Forcing the Church on the State

Post Reply
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Accountable »

The recent SCOTUS decisions on same-sex marriage have stirred up the predictable religious/anti-religious flaming that keeps any honest discussion from getting underway.

It happens all the time. With this current subject, people keep screaming that we mustn't allow gay marriage because God says homosexuality is wrong. With welfare, people pull up biblical texts that tell us we should help our neighbor, and therefore we must expand the welfare state. Death penalty, abortion, the list might be endless.

When religious teachings tell us to help our neighbor, it means for each of us individually to help our neighbor. It doesn't give us permission to force another neighbor to help as well. When people glean that God is against homosexuality, the message is not to practice homosexuality yourself, not that we should use the power of law to punish anyone who does so.

I can't speak for other religions, but the teachings of Jesus are personal. They call for individual behavior. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. It would be ludicrous to then make a law than anyone who is struck must turn the other cheek or face a fine or imprisonment. It is just as ludicrous to call for legislation citing scriptural dictates.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by tude dog »

Problem here is government being involve in the marriage business.

The issue isn't homos, hetros or animals. It is all about taxes.

It isn't about any gubernant sanctioning personal relationships.

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop, polygamy.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Wandrin »

Long ago I gave up hope of getting religion out of politics. People and politicians will continue to cherry pick passages out of context and try to make them law or use them as an excuse to discriminate against fellow citizens. The comments by politicians about today's SCOTUS rulings were predictable. Oh well...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Accountable »

tude dog;1430623 wrote: Problem here is government being involve in the marriage business.

The issue isn't homos, hetros or animals. It is all about taxes.

It isn't about any gubernant sanctioning personal relationships.

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop, polygamy.
I wasn't talking about the politicians, necessarily, but about voters themselves. They interpret that since God doesn't want me to engage in homosexuality then He must want me to prevent everyone from engaging in it; rather than since God wants me to choose not to engage in homosexuality the he must want all to make that choice, and I must allow that choice to be made just as God does. *That probably made some Christian heads spin*

As for polygamy, that should be the next logical step, since the big reason for allowing same-sex marriage is because consenting adults should be allowed to choose their own relationships. But watch the fight as those who said that when talking about same-sex marriage flip-flop when talking about a tradition embraced by the second largest religion in the world. Hell, even Christianity embraced polygamy until the Romans started interpreting The Word.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Accountable »

Wandrin;1430629 wrote: Long ago I gave up hope of getting religion out of politics. People and politicians will continue to cherry pick passages out of context and try to make them law or use them as an excuse to discriminate against fellow citizens. The comments by politicians about today's SCOTUS rulings were predictable. Oh well...
I know what you mean. Michele Bachmann:

"This decision is one that is profound because the Supreme Court not only attacked our Constitution today, they not only attacked the equal protection rights of every citizen under our Constitution, they attacked something that they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever, the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage," Bachmann said.

She continued, "That is something that God created. That is something that God will define. The Supreme Court, though they may think so, have not risen to the level of God."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/2 ... 04640.html

By that reasoning, you would think that she would be praising SCOTUS for stepping back and refusing to meddle in "something that god created ... [and] will define."
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Wandrin »

The rationale seems to work the same, whether it be a citizen voter or a politician. First they decide what political position the would like to have, and then they go searching for something in the Bible that will seem to back up that position, no matter how far out of context. So, to support one item, they will say that the Old Testament doesn't matter (because it contradicts their opinion) and quote something written to the church in Thessalonia. Then for the next item on the agenda, some snippet is cherry picked from Deuteronomy or Leviticus to "prove" their chosen point (ignoring the verses around it on how to sell your daughter into slavery or how to treat your concubines).

For the marriage issue, I hear about how the Bible defined one and only one form of marriage as pleasing to God, conveniently ignoring all of the other forms of marriage mentioned in the Bible with the rules for each.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by tude dog »

Accountable;1430637 wrote: I wasn't talking about the politicians, necessarily, but about voters themselves. They interpret that since God doesn't want me to engage in homosexuality then He must want me to prevent everyone from engaging in it; rather than since God wants me to choose not to engage in homosexuality the he must want all to make that choice, and I must allow that choice to be made just as God does. *That probably made some Christian heads spin*


Way I view it, back in the day of tribes, small communities etc. needed strict rules for survival. Creating children would be an important part of that survival strategy. Refusal to get with the game plan would seem selfish, endangering survival of the family, especially the elders.

What I a trying to say is we live in another world where homosexuality is a luxury, if you will.

Is that luxury a social positive? That is the question.

Accountable;1430637 wrote: As for polygamy, that should be the next logical step, since the big reason for allowing same-sex marriage is because consenting adults should be allowed to choose their own relationships. But watch the fight as those who said that when talking about same-sex marriage flip-flop when talking about a tradition embraced by the second largest religion in the world. Hell, even Christianity embraced polygamy until the Romans started interpreting The Word.


