quote: And in doing so, his quote "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view" is in keeping with Christian beliefs. Too many people think that because we run our country as a democracy that christianity or any religion can be run the same way. As a christian I believe marriage is an institution created by God for a man and a woman. And I believe that's not changeable by a democratic vote. Because the last time I looked, God doesn't hold elections.
Stihl1 has, inadvertently perhaps, articulated what I find so disturbing about Huckabee's original statement.
Like Stihl1 and Huckabee, I also believe that God's standards don't change by majority vote. But that is where our agreement ends.
You see what I believe to be absolute standards set by God, aren't the same as what Huckabee believes to be absolute standards set by God. While I am confident that I know what God's will is regarding my own marriage, I'm not at all confident what God's will is concerning the US constitution and I'm even less confident that Huckabee knows God's will on this issue.
So many people believe that because their religion operates according to an absolute standard given them from God, our government should operate according to the same principles. The problem is that we live in a pluralistic society. There is no consensus in our society about what God's standards are. Even many Christians disagree about whether God accepts same sex marriage and our society encompasses not only Christians but also Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheist and many more.
As a Mormon Christian, I am not willing to accept Huckabee (or Obama or Romney or the members of a constitutional convention or the majority vote) as a legitimate authority on God's will or God's standards.
It would be a violation of my human rights if the government ruled that my church had to perform marriages according to a standard other than the one my church believes God has established.
It would be unethical and unjust if the church denied citizens of my church rights and privileges afforded to members of other churches.
I believe marriage is ordained of God. I believe that can't be changed by majority vote or government decree. Which is why government should stop regulating marriage.
If the government (by which I mean the majority of the people in a democratic society) wish to give rights and privileges to "married couples", then it is only fair that those same privileges be offered to married couples of all religions without regard to the particular restriction that religion places on marriage.
More preferrably, I think the government should stop recognizing marriage as a legally binding contract. Doing this creates a dangerous potential for the government to regulate religion. Religions should govern marriage, the state can govern civil unions that are offered equally to all citizens.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if saying the government shouldn't define marriage is the same as saying only religions can define marriage.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I think the first amendment covers that already.
I got carried away with my rant on marriage laws and didn't really express what concerns me about Huckabee's statements.
His statements about amending the constitution to match God's standards fails to recognize the that we live in a pluralistic society. It seems that he is completely oblivious to the fact that Americans don't agree on what God's standards are. He seems to be dividing America into those people who want to follow God's standards (as he understands them) and people who don't. Its like he doesn't even realize that the vast majority of Americans want to follow divine laws but disagree with him about what those laws are which is critical to understanding why we are a secular society.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:should a separation clause stipulating that the government cannot define marriage be put into the constitution?
My interpretation of the First Amendment would cover this already. Marriage is a religious institution, and therefore the government can't put any enforcements or restrictions on the religious institution itself.
I think everything we need to solve this debate was set in stone by the Founders.
Edit to add: whoops, late to the game on that one. I echo everything Rabbit is saying.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: In that scenario, should a separation clause stipulating that the government cannot define marriage be put into the constitution?
That is to say, non-religious people might object to "religion" taking ownernship of marriage.
There is nothing in what I said that would restrict marriage to religions. It would restrict the government from regulating marriages or considering marriage as a legally binding contract. If non-religious people wanted to get married, I'm sure that country clubs, resorts, and perhaps even bars would be willing to accommodate them with a ceremony. This could even broaden the options for non-religious people who now have the option of being married by a justice of the peace or a minister but not by a non-religious leader of their choosing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My interpretation of the First Amendment would cover this already. Marriage is a religious institution, and therefore the government can't put any enforcements or restrictions on the religious institution itself.
I think everything we need to solve this debate was set in stone by the Founders.
Edit to add: whoops, late to the game on that one. I echo everything Rabbit is saying.
I agree with everything in this post (including that you were late to the game ) EXCEPT that marriage is a religious institution. To paraphrase wikipedia, marriage is a interpersonal relationship, often coupled with religious, societal, and governmental implications, recognition, and institutions. As a society, I think it would be best if we separated out the governmental stuff from the rest of it. Or, what Rabbit said. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I had this big thing typed out and then realized I was making it far too complicated.
I agree with you entirely. Did you read my previous post on the subject? I agree wholeheartedly with getting all the governmental stuff out of marriage.
But once you get all that out, marriages, like deciding who gets them and the rules for them and what not, are controlled by the church, and thus I'd describe them as a religious institution, which is precisely why the government shouldn't be allowed to make any lawas about them, because the Constitution forbids it.
I think maybe we're getting caught up in terminology though. I expect regardless of what the churches would do in that situtation, whether or not a church sanctioned it, everyone who got a civil union would call themselves married and consider themselves married, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I feel like I'm not explaining myself properly, but I also feel like we agree entirely, so, I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we agree on the major policy stuff, but I do think there's a major point that we disagree on. Basically, I think that once you get all the government stuff out, marriages are not (only) controlled by religions, which seems in direct contrast to your statement that "once you get all that out, marriages, like deciding who gets them and the rules for them and what not, are controlled by the church, and thus I'd describe them as a religious institution...". I think this is a pretty big difference between our two views.
For example, I believe that should this policy that we both agree on take place, an atheist could have a civil ceremony for the state in front of the judge, and then have a non-religious marriage ceremony later or before, and these two (non-religious) ceremonies would have different & important meanings.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's where you run into trouble, though. "Marriage" is, for many people, a sacrament - like baptism or confirmation. It would be sort of like saying that any person who has reformed their life has been "baptised".
I'm not saying that this is how it should be, but this is where much of the religious community is going to balk.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that even if (or especially if) the religious community believes that marriage is a sacrament, it can agree with the basic policy that the government should not be in the business of granting that sacrament.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically, all the Protestant Reformers referred to their religion as "The Evangelical Faith." This is the nomenclature used in the early histories of the Reformation, such as Wylie's and D'Aubigne's.
If like Jhai, Lyrhawn, Kmboots, and others said, the government should not be involved in defining marriage, just enforcing the contract, then that would mean if someone believes in polygamy, then that could not be forbidden, and the FBI clampdown on Mormons a century ago was wrong. I realize, some here may like the idea of revisiting the legality of polygamy--but our society has collectively decided it is not going to tolerate polygamy, and I see no virtue in re-opening a past and settled discussion about this.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never waded into the issue at all? But what are the non-religious arguments against and for polygamy?
Jhai -
I think kate more or less summarized what I was saying. Marriage, from the way you are talking about it, and I agree with you here, is between two people, in that interpersonal relationship way, and I agree with you. I like looking at historical precedents, and marriage goes back much further than any of the major religions, well, maybe except Judaism, but it wouldn't matter anyway because it existed way before in parts of the world Judaism hadn't touched yet, so, as far as I'm concerned marriage is a piece of human interaction rather than strictly a religious institution.
I worded it wrong before, but there IS a religious institution of marriage. I think we got caught up in that you thought I was saying all marriage regardless of how other defined it was automatically religious inherently, and that's not what I meant. But marriage, in the religious sense, and not the individual it means whatever I want it to sense, is controlled by the church.
I think we need to set up a clear line between religious marriage and non-religious marriage, which we generally just call civil union, but people will call it marriage anyway, for the purposes of this discussion. Like I said, I think this is a problem of terminology.
Does that clarify at all? Or do you still think we disagree?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that clears it up. After your further clarification, I agree that it's almost certainly just a problem of terminology.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we are thinking historically, marriage was first a contract between two people. The "groom" and the bride's father (or other guardian). They made the deal. The woman was basically property to be bought and sold or traded to secure alliances. It is really only fairly recently that we think of marriage as being between two people both of whom get to decide.
I don't think that we want to use most historical ideas of marriage as a model!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not as a model, just to know where it started. It comes in handy when people are claiming what marriage is or what it should be, to be able to go back and say "yeah but, BEFORE that, it was like this."
And the use of women as chattel, though prevelent, wasn't universal. Plus it varied in degrees. A few societies gave women equal status to men, or at least, something better than that of property.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
well said. I guess that just because sometimes the abortion issue is used to herd voters, It doesn't mean that there isn't an active movement to do something about it. I just think that it is too bad that some people will vote on one ore two issues, sometimes for a candidate that may not otherwise represent them in government. You caught me generalizing a bit I guess. Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would a "human life" amendment affect things other than abortion? If we grant embryos full human rights, how does that affect a pregnant woman's control over her body (completely ignoring the abortion issue for this discussion)?
Would women be prevented from taking medications that haven't been proven safe for embryos/fetuses? Would failure to take enough folic acid be child abuse?
As a side note, Christians who want to abolish the separation of church and state should keep in mind that the it protects them as well. There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would make some out of womb pregnancy procedures such as in-vitro fertilization more difficult. It would also make genetic screening for debilitating hereditary diseases illegal.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: As a side note, Christians who want to abolish the separation of church and state should keep in mind that the it protects them as well. There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country.
I think it's reasonable to assume that, for the foreseeable future, either Christians will be the majority, or the majority will be nonreligious. However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country."
"However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.) "
Both of those comments are historically unfounded. Now, although I believe the Constitution was inspired by God that doesn't mean I believe this nation's founding doctrines are Christian specific. That said, I think that U.S. history and even current demographics holds that Christians (be they Catholic, Protestant, or even "heretical" Mormon) will be a majority for a very long time - perhaps a couple more hundreds of years if it ever changes at all.
That is why the seperation of Church and State argument "it protects the Christian religions too" comes off as rhetorical falsehood. The only ones that have challenged Christian hedgomony in the recent generation are the secularists. They have proven much more of a threat to Christian rights and power than any religious denomination. Coming from a minority religion myself I am concerned about too much theological intrusion in American politics, but that hasn't been in play since the 19th Century. The best argument that secularists can make is by proving that seperation of Church and State already has been a protection. Somehow I don't see that argument easily made and historically don't see the argument having any actual facts.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you misunderstood my post, Occasional. By "denomination", I meant the various Christian denominations. I don't think that any one Christian denomination will necessarily hold sway in the coming, say, 100 years in the US. And historically, the fights between various Christian denominations have been pretty vicious.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: They have proven much more of a threat to Christian rights and power than any religious denomination.
Power I'll give you. But what "Christian right" have secularists threatened?
Near as I can from reading the Constitution, you have no "Christian rights" guaranteed by the federal government other than the right to be Christian.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is less of a political matter than a social one that many Christians are concerned about.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: - "There is no guarantee that Christians will forever be the majority in this country."
"However, that shouldn't be a relief to most Christians, given that the denomination in power could very easily change. (And historically, that hasn't been very pretty.) "
Both of those comments are historically unfounded.
No they aren't. The establishment clause in the constitution was originally sponsored by small Christian denominations, including Baptists specifically because of religious discrimination Baptists had experienced. If you look at USA history you will find Anti-Baptist sentiments, anti-catholicism, anti-quakerism, anti-Mormonism and so forth.
Mormons were much stronger supporters of the establishment clause back when their leaders were being jailed and lands seized because of their religious practices. One of the most recent supreme court cases involving the establishment clause was based on a suit brought by Catholic and Mormon families living in a majority Baptist part of Texas. I've noticed that even Baptists who live in Utah where they are a minority are much more supportive of the separation of church and state than Baptists who live in the Bible belt.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I recall a case back in '91 or so that Orrin Hatch (Utah Senator) was active in protecting the rights of African religions to sacrifice animals.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I'm not sure if you are referring to my comment regarding Mormons support for the establishment clause or not. If so, I should amend my comment to indicate that it was in reference to the opinions I've heard expressed by many (but certainly not all) Mormons regarding issues of prayer at public events, the ACLU, statement by Mitt Romney and a variety of church and state issues. It was not by any means intended to indicate a change in the official church position or every church member.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ACLU? I'm not sure what that's shorthand for. I know that it's the American Civil Liberties Union. But...?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ACLU is famous in many Christian communities as being the beast of the apocalypse
I don't think that assertion is entirely justified myself, though I disagree with a bit of what the ACLU does regarding church and state.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ACLU? I'm not sure what that's shorthand for. I know that it's the American Civil Liberties Union. But...?
