myself, and possibly use them as ammo! :armed:

 

[Cruentus]

Since when is marriage strictly religious? Do you have sources as to the usage of the word beyond the King James translation of the Bible?

If you want to be technical about it, the Bible, in the original Hebrew, refers to 'Kedoshin' as the union. From the root for 'Kadosh' meaning Holy. Marriage is an English term borrowed from the French, who got it from who knows where.

That doesn't matter. The fact is that today the word is used to describe a religious union, and therefore, does not belong in on our lawbooks.

 

[Matt Stone]

Hey Matt (or anyone),

do you have a reference to that papal decree?

Thanks,

PAUL

Try this link: Enjoy!

You'll likely have to do a little clicking around and reading, but it'll start you in the right direction.

Specifically, give a look to the condemnation of that forward thinking by the early Masons in paragraph 3 of Quanta Cura, penned in 1864 by Pius IX.

Enjoy!

(and by the way, I am a Freemason... %-} at least, I was, but I haven't actively attended lodge in over 4 years...)

 

[Cruentus]

Try this link: Enjoy!

You'll likely have to do a little clicking around and reading, but it'll start you in the right direction.

Specifically, give a look to the condemnation of that forward thinking by the early Masons in paragraph 3 of Quanta Cura, penned in 1864 by Pius IX.

Enjoy!

(and by the way, I am a Freemason... %-} at least, I was, but I haven't actively attended lodge in over 4 years...)

Thanks Matt! I'll read up.

Meanwhile, I'll be in the process of creating a conspiricy around you...untrustworthy mason! (lol :uhyeah: )

 

[Matt Stone]

Thanks Matt! I'll read up.

Meanwhile, I'll be in the process of creating a conspiricy around you...untrustworthy mason! (lol :uhyeah: )

I am quite a trustworthy Freemason, or Mason for short, (note the capitalization, to differentiate a Brother of The Order from any other "operative" stone mason...

Funny that this comes up, though... I was talking with a few friends last night - one is the son of a Mason from a Masonic family, and the other I brought into the Lodge when we were assigned to Fort Riley. I had the honor and privilege of actually walking him through the initiation ritual myself.

I miss attending Lodge, I miss being part of that organization (it actually does quite a bit of good, worthwhile charity work), but I had personal and professional reasons for no longer attending...

Anyway... I recommend the Brotherhood to anyone considering requesting entrance.

 

[Cryozombie]

I am a Catholic, and something has been pissing me off recently.

Here in Michigan, people in my church are petitioning to have a new law passed to define "marriage" so that gays can't be married.

The word "marriage" defines a religious union, and therefore the word doesn't belong in our law-books. This one little word acts as a bridge between church and state which does not belong. Call it a "Civil Union" between 2 adults, and end the debate.

I want my church to protect the sanctity of marriage, and I want my government to protect my right to believe what I want, and I want my government to protect for my church to protect that sanctity. I don't want my government intruding on my (or anyones) beliefs by dictating religious terminology like "marriage."

What morons in my church consistantly forget is the fact that Church and State is seperate for a reason. You can't impose your religious beliefs on the lawbooks unless you want to open yourself up to the government imposing it's secular morals on to your religious beliefs. It's all fine and good for the religious right to try to impose hate legislation to prevent all gays from marrying, until it backfires. The fact of the matter is, homosexuals will be allowed to "marry" eventually one way or the other. But, since the religious right is pushing for the government to "define marriage," they'll be in for a sorry suprise when it is redefined to include homosexuals. Can't wait for the descrimination lawsuits that this will leave grounds for because "your church refusing to marry homosexuals is descrimination, because our government has defined marriage."

Nice job, morons.

Wouldn't life be much easier if we stopped inviting government to meddle in our affairs?

I am wondering how the "Christians" here feel about this whole issue?

Keep in mind, there are "Legal" standards to marriage that have nothing to do with religion. Otherwise only "christians" would get married.

In answer to your question on how the "Christians" here feel about this whole issue, speaking only for myself as a Christian, I dont care who marrys whom... If two men, two women, a rock and a bug, A black and a white, a jew and a Satanist, or a old man and a young woman want to marry... that's their own damn concern. Regardless of MY beliefs, which tell me NOT to marry a man, if THEY want to do it, its their buisness. It doesnt hurt me, anymore than, say, National Prayer Day, hurts a Satanist... it doesn't.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Reminder

When engaged in the discussion of a hot/sensitive or otherwise emotionally charged topic, please refer to the following thread for allowable guidelines.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14456

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Thank you,
The Management

 

[loki09789]

The difference in usage of marriage is the context. In the legal/governmental lexicon, marriage is basically a contractual agreement, therefore it can be dissolve by divorce (another legal proceeding) both marriage and divorce are supervised and prosided over by the government.

