ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:23 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: The Seperation of Church and State
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 9:42 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
This is something that has came to my mind recently, and, of all things, has been opened up even more by a very insightful Playboy article.

Basically, I propose this:

America has became too attached as a nation to a religion that had nothing to do with its founding, save attempting to escape from it. The forefather's of our nation wanted a country that would not be controlled in any fashion by a religion or a religious group. Therefor, the Constitution of the United States should be upheld and religion should be completely stripped from our government. That means everything, money, pledges, oaths of office, oaths in court, etc.

Discuss.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 10:34 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
For the record, "So help me God" at the end of the presidential acceptance oath wasn't really written in there, Washington added it to the end of his oath as a personal thing and it became more-or-less a tradition.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Marriage should be strictly a church thing anyway.
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 1:51 pm 
Offline
Green Text

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4126
Location: Clouds, rain, and green fields...
That's something that's been bothering me... marriage is like a union of church and state...

Doesn't seem right that the state can outlaw certain parts of it without consulting the church.

Anyways. What you wrote seems about right to me...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 2:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
No, marriage is a purely legal institution (as evidenced by the fact that you can get legally married with about 30 seconds and a judge,) which is designed to be the legal union of two people in the eyes of the law.

Its a social/spiritual (neither in your dirty collectivist/religious sense, so back off) declaration by two people to the community, not to mention the benefits that would follow etc.

Of course, its arguable that its more trouble than it is worth, but thats an argument for another day (and that one belongs to Clay, not I, so he'll do it.)

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:19 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 676
Location: Minneapolis, MN
It's a good idea, but keep in mind that Freedom OF Religion does not mean Freedom FROM Religion. We can't simply deny that religion plays a major role in defining our culture and morals. Sure, keep it out of law and government, but don't forget it's there. That's a dangerous thing to do and a slippery slope.

_________________
And thus, Grey wins. He's creating worthless drama in a totally unrelated thread even after he's been banned. - Emy

We're not mad. We're just argumentative. And we live in a state of fluctuating contempt for everything. - onion, when talking about herself and shoonra, actually describes the whole of kyhm forums.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:38 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Perhaps an all encompasing poly-religious govn't would work? But what would keep it for having extremists from one side or another tearing it apart? (I'm trying to look at the potential, knowing full well there are always going to be people who's views will be disimillar enough to encite action.)

Also, if it's mearly tradition, why is it such an issue to move on?

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 7:38 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Because it has other connotations to other people of the electorate, but I pointed out that it is by no means a purely religious thing, and in fact you can see the seperation between legal and religious marriage quite marriage.

The big deal appears to be a bunch of retards fighting over the name of gay marriage, if it'l be 'civil unions' or 'marriage.' I think thats kind of moot - if you have the legal rights, it doesn't really matter what its called.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Personally, I think, since civil marriage is a fusion of state and religious values, there should be no civil marriage. The religious institutions, whether they be Christian or otherwise, heterosexual-only or homosexual-friendly, seem to do a fairly good job setting these things up themselves.

And, as much as I hate to throw this off topic, the word is really important. A civil union, in more or less words, says, "Yes, okay, you can have your rights. But we'll call it something different, so we can look down on you as our inferiors." The arguments in Brown v. Board are very similar to this, stating that even if the school systems were equal in funding, teachers, textbooks, class sizes, etc., the mere fact that the schools are segregated would be a constant reminder of the second-class citizenry afforded to Blacks.

ANYWAY, back on topic, I agree with H-Kat here. If we allow all religions an equal stance, it would be too dificult for the state to keep up with EVERY religion. Not to mention the ethics of, say, including cults and whatnot as being recognized. I'd mention more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:52 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Wark wrote:
Personally, I think, since civil marriage is a fusion of state and religious values, there should be no civil marriage. The religious institutions, whether they be Christian or otherwise, heterosexual-only or homosexual-friendly, seem to do a fairly good job setting these things up themselves.

A civil union is legal recognition of married status and is the important thing for getting all the spousal benefits for health care, legal status in case of death or injury, inheritance, child custody, etc. Every recognized marriage incorporates a civil union, but any kind of traditional wedding has no legal significance beyond that.


More directly on topic, doesn't the constitution just stipulate that the government can not mandate or suppress any religion? i.e. No playing favorites?

