Separation of Church and State

[Ultimaja]

Separation of church and state never meant to be what many atheists assume it as today.
The context of the amending notion had almost everything to do with the rejection of a religious supremacy, such as the primacy of Rome or the old Church of England.

In fact, stating the obvious, that is why it is called 'separation of church and state'. It is quite literal in it's title- the state cannot resemble a definitive church order.

That is very different from how it is contextually abused today among a lot of secular society. People often say that prohibition of homosexual marriage for example is inconsistent to separation of church.
The truth is that it is not. Murder is very prohibited in religious belief, and I don't see anybody pinning that against the notion of separation.

The point to be made is that the very claim in proposing the notion against laws that the religious hold is an errant one.
Insofar as you may have a right to protest a law or propose a new one, so to do the religious.
Basically, bringing up church and state is saying that the religious have no right-- based on a misdirected idea of what the notion was intended to be.

 

[CassinoChips]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

That's the genesis of the term. A "wall of separation" seems to imply quite a bit more than simply the structure and organization of the state government mimicking that of a religious order. It implies that never the twain shall meet.

Those of a religious bent are more than welcome to propose laws. And they may even be accepted into the government. But if those laws force other citizens to adhere to concepts that are based solely around a religious belief, those laws (at least in the US) are unconstitutional.

Murder is a terrible example. Murder isn't illegal because people need religion to tell them that killing other people is bad. Murder is illegal because it ends another person's life against the victim's will. Kind of flies in the face of individual liberty there.

 

[Ultimaja]

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

That's the genesis of the term. A "wall of separation" seems to imply quite a bit more than simply the structure and organization of the state government mimicking that of a religious order. It implies that never the twain shall meet.

Those of a religious bent are more than welcome to propose laws. And they may even be accepted into the government. But if those laws force other citizens to adhere to concepts that are based solely around a religious belief, those laws (at least in the US) are unconstitutional.

Murder is a terrible example. Murder isn't illegal because people need religion to tell them that killing other people is bad. Murder is illegal because it ends another person's life against the victim's will. Kind of flies in the face of individual liberty there.

If it were really the way you put it, then America would have resembled a complete secular state centuries ago. But it did not. Commandments in court buildings, swearing on the Bible, holding church at the capitol, prohibiting unmarried people to live together, and so on- there are a gargantuan amount of things that are literally spread throughout all of American culture that, if your notion was correct, would have been making amendments and laws they utterly ignored.

What's really going on is that secular society are attempting to revision those laws, to change their context and assume a position which makes them the example of what America's founding was supposed to be.

And that's just simply wrong, because frankly, secular society resembles explicitly nothing except it's new self.

 

[CassinoChips]

You're assuming that the way the people in previous centuries were doing it was correct. Perhaps they were wrong and we're just now beginning to correct those illegalities.

All those things that you mentioned (swearing in on a Bible, etc.) were holdovers from English/Puritan societies. They predated the development of the Constitution and were continuations of local customs, not a perpetuation of religion.

 

[Ultimaja]

You're assuming that the way the people in previous centuries were doing it was correct. Perhaps they were wrong and we're just now beginning to correct those illegalities.

All those things that you mentioned (swearing in on a Bible, etc.) were holdovers from English/Puritan societies. They predated the development of the Constitution and were continuations of local customs, not a perpetuation of religion.

That is a completely moot point. Only in the past several decades has religious inspired law been shot at. A country doesn't simply get a foundational rule wrong from it's very conception all the way to the later 1900's, I mean what the hell? Society likes to make the same exact argument when it comes to the dealings of religion as well.

Secular society trying to steal the country from the religious by pulling the rug from under itself, grabbed by a hand of American sacrilege is cheap and dishonorable.
They can sit there and talk about the Constitution, but as soon as the 2nd one is brought up- 'rules should be changed'.

 

[CassinoChips]

That's where you (and most) are mistaken. The Constitution is based (mostly) on the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights was based on Anglo-Saxon law, which was introduced to Britain before Christianity had exerted complete control of the island, i.e. before their kings were converted to Christianity.

Nowhere in the notes of the Constitutional Congress, compiled by James Madison, are the Ten Commandments or biblical law ever mentioned.

The fundamental aspects of the two concepts are polar opposites. Biblical/religious law is handed down from above. The Constitution is derived from the will of the people and handed up to those in power. For the majority of American history, the majority of people were fine with Christianity holding sway. Now, things are starting to change. The majority no longer wants to be governed under the fist of religion. And those, like yourself, who were used to occupying the seat of power and are now being thrown out, are crying persecution instead of understanding what is actually taking place: a shift in the power base.

