Originally posted by whodey You raise a good point. I have always said that we all have an underlying morality which is the golden rule spoken of by Christ. Simply put, do unto others as you would have them do to you. And there you have it, the one rule that governs all other rules given to us by one Jesus Christ. Of course, you can argue all day that he was not the first to give us ...[text shortened]... ate and people who lived before him deep down knew the same rule even if it was not articulated.
Secular and religious law may have many overlapping features. If a particular religious view can be shown to have a corresponding secular application, such as the prohibition against murder, then it is permissible to enact it into law, thus making it binding on the population as a whole. If, however, a religious view cannot be shown to have a corresponding secular application, then there is no basis for passing it into general law. It must remain for the religion in question to enforce it (within the bounds of secular law) among its own adherents only. Catholics, for example, may set their own doctrine, but this is not binding on anyone else (and not even on most Catholics).
Originally posted by 667joe You don't get it. The US constitution drafters realized there would be constant fighting for power by and between religions(exactly as you say in your post) and removed religion as a tool of the government precisely to avoid the infighting (and the consequences thereof) that religion inevitably causes. This is why our government is secular and was, by the ...[text shortened]... orality is superior, but it is well documented that such debates have often led to big trouble.
What you are not getting is that the powers that be will use any tool available to them. Your arguement reminds me of people who argue that if it were not for religion, there would have been no wars. That is simply proposterous.
Gay marriage could be opposed on grounds that the gov't ought to get out of the business of certifying ANY marriages [straight included].
This is not the only arguement against it. There are two issues at hand. One is state "rights" associated with gay marriage, and the other is status. When I say "status", I am referring to society embracing homosexual relaitons as "OK".
Case in point is the arguement that gays should be allowed to have the same rights, but not be referred to as marriage. Those that oppose this view simply object to the distinction based upon their desire for society to embrace the lifestyle. So should the state be in the position of influencing the morality of the masses through legislation like they did with abortion?
I have always thought that the family unit is the heart and soul of society. That is why those who marry are given special rights. Men and women have children which in large measure is financially burdensome. So can the same be said for gays? I suppose if they adopt children, but by in large, gays are in a much better financial position than their heterosexual counterparts and don't need the extra support.
Originally posted by rwingett Secular and religious law may have many overlapping features. If a particular religious view can be shown to have a corresponding secular application, such as the prohibition against murder, then it is permissible to enact it into law, thus making it binding on the population as a whole. If, however, a religious view cannot be shown to have a corresponding ...[text shortened]... set their own doctrine, but this is not binding on anyone else (and not even on most Catholics).
Simply put, as a society we must decide upon a moral code and all moral codes are based upon something. I say it is based upon the golden rule, wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by whodey Simply put, as a society we must decide upon a moral code and all moral codes are based upon something. I say it is based upon the golden rule, wouldn't you agree?
Yes. But the golden rule is not specific to any religion, or to religion at all. It is a universal rule.
Originally posted by whodey Look at your hisotry books. YOu tell me?
I have. I see that people who are raised in violent societies are prone to commit acts of violence. Those who are raised in peaceful societies are not. In the entire history of the Amish and Hutterite communities there has been only one recorded homicide. If it were "human nature" for us to kill one another then the Amish would be bumping each other off at the same rate as the rest of society. But they clearly don't. Thus we can see that violence is a learned behavior and not something that is in our "nature." Change the conditions under which people are raised and you will see a corresponding change in their supposed nature.
Originally posted by whodey Then we agree. As I have said, it is innate. No one had to come tell us, we knew all along, however, people like Christ highlighted this fact.
Jesus was one of many to highlight the fact. So what's your point?
Originally posted by whodey The Framers were more interested in preventing the state from manipulating the church and vise versa than they were constructing a wall between the church and state. If not, why then does Congress begin with a prayer? Why all the references to God in the Constitution and other documents?
The Constitution allows for freedom of religion; the pursuit of happiness, freedom of expression, all within the framework of the foundation of "under God".
An amazing document. The freedom we enjoy is a phenomenon not known by men in all of history brought about by men of faith.
Originally posted by josephw The Constitution allows for freedom of religion; the pursuit of happiness, freedom of expression, all within the framework of the foundation of "under God".
An amazing document. The freedom we enjoy is a phenomenon not known by men in all of history brought about by men of faith.
That's a fact, as I'm sure you know.
"Under God" is not the framework for anything. As I'm sure you're aware, that divisive phrase was not adopted until relatively late in our national history. The founding fathers did not employ it. It didn't raise its ugly head until 1864 when it first appeared on the penny. The first 88 years were spent entirely without it.
Originally posted by whodey This is not the only arguement against it. There are two issues at hand. One is state "rights" associated with gay marriage, and the other is status. When I say "status", I am referring to society embracing homosexual relaitons as "OK".
Case in point is the arguement that gays should be allowed to have the same rights, but not be referred to as marriage ...[text shortened]... financial position than their heterosexual counterparts and don't need the extra support.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who can't have children (or don't want to) should not be allowed to get married? Unless I am wrong, sir, you sound like you may be prejudiced against gays because you are in favor of denying them certain civil rights that you have. Is in vitro fertilization only OK for heteros? Should it be illegal for single parents to have children. Forgive me, but you don't seem tolerant of others.
An Ideal USA
24 Dec '09 14:40
Back to Top