Granted it's been interpreted more strictly than that, but the motto, and pledges seem pretty cosmetic when you put them side by side with politicians that make a public show of their faith and how it affects their decision making.

Third. I believe it's already acceptable to omit portions of pledges and oaths if the participant finds them offensive. For example, standing quietly during the pledge of allegiance in stead of reciting.

I think this has come up in the past when some people have raised religious objections to taking oaths (oaths in general, or oaths in the name of God). So legislation for removing the references is somewhat redundant. You don't have to say them and no one can make you say them. Contrawise, removing them is essentially forcing another group NOT to express itself.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 9:07 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Wark:

Even assuming the above is true, what does the government changing it to "marriage" change?

Those people will still be discriminatory to gays. The name change does nothing: the government has no secret mind-control rays to control your mind and, because the government defines 2 gay people living together as marriage, then everyone else immediately does.

The government is not the custodian of everyone's mind. It follows, therefore, that beyond legal rights, nothing else really matters. People will discriminate or not, as per their own beliefs, regaurdless of what the legal name is.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2004 4:45 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Hell, I know changing it to marriage won't change many people's minds. I can't imagine anyone going, "Well, I hate those damn homos, but you know, since they can get married and all, let's be their friends!" Although others may disagree, I personally see the symbolic importance of gay marraige as being important. It sends a strong message of, "Yeah, we're equal. Get over it." This message of equality certainly won't change the minds of Jerry Falwell or Bush, but I imagine a lot of moderates will at least reconsider their belief that gays are nothing but vile swine.

But yeah, the legal benefits of marriage are pretty nice, too. I'd be willing to settle with a civil union and work up to a marriage from there, just so gays'll get the basic rights, like visitation, owning property, filing taxes, etc. But even then, I still think we can do better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2004 10:07 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Wark wrote:
Although others may disagree, I personally see the symbolic importance of gay marraige as being important. It sends a strong message of, "Yeah, we're equal. Get over it." This message of equality certainly won't change the minds of Jerry Falwell or Bush, but I imagine a lot of moderates will at least reconsider their belief that gays are nothing but vile swine.


If you're stupid enough that a name-change changes your mind, then you're stupid enough that "OMG HHOMOZ R TEH EBIL" will also change your mind.

I do not want those people on my side. Civil unions are fine.

"Symbolic" importance is retarded. You're either equal or you're not: "symbolic" equality is hardly going to comfort the gay couple that gets shot by some retards for destroying the sanctity of marriage.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 12:31 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
The Man In Black wrote:
"Symbolic" importance is retarded. You're either equal or you're not: "symbolic" equality is hardly going to comfort the gay couple that gets shot by some retards for destroying the sanctity of marriage.

-MiB


Why not just give everyone civil unions and ditch marriage all together, outlaw it as an antiquated religious practice designed to seperate the populous?

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 12:46 am 
Offline
<font color=darkred><b>Lorem Ipsum
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3342
Location: ich bin ein Auslander
Does it not make sense to have all unions conducted by the state be considered "civil unions", be it be tween same sex couples or not, while all marriages are church/personal related, and have nothing to do with law?

This, in my mind, seems to be the most practical definition.

Civil Union: people recognized to be in a stable relationship/partnership by the state.

Marriage: people recognized to be in a relationship/partnership by a religion/their friends/bob down the street.

If all there is in a name is the sound it makes, the marriage, as a definition should be meaningless to the state, and be replaced by Civil Union for all unions.

really, all that would change, is the name of a 'marriage liscence'. to 'civil union certificate' or someshit.


maybe there's something i'm missing for this to not make sense, besides 'tradition'

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 5:37 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
Since I have been summoned, (Thank you Mibby) I will give my idea on it. I say to thee that government should get out of the marriage business entirely. No more. If you want to have a religious ceremony, fine. We don't care and don't recognize it. Live with who you want, fuck who you want. If you want to sign a partnership agreement, great! Formalize terms, then let an attourney sort it out like any other partnership.

Women are supposed to be equal in this country, we don't need outdated laws for alimony to pay people (male or female) for no good reason. Hey, if you decided not to finish your degree and lost on the marriage, hell I'm sorry, guess it was a bad investment, you get paid when someone makes good on my Enron investment.

The government controlls WAY too much of people's day to day activities, every little thing they want a hook in, want to tell you how you can do it. It's none of their fucking business!

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group