 

[Ultimaja]

That's where you (and most) are mistaken. The Constitution is based (mostly) on the English Bill of Rights. The English Bill of Rights was based on Anglo-Saxon law, which was introduced to Britain before Christianity had exerted complete control of the island, i.e. before their kings were converted to Christianity.

Nowhere in the notes of the Constitutional Congress, compiled by James Madison, are the Ten Commandments or biblical law ever mentioned.

The fundamental aspects of the two concepts are polar opposites. Biblical/religious law is handed down from above. The Constitution is derived from the will of the people and handed up to those in power. For the majority of American history, the majority of people were fine with Christianity holding sway. Now, things are starting to change. The majority no longer wants to be governed under the fist of religion. And those, like yourself, who were used to occupying the seat of power and are now being thrown out, are crying persecution instead of understanding what is actually taking place: a shift in the power base.

Maintaining a law contrary to homosexual marriage is not being governed by a 'fist of religion'. Neither is a restaurant owner believing in such laws, or having religious symbols at disaster areas or in court buildings, or pretty much everything relevant today that secular society has outright felt 'persecuted' for.

If any of those things count as persecution, then what is being silenced, shamed, or mocked in the media for simply expressing worldview notions?
That's a giant double standard.

And so when one says it's simply a 'shift in a power base', they are really saying that secular society is trying to outright stamp out religion- that religion must be kept in the confines of one's personal life.
And that is, well, what's the best way of putting it.. telling lion not to be lion.

Worldviews dominate, they are not a pastime to be kept silenced. Just like how the atheist worldview dominates their goal, so does the worldview of the religious. So really, with that 2nd double standard noted, what secular society ultimately aims for is a notion for dismissal of anything that basically does not agree with itself.
And because religious worldviews are complete, one can simply take anything they don't agree with and call it something of religion. It's why I brought up murder- it was a way to sort of orchestrate the ridiculousness of that but I guess it didn't land right.

For example, not everybody who is against homosexual marriage is definitively Christian. Some simply just feel that it is wrong, for the sake of children and proper family. Some believe that if people aren't pushing for polygamy, then the argument of it being a religious matter is sort of, well, dishonest, and that the motive for enacting homosexual marriage is more absurd then how it is so benevolently portrayed by those who support it.
And yet, it is unanimously considered something of religion by atheists.


But there is something you are right about, which I agree with, and it's that it's a power shift. Secularism is gaining a major foot hole in society.
But to say that it is justified by some predetermined construct of the country? That's just a simple no.
It is nothing more then a culture war.

 

[CassinoChips]

Unfortunately "it's just wrong" is not a valid legal argument. Moreover, there is no peer-reviewed and vetted study that shows any ill effects on children being raised by gay couples.

And there is no part of the original law of this country that states that marriage is the sole domain of heterosexual couples. Therefore, it is not maintaining a law. It is creating a law.

Polygamy and homosexuality are entirely different issues. It's disingenuous to conflate the two.

Saying that you disagree with the concept of homosexual marriage is your right. Being a public figure opens you up to the scrutiny of the public. Being a business owner does the same. That is vastly different than, say, a random college kid being dragged behind a pickup drag for a couple miles, then tied to a fencepost overnight in sub-zero temperatures, simply because he dared to be gay. That's persecution. Being disagreed with, however vociferously, is not.

I hate speaking for an entire sub-group of people, but I don't think atheists want to convert people to atheism, or force their views on individual people. They're fine with letting people believe whatever they want, so long as atheists are afforded the same opportunity, and that includes all facets of life.

 

[Ultimaja]

Unfortunately "it's just wrong" is not a valid legal argument. Moreover, there is no peer-reviewed and vetted study that shows any ill effects on children being raised by gay couples.

And there is no part of the original law of this country that states that marriage is the sole domain of heterosexual couples. Therefore, it is not maintaining a law. It is creating a law.

Actually, marriage is defined as man and woman. It's precisely why homosexual marriages, where it is legal, have had to jump through hoops on the subject of marriage vs civil union certificates.

It's completely mandated as man and woman; homosexual marriage is simply alien to the entire premise thereof.

Polygamy and homosexuality are entirely different issues. It's disingenuous to conflate the two.

Not really. They are both something of religion.
Why can't a three-way marriage work? You'd have just as much a hard time arguing against that as much as you think those who argue against homosexual marriage do.

