Sickening...

Remove all ads!

True. However, it does mean that Church and State are supposed to be separate. In other words, the government exists to provide order and protect the individual. It doesn't exist to impose a religious moral framework. If it did, we'd have an example of "politics by proxy" in which the largest group of people are the only people whose rights are explicitly protected by the government. Under our current system in which Church and State are separate, the government protects the rights of all citizens equally.

Sure. But they still don't have the right to have their moral edicts passed into law. You have the right to lobby the government to pass laws about anything you want. What you don't have is the right to actually get it if the law will violate the rights of others (and denying a basic right to a group of people based on the sexual orientation would certainly qualify as a violation of their rights). Our constitution forbids the government from passing laws based on religious precepts in order to protect all people of all religions and walks of life from religious tyranny. Even if a federal ban on gay marriage were passed, it would just be overturned by the Supreme Court since a federal ban on gay marriage is blatantly unconstitutional.....so if you want to waste your time pursuing an impossibility, knock yourself out.

By trying to get the government to pass your moral perspective into law you are trying to reach into my personal life and force change, Gnarff. You don't understand at all, do you? I am finished with this debate. Respond if you will, but I will not read it.

[ April 10, 2007, 08:24: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

That stigma only comes from ignorance and morals coming from a book of falsehoods. one day the world will be free of religion, and thus free of bigotry and prejudice. we probably wont even have war, seeing as how many wars are fought for religious reasons.

 

This statement of Gnaff's is one that infuriates me the most. This is eye-for-an-eye stuff and correct me if I'm wrong but completely against Jesus' teachings, namely of 'turning the other cheek'.

Because Mormans suffered in the past being forced to operate under someone else's moral ideals it gives them the right to do the same unto others with Morman ideals having top priority? Madness. Being allowed to practice one's own religion is what allowed Mormonisim to survive to what it is today. This is a 'biting the hand that feeds you' kind of situation.

I can't stress how immoraly wrong it is. It SCREAMS "We're right, everyone else is wrong." and the problem is when someone says "Prove you're right." and the response is "Because this is the word of God, recorded in this here book of God, by God, in this book. And the book says it's recorded by God, and God can't lie, so it has to be right here, in this book, written by God, who can't lie." I think you see where I'm going. Nasty circular logic.

This so called 'Correct way to live that is the best for everybody' sounds more like a type of revenge or vengence. I believe my way of life is best, Mr. Wilson down the road thinks his way is best but it conflicts with mine, however we get along because we don't try and make each other live by the other's code. The best way of life is to let others live their lives the way they want to provided they don't force you to live your life in a way you don't want to, and in turn you show them the same respect.

Let's throw out a direct example. I find it disgusting that there are churches in our society, their existance could convince my children that religion is something worth getting into. The state doesn't demolish those structures so it's silently giving them the nod of approval and telling us that their way of life is correct. All religious buildings therefore should be destroyed to show that the state doesn't share their beliefs and try to convince me that their way is correct.

 

This has to be the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard on this board. Proteus, do you realize that a state entirely free of religion has already been attempted? It was called the USSR. Guess what, there was more oppression, suffering, war (well, internal strife at least), and general hatred in that state than in any I know of short of the Nazis (possibly, Stalin killed a lot more people than Hitler did). Red China is a good example, too. Less extreme. It shows what may well be the best case scenario. It still isn't pretty. Or maybe you'd prefer Cuba?

The idea that religion is somehow the cause of war is endemic of a severe lack of understanding of human nature. Humans in general are greedy, self-centered creatures who don't want to like any more people than they have to, and like to have control over as much as possible. This is especially true when you start grouping them together. Regardless of religious ideology, war is inevitable in any prolonged contact between two such groups.

I'm sorry Proteus, but such an irresponsible statement as that really got me going.

 

Was it a lack of religion that caused the atrocities in the USSR? No, it wasnt - it was a maniacal leader.

What would happen if a maniacal leader got in charge of the United States? What if he did the same?

We have the war in Iraq, the war in Palestine/Israel, the Crusades (a Holy War - is it holy to kill people who dont believe in your God?), the Spanish Inquisition, the persecution of Christians for not being Jewish, the persecution of Jews for being Jews, the persecution of Islamic people in much of the world today because of the current state of the world, the persecution of the Mormons in early America...

Tell me, what has a lack of religion done that is negative? Remember, homosexuality (as well not immoral to most people) is not connected with Atheism, and Darwin was a Christian (and he wasnt evil and he didnt renounce his beliefs on his deathbed).

Its only the single most ignorant and offensive statement you have seen, because your religion has blinded you into thinking you need it, and everybody needs it.

 

But don't be so fast to say that religion has never been the cause of A war and it could be argued that some countries would never have come to conflict if there hadn't been religious differences.

Also, the reason why the USSR failed wasn't just because it was a no-religious 'country' but because it was enforced with harsh penalties. If you worshipped you were punished rather than people didn't want to worship. Now the fact that religion was banned wasn't the only reason that the country had its problems either, but it did cause some but at the same time I'm certain it solved some problems too - however I will say that it certainly created far more problems or at least more serious problems than it removed/solved.

