Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You miscontrue the idea of separation of church and state into a matter of religious people serving in government.
I think this is a misconception that unfortunately does inform some people's opinions. IMO, 'separation of church and state' does not mean 'people of strong or militant religious belief have no place in government'; what it does mean is that however strong a religious belief is (whether in one person or in many), it has no business influencing our laws, or the interpretation of laws. Personally I wouldn't care whether our President, my Senator, my Congressperson, or any Supreme Court Justices were atheist, agnostic, Evangelical Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, worshippers of Zeus the Thunderer, or whatever .... as long as I could be CERTAIN that their religious views would not influence or impact the laws of my country, state, or community. Unfortunately in our current political climate I am far from certain of that in most cases; that's why I gravitate toward politicians who do not make a big to-do about religion either way in the course of doing the job they were elected to do.
Let's separate out a couple pieces from what you said.
I'm not too sure I agree that defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" is a religious based law
Regardless of your group's composition or beliefs, the restrictions on homosexuality in the United States is based on Christian teaching - explicitly on some of what the Bible says. The law is based on that.
even those who have no believe in god and/or religion were opposed to same sex marriages because of one factor. That factor is MORALS.
(and) The more we relax our country's morals, the less likely we are to have a moral society.
(and) we might get our morals from an inner belief too.
Your implication here is clearly that those who disagree with you are not MORAL people. I have to sharply disagree.
I would argue that discrimination against people based on their gender preference is not MORAL, and that my beliefs come from an inner belief as well. Further, I would argue that codifying discrimination in our laws makes us less likely to have or be a moral society.
The difference between your stance and mine is that mine does not force you to marry somebody you don't wish to marry, while yours forces them to not marry somebody they wish to marry.
When the State places a burden, either denying an activity or requiring one, then one must examine the burden to see if it is an equitable burden.
This one is inequitable, as surely as the laws that forbade stores to be open on Sunday were inequitable to Jews, the laws that forbade certain kinds of sex between consenting adults, or the laws that forbade interracial marriage.
There were people who felt that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral. There still are. That they believe that does not make it so - but nobody is forcing them to have interracial marriages. Should their moral stance preclude others who wish to have a marriage to somebody of another race from so doing?
I don't think so. And I do not see the difference between the two situations.
Very well said.
I keep thinking that it all comes down to the masses forcing their views on the minority. Obviously, gays and lesbians are not the majority and probably never will be. But they will forever be forced to live with the decisions of the majority and those with the power.
Everyone has their own opinions on homosexuality, but the fact is, it's not a crime to be gay. If two people want to get married, how will that hurt me or my wife/family? I'm not marrying them. I'm free to marry who I want and so are they. Do I think homosexuality is natural? In a sense, no. But that's just life, it's a part of our society and it's not illegal. If so many people feel it is immoral, then why is it not illegal? I'll tell you why - comfort level.
Most people are fine with gays being gay in a general sense. But even those who are fine with that aren't quite ready to see TV shows and movies with gay people expressing their feelings for one another. And even fewer are ready to see weddings with two brides/grooms. They feel like it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage - just like a few decades back when people weren't quite ready to see interracial marriages become so mainstream (once it became legal). There are varying degrees of comfort here. Some are of the idea that "it's fine if you're gay, just don't let me see you kissing in public" or "I don't care what you do in your own home, but marriage is between a man and woman". It's like it's acceptable, but yet, it isn't.
I don't see it as being much different than what Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting for. Either there will be equality for ALL or there will be a group of inferior people who will continue to be discriminated against due to nothing more than the majority's comfort level of their sexual preference.
In the end, it will come down to the fact that the majority rules. And until the majority becomes comfortable with gays and lesbians being part of our society (much like what African Americans went through in the first 200 years of this nation's history) there won't really be true "equality" for ALL.
Let's cut to the chase: Religion and Politics are inter-twined. Period.