Saying that you disagree with the concept of homosexual marriage is your right. Being a public figure opens you up to the scrutiny of the public. Being a business owner does the same. That is vastly different than, say, a random college kid being dragged behind a pickup drag for a couple miles, then tied to a fencepost overnight in sub-zero temperatures, simply because he dared to be gay. That's persecution. Being disagreed with, however vociferously, is not.

Persecution is self-evident, and it's not so black and white. When scrutiny and harassment puts your livelihood at stake, it is a form of persecution. What atheists do today to the religious is no different then what the religious did to the atheist a century ago. It's rank hypocrisy, not some benevolent voice of reason.

I hate speaking for an entire sub-group of people, but I don't think atheists want to convert people to atheism, or force their views on individual people. They're fine with letting people believe whatever they want, so long as atheists are afforded the same opportunity, and that includes all facets of life.

That's right, they don't want to push their atheists values, they just want people to totally agree with everything they want or just deal with it if they don't. No real difference.

It's like I stated before, religion, particularly Abrahamic religion, is not compatible with being a private thing. It's not like it's just some practice one can keep from influencing others or the country they live in. If it's going to exist, it's going to push back. That's sort of the difference between things like homosexual marriage and that of religion, you see.

 

[CassinoChips]

Actually, marriage is defined as man and woman. It's precisely why homosexual marriages, where it is legal, have had to jump through hoops on the subject of marriage vs civil union certificates.

It's completely mandated as man and woman; homosexual marriage is simply alien to the entire premise thereof.

Really? Where is it defined as such? And if it was defined as such, why was it necessary to enact laws that prevent gay marriage?

The "hoops" that had to be jumped through were basically the courts saying, "No, they really can get married because there's nothing saying they can't."

Persecution is self-evident, and it's not so black and white. When scrutiny and harassment puts your livelihood at stake, it is a form of persecution. What atheists do today to the religious is no different then what the religious did to the atheist a century ago. It's rank hypocrisy, not some benevolent voice of reason.

If the public is refusing to buy products from your business because of your politics, that's not persecution. That's consumer awareness and the power of the dollar. Being scrutinized when you're in the public eye is not persecution. It's the pitfalls of celebrity. When groups of atheists start assaulting Christians simply for being Christian, then you'll have an argument.

That's right, they don't want to push their atheists values, they just want people to totally agree with everything they want or just deal with it if they don't. No real difference.

You don't want everybody to be Christian? You don't think yours is the correct way to believe?

It's like I stated before, religion, particularly Abrahamic religion, is not compatible with being a private thing. It's not like it's just some practice one can keep from influencing others or the country they live in. If it's going to exist, it's going to push back. That's sort of the difference between things like homosexual marriage and that of religion, you see.

Matthew 6:5

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Also, there's a difference between being public with your religion, and foisting your religion upon others. If your religion is preventing two people from getting married, that's a problem because you're disrupting individual liberty.

 

[Ultimaja]

Really? Where is it defined as such? And if it was defined as such, why was it necessary to enact laws that prevent gay marriage?

The "hoops" that had to be jumped through were basically the courts saying, "No, they really can get married because there's nothing saying they can't."

States have their own statutes on marriage, most of which have always been only man and woman. There's a handful that don't have anything whatsoever on marriage, including marrying a dog or multiple people (polygamy). But they don't allow it, either.
Why doesn't the state you speak of let people do either of those things?

If the public is refusing to buy products from your business because of your politics, that's not persecution. That's consumer awareness and the power of the dollar. Being scrutinized when you're in the public eye is not persecution. It's the pitfalls of celebrity. When groups of atheists start assaulting Christians simply for being Christian, then you'll have an argument.

When homosexuals boycotted, who said anything about it? Nobody except Christians. Atheists didn't give a damn, if their business went down then you would still be sitting here saying it isn't persecution.

And Duck Dynasty.. threatened to be shut down because of their religious views, and it wasn't even anything extreme, just old fashioned recognizance of Jesus.

A Catholic woman going on a debate show and being called a bigot and shunned right out the door by the host and audience- for simply implying that homosexuality is against God, thereby making her out to be evil rather then simply one in a billion other Christians to the public eye..

You can choose to think it isn't what it is, but that would just mean it isn't what you think it is :dave:

Matthew 6:5

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Also, there's a difference between being public with your religion, and foisting your religion upon others. If your religion is preventing two people from getting married, that's a problem because you're disrupting individual liberty.

