Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smellincoffee, Jan 22, 2014.
separation of church and state was meant to protect religions from the one acting as the state
What do you base that on? What religions were being protected?
For a start, we should remember that there wasn't a single athiest in the modern sense amongst the Founding Fathers. Secularism as we know it also didn't exist.
Formaldehyde- If God actually exists, as the priests claim, that gives them more than enough basis.
JollyRoger- If you do that, you aren't a Christian. That should be obvious.
Berzerker- No, he didn't. He claimed to have the proper interpretation. Frankly I think Jesus's interpretation of some verses is asinine. That's part of what I don't like about Christianity.
squadbroken- Look at the logical conclusions of that. It means you would sometimes encourage people to be hypocrites. Don't you see a problem with that?
Smellincoffe- NOT TRUE. There are a few enclaves of religious extremists whose interpretations of the Bible are actually pretty reasonable, and don't involve any picking and choosing.
Also, ad hominem. ALL religious believers who do this are hypocrites, and should rightly be considered morally contemptible scum.
Archanofeind- Integrity in this case is respectable because it involves the refusal to compromise moral beliefs for the sake of pragmatism (respectable) both in one's theory and in it's one practice. It also involves the absence of hypocrisy (respectable, especially under pressure).
Stubborness on matters of fact is not respectable, but that's a different aspect.
I strongly encourage anyone who claims to follow bigoted religious teachings to be a hypocrite about them.
Sure, it would be better if they'd just abandon them altogether, but hey, baby steps.
I base it on the fact the Framers were opposed to the European model of church and state stomping on other religions. The religions being protected were those not in control of the state. Hell, even Jefferson (I think) said in his famous letter the separation was to protect religion from the state.
Jesus knew the punishment for adultery and working on the Sabbath was death and he rejected it. Those laws - both in the 10 Commandments - were not open to interpretation, Moses himself had people executed for violations.
Before we keep going- are you a deontologist or a consequentialist? There are two lines of argument I can use, but it depends on which are you.
I agree that the interpretation was asinine, but Jesus could argue that, being God, he could make a special case about the Sabbath. He could also argue that adultery was meant to punished by upright persons, not hypocrites.
Then what are you? Can you explain?
Nor a hypocrite, which is the point I was making. That should be obvious.
Yeah, when it comes to the Bible, I try to separate the wheat from the chaff. There's nothing hypocritical about that. I do the same thing will a lot of old writings.
Why, so you can derail the conversation by trying to pick apart my beliefs?
How about you actually come up with an argument based on the information already given.
Either black mermaids exist or they don't. Which side are you on?
What do we pick and choose?
That seems to be quite a leap.
The European model only had one religion and it was the infighting and control of that religion that you seem to be addressing. Now the catholic church may have felt then as they do now that they were the only ones who had it right and knew how to properly run a state. Secularism may not have been exactly the same then as it is now, but humans were already casting off the notion that any religion had a claim on how humans lived. The amendment states that Congress is not to make a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That does not protect a religion. It protects the people, and in this case the government is the people against any religion coming in and taking over the roles of government. That is not protecting a religion. That is protecting people and the government from being controlled by a religion. The second part may protect all religions from the government, but it is still protecting the people allowing them to live a secular and or religious life style without the government stepping in and telling them how to live. This does not preclude the basic common sense laws that humans agree on. It also did not keep such laws like sodomy and prohibition from being formed. It has not guaranteed against all the laws that have been enacted allowing humans to oppress other humans. It was and still is against people passing such laws that violate one's individual personal morals. That is what the amendment was attempting to avoid, but it has been ignored over and over again and that is why this country is in such a legislative mess.
And even Moses was killed for braking a command. Jesus did not brake the laws out of spite nor re-interpret them. Believe it or do not believe it, but he was showing them that the penalty of the law was no longer valid. Humans could now break the law without receiving the direct wrath of God, or the indirect punishment carried out by other humans. No one can keep the law and every one is already condemned. That is why he was accused of blasphemy, because he was viewed as changing the law (like an anti-Christ) without the authority of God. In fact humans today still reject that Jesus had God's authority and that as the Christ he was God on earth that paid the price that the Law had been given to require.
If one can successfully love God and other humans more than themselves, then they will automatically keep the Law, without getting down to the specifics of all 613 parts of the Law. And even then humans have a hard time keeping even the golden rule, but they still are not struck down dead when they brake it. Is God's will still accomplished on earth and are people still punished. I do not know the answer to that. It may seem like that at times. There are quite a few people who hold that God does not even exist, so I doubt convincing them that God punished himself on the cross, much less that he still uses natural forces to punish humans directly will go very far.
It is untrue that all founding fathers were religious. In general, the churches controlled the day to day life in many communities, but that doesn't mean they were ardent followings. Lots has been written about people like Washington and their doubts. Going to church was expected from everyone (no NFL).
Two other important issues:
1. Nothing in the Constitution suggests a separation of church and state. The first amendment said no law could be made either establishing a government religion, and no one could be prevented from freely exercising whatever religion they wanted, but nothing that said religion could not have a place in government, as long as it did not favor any specific one.
2. The concept of religious and "legal" marriage are entirely separate. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a contract between two people. Therefore, as long as it does not violate any provision of the Constitution, they can put restictions in place. Whether a religion sanctions or does not sanction a religion is entirely separate. The US (or individual states, once it is determined which has control over the definition)could allow same-sex marriage, and the Catholic Church could refuse to santion those same unions - nothing wrong with that.
And, in theory, the Catholic Church could sanction a marriage and the state refuse to recognize it.
This has already happened in states where same sex marriage is not legal. Couples have been married in a church (presumably not Catholic) so they are married before their god, but not in the eyes of the state.
Of course, although it is unlikely. With the evolution of civil rights, the concept of marriage has expanded (marriage used to be prohibited between races, and frowned on between religions, for example), while the church is more likely to hang onto the status quo. It is unlikely in modern society that the government would move backwards while the church would evolve forward. Also, most "conservative" views, which could look to restrict marriage (carefully not taking a side on this one), tend to reflect and take religion into its views.
So let's say Adam marries Steve in a same sex state. Then Adam marries Eve in a Catholic ceremony. Without a divorce between Adama and Steve, I do not think the state would recognize the Catholic marriage.
Does not compute. The catholic church would not sanction a marriage where one participant was part of a same sex marriage for at least three reasons:
1. That is bigamy, which the church does not condone.
2. Because of the same sex marriage, I don't think they would permit the second marriage.
3. At least in the US (don't know about other countries), the catholic church does not marry couples unless it is part of a civil marriage as well. Therefore, if Steve is already married, the state would not permit the second marriage, so neither would the church.
Niuce try though.
Separate names with a comma.