I don't understand why one must have a marriage license from the state when marriage is fundamentally a religious ceremony
2006-09-03 00:49:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
When State become irreligious - ie. when it promotes no religion in particular and provides equal opportunities for all religion to thrive in common. But "irreglious" does not mean anti-religious. I believe the typical European, British and American models of Government indeed have separation of Church and Religion. It is not necessary that "In God we Trust" should be removed from American Dollar note or that a non christian should become an American President, in order to prove that church and state are separate. The crux of the problem is Mosque and the State but not Church and the State.
2006-09-02 22:19:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by bankman 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just because Christianity also reached the same conclusion on some laws, doesn't make it the sole valid source for laws. There are valid non-religious reasons for most of the laws enacted, and very few of them have any religious or purely moral basis.
Murder may be a sin, but it also disrupts the community and hinders the effective functioning of any society by removing members. If all members of a society are killed, the society goes away. So, murder and similar crimes that harm people can easily be justified on secular grounds, because they interfere with the proper and effective functioning of society.
Same with theft, which interferes with property ownership, and is directly opposite the concept of the capitalist economic model.
Same with perjury or fraud ("bearing false witness"), because that results in disruption of business activities and interferes with the functioning of the law enforcement system.
Those are the only three of the 10 commandments that have any equivalent in current laws, except for the few states that still have (unenforceable) laws against adultery on the books.
The problem comes in trying to enforce laws that have no valid non-religious basis. Marital benefits in the US are the same regardless of gender. Husbands get the same rights as wives. So, absolutely nothing changes if you remove gender-based discrimination from the laws. The only conflict is religious, and even then only a small subset of Christian and fundamentalist sects.
So, basically, the question comes down to -- what right does those religions have to impose their beliefs on everyone, when there is no valid non-religious reason for gender-discrimination? Or for requiring businesses to be closed on Sundays? Or to limit materials depicting sexuality based on puritanical religious standards? None. Which is why religions should not be dictating secular law.
Which is the whole part of church and state being separate (distinct, different, not the same) that people don't seem to get.
2006-09-02 22:05:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
What are these "Christian values" and of what laws are they the basis? If "Christian" means values attributable to Jesus, then what do you suppose He meant when He said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's."? As I recall, the ten commandments came along some time before Christianity. Are these the "Christian" values you're referring to? How do you reconcile the concept of man being evil, having been concieved in sin with the concept of man having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How could such an evil creature deserve any rights at all?
2006-09-02 22:31:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Which one of the 10 commandments is it you think we should eliminate from our statutes. If we followed the Bible for laws here are some we would have. Monogamy would not be a state suported institution. It is not a Biblical principle. The current death penalty would be restructured so the jury had to pull the trigger or use stones. People who lead would be held accountable and excommunicated if they strayed (bush would be gone) We do not do this stuff but those are some of the Biblical concepts.
2006-09-02 22:08:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by icheeknows 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
You need more information. Go read the consitution and the federalist papers. The purpose was to prevent the establishment of a state religion.
Given that the law makers were primarily Christian, it is expected that their values would be reflected in the laws.
There is no contradiction here.
2006-09-02 22:08:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
People had values way before Muhammad, Jesus and Moses. In fact, the mess Abraham started is the basis for all our wars in the Mid East.
Separating church and state is necessary for ethics and morals to prevail. Religion is for people who cast stones, rape and kill. The less religion, the more morality.
WAKE UP!!!!
2006-09-02 23:39:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have rarely said more than 1-2 sentences regarding my stand in politics or religion and I most always have great memories of conversing with others. These are like oil and water(or vinegar) not good at mixing, but living in salad town where they are forced to try the tango. As insane as these two topics are, which also surround us daily is a man and a women, the two as different as black and white, but expected to live their whole lives together.
the difference is that my counter examples are sole entities and the group of state or church govern over us, hopefully helping us with this journey. These two influence us where my salad dressing just helps the ruffage go down. Luckily we live in a democracy(in the U.S.A.)and the voting system blends our individual opinions/beliefs... because you've heard the one about opinions and our 'behinds'?! everyones got one and they both stink! Another look... a vertical look at a horizontal question... does a preacher or politician preach & proclaim the same beliefs at their dinner table with friends and family as they do at the pulpit or rally? Realistically, I hope they do not. When the leaders or speakers of these groups address the masses, I would hope their speaking on behalf of the masses, but talking specifically to a family member and usually needing to guide the youngsters I would only hope these (parental) figures would speak from their hearts, from their own beliefs when rearing their children, not what the polls or the bible are telling them to say and do. Back to your originating querry, ironically these individuals' beliefs are and have been formed by these two governing bodies, thus affected, but when speaking to the masses on behalf of the governing bodies, survival skills tell us to keep it general and to stay away from theories or you and your pulpit will be deemed certifiable road kill! Also remember that we humans placed the 'state' or 'government' where it stands,to police over us and our rights and wrongs,and as for religion, we are mere servants, meant to follow('in the path of').
Awesome question! but I think its appropriate for me to keep the rest of my 'behind' to myself!!
2006-09-02 23:12:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's right. And how can you have separation of church and state when every other word out of the President's mouth is "God"?
2006-09-02 22:07:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Shane, please get this. The united states constitution makes NO provision for the separation of church and state!!!
2006-09-03 15:45:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