The Bible also teaches evangelizing and not calling good evil and evil good. It also teaches to be virtuous and steadfast, and that the unrighteous will go to Hell. That doesn't necessarily equate to being silent- if you truly believe the wicked go to Hell, you can't love the wicked by simply giving an idea that what they do is okay.

It's not a Christians place to say who and who doesn't go to Hell, but homosexual marriage is easily deduced by Christian teaching as being a marriage of idolatry.
Basic math: sins can be forgiven, but require penance or promise of change. Being lifelong wedded to sin = ________?
I mean, really. It's not something a Christian can accept or just stand by and let happen.

 

[CassinoChips]

States have their own statutes on marriage, most of which have always been only man and woman. There's a handful that don't have anything whatsoever on marriage, including marrying a dog or multiple people (polygamy). But they don't allow it, either.
Why doesn't the state you speak of let people do either of those things?

Despite the straw man you're trying valiantly to set up here, dogs can't sign marriage certificates. So you know, there's that. Bigamy is disallowed for legal reasons including violating the marriage contract and tax law. Moreover, several states have only enacted marriage laws in the last few decades regarding gay marriage. North Carolina passed Amendment One in 2012. Again, if marriage was defined as heterosexual, why the need for that amendment to the state constitution?

When homosexuals boycotted, who said anything about it? Nobody except Christians. Atheists didn't give a damn, if their business went down then you would still be sitting here saying it isn't persecution.

If you alienate your customers because of your ancient owner's inane ramblings, causing them to decide not to spend money at your establishment, that's not persecution. That's consumerism.

And Duck Dynasty.. threatened to be shut down because of their religious views, and it wasn't even anything extreme, just old fashioned recognizance of Jesus.

Duck Dynasty is a terrible show to begin with. But that aside, they signed a contract with the TV channel. If they feel that potentially alienating customers is a bad idea, that, again, is consumerism.

You can choose to think it isn't what it is, but that would just mean it isn't what you think it is :dave:

You can choose to think it is what it isn't, but that would mean it isn't what you think it is.

The Bible also teaches evangelizing and not calling good evil and evil good. It also teaches to be virtuous and steadfast, and that the unrighteous will go to Hell. That doesn't necessarily equate to being silent- if you truly believe the wicked go to Hell, you can't love the wicked by simply giving an idea that what they do is okay.

In other words, the bible contradicts itself. Bet.

It's not a Christians place to say who and who doesn't go to Hell, but homosexual marriage is easily deduced by Christian teaching as being a marriage of idolatry.

"Easily" is stretching it.

Basic math: sins can be forgiven, but require penance or promise of change. Being lifelong wedded to sin = ________?

You realize that not everybody acknowledges that A) it's a sin, and/or B) the concept of sin exists? Which is the crux of the matter. If I don't consider it a sin because I don't follow your religion, why should I be beholden to your religiously based rules?

I mean, really. It's not something a Christian can accept or just stand by and let happen.

Sincerely,
Every Catholic Bishop/Archbishop who swept an Altar Boy/Priest abuse scandal under the rug in the last 2000 years.

 

[Ultimaja]

Despite the straw man you're trying valiantly to set up here, dogs can't sign marriage certificates. So you know, there's that. Bigamy is disallowed for legal reasons including violating the marriage contract and tax law. Moreover, several states have only enacted marriage laws in the last few decades regarding gay marriage. North Carolina passed Amendment One in 2012. Again, if marriage was defined as heterosexual, why the need for that amendment to the state constitution?

Right, so it all comes down to signing a marriage certificate?
That's a pretty weak way to dodge around the argument.
And so is the polygamy argument. What's to keep me from marrying a friend in a gay marriage state so we can get a leg up on taxes?

The very fact that they actually had to enact laws is in and of itself a deduction of what is described as marriage. The same way marrying a monkey or multiple people is simply an evident disregard to marriage is supposed to be.

No matter how you try to play it, homosexual marriage is a redefining of marriage in our culture.

If you alienate your customers because of your ancient owner's inane ramblings, causing them to decide not to spend money at your establishment, that's not persecution. That's consumerism.

If people boycotted a gay-owned business, there would be cries of discrimination all over the country.
I love the dishonest standing though. It really just speaks for what I've been saying.

Duck Dynasty is a terrible show to begin with. But that aside, they signed a contract with the TV channel. If they feel that potentially alienating customers is a bad idea, that, again, is consumerism.

Again, if it was a gay show- cries of discrimination all over the country. It's not hard to discern the obvious.
The irony is that for the bill and law pushing you all do, notice their is nothing in discrimination laws that say jack about sexual preference.

