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

[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 respect to 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![/color]

Does that help?

 

[russ_watters]

MRP, could you quote ANY political theory or government document that supports your position? Ie, something from Locke that says power to govern is derived from God? A passage in someone's Constitution that says something like 'We the people under the authority of God...establish this constitution for the United States of America?' Offhand references to God (as already pointed out) do not constitute a basis for government. http://www.island-of-freedom.com/LOCKE.HTM is a paraphrase of Locke's theory on government.

Locke is better known for his political thought. The first of the Two Treatises of Government is a refutation of the political views of Sir Robert Filmer. Filmer had argued that the authority of a king is equivalent to a father's authority over his children, derived from God's grant of authority to Adam. Locke argued that the father only has authority until the child becomes an adult, and that the king's subjects are not analogous to children. He also thought it was impossible to trace the descent of authority from Adam to the current King Charles II.

In the second treatise Locke set forth the view that societies emerge from a state of nature as a result of a contract made among individuals to submit themselves to a ruler or rulers. Against Hobbes, Locke argues that the ruler's rights as well as those of everyone are restrained by the laws of nature; the right to life, liberty, and property. The ruler's powers are given to him as a trust for the good of the citizens, and if the trust is broken his powers can be taken away. He believed that a monarchy with an assembly to hold the monarch to his trust was an ideal political arrangement. Unlike Hobbes he believed that principles of conduct were rational and humans could be trusted to follow those principles.

Note the direct rebuttal in bold of the right to govern coming from God. And note in the second paragraph where the right to govern really comes from - a contract made with the individuals of a society.

MRP, like it or not, that is what western government is based on.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
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!

Main Entry: au·thor·i·ty
Pronunciation: &-'thär-&-tE, o-, -'thor-
Function: noun
2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior

That definition does not mention rights or being right anywhere. Being from Webster's, it is just as good a definition as any, and it is the most widely-used, from my experience.

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

Only according to you.

What power does the Queen of England have then? Does she have power in Canada that she does not have in England? Anyway, either way, it is irrelevant.

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.

You are throwing a red herring. I never said anything about majority rules being right or wrong, only about modern Western government being founded upon popular consent.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
[re:voting away rights]You are throwing a red herring. I never said anything about majority rules being right or wrong, only about modern Western government being founded upon popular consent.

We've also already discussed this and debunked it. I think it was even in this thread (or in the thread about the 10 Commandments monument). The Constitution provides for preventing a "tyrany of the majority."

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Citation of the russ_watters quotation of Locke
forth the view that societies emerge from a state of nature as a result of a contract made among individuals to submit themselves to a ruler or rulers.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan as definition of "Authority"
: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior

So it is very clear, from the two statements, that the Authority is submitted to, as I had Stated, rights are ceded to.

AKA The Authority only has "Authority" because it is GIVEN TO THEM, all based in expression of Truth, AKA God.

Originally asked by Dissident Dan
What power does the Queen of England have then? Does she have power in Canada that she does not have in England? Anyway, either way, it is irrelevant.

Why do you bother?? asks a question, doesn't even care for the answer, why did you post this??

P.S. As figure head The Queen of England represents/is "The Crown" in legal proceedings, so persons charged, are so done, in her name, and position of faultlessness as to protect, simply, the right to do so, in the first place! There is also a representative of The Queen of England "Sitting" in the Parliament. Actual powers? probably, excersize of those powers? probably as little as possible?? (the "do no harm theory"??)

 

[Zero]

This is nonsense.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
This is nonsense.

As much as I hate agreeing with you...

Yeah. MRP, that was utter nonsense. It makes no sense at all and you haven't substantiated anything you have said. You're putting words in Locke's mouth. Maybe I have failed in making you see reality, but I don't see where I went wrong: This is a very clear cut issue. I'm sorry, but reality isn't what you want it to be.

And though its not my arguement, you're at least as wrong about that Queen of England thing. A ruler who chooses not to wield power? Absurd. The Crown doesn't wield power because the Crown doesn't have any to wield.

MRP, again, it would help your case a lot if you could find *ANY* political theory work or political document to substantiate the things you are saying.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
As much as I hate agreeing with you...

Yeah. MRP, that was utter nonsense. It makes no sense at all and you haven't substantiated anything you have said. You're putting words in Locke's mouth. Maybe I have failed in making you see reality, but I don't see where I went wrong: This is a very clear cut issue. I'm sorry, but reality isn't what you want it to be.

I think we would also agree that legal authority in America derives from the citizenry, not any religion's deity. "We the people...", and not "by the grace of God", at least the last time I checked.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan as definition of "Authority"
: power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior

So you think that The Queen of England doesn't have this; "The Power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behaviour" WOW! you guys ever missing out in what the reality of the world is!

Originally posted by Zero
This is nonsense.

Hey, really good argument!

Originally posted by russ_watters
You're putting words in Locke's mouth.

Actually, you are the one who provided me with access to his words, (hence the 'cited' "quotation", or didn't you notice??) so How the heck could I possibly be putting words into his mouth, without your, very clear, assistence.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That definition does not mention rights or being right anywhere. Being from Webster's, it is just as good a definition as any, and it is the most widely-used, from my experience.

Agreed as to 'authority' in simplicity, but as function of "Democratic Rule" the Right to that authority is ceded to the person.

Your President, as a human being, has no more Authority then anyone else, (roughly speaking) but excersizes the Authority that is ceded/given to the Office of the President of the United States of America by the expression of the Peoples of the United States.

I have no problem with that, just that all of that is based upon functioning "Truth", and the Truth is God.

That none of you accept that, heck! NOT my fault!
(maybe it is because you don't understand what "Truth", really is!)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons


I have no problem with that, just that all of that is based upon functioning "Truth", and the Truth is God.

This is a Religion thread, not a Politics thread.