News What is the role of Church vs State in defining marriage?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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 beginning 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?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

19/08/2003

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok, I'll ask again, how do split the authorities rights to govern?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Church V State

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

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?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I have an incredibly hard time trying to follow the way you write, but I have a comment about this. Sorry (?) bout that[/color]
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?

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.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ok, I'll ask again, how do split the authorities rights to govern?

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Lurch
(SNIP)#1)[/color] Seperation of church and state means that the church does not designate what is legal and what is not. #2)[/color] 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. (SNoP)

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.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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.

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
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.

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!)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
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.

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.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
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.

Wow, do we agree on something? Neat!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) Rights are never organized into a group for the purpose of multiplying their value. (SNoP)

Ahem, do you include minority rights in that statement, too?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem, do you include minority rights in that statement, too?

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
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.

O.K. but the reality is the the US has practised Bunched Rights with respect to minorities. Right?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. but the reality is the the US has practised Bunched Rights with respect to minorities. Right?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. If you're talking about things like AA and the ADA, then that's the US not following its own laws: an error to be corrected.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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.

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 prove you 'guild' has a right to that "authority" that which it wishes to rule over.

BTW, you need to prove your 'religion' as a right to that "authority" that which it wishes to rule over.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
#1)[/color] 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?
#2)[/color] BTW, you need to prove your 'religion' as a right to that "authority" that which it wishes to rule over.

#1)[/color] 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)[/color] 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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
#1)[/color] 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.

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.

#2)[/color] 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.

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
SNIP) 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. SNoP)

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

So it boils down to that you don't want them to use your word?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
So it boils down to that you don't want them to use your word?

I'm not the person who gets to decide that, it is the, (In my opinion) Church's right to decide that, from a legal standpoint, a moral standpoint, and a religious standpoint.

 

[Dissident Dan]

So, what if people start a gay church...should they then be able to use the word "marriage"?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
So, what if people start a gay church...should they then be able to use the word "marriage"?

About as easily as them not using Gay & Church[/color], as they would be seen as willfully choosing to cause the distinction to arise, why would they stop there?

 

[Zero]

The way I see it, churches are social clubs. They have limited authority over their membership, and zero authority over non-members. A church can't make anyone do anything; people can choose to follow the guidelines of the church.

As far as I can see, anywhere in these posts about 'church authority', from a legal and ethical standpoint, you can replace 'church' with 'Boy Scouts' or 'quilting bee'.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
The way I see it, churches are social clubs. They have limited authority over their membership, and zero authority over non-members. A church can't make anyone do anything; people can choose to follow the guidelines of the church.
As far as I can see, anywhere in these posts about 'church authority', from a legal and ethical standpoint, you can replace 'church' with 'Boy Scouts' or 'quilting bee'.

Don't agree with that, as the Church is seen as the Authority of God's Morality, "Quilting Bees" and "The Boy Scouts" do not have that, nor have they the history of millenia behind them, backing up that right to Authority!
Scout Masters have authority in the "Scouting System", so the similarities "circumstantilize".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Don't agree with that, as the Church is seen as the Authority of God's Morality, "Quilting Bees" and "The Boy Scouts" do not have that, nor have they the history of millenia behind them, backing up that right to Authority!
Scout Masters have authority in the "Scouting System", so the similarities "circumstantilize".

Well, you can agree or not, but nevertheless, from a legal standpoint, in America, chiurches have exactly the same power as the Scouts.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you can agree or not, but nevertheless, from a legal standpoint, in America, chiurches have exactly the same power as the Scouts.

Funny, I don't remember them present, as a representation of God's Authority while the President of America was being Sworn into Office, was there something wrong there? (weren't they invited?? and why didn't they officiate?)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Funny, I don't remember them present, as a representation of God's Authority while the President of America was being Sworn into Office, was there something wrong there? (weren't they invited?? and why didn't they officiate?)

Swearing before God is OPTIONAL in any government function whether it be the oath of office of the president, swearing in of a witness in court, etc.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Swearing before God is OPTIONAL in any government function whether it be the oath of office of the president, swearing in of a witness in court, etc.

That isn't strictly true, Russ...there are occasionally court cases in which local governments try to enforce religious speech of that sort...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Funny, I don't remember them present, as a representation of God's Authority while the President of America was being Sworn into Office, was there something wrong there? (weren't they invited?? and why didn't they officiate?)

People like their rituals and superstition, don't they? It holds no legal weight, though.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
People like their rituals and superstition, don't they? It holds no legal weight, though.

"...One Nation, Under GOD..."

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
"...One Nation, Under GOD..."

Yep, and it is unconstitutional...so what's your point?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Yep, and it is unconstitutional...so what's your point?

If it has not been removed, then it still holds weight, and authority.

The Churches authority is seen as coming from God, but anyone who wants to, can deny it, but there are still enough believers that it still functions that way. What answer would you expect me to give you? justification of/for everything??

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So, perhaps what you are really looking for is the pathway of the advent of "Authority", the Rights thereof.

You come driving down the street, stop at my place, in a car. You are in poccession of the car, 9^ths of the Law.

I, call the police, show them a slip of paper that has the car's serial number, license number, colour-make and model, and MY name, and address, upon it, my 1^'tenth of the law which, effectively turns the tables upon your 9^ths of the Law, as to now cause it to be held against you!

This "Authority" of 'mine', to have you arrested for the "lie you tell/present", is based upon a socially agreed upon methodology of proving 'simple truths', to each other, as to be able to address ownership issues from a fair and just (hence Democratic) position.

But take very clear notation it is based upon TRUTH, first and foremost.

So Plato asked; "What is God?"
Mr. Robin Parsons (Thats me, in My 'real life') responded, many centiums later; "The Truth!"

So, "...one Nation, under God..." "...one Nation, under Truth..." what is the difference??

What religion do you think of when it is "One Nation under "God"?" (as the word "God" does not imply anyone religion, many religions make full use of it, as it is the only name by which they know him.)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If it has not been removed, then it still holds weight, and authority.

First, I must mention how hilarious I find it that, in response to my comment about a gay church, you typed "church" in pink.

Anyway...
That is part of the pledge of allegiance, not part of any law. As such, it holds no weight. The church has no authority in US law, and rightfully so.

And, even if churches did have have authority, I'm sure that the Unitarian Universalist church would be happy to marry a homosexual couple.

Also, you seem to be out of loop with modern religious theory, which states that people have a direct connection to god, which basically negates any authority that the church may like to claim.

 

[russ_watters]

In any case, MRP, I'm sure you know those two words were added to the pledge by McCarthy during his communist witchhunt. Not something I'd want to associate my religion with.

The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and its implication is separation of church and state. There is no argument here: the Supreme Court upholds this interpretation of the 1st amendment at every challenge.

MRP, its fine if you THINK a government SHOULD be based on and its power derived from religion, but the US isn't like that.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In any case, MRP, I'm sure you know those two words were added to the pledge by McCarthy during his communist witchhunt. Not something I'd want to associate my religion with. Didn't know that one![/color]
The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and its implication is separation of church and state. There is no argument here: Agreed![/color] the Supreme Court upholds this interpretation of the 1st amendment at every challenge.

MRP, its fine if you THINK WRONG![/color] a government SHOULD be based on and its power derived from religion, but the US isn't like that.

Try mutual respect of the "Domains of Governance" of each other...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) 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. (SNoP)

Disagree, the "purest form" of democracy is something akin to what I have going on, in my life. One individual fighting for his rights, and in winning those rights, winning those rights for "The Bunch", ALL of the "Bunch" gets it's rights, from the rights of one.

Therefore, a majority cannot take away a minorities rights, save for reason(s) that makes society "safer". (Why murder is illegal)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons


Therefore, a majority cannot take away a minorities rights, save for reason(s) that makes society "safer". (Why murder is illegal)

This is ironic, since you seem to be in favor of the majority voting away the rights of the minority.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
This is ironic, since you seem to be in favor of the majority voting away the rights of the minority.

Did you possibly juxtaposition Minority and Majority??

Where do you get that I am in favor of a majority voting away the rights of minorities?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Did you possibly juxtaposition Minority and Majority??

Where do you get that I am in favor of a majority voting away the rights of minorities?

You do so when you suggest that religious groups have authority under the law.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
You do so when you suggest that religious groups have authority under the law.

To govern themselves, you would debate that?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
To govern themselves, you would debate that?

If that was all you were discussing, then why did you bring up the national motto in support of your idea? Further, churches have the same rights to self-governing as any other club, and little more. For instance, they cannot commit crimes, can they?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
To govern themselves, you would debate that?

The title of this thread is "Church V State" and you started the thread. You provided numerous quotes about religion taking an active part in government. And you use marriage as an example, and marriage is something that has both religious and legal implications. The implication of all of this is that you believe that religion can or should have authority in government.

Let me ask you this: do you think the 10 Commandments monument should have been removed from the courthouse in Alabama? Why or why not?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
If that was all you were discussing, then why did you bring up the national motto in support of your idea? Further, churches have the same rights to self-governing as any other club, and little more. For instance, they cannot commit crimes, can they?