In other words, the bible contradicts itself. Bet.

The Bible only seems to contradict itself when you misinterpret it. Especially if you are biased or subjected to asinine, liberal society. You may as well just put the book down.

You realize that not everybody acknowledges that A) it's a sin, and/or B) the concept of sin exists? Which is the crux of the matter. If I don't consider it a sin because I don't follow your religion, why should I be beholden to your religiously based rules?

There are consequences to sin, that is what makes sin evident. If you want to be in denial, or choose not to see why certain things are sins because of your self-righteous piety, then go right ahead.
This is why people are doomed to never understand Christianity, and by their own hand, in which they presuppose is rather something wrong with the religion.

Sincerely,
Every Catholic Bishop/Archbishop who swept an Altar Boy/Priest abuse scandal under the rug in the last 2000 years.

The Church is the largest Christian establishment in the world. She is in every country, and has many tens of thousands of clergy. Common sense dictates that, and I quote, "shit happens". Unquote.

But instead of pointing out the obvious, you'd rather blame the Church because she didn't.. what? Give them a public hanging? It's funny how you expect that Christians should forgive and be virtuous, all upset about how Catholics see homosexuality- but then decide that they should be sending pedophiles to the cell next to the hottest furnace in Hell.

It's all too clear who the ones with the issues are.

 

[CassinoChips]

Right, so it all comes down to signing a marriage certificate?
That's a pretty weak way to dodge around the argument.
And so is the polygamy argument. What's to keep me from marrying a friend in a gay marriage state so we can get a leg up on taxes?

The same thing that's keeping you from marrying a straight friend for the tax break? Nothing? I'm not seeing your point there. And of course it comes down to signing a marriage certificate. It's not a valid marriage otherwise.

The very fact that they actually had to enact laws is in and of itself a deduction of what is described as marriage. The same way marrying a monkey or multiple people is simply an evident disregard to marriage is supposed to be.

It's a reflection of the original point: There was no law extant that specifically outlawed gay marriage.

No matter how you try to play it, homosexual marriage is a redefining of marriage in our culture.

In our culture, yes. In our law, no.

If people boycotted a gay-owned business, there would be cries of discrimination all over the country.

Can you show me an example of that happening? Otherwise you've made an unverifiable claim.

Again, if it was a gay show- cries of discrimination all over the country. It's not hard to discern the obvious.

Can you show me an example of that happening? Otherwise you've made an unverifiable claim.

The irony is that for the bill and law pushing you all do, notice their is nothing in discrimination laws that say jack about sexual preference.

False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States#State_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Housing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Ask,_Don%27t_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

The Bible only seems to contradict itself when you misinterpret it. Especially if you are biased or subjected to asinine, liberal society. You may as well just put the book down.

Or if you have a brain capable of critical analysis. Also, statistics disagree with you. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

There are consequences to sin, that is what makes sin evident. If you want to be in denial, or choose not to see why certain things are sins because of your self-righteous piety, then go right ahead.
This is why people are doomed to never understand Christianity, and by their own hand, in which they presuppose is rather something wrong with the religion.

Yes, all the happy little Christians are smarter than everybody else.

The Church is the largest Christian establishment in the world. She is in every country, and has many tens of thousands of clergy. Common sense dictates that, and I quote, "shit happens". Unquote.

But instead of pointing out the obvious, you'd rather blame the Church because she didn't.. what? Give them a public hanging? It's funny how you expect that Christians should forgive and be virtuous, all upset about how Catholics see homosexuality- but then decide that they should be sending pedophiles to the cell next to the hottest furnace in Hell.

I don't remember saying they should be sent to "the cell next to the hottest furnace in Hell." They shouldn't, however, have simply been sent to a different parish where they could perpetrate the same crimes on a new population. But then, of course, that would be taking action instead of just "stand[ing] by and let[ting it] happen."

It's all too clear who the ones with the issues are.

True. Those who fight hardest against the advancement of gay rights tend to reveal their own latent homosexual tendencies and insecurities.

 

[Ultimaja]

The same thing that's keeping you from marrying a straight friend for the tax break? Nothing? I'm not seeing your point there. And of course it comes down to signing a marriage certificate. It's not a valid marriage otherwise.

That's the whole point. What is keeping me from getting someone to marry me for a tax break that is so different for polygamists? They could simply marry in pairs instead of in fours and sixes.

And the signing marriage certificate argument is just a poor technicality. It doesn't suffice for the moral argument of marriage. And it doesn't matter anyway because a monkey can be taught to write a signature. What then?