Same question, is polygamy good for society?
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by LarsMac »

tude dog;1430670 wrote: Way I view it, back in the day of tribes, small communities etc. needed strict rules for survival. Creating children would be an important part of that survival strategy. Refusal to get with the game plan would seem selfish, endangering survival of the family, especially the elders.

What I a trying to say is we live in another world where homosexuality is a luxury, if you will.

Is that luxury a social positive? That is the question.



Same question, is polygamy good for society?


Well, in a world of over 7 billion people, I don't really think popping children into the world is necessarily a positive.

The society that can produce the smartest and most adaptable offspring will probably prevail.

Don't see where either homosexuality or polygamy will make much of a difference in the future.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by tude dog »

LarsMac;1430672 wrote: Well, in a world of over 7 billion people, I don't really think popping children into the world is necessarily a positive.


First of all, I was answering in the religious context, thinking of the Bible where much of western civilizations derive it's moral/ethical mores.

When popping children into the world is necessary for ones survival, I really can't fault them for not giving a care about global population.

LarsMac;1430672 wrote: The society that can produce the smartest and most adaptable offspring will probably prevail.

Don't see where either homosexuality or polygamy will make much of a difference in the future.


No doubt you can't. For those who dare suggest a difference are sidelined as kooks, not to be given the time of day.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by AnneBoleyn »

"What I a trying to say is we live in another world where homosexuality is a luxury, if you will.

Is that luxury a social positive? That is the question."

Tude, do you think being homosexual is a choice of lifestyle as opposed to being "born this way"? If the latter, which is considered true these days, then it is not a luxury at all, just the way a person is. Is being white a luxury? Or anything else in nature? Besides, reproduction is not our problem---too many people on the planet is the problem, many of them children without homes. Gays can and do procreate their biological children, but also adopt children and that to me is a social positive.
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1430677 wrote: "What I a trying to say is we live in another world where homosexuality is a luxury, if you will.

Is that luxury a social positive? That is the question."

Tude, do you think being homosexual is a choice of lifestyle as opposed to being "born this way"? If the latter, which is considered true these days, then it is not a luxury at all, just the way a person is. Is being white a luxury? Or anything else in nature? Besides, reproduction is not our problem---too many people on the planet is the problem, many of them children without homes. Gays can and do procreate their biological children, but also adopt children and that to me is a social positive.


I am not making a moral or ethical judgement concerning homosexuality. I also made no judgement as to the benefit, if any of accepting homosexuality is a positive or not for society.

I was suggesting in other cultures both present and historically survival depends on large families. In those cultures to not have children is viewed, say the least as selfish.

In our country we do not depend on large families, hence the luxury to accept homosexuality.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Historically, large families were due to other factors, namely no means to prevent conception. Also, many or most of the children would die, so the production of more was a necessity on it's own.

And selfish? I would venture to say unavoidable. As economy increases, the need for more & more replicas becomes redundant.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by LarsMac »

tude dog;1430670 wrote: Way I view it, back in the day of tribes, small communities etc. needed strict rules for survival. Creating children would be an important part of that survival strategy. Refusal to get with the game plan would seem selfish, endangering survival of the family, especially the elders.

What I a trying to say is we live in another world where homosexuality is a luxury, if you will.

Is that luxury a social positive? That is the question.



Same question, is polygamy good for society?


tude dog;1430676 wrote: First of all, I was answering in the religious context, thinking of the Bible where much of western civilizations derive it's moral/ethical mores.

When popping children into the world is necessary for ones survival, I really can't fault them for not giving a care about global population.



No doubt you can't. For those who dare suggest a difference are sidelined as kooks, not to be given the time of day.


Well, I was simply responding to your question.

When religion is in the mix, and with the pre-industrial mindset that prevailed before the modern world, producing as many mindless minions as possible might have made sense. Having plenty of faithful to carry out whatever plan the gods had in store for a society would suggest that polygamy would be a positive. You could turn out a a whole baseball team each year if you had enough wives.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, of course, would be counterproductive.

However in the tech era, the society that can turn out fewer, smarter young-uns who can dust your minions by the truckload will prove to be the superior one.

For that, the society needs fewer, smarter parental units who can spend the time it takes to raise the smart kids.

Religion, and all the baggage that it brings will need to be left behind.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11527
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by YZGI »

Maybe homosexuality is increasing as an evolutionary tool to slow the over population. I'm sure Ahso would have something on this.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Accountable »

tude dog;1430670 wrote: Way I view it, back in the day of tribes, small communities etc. needed strict rules for survival. Creating children would be an important part of that survival strategy. Refusal to get with the game plan would seem selfish, endangering survival of the family, especially the elders.

What I a trying to say is we live in another world where homosexuality is a luxury, if you will.

Is that luxury a social positive? That is the question.



Same question, is polygamy good for society?
Agreed. Now who answers that question? Should it be a government forcing the issue, or natural cultural shifts?

It really bothers me when politicians try to take on that role for themselves as if they are somehow wiser than the rest of us.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Accountable;1430704 wrote: Agreed. Now who answers that question? Should it be a government forcing the issue, or natural cultural shifts?

It really bothers me when politicians try to take on that role for themselves as if they are somehow wiser than the rest of us.


Homosexual marriages need government intervention to ensure the rights of estate taxation & inheritance. Legal marriage is a financial arrangement more even than an affair of the heart. It's practical, material, & therefore qualifies for government protection.
User avatar
jones jones
Posts: 6601
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by jones jones »

Personally I'm not too sure why the government or especially the "church" should get involved in the hullabaloo about so called "gay marriage.:"

Men and women have been involved in same sex relationships since day one. Whether or not the government or the church approve of such relationships is neither here nor there. Most government representatives wouldn't be able to find their own sexual organs in the dark and as for the church ... the less said about these perverts the better.

As long as gay couples do not involve underage children in their sexual adventures, who gives a flying flamingo what they get up to in their own space?

Whatever floats your boat in this regard does it for me.
"…I hate how I don’t feel real enough unless people are watching." — Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
User avatar
tude dog
Posts: 5121
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:48 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by tude dog »

AnneBoleyn;1430714 wrote: Homosexual marriages need government intervention to ensure the rights of estate taxation & inheritance. Legal marriage is a financial arrangement more even than an affair of the heart. It's practical, material, & therefore qualifies for government protection.


I thought I posted something along those lines,

#2 powtProblem here is government being involve in the marriage business.

The issue isn't homos, hetros or animals. It is all about taxes.

It isn't about any gubernant sanctioning personal relationships.

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop, polygamy.


All along, people can make their own marriage contracts without government.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by LarsMac »

YZGI;1430703 wrote: Maybe homosexuality is increasing as an evolutionary tool to slow the over population. I'm sure Ahso would have something on this.


there were some studies done in the seventies, whose results suggested something along those lines.

As population began to stress the environment, homosexuality and other "aberrant" (the publisher's word) behavior increased significantly.

I remember reading some of the reports, but finding them, again, will take some time.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
johnmont
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:08 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by johnmont »

Wandrin;1430650 wrote: The rationale seems to work the same, whether it be a citizen voter or a politician. First they decide what political position the would like to have, and then they go searching for something in the Bible that will seem to back up that position, no matter how far out of context. So, to support one item, they will say that the Old Testament doesn't matter (because it contradicts their opinion) and quote something written to the church in Thessalonia. Then for the next item on the agenda, some snippet is cherry picked from Deuteronomy or Leviticus to "prove" their chosen point (ignoring the verses around it on how to sell your daughter into slavery or how to treat your concubines).

For the marriage issue, I hear about how the Bible defined one and only one form of marriage as pleasing to God, conveniently ignoring all of the other forms of marriage mentioned in the Bible with the rules for each.So true!You notice that the bible thumpers are totally silent:lips: about God forbidding the charging of interest on loans.:thinking:
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by AnneBoleyn »

tude dog;1430733 wrote: I thought I posted something along those lines,

#2 powt

All along, people can make their own marriage contracts without government.


We're both so brilliant.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by gmc »

tude dog;1430733 wrote: I thought I posted something along those lines,

#2 powt

All along, people can make their own marriage contracts without government.


Actually you can't. Unless your contract is recognised in law it is absolutely meaningless. Before civil partnerships unmarried spouses had no rights (generally speaking I can think of exceptions in scots law where for historical reasons common law wifes' were recognised but still had to be confirmed by the court and probably there are exceptions in the states as well) Illegitimate children used to have no rights at all when it came to the property of the father and still don't unless they have been adopted. Even with a will in place "legitimate" children have prior rights.

If you live with someone even with a joint ownership you don't automatically get the other half if your partner dies their family have prior claim unless there is a will and that can be challenged. If you live with someone and there is no will and they own the property and die you are now homeless unless their family let yop keep the property or you have entered ion to some kind of contract that must be recognised by government for it to be any use.

Yes yopu can make your own contracts but it is moot whether it is worth the effort in doing so if you kid yourself what government does won't matter.

It's not just marriage your churches seem to want to control your lives.

Personhood USA Confirms That Mississippi Abortion Ban Would Outlaw Birth Control Pills | ThinkProgress

Seems you no longer get to decide if and when you become pregnant if you are a woman. Wonder how long it will be before sex outside marriage becomes criminal.

I don't understand how these clowns can get away with it in this day and age.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Accountable »

:wah: Your paranoia never ceases to surprise me. You'd think I'd be used to it by now.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by gmc »

Accountable;1430907 wrote: :wah: Your paranoia never ceases to surprise me. You'd think I'd be used to it by now.


