Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Church V State

  1. Aug 18, 2003 #1
    Church V State

    The Principle of law is "Governance of Eminent Domain" and in the topic of Gay marriage it is one that draws the dividing lines clearly.

    Marriage comes from ritual, ritual of practice of "adherance of/to words" by the practise of Ritual/rite to re-enforce meaning/memory of event.

    As such 'marriage' evolved into the realm of governance of the Church by the begining of organized religions right to administer to spiritual needs, AKA bringing meaning to 'idealistic practises' or meaning to idealisms by practices.

    Hence when we deal with the word 'marriage' (in a current context, afar from the cavemans ritual, but not exclusively the last twenty years either, more like the last hundred, minimum, sorta) we must see that the "Governance of Eminent Domain" of the Right of pronouncement upon meaning and definition of "Marriage" as being that of the Church's Right, Exclusively

    What follows, therafter, is the States rights to Orderly Civil Democratic Rule, and the right, under that, to legislate the manners of union that are civilly governed, their right to "their right" of 'Governance of Eminent Domain'

    Can we start it here?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 19, 2003 #2

    In the issue of Gay Marriage it's self, I find the expression of the 'Gay Pride Parades' and, the desire to have the recognition of the Community at large, of the 'Gay Communities' within the greater areas/milieus, seemingly contrary to the stance on the word "Marriage", inasmuch as it seems that only at this point does the Gay community seem to wish to NOT be identified as such.

    Why something like the use of the word "Meryage" (Pronounced something like 'Merry-aaaage' therefore sounding similar enough in nature as to be either, distinguishable, or NOT) to indicate "Marriage" that is 'civilly excludable' from whatever religions might not want to endorse the use of the word "Marriage" in a context of "being same in sex".

    But comes the needs of the Rule of Law, so how do we go about satisfying the conditions of Democracy (civics?) and the inherent Rights of Religion(s) to the 'Domains of Spiritualities' Hence, the Creator of All.
  4. Aug 25, 2003 #3
    Ok, I'll ask again, how do split the authorities rights to govern?
  5. Aug 30, 2003 #4
    I have an incredibly hard time trying to follow the way you write, but I have a comment about this.

    Suppose that we are living many millenia ago. I belong to the Guild of the Furry Rectangles. A member of the Guild of Furry Rectangles invents written contracts. The Guild decides that included in the definition of written contracts is that only members of the Guild can enter into them. The definition of the "written contract" as being that of the Guild's Right, Exclusively, no one outside the Guild may enter into one.

    What do you get from that?
  6. Sep 2, 2003 #5
    Re: Re: Church V State

    Well, from history, all of the 'guilds' met other 'guilds' that had evolved, similarily, (due to the same needs, I would suppose) and that they found a consensus in what they were doing, and in the fact of that "right" belonging to anyone who practised 'guildship'.
    Now switch 'guild' for "religion" in that.

    The problem, as you present it, is unfair as to context of Historical reality, rather then inventive conditionments.

    In copyright law, you cannot own the idea, simple the expression of it, so the church does not OWN marriage, but simply, how it is expressed.

    BTW you need prove you 'guild' has a right to that "authority" that which it wishes to rule over.
  7. Sep 2, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I think that the way authority is currently split is a good idea. Seperation of church and state means that the church does not designate what is legal and what is not. Of course, in a democracy, if the majority are of a certain religion, that religion's values would (and should) be reflected in the laws. But the church itself cannot directly dictate whether gay merriage is legal. The state will therefore decide, and if it is declared legal, then the couple will be recognised as a mmerried couple in all state-governed affairs (taxes, child-support, allimony, etc.).