It's a reflection of the original point: There was no law extant that specifically outlawed gay marriage.

Then why is there a movement and legal endeavors all the way up to federal courts? The point is moot, there's no law saying they can be married. Homosexuality is not a civil issue, because it is a preference. If it were actually proved that it were genetic, it would enter the ranks of race and sex. It just goes to show the outright lies liberals have tried to spin.

Can you show me an example of that happening? Otherwise you've made an unverifiable claim.

It's only unverifiable if you decide to shutdown your brain and not face the inevitable, self-evident truth.

I don't need to verify what is fucking true as day. You can't even say you believe in traditional marriage without public outrage, let alone actually telling them to screw off or boycotting them.

False. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States#State_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Housing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Ask,_Don't_Tell_Repeal_Act_of_2010

Oh, my bad. All these recent developments of homosexuals feeling persecuted.

Ha, the irony.

I don't remember saying they should be sent to "the cell next to the hottest furnace in Hell." They shouldn't, however, have simply been sent to a different parish where they could perpetrate the same crimes on a new population. But then, of course, that would be taking action instead of just "stand[ing] by and let[ting it] happen."

Well you are all about perpetuating vanity so that the world can continue to be a worthless ball of self-absorbed piety.
You simply just don't understand Catholic philosophy.

 

[CassinoChips]

That's the whole point. What is keeping me from getting someone to marry me for a tax break that is so different for polygamists? They could simply marry in pairs instead of in fours and sixes.

Because as the law stands now, you can't claim tax breaks for each of your hypothetical marriages. Or on the other hand, you can't claim a marriage break with someone if that someone is already claiming a marriage break with someone else.

And the signing marriage certificate argument is just a poor technicality. It doesn't suffice for the moral argument of marriage.

Marriage is a legally binding contract. If you can't legally enter into such a contract, you can't get married under the auspices of the law. Hell of a technicality, that whole law thing.

And it doesn't matter anyway because a monkey can be taught to write a signature. What then?

Reductio ad absurdum.

Then why is there a movement and legal endeavors all the way up to federal courts?

To counteract the states that have enacted laws banning gay marriage. Which is unconstitutional.

The point is moot, there's no law saying they can be married.

More correctly, there is no law on the federal level saying they can't.

Homosexuality is not a civil issue, because it is a preference. If it were actually proved that it were genetic, it would enter the ranks of race and sex. It just goes to show the outright lies liberals have tried to spin.

Or, you know, science. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

It's only unverifiable if you decide to shutdown your brain and not face the inevitable, self-evident truth.

I don't need to verify what is fucking true as day. You can't even say you believe in traditional marriage without public outrage, let alone actually telling them to screw off.

If it's "self-evident" and "true as day," surely you could find a single, solitary example of it happening. Otherwise you're just spouting an opinion that I am not required to accept as fact.

Oh, my bad. All these recent developments of homosexuals feeling persecuted.

Ha, the irony.

And they are all as inept as the next. It's a hate crime to pick off gays, certain states don't allow discrimination of gays for employment, such and such.
It didn't take this many acts and repeals to get actual Civil Rights on board. Speaks for itself.

Uh.... you do realize there was a 101-year gap between the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, during which time the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and then way down the line the 20th Amendment was passed, and the Loving v. Virginia case was started.... right? But no, you're right, it was basically overnight.

Well you are all about perpetuating vanity so that the world can continue to be a worthless ball of self-absorbed piety.
You simply just don't understand Catholic philosophy.

What about allowing avowed pedophiles to maintain their priesthood is part of the Catholic philosophy? I guess my Catholic upbringing, 10 years of Catholic schooling, and 6 years of Sunday School didn't cover that part of the Catechism. Ad majorem dei gloryholium.

And as far as that survey on religious intelligence and whatnot- surveys on subjects such as that are a joke in and of themselves. Take myself for instance- I'm on a site that is apparently unanimously liberal and predominantly secular. I think I stand pretty well on my own, though that will probably be denied with an iron fist. Such is the way of those types.

The survey controlled for discrepancies like education level and political backgrounds. But hey, sure, go with confirmation bias and dismiss it out of hand. That's always a good idea.

 

[Ultimaja]

To counteract the states that have enacted laws banning gay marriage. Which is unconstitutional.

In your opinion. If you ask any of the people sho voted for anything in the Constitution, inlcuding the writers, they would not find banning gay marriage unconstitutional. In fact, they would probably think you were joking.