I'm not in America so why would I be paranoid about the doings of the right wing churches you have in the states? Generally speaking in the UK the churches get ignored by most people - annoys the life out of them no end.

Besides it's not paranoia when it's actually happening. they really are out to ban access to contraception. How can they object to universal healthcare on the grounds it interferes with freedom of choice and then deprive non believers access to contraceptives because of their religious beliefs? You live with these people I don't. In europe and the UK we had wars over religion maybe the US is so backward because they didn't.:sneaky:

Posted by accountable

I can't speak for other religions, but the teachings of Jesus are personal.




Therein lie the seeds of conflict Do you find your own way to salvation through a personal jesus or do you need the church and priests to show you the way. People died fighting over that, me I think a really stupid thing to go to war over. Shia and sunni - does anyone understand why they want to kill each other?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Ahso! »

YZGI;1430703 wrote: Maybe homosexuality is increasing as an evolutionary tool to slow the over population.Wouldn't that be a comforting thought, that there is indeed something or someone that can and will react to our behavior in order to fix our mistakes and/or injustices. As much as I wish that were the case, I doubt there's much, if any evidence for it.

Currently, the most convincing theory regarding homosexuality is in Epi-Mark research as I understand it. The theory is that homosexuality happens through gene expression of the opposite sex parent. Generally speaking, it is the regulation of timing in gene expression on-off switching that produces sexuality, including sexual preference.

There's a wiki article on epigenetic theory that explains the basics well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigeneti ... osexuality
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by gmc »

Who says americans can't be ironic.

Rachel Maddow Show
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Mickiel »

Accountable;1430619 wrote: The recent SCOTUS decisions on same-sex marriage have stirred up the predictable religious/anti-religious flaming that keeps any honest discussion from getting underway.

It happens all the time. With this current subject, people keep screaming that we mustn't allow gay marriage because God says homosexuality is wrong. With welfare, people pull up biblical texts that tell us we should help our neighbor, and therefore we must expand the welfare state. Death penalty, abortion, the list might be endless.

When religious teachings tell us to help our neighbor, it means for each of us individually to help our neighbor. It doesn't give us permission to force another neighbor to help as well. When people glean that God is against homosexuality, the message is not to practice homosexuality yourself, not that we should use the power of law to punish anyone who does so.

I can't speak for other religions, but the teachings of Jesus are personal. They call for individual behavior. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. It would be ludicrous to then make a law than anyone who is struck must turn the other cheek or face a fine or imprisonment. It is just as ludicrous to call for legislation citing scriptural dictates.




Religion should have never been mixed with politics, because politics is too full of what religions warns of.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by LarsMac »

Mickiel;1446083 wrote: Religion should have never been mixed with politics, because politics is too full of what religions warns of.


That is a fine idea. but looking back on history, religion and politics were almost inseparable until a very recent age.

The struggle to separate the two has hit a few roadblocks of late.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Mickiel »

LarsMac;1446086 wrote: That is a fine idea. but looking back on history, religion and politics were almost inseparable until very a very recent age.

The struggle to separate the two has hit a few roadblocks of late.




My idea is more from a modern perspective, modern politics does not make a good bedfellow with religion; because the politics today is increasingly secular. And I disagree that they were inseparable, they were just tolerable. Ancient Rome tolerated it and that began the origin of the road its on now. Politics has a political reasoning behind it always; or it never would have tolerated religion in the first place.

Religion is tolerated for the points it can score, and it scores points for sure, for the people who support it, and a vast majority of most countries support it, and its historical value, which is too valuable to ignore.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by LarsMac »

I see where you are coming from, but it is difficult to separate the political-religious atmosphere of today from the history of politics and religion.

Before Rome, often the leaders of the nation-states were also the focus of the religion, or representatives of the deities which the state held reverence for.

In the latter days of Rome the Church and The State were one. Following the fall of Rome, the Church leadership was the authority in all matters.

As Leaders arose throughout Europe they we declared the divine authority of the Church and of God, and their progeny inherited that authority.

The separation of religion and politics began to take hold in the 12th and 13th centuries, and it was the Constitution of the United States that first made such a separation begin to become reality.

It has been in our life time that the religious "majority" have begun to hijack the political process.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Forcing the Church on the State

Post by Mickiel »

Well I think its a known fact about me, if I were asked the question of which came first, I would say religion did, then came politics. Society was ruled by religion first, ( or a God figure), then men became their own rulers and religion was brushed to the back. ( or the God figure was abandoned or rejected by most). And yes history will then show a kind of " Back and forth" between Politics and Religion, sometimes existing together.

I personally think they try to hijack each other.
Post Reply

Return to “General Religious Discussions”