    However, it also means that the state cannot pass a law demanding the church to recognise that merriage or call it valid. If a gay couple belong to a religion that forbids the practice of homosexuality, they will have to look elsewhere for validation. The state cannot order that church to agree that the merriage is right, nor to behave as if it were accepted as a religious merriage.
  8. Sep 3, 2003 #7
    No offence, but the two statements sorta contradict as the separation of "Church and State" is exactly what is supposed to be preventing the majority from inflicting it's religious belief upon a minority.
  9. Sep 3, 2003 #8
    People keep making that mistike. The majority isn't supposed to vote to violate the rights of the minority. We CANNOT vote for a state religion without destroying America.
  10. Sep 3, 2003 #9
    That would probably be the case in just about any, and/or all democracies, as it wouldn't/can't be democratic if it is run by "religious rule"..... that's why we have the Church, laws, with no obvious ability to punish a'la civil methodollogy.
    (yes they can punish, but not jail/incarseration, simply, 'excommunications' kind of things, now-a-days, not in the past, I know!)
  11. Sep 3, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Its a pretty simple problem. The US isn't a "pure" democracy. In a "pure" democracy, EVERYTHING would be up for a majority vote including rights.

    The US version of democracy is set up with individual rights being sacrosanct. The majority does not have the right to vote away the rights of any indiviual.

    Now clearly people's rights can conflict with each other, but they are measured ALWAYS on an individual basis. One individual's rights weighed against another individual's rights. Rights are never organized into a group for the purpose of multiplying their value.
  12. Sep 3, 2003 #11
    Wow, do we agree on something??? Neat!
  13. Sep 3, 2003 #12
    Ahem, do you include minority rights in that statement, too?
  14. Sep 4, 2003 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I include everyone's rights in that statement - as such I am against affirmative action, which as the courts have decided on a number of occasions, is unconstitutional discrimination.
  15. Sep 4, 2003 #14
    O.K. but the reality is the the US has practised Bunched Rights with respect to minorities. Right?
  16. Sep 4, 2003 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you're talking about things like AA and the ADA, then thats the US not following its own laws: an error to be corrected.
  17. Sep 5, 2003 #16
    Re: Re: Re: Church V State

    OK, but what if the guild didn't want to meet with other guilds and find a consensus? What if the guild wanted to keep the use of written contracts as their own instrument which no one else can use?

    BTW, you need to prove your 'religion' as a right to that "authority" that which it wishes to rule over. :wink:
  18. Sep 5, 2003 #17
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Church V State

    #1) As I had said, "inventive circumstantilism", as in, well "what if the sun didn't work any more?", or, "what if the angels screammed it at you?", or, "what if the dog ate my homework?", not in line with historical realities.
    #2) Read the last line from above, "Not in line with historical realities" inasmuch as 'Religions (right to) Authority' is already well recognized by "State's Authority", and humanities History.
  19. Sep 5, 2003 #18
    You call it "inventive circumstances", but the circumstances are plausable and relevant. Perhaps it would seem more equivalent to you if I had made the case where there was a covenant among guilds to be able to have written contracts, but that there would still be people who couldn't enter into written contracts?

    What I am trying to do with these hypothetical situations is to try to get you to realize how such an absurd situation is analogous to your argument. I replaced religions with guilds and marriage with written contracts. The relevant factors have not changed--things are just placed in a different setting.

    Since when does the state recognize religious authority!?!?!?!!!!! At least in the USA, we have separation of church and state, and that's a good thing.

    Humanity's history as nothing to do with deeming something as acceptable or not. Humanity has a long history of dictatorship, religious persecution, and racial hatred. You are making the is-ought fallacy.

    I am not proposing that a church should be force to marry homosexual individuals. I am proposing that if a church wishes to, it should be able to. I am proposing that the state should recognize the right of people of differing sexual preferences to enter into legal arrangements with each other, regardless of whether any church approves. No church or governmental authority has the right to say that two individuals can't enter into a contract or perform a consentual act based on sexual preference. That is as ridiculou as me saying that other people can't play electric guitar, or climb trees, or something else that I do. That's like me inventing a sport and then saying that certain people aren't allowed to play it.

    It is denying people certain legal opportunities and protections based on sexual preference.
  20. Sep 6, 2003 #19
    Couldn't agree with this part, more, if I tried.
    But whomever is dissentive of the guilds rights to the term "written Contracts' will simply have to use "Contracts that are ascribed"....
    Dos that help you? cause in law, all (almost all, NOT absolutley though) is definition and interpretation.
  21. Sep 6, 2003 #20
    So it boils down to that you don't want them to use your word?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook