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

[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...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agreed, but as you stated, concerning the Guilds, they have rights to what is historically ascribed to them, re: the word "Marriage"

They have the right to perform marriages, but they don't have the exclusive right, nor should they. As I've said before, for any person or organization to restrict other individuals from using a word or entering into an agreement with each other is absurd (unless the people are mentally or incompetant or incompetant to carry out the terms of the agreement, which is NOT the case here).

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.

Well, most of the people here live in the US. So, for us, we can use USA-based arguments as negation of your arguments. You cannot say something like "it applies in most cases, so it must apply to yours, too."

As Russ already stated, our government does not recognize its authority as coming from the church, nor has it ever. If you read our Constitution or Declaration of Independence, you will understand that.

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

Yes, the government interacts with many entites--construction firms, military contractors, private citizens, foreign nations, agricultural businesses...

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.

That is what you believe, but that is not a tenet upon which all governments are formed. It is not a tenet upon which my government was formed.

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.

There are lots of tax-exempt organizations that may collect charitable contributions and issue tax receipts for it, many of them not churches. Anyone or any corporation can own property.

And everyone has the right to having positions and issues and influencing votes.

Not so separate...

There are things in the US government that do contradict the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. Government was and is composed of many people.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Dissident Dan's quotation of MRP
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.

Dissident Dans responce to that "citation"
That is what you believe, but that is not a tenet upon which all governments are formed. It is not a tenet upon which my government was formed.

If what you state is true, then YOUR Government CANNOT be a JUST government!

All Justice, and the Ability to obtain it, is based in, and upon, the ability to adjudicate upon the most available/clearest truth of it.

They do not have exclusive right to perform mariages, as I have stated, the Authorities, the rights, of the two (2) Church & State are intermingled.

What Church should have is right to define "Marriage", as institution because they have historical right to it, BECAUSE State has right to civil union, and the adaptablity to use other terms to establish a separate staus for, similar, yet distinct, (Gay) couplings.

Must say, found it interesting that you had noticed that "Church" I had placed in Pink[/color], but said nothing about my emboldening of the word Gay[/color], discriminatory judgment excersized on the basis if the color[/color] of a word, but emphasis by emboldening carries not the same weighting...interesting...

 

[Zero]

You know what is interesting? In America, church weddings don't count unless the government says that they do. So, what authority do churches REALLY have?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If what you state is true, then YOUR Government CANNOT be a JUST government!

According to whom? In western political theory, what makes a government just or legitimate is deriving its authority from the people. God does not enter into the equation.

The US government is the prototype for most western style governments. The ideas for it came largely from Locke.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
According to whom? In western political theory, what makes a government just or legitimate is deriving its authority from the people. God does not enter into the equation.
The US government is the prototype for most western style governments. The ideas for it came largely from Locke. U.S.!?[/color]

Western Governments?, Like Canada?, with the Queen of England, the defacto "Head of the Church of England", being the Defacto "Head of State" of Canada, as derived from the 'British Parliamentary' system, is that what your not talking about?
"Authority" is derived from "Truth", and the "Will of the People" is an expression of "The Truth", (of those People) God is the Truth! Indistinguishable.
What makes a government "Just" is it's ability to achieve, or to be seen as achieving, "Just" outcomes in it's rule/governance, not specifically the same a "legitimacy". The manner in which it is derived from the people, is by election, or expression of "Truth" by those people, hence legitimacy.

 

[Zero]

Western style government, if it is derived from a 'heavenly' source, would not praise the Middle Eastern war god, but rather Zeus or Jupiter. Our government owes little to Jewish law, and tons to Greek and Roman thinking.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Western style government, if it is derived from a 'heavenly' source, would not praise the Middle Eastern war god, but rather Zeus or Jupiter. Our government owes little to Jewish law, and tons to Greek and Roman thinking.

Personally, I suspect that it is the Originator of "Ideals" and "Idea's" that is Owed the Respect of Source...that, naturally, would be the Truth! (both ways!)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Personally, I suspect that it is the Originator of "Ideals" and "Idea's" that is Owed the Respect of Source...that, naturally, would be the Truth! (both ways!)

What sort of nonsense is this, exactly? Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Mr. Parsons,

You are taking your own personal beliefs about the way that you think government should be found and should work, and acting like those are the way that things have actually come about.

Firstly, truth need not have anything to do with authority. If I have a gun and you do not, I can easily assume authority, whether that is right or wrong.

The Queen of England is a figure head with no real power.

I don't know about Canada's government, but my government does not claim to derive its power from god. But our government and culture say that government gets its power from the consent of the people, and that that (the consent of the people) is what makes it just.

You can argue all day about what you believe should be, but that is not what actually happened, so it is pointless to try to project your beliefs/desires onto reality.

My government does not give authority to churches to define marriage; laws dictate that. This is something that I am glad for. If two people want to dedicate themselves to each other and want the legal benefits of that, no church has the right to deny them that.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
You are taking your own personal beliefs about the way that you think government should be found and should work, and acting like those are the way that things have actually come about. Actually no, that seems to be what you think, I think, not what I really think, and know.[/color]
Firstly, truth need not have anything to do with authority. If I have a gun and you do not, I can easily assume authority, whether that is right or wrong. Hence, demonstrable that you have no idea what has been talked about in here as to what "Authority" really means, as you "assume authority", but, in truth you have none except the ability to subdue someone by Force, that is not authority, as authority subdues by force of RIGHT, ergo they HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT!...you, do not![/color]
The Queen of England is a figure head with no real power. Only according to you. [/color]
I don't know about Canada's government, but my government does not claim to derive its power from god. But our government and culture say that government gets its power from the consent of the people, and that that (the consent of the people) is what makes it just. So in your country if the people vote to permit Murder as an aspect of "Freedom of Expression" you will go along with that, cause you can't tell right from wrong! P.S. Popularity is NOT what dictates what is right and what is wrong, it simply makes "whatever" popular.[/color]
You can argue all day about what you believe should be, but that is not what actually happened, so it is pointless to try to project your beliefs/desires onto reality.
My government does not give authority to churches to define marriage; laws dictate that. This is something that I am glad for. If two people want to dedicate themselves to each other and want the legal benefits of that, no church has the right to deny them that. Nay, in your country Your President has Prayer Breakfasts and finds "absolution" for himself, and the entirety of the American Government (House and Senate) from the (insert name of religious guy who does that job, there)appearance of any responcibility with respec tto the 9/11 attacks without even so little as a question as to just what went on. Further is the simplicity that the laws are meant to regulate the legal connections 'twixt us all, so it is normal that governments should regulate things, but they are not to be dictating religious definitions to the Church, which, if they dictate a change in the definition of marriage, that's what they will be doing, forcing themselves upon the Churches!

Does that help?