People will wage war for a variety of reasons, religion being one of them, but religion isn't always the cause or even a factor. A simple example would be the Greek City States warring with one another despite the fact that they shared the same religious beliefs.

Living in New Zealand, we have no national religion, and frankly I love that about this country. It means you can worship, or not worship, any way you like provided you don't break the laws of the country (which includes forcing other people to practice your method of worship/non-worship). Homosexuals can be wed, people are free to do pretty much what they want in their own homes, there are no curfews and generally people have more freedoms here than many countries I know. Certainly there are some down-sides to this situation with people abusing said freedoms. But, a reverse of the USSR, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

Abomination - I like that. I'm not sure I'd advocate the removal and banning of religion altogether. living in the UK, i'm glad that state and religion are separate. Sometimes people are a little too PC, like they changed a school production of 3 Little Pigs to 3 little puppies because of fears that they would offend Muslims.A Muslim community leader later said that it is not forbidden to talk about pigs, only to touch them, and the incidence showed ignorance about Islam.

But if religion weren't placed on such a pedestal, and thus seen as a legitimate excuse to incite hatred and war, I wouldnt have such a problem with it. I do believe that generations to come will grow out of religion and the world will be better for it, but by the same token, religion is all about control, and who gives up control when they have it? No, they tell you that you will go to hell if you dont believe.

 

I'm not saying that the abscense of religion is going to automatically cause problems, just that it won't automatically cure them all. I also never said that religion hadn't caused war (though the only war I can think of that was genuinely caused by religion was the original Jewish invasion of the Promised Land, I'm not so familiar with Asian history, though). I said that wars did not disappear in abscence of religion. And most of the 'religious wars' that are commonly cited actually had little to nothing to do with religion. Christianity didn't cause the Crusades. It may have bolstered their numbers a little, but greed, arrogance, and pride cuased the Crusades.

 

@ drew , i think you need to watch "rogue nature" on the discovery channel. not only do chimps kill and eat each other, but they have also killed humans. one ,in particular, on the show was known to have killed almost 10% of all the monkeys in this preserve and had attacked a woman carrying her 14 month old baby. The monkey ,named frodo, snatched the baby away from her, killed and ate the baby. this was in 2004 or 2005 at lake tanganyika, tanzania. even jane goodall observed the chimpanzees in this area engage in a 4 year war to destroy a splinter tribe. you need to pick a better animal subject than these to prove animals are more compassionate than humans.

 

If that was what I was trying to prove, you'd have a point. I was merely trying to prove that "moral" behavior (ie cooperation and self-sacrifice) has occured in the animal kingdom and this helps the argument I was making. I stated that examples of cooperation, compassion, and self sacrifice abound in the animal kingdom and cited one particular primate study (which has, sickening though it may be, repeated several times with the same results) in which the primates studied chose to starve to death because, every time they fed, an electric shock was delivered to another primate.

Gnarff, in his response, argued that humans have the capacity to do great good or great evil, something animals lack. You have just provided me with an example of animals, who have been shown in other studies to show self-sacrifice and cooperation, also have the capacity to do "great evil". This example actually helps my case. Thank you for bringing it up.

 

And you won't change the definition of marriage to accommodate one minority, but you're chomping at teh bit to change it for another group. That's not fair to the first group. Further, accommodating this new minority would offend a majority. Doesn't keeping order mean either telling the new minority to sit down and shut up or at least answering the problem in a way that won't offend the majority?

Not impose, but it reserves the right to borrow. This would be done after debate and a vote, but obviously I advocate borrowing in this case.

Equal my backside. You want to give an ordinance that a majority consider sacred to a group who's defining action is a greivous violation of the ethical code that we claim to support. I don't think you'll find that degree of hypocricy in religions...

Okay, but...

To those who believe that traditional marriage is a sacred ordinance, it ought to be reserved within the boundaries of the Higher being who we venerate. Basically, it is a covenent between spouses and the Higher being. For the Abrahamic religions, homosexuality is a grave violation of God's laws, and thus, defiling what we consider sacred...

So's the federal ban on Polygamy but you don't see it getting toppled...

I'm not trying to ban homosexuality, only push the state to respond to their concerns in a way that will not defile what we consider sacred.

The problem is that you may even be looking at me as a kinder, gentler Reverend Phelps. Your apparent contempt for religion (despite your claims of respect of the religious) blinds you to our point of view. You don't care, nor do you want to care.

But what if the Government can't rule one way or another without causing grievous offence to another group? It does not just restrict itself to religious organizations here. The Government then is bound to seek a solution that answers the concerns of one group without offending those they are sworn to protect...

And in the case of homosexuals versus religion, the state should also stay out of it, seeking to mediate the dispute if it must, not annoint one side over the other. I fear that the Government will annoint one group at the expense of religion and what we hold sacred...

By State, I mean Government in General.

But is ruling against a religious view simply by it's origin just as bad? Ultimately, you are forcing religious to accept something contrary to their beliefs at gunpoint...