Because what they have is Authority in certian realms that is ceded to them by the state, just as they cede authority to the state, where required.
It isn't just 'self governing', in a manner, as both sides of the Authority(s) has (hopefully) respectfull involvement, with the other.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The title of this thread is "Church V State" and you started the thread. You provided numerous quotes about religion taking an active part in government. And you use marriage as an example, and marriage is something that has both religious and legal implications. The implication of all of this is that you believe that religion can or should have authority in government.

Let me ask you this: do you think the 10 Commandments monument should have been removed from the courthouse in Alabama? Why or why not? Don't know! (That is for Americans to decide)[/color]

No implication of Religion having Authority in Government, but a requirment that the Goverment respect the Authority of the Church...can you figure out the difference?...in law, direction can decide everything...sometimes.
In some of the quotes I have tried to demonstrate that the two have inertwinings, religions "active role" in government is one of a respectfull authority making witness of the truth of an event, the swearing in of a President, Adding to the ritual nature of ceremony again by means of truthfull witness and reciever of attestament. Etc.(honest witness, not as easy to find as you might think, soooo)

It is "Church V State" in respect of the use and meaning of the Word Marriage, we seems to be going a little, well elsewheres, but that's good, cause that is how we might just get back to the answer we seek. (if you's seeking it too)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Zero described the situation well. The church has authority within itself. The church's rules govern the church. Just as a hockey club's rules govern a hockey club. But what you are trying to say is that a church has the right to impose its rules on the whole of society, even if many members of that society are not members of that church.

The government never had a principle of ceding any authority to the church. The state is the authority. We have legal protections to prevent the state from interfering in affairs related to religious establishments, but no where does the Consitution of the USA say that it gives religious establishments any power or authority. There are good historical and other reasons for that. Look at the tyranny of the Anglican church in England in England's colonial days.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Zero described the situation well. The church has authority within itself. The church's rules govern the church. Just as a hockey club's rules govern a hockey club. But what you are trying to say is that a church has the right to impose its rules on the whole of society, even if many members of that society are not members of that church.

Agreed, but as you stated, concerning the Guilds, they have rights to what is historically ascribed to them, re: the word "Marriage"

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The government never had a principle of ceding any authority to the church. The state is the authority. We have legal protections to prevent the state from interfering in affairs related to religious establishments, but no where does the Consitution of the USA say that it gives religious establishments any power or authority. There are good historical and other reasons for that. Look at the tyranny of the Anglican church in England in England's colonial days.

Firstly, sorry, but NOT just the USA please, and not just one Church, but the very idea of "Church(s)" meaning "Religion(s)" as back in history the "States" (Any, not nessecarily the US's) right to Authority grew from the Notion of the Churches Cedance to it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Firstly, sorry, but NOT just the USA please, and not just one Church, but the very idea of "Church(s)" meaning "Religion(s)" as back in history the "States" (Any, not nessecarily the US's) right to Authority grew from the Notion of the Churches Cedance to it.

...but a requirment that the Goverment respect the Authority of the Church...

Because what they have is Authority in certian realms that is ceded to them by the state, just as they cede authority to the state, where required.

After the US, western style democracies do NOT exist under this principle. Back in the age of kings, it was believed that the right to govern came directly from God. Not anymore. The right to govern comes from the will of the people. God is IRRELEVANT to government. Religion has no power that it can cede to government. Government cedes no power to religion. They are separate entities with different roles in our society.

MRP, its fine if you think a government SHOULD be set up that way, but western governments are NOT set up that way.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
After the US, western style democracies do NOT exist under this principle. Back in the age of kings, it was believed that the right to govern came directly from God. Not anymore. The right to govern comes from the will of the people. God is IRRELEVANT to government. Religion has no power that it can cede to government. Government cedes no power to religion. They are separate entities with different roles in our society.
MRP, its fine if you think a government SHOULD be set up that way, but western governments are NOT set up that way.

Humm God is mentioned in Canadian Law, and as far as I know in British, as well.

You keep seeming to decide for me how I think, I really would appreciate that you stop that as it is wrong, judgmental in a manner that you have no right to be judgmental, as it is NOT you who knows just how I think.

That said, there are examples where Church and State interact, marriage is just one of the places wherein the Authorities of the two intermeld.

Your statement of God as irrelevant to State is, sort of Silly, if we replace "God" with the "Truth" (as that is what God is) and know the State for what it is.

As for government ceding power to Church, Humm, they pay no taxes, they can own property, collect charitable contributions and issue tax receipts for that, they are legally circumscribed (Definetely a function of government) and they have a historical right(s) to issues, and postions, on issues, that government acknowledges and is influenced by by way of the feedback of the (religious) voter.

Not so separate...