Gay Rights, this will make you think.

[Tchaiko]

(01-04-2012 07:15 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 06:36 PM)Tchaiko Wrote:  I think this is a case in which the government is using the church's words, and so the church feels obligated to make sure that those words aren't taken any other way than it takes them.

...but then that cheapens marriage and takes god out of it! At least, that would be the church's counter-argument.

And I would say right back to the church, "isn't that what the American government was supposed to do, anyways? Govern independently of religion?" I know they'll never accept that, but it's essential to understanding how to run this country.

A facebook friend just put up a very striking status:

Quote: So if I were a vegetarian would the religious right have a problem with me trying to get a law passed saying they can't eat meat? One step further if I were a Muslim would they have a problem with me saying they must pray (it can be to their god I don't care) 5 times a day facing Mecca? I assume they would probably have issues with that. Why then is it they seemed surprised the rest of us don't want their beliefs shoved down our throats as laws. It is not their place to make a law saying a woman can't get an abortion just because they think the Bible says no. It is not their place to say a man can't marry another man just because they think the Bible says no. Maybe my religious book says, "Thou shall not suffer a conservative to live." Would that then give me the right to try to have anybody caught voting republican arrested? They seem to think if their "holy" book says something then it is okay to try to. . . violate basic human rights because of it.

[Darrell]

Quote:So if I were a vegetarian would the religious right have a problem with me trying to get a law passed saying they can't eat meat?

If you lived in a country that was 60% vegetarian then you might have a shot. That's how a Republic works.

Quote: It is not their place to make a law saying a woman can't get an abortion just because they think the Bible says no. It is not their place to say a man can't marry another man just because they think the Bible says no.

Saying that Christians are only against these things "because they thing the Bible says no" is reductionism. But I really don't have the energy right now to get into why. Suffice it to say that at the very lease you can make a philosophical argument against abortion without quoting one Scripture verse.

Quote: They seem to think if their "holy" book says something then it is okay to try to. . . violate basic human rights because of it.

I will nitpick just at tiny bit here and say that marriage isn't a "basic human right." Otherwise the government had better start providing our unmarried people here with spouses, pronto. As a society we deny people the right to get married for any number of reasons.

[Donb123]

(01-04-2012 08:00 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:So if I were a vegetarian would the religious right have a problem with me trying to get a law passed saying they can't eat meat?

If you lived in a country that was 60% vegetarian then you might have a shot. That's how a Republic works.

Maybe some republics and maybe what ours has devolved into but we used to pay attention to the Constitution and if we followed the limits it placed on the government, the federal government couldn't limit these kinds of choices for free people. States, on the other hand, do have the authority.

[Darrell]

Quote:. States, on the other hand, do have the authority.

If it causes you any heartburn you may substitute the word "state" for the word "country" and my point still stands.

If, on the other hand, we increase the number to 75% then we could call for a national Constitutional amendment (not that I'm advocating this, I'm just saying it's possible) and the point will still stand as well.

[Donb123]

(01-04-2012 08:08 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:. States, on the other hand, do have the authority.

If it causes you any heartburn you may substitute the word "state" for the word "country" and my point still stands.

If, on the other hand, we increase the number to 75% then we could call for a national Constitutional amendment (not that I'm advocating this, I'm just saying it's possible) and the point will still stand as well.

In theory that is correct as well but even less likely. Nobody has the stones to do that apparently - ammend it that is, rather than subvert it.

[Monipenny]

The First Amendment Freedom of Religion

The term "seperation of church and State" is not in any article, amendment, constitution, Bill of rights or any such documents, but the term still applies when understanding exactly what Freedom of Religion means. Yes, it means you are free to worship the god of your choice, it also means that others are free to not be made to participate in any religion anytime and any place, especially public places.

"Our first right guaranteed in the first line of the first article of the Bill of Rights, is the right to freedom of religion. Again, if we as a people do not understand what freedom of religion means, and where it comes from, it can be taken away from us by our own government, and we won't even know it. There are crucial principles to be understood:

Freedom of Conscience
Pluralism
Tolerance
Governmental Neutrality
Separation of State and Church
Freedom From Religion
The basic idea of freedom of religion is that no one, especially the government, is allowed to force religion on anyone else or prohibit anyone from practicing a religion. To force others to support a church or profess belief in a church's tenets is as much a violation of their civil rights as is preventing them from practicing their religion.

To guarantee freedom of religion, the First Amendment specifies two restrictions on government must not promote the establishment of religion or prohibit its free exercise. These two restrictions often tend to oppose each other, so the key to freedom of religion is striking a neutral to religious ideas and institutions, granting them no special privileges or exemptions. This is what is meant by separation of state and church.