You try to treat law and culture as different entities, but you have to consult your own culture to maintain an idea of what is 'unconstitutional'.

Or, you know, science. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

HA, that ol' nonsense. I thought you all dropped that a long time ago, along with those 'gay' penguins at whatever zoo somewhere.
When you train yourself to be like a woman, your brain is going to resemble the activities of a woman's.

It's no different then when a physicist and a laymen sit and do hard math.

If it's "self-evident" and "true as day," surely you could find a single, solitary example of it happening. Otherwise you're just spouting an opinion that I am not required to accept as fact.

It wouldn't happen, because a perosn isn't going to sacrifice their business and their livelihood doing so.
Jesus Christ, and I thought I was speaking to somebody intelligent.

Uh.... you do realize there was a 101-year gap between the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, during which time the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed, and the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and then way down the line the 20th Amendment was passed, and the Loving v. Virginia case was started.... right? But no, you're right, it was basically overnight.

Yeah, an entire race of people takes a while. 1% of a population though, with half the population rooting for them.. do the math.

What about allowing avowed pedophiles to maintain their priesthood is part of the Catholic philosophy? I guess my Catholic upbringing, 10 years of Catholic schooling, and 6 years of Sunday School didn't cover that part of the Catechism. Ad majorem dei gloryholium.

HA! How is it that every time I debate with somebody, they end up allegedly having been Catholic or something?
Forgive me if I don't actually believe that as of yet. It's basic protocol, really.

You can call the Church many things, but one thing you can't call it is hypocritical. She actually stands by her philosophy. One either suffers the Old, or they are forgiven by the New. You can't forgive and yet condemn, which is basically what handing one over to wolves basically is.
That New however is not subject to government authorities. Paul makes note of this in Romans.

In the medieval ages, a rapist was put to death, but there had to be evidence or witness. Contrary to what people commonly think, there are a number of things that integrate within Islamic and Christian law, both being Abrahamic, with that being more or less one of them.
The thing with pedophilia is that there is virtually never a witness or evidence.

In which case, you can choose to not believe the truth that there are many innocent people falsely accused who, even if not found guilty, their lives are tarnished and they are left distrusted. But it is the truth, and it is something that the Church is very aware of having witnessed mankind for 2000 years.

A confession in the Church is highly confident; it cannot be subjected with outer punishment. Priests can lose their priesthood and be put at odds with God in revealing one's confession. That is Catholic dogma that has been around from the beginning.

So unlike how the Church is not hypocritical or contradictory, secular society is. I can go on an extravegant montage on how asinine and contradictory secular society is- it's a truth of Abrahamic religion as a whole that mankind are just that.
I've even brought up a few throughout this discussion.

The survey controlled for discrepancies like education level and political backgrounds. But hey, sure, go with confirmation bias and dismiss it out of hand. That's always a good idea.

It's a joke. I dropped out of high school and never went to college. I have also met many dumb ass people who aced high school and gotten through college. It's nonsense. In my opinion, intelligence is apparent just by deducing the nonsense that such surveys are.

 

[CassinoChips]

In your opinion.

In the Supreme Court's opinion, via the Windsor case.

You try to treat law and culture as different entities, but you have to consult your own culture to maintain an idea of what is 'unconstitutional'.

No, that's the job of the Supreme Court. That is literally their primary purpose, spelled out in the Constitution.

HA, that ol' nonsense. I thought you all dropped that a long time ago, along with those 'gay' penguins at whatever zoo somewhere.
When you train yourself to be like a woman, your brain is going to resemble the activities of a woman's.

That doesn't account for physical differences in the structure of the amygdala.

It wouldn't happen, because a perosn isn't going to sacrifice their business and their livelihood doing so.

So it hasn't happened then? Great.

Yeah, an entire race of people takes a while. 1% of a population though, with half the population rooting for them.. do the math.

I thought you were saying an entire race of people didn't/doesn't take a while? That it happened quickly, and by extension that somehow invalidates the gay rights movement? Or are you backing away from that assertion?

HA! How is it that every time I debate with somebody, they end up allegedly having been Catholic or something?
Forgive me if I don't actually believe that as of yet. It's basic protocol, really.

Believe whatever you want. http://www.bellarmineprep.org/ http://www.saintpats.org/

You can call the Church many things, but one thing you can't call it is hypocritical.

Did you manage to type that whole sentence with a straight face?

In the medieval ages, a rapist was put to death, but there had to be evidence or witness. Contrary to what people commonly think, there are a number of things that integrate within Islamic and Christian law, both being Abrahamic, with that being more or less one of them.

