Forcing the Church on the State

Users who are viewing this thread

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
The recent SCOTUS decisions on same-sex marriage have stirred up the predictable religious/anti-religious flaming that keeps any honest discussion from getting underway.


It happens all the time. With this current subject, people keep screaming that we mustn't allow gay marriage because God says homosexuality is wrong. With welfare, people pull up biblical texts that tell us we should help our neighbor, and therefore we must expand the welfare state. Death penalty, abortion, the list might be endless.


When religious teachings tell us to help our neighbor, it means for each of us individually to help our neighbor. It doesn't give us permission to force another neighbor to help as well. When people glean that God is against homosexuality, the message is not to practice homosexuality yourself, not that we should use the power of law to punish anyone who does so.


I can't speak for other religions, but the teachings of Jesus are personal. They call for individual behavior. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. It would be ludicrous to then make a law than anyone who is struck must turn the other cheek or face a fine or imprisonment. It is just as ludicrous to call for legislation citing scriptural dictates.
 
  • 11
    Replies
  • 301
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Forcing the state on the church ? ;)
Huh?? :unsure:

There was no force of the state applied to any church at all here. If you're implying that churches will be forced to perform marriage rites that they don't approve of, that's crap from the start. Churches aren't forced to perform rights for hetero couples now. If an atheist couple want to have a Jewish wedding because it's cute to stomp on a glass and yell "Mozzle Toff!" they can't sue to force a Rabbi to honor their wishes.
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
Give it time.
While we have protections for race and gender...I am not aware that sexual orientation is included.
Apparently some liberal judges decided to include such.

And yes give it time a marriage is a service...you can not discriminate upon race or sex...which now includes sexual orientation.

What fucking idiots.
Marriage was only defined no more {woman and a man}
Since marriage was nothing more than a "status of" it means nothing anyway.
Its only an issue of tax breaks...property after death {and not always}...when to pull the plug.

The proper thing to do would have to let marriage stand...and the gays merely ask for the equivalent that had the same privileges. ..civil union.

The govt failed here as sexual orientation isnt constitutionally protected.
I say let em have their civil unions..or any other name they wanted to place on it.
 

Joe the meek

Active Member
Messages
3,989
Reaction score
67
Tokenz
0.02z
It comes down to what the government recognizes, NOT the church when it comes to laws and benefits by the government.

Screw the church, they can believe what they want to.

BFG if the state and or federal government recognizes same sex marriages.

Jesus taught to love your neighbor, for it is not for us to judge, but His Father to judge. That is only my opinion. I have no doubt some religious yahoo will quote scripture on why gays will rot in hell, as "Christians" do it all the time.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Give it time.
While we have protections for race and gender...I am not aware that sexual orientation is included.
Apparently some liberal judges decided to include such.

And yes give it time a marriage is a service...you can not discriminate upon race or sex...which now includes sexual orientation.
That's employment. A clergyman can refuse to marry any couple for any reason at all, including refusing to marry an interracial couple. The government cannot force a clergyman to bless, sanctify, or whatever. To do so would violate the separation.

What fucking idiots.
Marriage was only defined no more {woman and a man}
Since marriage was nothing more than a "status of" it means nothing anyway.
Its only an issue of tax breaks...property after death {and not always}...when to pull the plug.

The proper thing to do would have to let marriage stand...and the gays merely ask for the equivalent that had the same privileges. ..civil union.

The govt failed here as sexual orientation isnt constitutionally protected.
I say let em have their civil unions..or any other name they wanted to place on it.
I say stop civil recognition of marriage at all.
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
That's employment. A clergyman can refuse to marry any couple for any reason at all, including refusing to marry an interracial couple. The government cannot force a clergyman to bless, sanctify, or whatever. To do so would violate the separation.
Give it time,
As said it is a service.
Same way with delivering a pizza etc.
The only difference is a donation is given to the preacher man and a tip to the pizza boy.....neither required but expected, the tip goes as a wage...the donation to the church.



Additionally while religion is protected...its beliefs are intended to operate within the law,thus why a terrorist cant legally cut off your head in the name of religion.

But yes I agree they shouldnt have to marry anyone they dont want to ....could be something as simple as "I dont think they have been together long enough"
 

Joe the meek

Active Member
Messages
3,989
Reaction score
67
Tokenz
0.02z
What is bfg

Should of been BFD.

in my defense, I left the house that morning at 0600 to go to Richmond, VA, get home later that day, then hit a hotel in Georgia at one in the morning when I typed that.

I was tring to come with something for "BFG", but came up empty:D
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
Should of been BFD.

in my defense, I left the house that morning at 0600 to go to Richmond, VA, get home later that day, then hit a hotel in Georgia at one in the morning when I typed that.

I was tring to come with something for "BFG", but came up empty:D

I wouldnt be able to think straight either if I had to check into a motel in Ga at one am :p
 

Joe the meek

Active Member
Messages
3,989
Reaction score
67
Tokenz
0.02z
It's not that bad lol

What is scary though is I've been spending so much time down there that the girls at the hotel know who I am when I call to make a reservation due to my Yankee dialect lol
 

The Man

Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Messages
11,798
Reaction score
623
Tokenz
176.84z
It's not that bad lol

What is scary though is I've been spending so much time down there that the girls at the hotel know who I am when I call to make a reservation due to my Yankee dialect lol

"That yankee dont be thinking straight coming in here at one am.":p
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top