In the majority opinion of Wallace versus Jaffree (83-812, 1985), Supreme Court Justice John P. Stevens wrote, "The individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." Freedom of conscience thus guarantees that the right to freedom of religion includes the right to freedom from religion.

Freedom Diminished

Ironically, it is the very religious that are leading the campaign to deprive us of freedom of religion. Every time they get the government to support and promote their churches and doctrines our freedom of religion is reduced. With tax-exempt funding they lobby the government, claiming the right to do so under the Free-speech and Free-exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Powerful and ambitious, they have been increasingly successful at persuading government to impose religion and religious ideas on us.

To accomplish this they have to twist the meaning of freedom of religion in the minds of the public officials and the public at large. Government cannot promote the tenets of specific religions such as prayer and "God", without violating the American values of freedom of conscience and pluralism. On the other hand, the ultra-religious cannot overtly challenge these values without drawing attention to their subversion of civil rights.

Instead they pay lip service to the words "freedom of conscience" and "pluralism" and then ignore their meanings and applications. The faithful in and out of the government are easily deceived by this. They readily accept this approach at face value and fail to notice the inherent contradiction.

Another tactic is distortion. They have perverted the meaning of tolerance to their advantage. They have managed to convince most of the American public that criticism of churches and religious ideas is persecution.

As a result, anyone who publicly criticizes a church or a religious idea is characterized as intolerant, discriminatory, rude, and therefore a bigot. The nation's media cater to this distortion and are quick to sensor statements directly critical of church leaders or the ideas they promote. It is as if churches have a First Amendment right to freedom from criticism.

The authority of the U.S. government is derived from "We the people..." The U.S. Constitution is completely secular and devoid of any reference to a god. Given that the Greek roots of the word atheist mean "without" (a) "god" (theos), the U.S. Constitution is literally an atheistic document.

While religion is indeed an effective tool for controlling people it ought to be apparent by now that its use by government presents a real threat to individual freedom. The threat presented by the Moslem fanatics in Iran is readily apparent, but Americans conveniently forget that we fought two World Wars against Christian troops from Germany. The words Gott mit uns (God [is] with us) adorned the belt buckles of both the Kaiser's troops and Hitler's storm troopers.

Legal Precedents

Distorting the meaning of freedom of religion was the first tactic, ignoring its supporting principles was the second, and usurping the place of freedom with theism was the third. The fourth tactic was to get laws enacted based on those distorted precepts. By serving as legal precedents those laws effectively legitimized the distortions.

A series of such laws were passed in the early 1950's (the McCarthy Era). For example, on June 14, 1954, the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance to make it read "one nation under God." America is supposed to be one nation under a constitution, but this law now instructs everyone that our Constitution is officially secondary to the word of "God."

Public Law 140, signed by President Eisenhower on July 11, 1955, was another one (31 U.S.C. 324a). It required that all coins and currency bear the motto "In God We Trust." Originally, all American money was secular. It wasn't until 1864 that "In God We Trust" first appeared on an American coin at the instigation of a Baptist minister. Theodore Roosevelt discontinued the practice, but it was subsequently reestablished for certain coins. American paper money had remained completely secular up to 1955.

This was followed by Public Law 851 signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, which replaced our traditional national motto E Pluribus Unum with "In God We Trust" (36 U.S.C. 186). In making belief in a generic god a precondition for patriotism, the American tradition of pluralism was effectively declared null and void. The First Amendment has not been repealed, but this new legal precedent had the same effect as far as freedom of religion was concerned."

--Chris Allen

I realize that most Christians would love to intertwine their business with the government, they do it all the time. Those agaist gay civil unions is a prime example, open prayers in schools is another (no one forbids a child to pray for her lunch). Worse would be if the government was controlled by the church again as seen in the past elsewhere which is why our Constitution was designed the way it was...to keep the church from influincing our laws. Religion needs to butt out of the government and the church can do their thing on their own private property, your preacher has the freedom of speech to preach whatever he wants, adults have the freedom of conscience to enjoy but children are brainwashed for up to 18 years before they are free to exercise their freedom of conscience, by then what are they to think?

[Darrell]

Quote:In theory that is correct as well but even less likely.

I'm not talking about what's likely just how things would work in a perfect Civics 101 world.

For the record, I believe that two people of whatever orientation can enter into a binding legal contract with each of mutually agreeable terms as long as they are both consenting adults. That's the prerogative of a free society. Whether or not they get to call it "marriage" as defined by the government is wholly dependent on the voting public of the particular state or municipality in question. That's also the prerogative of a free society. Each side of the issue is free to make its best case and persuade hearts and minds for or against. And that has no bearing at all on what any given church or temple or mosque will bless as a sacred union.