Which contradicts the bible where it says: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

The thing with pedophilia is that there is virtually never a witness or evidence.

http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/lo...ophilia-evidence-mounts-against-Polish-priest
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/07/11/more-evidence-coming-in-pedophile-priest-case/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c0c_1375132546
http://www.wcax.com/story/6661274/judge-okays-evidence-bishop-protected-pedophile-priests
http://articles.courant.com/2012-01...-20120131_1_jacob-doe-abusive-priest-ferguson
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...hurch-archive-about-paedophile-priest/4856480

Yep, virtually never.

It's a joke. I dropped out of high school and never went to college. I have also met many dumb ass people who aced high school and gotten through college. It's nonsense. In my opinion, intelligence is apparent just by deducing the nonsense that such surveys are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Learned about that in Psych 101.

Also relevant: "I find that higher levels of education lead to lower levels of religious participation later in life." http://www.nber.org/papers/w16973

 

[Ultimaja]

No, that's the job of the Supreme Court. That is literally their primary purpose, spelled out in the Constitution.

Who obviously has yet to rule that homosexual marriage is unconstitutional across the board. I don't see states dissenting from the country, which would probably happen, at least in Texas' case which is possible at any given time anyway.

Their judgement on homosexual marriage is basically commensurate to the death penalty. Some states have done away with it, most haven't.
It's a subject of morality, one could say that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

All you have to do is put a bunch of libs in the high seats, and homosexuality would in fact be deemed unconstitutional. Put too much faith in subjective morality and you end up with a worthless observation of mankind.
Just another fail of secular society. All is fair, love and war- until the one's in control are against you.

That doesn't account for physical differences in the structure of the amygdala.

Luckily for people who believe homosexuality is genetic, the study of an infant brain is limited- they have to actually compare the homosexuals brain to their past infant selves, and contrast them to the brains of people who are heterosexual.

That is real science, and even then, it still doesn't truly prove much except inherited inclinations which interestingly could have little to do with sex altogether.
Anybody with good reason can see that for what it is; these 'celebrity studies' are just rank dishonest propaganda.

Believe whatever you want. http://www.bellarmineprep.org/ http://www.saintpats.org/

Anyone could say they were raised Catholic and and put up Catholic school sites.

Anyway, I don't believe or disbelieve you, it's completely irrelevant to me. I sought Catholicism on my own, and from my own observation, born Catholics typically are less potent then those who seek it by their own will.

Which contradicts the bible where it says: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

I have brought that up in these forums myself, personally.
That is Levitical law. When apostolic power was turned to the Gentiles, the Old manifests in the governmental powers thereof.

You should educate yourself on the medieval system.
http://gregorycanada5.wikispaces.com/file/view/church_hierarchy.png/223749418/church_hierarchy.png

http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/lo...ophilia-evidence-mounts-against-Polish-priest
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/07/11/more-evidence-coming-in-pedophile-priest-case/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c0c_1375132546
http://www.wcax.com/story/6661274/judge-okays-evidence-bishop-protected-pedophile-priests
http://articles.courant.com/2012-01...-20120131_1_jacob-doe-abusive-priest-ferguson
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...hurch-archive-about-paedophile-priest/4856480

Yep, virtually never.

Out of thousands upon thousands of cases all over the world on pedophilia in general, it is virtually never. What 'hard evidence' relaly sends most who are accused to prison?
No doubt, they are things that wouldn't stand in a murder case.

Being under the impression that the Church is the Devil and is some breeding ground for pedophiles is ridiculous. How many out of so many accusations throughout it's modern history have actually been found guilty?

What do you expect the Church to do? Seriously, if someone gave you a hat and miter, you'd probably break every tenant of Church dogma and round up the accused- make some ridiculous, pompous stand and get a bunch of brownie points from ignorant society.

And then the God, if He exists, of the church you had preeminence of, would send you to Hell.
I think atheists need to stop downplaying the fact that the Church is the actual face of Christianity; the Bible in and of itself. Tell it for what it is instead of sneaking in through the back door with some ulterior morality that doesn't presume to knock Christianity altogether.

If liberals had any balls at all whatsoever, they would do just that.

Also relevant: "I find that higher levels of education lead to lower levels of religious participation later in life." http://www.nber.org/papers/w16973

Well when Oxford is full of anti-theists, of course education is going to try to train God right out of people. Especially with idiotic Protestants being the excuse of Christianity in America, and a sacrilegious church sitting at a round table in the UK.