I've heard lots of Mormon's rant about how everything the ACLU does is pure evil. It tends to come up whenever there is an issue about religion in the public school or religious displays on public property or the like.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When neo-Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, IL, the ACLU defended them. Whenever someone inveighs against town governments that want to have nativity scenes, it is usually the ACLU that is trying to get it banned. Whenever anyone complains because some student said a prayer at the start of the Homecoming football game, it is usually the ACLU trying to deny freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Sometimes the ACLU picks a just cause to support. But most of the time they just offend all people who are not atheists.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whenever anyone complains because some student said a prayer at the start of the Homecoming football game, it is usually the ACLU trying to deny freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
You show your biases by how you word things. As I see it, when the ACLU backs a lawsuit against school sponsored prayers at football games, they are defending freedom of religion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow I agree with both of you. Because Rabbit said "school-sponsored" and Ron just said "student."
The way you word things really does matter a lot. And assumptions based on the way someone else words something reveal a lot about your biases.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow I agree with both of you. Because Rabbit said "school-sponsored" and Ron just said "student."
We were however both referring to the same incident. The detail are as follows, a Texas school was sued by the families of some Mormon and Catholic students for practices that were viewed as discriminatory. Among the practices in question, the school had a prayer "solemnizing" their football games given by a local minister. In addressing the suit, the school altered the program so that the prayer would be given by a student minister elected by the student body. The supreme court ruled that this still constituted a school sponsored prayer.
Here is an excerpt from the Court's ruling.
quote:In the Court's Majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens writes, "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
Justice Stevens continues, "The delivery of such a message - over the school's public address system by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer - is not properly characterized as private speech."
Stevens said the court recognizes, "the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance.'' But he added: "Such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment."
posted
I bet there was lots of praying at that (and other football games) that was not a problem for the ACLU or anyone else. ("Please, God, let me make this field goal" for example.)
Lots of praying that was allowed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
That depends on what you mean by that. They don't interpret the Constitution to grant an unqualified right for individuals to bear arms, so, for the more common way that term is used, no. As I understand it, they regard the 2nd amendment to pertain to "well-regulated militias" only.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
And are people who are strongly in favor of the second amendment more or less likely to go to the ACLU for legal assistance?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the ACLU care about the right to bear arms?
That depends on what you mean by that. They don't interpret the Constitution to grant an unqualified right for individuals to bear arms, so, for the more common way that term is used, no. As I understand it, they regard the 2nd amendment to pertain to "well-regulated militias" only.
posted
It just seems like a jump between Congress enacting a law establishing a religion and people having religious observance in their communities. That's just me, though. I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have religious observances in their communities all the time. Many people have them at least weekly. Often more.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:people having religious observance in their communities
The ALCU doesn't have a problem with this, provided the government is not sponsoring this observance.
quote:I am probably biased in seeing the ACLU as tending toward a specific political stripe rather than rigorously defending the constitution.
How much do you actually know about the cases that the ALCU takes on? Do you really think it is enough to make that determination? I'm not amazingly up to date on the cases either, but it's been my impression that the ALCU takes on Free Speech and similar cases from across the political spectrum.
Also, if there's one trend that I really dislike about modern politics, it is this idea that everything falls into one of two sides and that you either belong to one of the other. I see the 1st and 2nd amendments largely the way they do, as being broad and narrow. And, despite what you may think, I have actual reasons for believing this as opposed to it fitting in with whatever side I've chosen in an ideological divide.
---
From my perspective, it seems like the ALCU sometimes go over the line, especially in religion cases, but considering that the people who are trying to push Christianity on everyone else are almost constantly over the line and have gotten their way quite a bit, I think fighting even the small or very questionable battles is understandable.
Ultimately, the ALCU doesn't do much more than bring court cases against what they see as violations of civil rights. They advocate for their point of view but they don't decide anything. That's up to the courts. That's pretty much how our legal system is supposed to work.
The costs of a court battle can be prohibitive and that can add a great deal more weight to their actions (especially when people make decisions before the fact to ward of a law suit), but that's a problem (if you see it as one, which I do) with the legal system as a whole.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) EXCEPT that marriage is a religious institution. To paraphrase wikipedia, marriage is a interpersonal relationship, often coupled with religious, societal, and governmental implications, recognition, and institutions. As a society, I think it would be best if we separated out the governmental stuff from the rest of it. Or, what Rabbit said. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