The larger question in my mind is whether or not private organizations should be forced by the government to recognize a given contract between two people that the organization has a religious objection to. That's where the issue becomes one that could potentially affect churches, faith-based organizations, and individuals such as employers. It would be wonderful if we could truly live and let live...but where there is political hay to be made people on both sides of the aisle will rush to make it.

For those who are horrified at governmental attempts to "enforce morality" on the private lives of people with statutes such as anti-sodomy laws, there could hardly be less horror at the attempt to "enforce morality" by enacting a requirement that a private citizen or group of private citizens recognize a union that a person's private religious beliefs finds unconscionable.

For those who might opine that nobody would agitate for such an enforcement of public policy on private organizations, I would simply point to cases such as Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale to prove that such a confrontation is all but inevitable.

[myotch]

Allow me to cut-n-paste my own writings from another site regarding what the Separation of Church and State, or rather, 1st Amendment Religious Rights, means:

Quote:At face value, the First Amendment limits the government in 1) establishing a state or national religion, and in 2) controlling, in religious terms, the conscience of the individual to worship as he or she sees fit. Nothing more, and nothing less.

I have the freedom to follow my conscience, not the dictates of the state, to worship God according to my conscience. I do not have to belong to a state-sanctioned church, nor does church membership give me any government advantages or disadvantages. Historically speaking, I do not have to have the dilemma of Thomas More, one moment at the King's favor, and the next moment my head severed because of some screw-headed allegiance issue. I do not have to worry about my church being razed or taxed into non-existence. My access to government and its courts is not limited because I am a Catholic in a highly Protestant part of America.

...State-sanctioned Churches or religions, or even State-sanctioned non-religions tend to thrive in suppressive states. In Saddam's Iraq, we saw a minority Sunni Government control the majority Shias, and actively kill the northern Kurds. In Great Britain, we saw a terrible persecution of Catholics, followed by a persecution of Anglicans, followed by a persecution of Catholics. In Spain we saw the state persecute non-Catholics, and even Catholics for not being Catholic enough. Here in colonial America, we saw the persecution of witches, most if not all no more witches than the person sitting next to them on the church pew on Sunday. In atheist Soviet Union, we see access to government and rights stripped away of Jews and Christians, many killed, many sent to gulags for "re-education" by a propagandist machine.

It is important that one follow the dictates of his conscience, while not stepping on the dictates of the conscience of another. If it means that established religions flourish, so be it. If it means that whacko cults enter the "market of spiritual ideas", so be it. If it means First United Atheist organizations spring up all over, so be it. The government cannot dictate what I believe, and what I teach my children is right to believe.

All that being said, I cannot see homosexual so-called marriage to be a religious argument. The reasons against such marriages are better argued from a historical, cultural, societal discussion about what marriage actually is and has always been. Societies that have been more tolerant of homosexuality - even accepting and celebratory of it - did not see a compelling moral, legal, or philosophical reason to be inclusive to the point of granting marital status to homosexual couples. What would be the point of granting homosexual couples martial rights and benefits now, if not to totally reinvent the wheel?

[GraceThruFaith]

Get the government out of the marriage arena, methinks. Along with abortion, education, and A LOT of other things.

[Monipenny]

"At face value, the First Amendment limits the government in 1) establishing a state or national religion, and in 2) controlling, in religious terms, the conscience of the individual to worship as he or she sees fit. Nothing more, and nothing less."

Or said this way, "in non-religious terms," the conscience of the individual to be free from any worship as he or she sees fit. Secondly, the First Amendment limits any religion or church (ie, the super rich, powerful Catholic church) in 1) establishing a State or national religion.

The government was not set up to limit itself but to protect the people from forced religion as was practiced in Countries they came from. This is the freedom we (as a people) were originally fighting to protect and still are. You would not want Muslims to interfere and take your freedom of religion away from you while enforcing the Islamic faith, yet they have the same freedom of religion here as anyone does. The same applies to all religions across the board, practice your faith, but don't push it on others who are free to not participate.

"What would be the point of granting homosexual couples martial rights and benefits now,......?"

So they too can enjoy the benifits of health insurance and tax advantages, dower rights, I am sure other benifits as well that involves a marital union. Why should they not have the same basic advantages as a man/woman have? By appealing for religious reasons, then you are arbitrarily impeding on the rights of individuals and violating the first amendment of the Constitution by imposing your religious views to push your anti gay agendas.