Who makes the decision are duly elected officials. They hear from all the lobby groups and after debate, seek to make the best decision. Those not happy with it have to accept it. We had to give up polygamy because the Government woudln't let us keep the practice within our faith, and if the Government won't give a particular lobby group what they want, then too bad.

All lobbies must be heard. It is the job of Congress or Parliament or whatever legislative assembly the nation has to ensure that no group browbeats other groups into submission.

But is that not happenning? Aren't there groups trying to defile what religion considers sacred to make it available to the masses who don't care for the obligations associated with it?

Or envision America run by Reverend Phelps. Such regimes represent more militant and extreme versions of their respective faiths.

I just want consistency from Government. They wouldn't adjust their definition of Marriage for one group, they should uphold that same definition when challenged by another group. That's not eye for an eye, that's consistency of Law...

The stupid will always find a reason to hate. Taking religion out of the equation won't change that.

Official Declaration 1 in the Doctrine and Covenents is us turning the other cheek. We now ask this other lobby group to do the same and go away, like we were told to.

No, what let us survive as long as we did was the fact that we left those communities, which was what the mobs wanted. Ultimately we found a place (Utah) that was at the time inaccessible to the mobs, where we could establish roots.

And any evidence we have to support our beliefs is given personally, and not something that will prove anything to those elsewhere who demand proof. That doesn't mean that it's false...

I can't stop them from having gay sex any more than they can stop me from worshipping. I can't stop them from assembling any more then they can prevent me from gathering with my fellow worshippers. But they should have the same right to write the law of the land. No more, no less. Meaning they can't write the law to defile what we consider sacred any more than we can criminalize what they do.

 

A great quote about gay marriages:

"Just because they are legal doesnt mean you need to get one."

I really dont see why Christians get so offended by abortions and gay marriages.

The Islamic religion abhors alcohol, what if they said it should be completely banned as it is in Muslim states? What would you say to that? Alcohol brings more evil than any gay marriage ever does, if you dont believe that, look how much abuse alcohol causes. how much money is wasted on it, how many women are raped and spouses beaten because of it. If you ban gay marriage because Christians dont ilke it, then ban alcohol because Muslims dont like it.

If the government borrows from religion, who gets to choose who they borrow from?

 

Montressor: You are so wrong. Justice means taht all groups are treated the same. If a definition of marriage is upheld when challenged by one group, it should be upheld in the face of all challenges. Otherwise, you create injustice. Secondly, some laws exist not to browbeat, but to deliniate what's allowed and how to go about it. That's the kind of laws I'm talking about in this case. Third, the seperation of Church and State implies that the government can't interfere with the Church. Can't the government answer the complaints of one group without pissing off the larger group? If not, then they make George W. look like a genious...

Actually, as a Mormon that wouldn't affect me, but I see the point. That's why I suggested that the proposals be debated, not universally accepted. If the Government rules on this, then it would take more than just religion into account.

Where this aplies to Gay Marriage, it would be a recognition of Marriage as sacred to a faith allegedly followed by about 90% of the country they serve, but seek alternative solutions to the legitimate problems that this particular minority face that don't affect religion or what it considers sacred. It's called preserving the peace...

The elected officials who form that government, duh! What do you think we elect them for?

 

That means that to some extent the rules and laws reflect the cultural heritage of the population. America is predominantly Christian, hence Christian rules apply, hence alcohole is not banned, hence the mandatory scarf of some Islamic societies would be considered outrageous.

In Saudi Arabia it's very much the the other way around.

A law that is imposed on a majority against the general consensus would not be accepted. Insofar Monty's point is moot somewhat. Outsiders usually cannot expect to successfully impose their desired rules on a majority. The secular state, separated from religion, with it's constitutional rights as well as multiculturalism have softened that up.

In the essence Western style freedom means that the state liberates the individual from majority dictate. It, however, should protect the majority from minority dictate for the very same reason.

 

So when it comes to gay rights or gay marriage, the government is charged with answering their complaints in such a way as not to antagonize the majority?

What I want is for the Government to address the concerns of the homosexuals without defiling the sacred ordinances of my faith. Your solution assumes a mutually exclusive, binary solution. If that really is the case, then you seem more interested in browbeating Christians into submission in this case--regardless of what you say.

That could be a problem. In Canada, it is illegal to discriminate against Homosexuals. A gay couple could theoretically go to a Catholic Priest or a Mormon Bishop wanting to marry. When they refuse, they could be accused of such discrimination. The law is then turned against itself. How will this be prevented?

And since the Bill of Rights prevents that from happenning to religious groups, then homosexuals must be "browbeaten" as you put it into giving up their agenda in this case.

So redefining Marriage is excluded. How about leaving Marriage to the Church and getting back to the legal matters at hand, like what Drew mentioned, like property rights, power of attourney and inheritance rules. That is a legal matter that can be resolved without a fight between gays and religion. I am beginning to suspect that many on both sides don't want this and would brefer a fight to see one side "browbeaten" into submission...

The population elected them to make such decisions. They have to listen to the lobbyists, but they are charged with making the decision best for their constituents. Aren't their laws making it illegal to allow greed or ambition from overruling this?

But how many will actually obey? Many ignore laws they feel are stupid...