Within religious definitions, the specifics are as varied as there are religions x denominations x personal interpretations. But, for us Cat'lics, marriage is a covenant. It is a sacred union made holy by the presence of God and so on and it is eternal. Divorce is not recognized by the Catholic view of marriage as an end of the union. It can only be dissolved by an Annulment (literally wiping it from existence) prosided over by a Priest in accordance with Canon law - which has an invasive criteria that makes the government 'invasiveness' seem almost non existent.

Because of this difference in definitions for the same term, it needs to be recognized that this is a case of apples an oranges. Sort of the two views on abortion: Pro Life (generally religious based morallity about killing) vs. Pro Choice (generally a civil liberties based morallity about individual constitutional rights). It will never be resolved if there is no common battlefield.

Making gay marriage legal only means that the Justice of the Peace can say the words and gay couples earn a legal/governmental/social equality and dignified recognition. It does not mean that religious organizations are going to be forced to conduct ceremonies that they consider unholy or 'wrong.' To me this is ironic because there is more uproar over a gay person in a congregation than there is over the vastly larger population of 'sinners' who don't repent by changing/abstaining from what ever 'sin' they are commiting. Porn, masturbation and protected sex are considered wrong to Catholic Canon law, yet many a 'sinner' has been married with no intention of repenting these 'sins'. Just find it ironic.

There is definitely a possibility of someone getting a civil suit based on prejudice slapped on them by a gay couple who were refused service based on their lifestyle, though. It is already happening in terms of gay/social rights/recognition issues.

 

[Cruentus]

Paul M. is illustraiting the exact problem I have with the word "Marriage" in our lawbooks. Different religions have different definitions of the word. If we went with the Catholic definition, then you wouldn't be able to get divorced; the best you could do is annullment after a review from a board of people. If it is the Christian version, then in most sects gays could not be married. If it is a more progressive outlook on the word, then gays could be married. Now, religions are in a fit to get their definition of the word on the law books with this whole gay marriage thing.

I say take the word out completely. It'll save us a hell of a lot of trouble and time.

 

[loki09789]

Now, religions are in a fit to get their definition of the word on the law books with this whole gay marriage thing.

I say take the word out completely. It'll save us a hell of a lot of trouble and time.

So, if it is the religious types trying to impose their construct of marriage and morallity in general on the government - who is creating an issue with Church/State separation? Changing one word doesn't make the problem/issues for people go away. It just changes the terms. THe issue now is that the legal definitions are too narrow to be inclusive of gays and implies a second class citizen status. I don't think that changing the legal term of 'abortion' would make a lick if it was changed to 'uteral purge' to make those appose to that feel better.

my point is that there when the battle lines over these issues (marriage, abortion, legal adoption....) are drawn up, on one side individuals are working from personal/religious definitions and assuming that the other side is against that.

The people on the other side are working from a different/political/legal/civil liberty definition and assuming that the other side is against THAT.

This is not a religious infringement issue as much as a legal/tax break/incentive issue wrapped up around personal assumptions about what the legal definition should mean.

Civili Union creates it's own problem because then you have religious types complaining that the government doesn't even recognize the dignity and legitimacy of their institutions 'marriage' rights.

No matter what someone will ***** about it.

 

[Cruentus]

Civili Union creates it's own problem because then you have religious types complaining that the government doesn't even recognize the dignity and legitimacy of their institutions 'marriage' rights.

No matter what someone will ***** about it.

Right, people will ***** no matter what. Yet, I don't care if people ***** that our government doesn't recognize their "religious" union, as is that is exactly the point. Church and State should be seperate.

Also, I don't think that this issue parellels the abortion issue enough to make the comparison. Abortion is a very complex issue regarding the equilibrium between government control over a persons body (woman), and at what point the child should be considered human or not, and how the government should stand on each. Marriage in it's basic sense is a religious union between 2 people. Changing the definition of abortion will not change the issue at all. Taking the word marriage out of the lawbooks, and the government taking a stand to stay that they are not here to define a religious union, but rather give people the freedoms to define that for themselves would change the issue completely. Some will complain, but it'll be over before you know it.