Be it an opening prayer in Congress by a government paid Chaplin
Or, Congressional Representatives down to local leaders, making known their religious preferences
To issues that are religiously "charged"
And so on -
It is part of our nations basic fabric
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
You miscontrue the idea of separation of church and state into a matter of religious people serving in government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totallyfrazzled
I think this is a misconception that unfortunately does inform some people's opinions. IMO, 'separation of church and state' does not mean 'people of strong or militant religious belief have no place in government'; what it does mean is that however strong a religious belief is (whether in one person or in many), it has no business influencing our laws, or the interpretation of laws. Personally I wouldn't care whether our President, my Senator, my Congressperson, or any Supreme Court Justices were atheist, agnostic, Evangelical Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, worshippers of Zeus the Thunderer, or whatever .... as long as I could be CERTAIN that their religious views would not influence or impact the laws of my country, state, or community. Unfortunately in our current political climate I am far from certain of that in most cases; that's why I gravitate toward politicians who do not make a big to-do about religion either way in the course of doing the job they were elected to do.
This is probably a good example of where many of us disagree. There is no separation of one's morals from one's religion. This is not to say that one without religion is without morals. However, by definition, morals (e.g. the view of what is right and wrong) are defined by one's inner beliefs, generally shaped by religion but sometimes by the lack of religion.
It seems that saganista and I agree that there is a place for religious people in government. Where we might disagree is how much one's religion should influence one's decisions while serving in government. Where I agree with Greatday is that there is no way for religion not to influence the duties of the State so long as religious people are serving in those positions.
One's moral beliefs affect the entire scope of how the world is viewed, from foreign policy to energy policy to a whole range of socio-political issues. I think it is unreasonable to expect that religion will not influence the decisions of officials in any branch of government. I'll go one step further and say that I want one's moral beliefs to influence their service in public life because I think that makes it easier to predict the kind of decisions they will make in the future.
I think an interesting thread topic would be whether or not individuals would vote for an atheist as president. But I'll leave that out of this thread for now.
This is probably a good example of where many of us disagree. There is no separation of one's morals from one's religion. This is not to say that one without religion is without morals. However, by definition, morals (e.g. the view of what is right and wrong) are defined by one's inner beliefs, generally shaped by religion but sometimes by the lack of religion.
I find the implicit suggestion that my "morals are shaped by the lack of religion" to be a misstatement.
In my case, at least, I would assert that my lack of religion was shaped by my morals, if anything. I studied religion extensively prior to coming to my position regarding deities in the world or a lack thereof. Morally speaking, I could sooner believe in the Pantheon of Greek Gods or in the Aesir than in the more common religions of our day.
My morality was shaped by Hollywood as much as, if not more than anything else. My "gods" would be E.R. Braithwaite, James Hilton, Philip Van Doren Stern, and Buzz Capra - or Mark Thackeray, Arthur and Charles Chipping, and George Bailey.
I think this is a misconception that unfortunately does inform some people's opinions. IMO, 'separation of church and state' does not mean 'people of strong or militant religious belief have no place in government'; what it does mean is that however strong a religious belief is (whether in one person or in many), it has no business influencing our laws, or the interpretation of laws. Personally I wouldn't care whether our President, my Senator, my Congressperson, or any Supreme Court Justices were atheist, agnostic, Evangelical Christians, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, worshippers of Zeus the Thunderer, or whatever .... as long as I could be CERTAIN that their religious views would not influence or impact the laws of my country, state, or community. Unfortunately in our current political climate I am far from certain of that in most cases; that's why I gravitate toward politicians who do not make a big to-do about religion either way in the course of doing the job they were elected to do.
Does this apply to Muslims as well as Christians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludachris
I keep thinking that it all comes down to the masses forcing their views on the minority.
Such as voting to have the end of Ramadan instead of Labor Day as a holiday?
I just don't get it, I guess. If fundamentalist Christianity has no place in government, why should any other religion? I am not anti-Muslim or anti any religion, but I do think if it's not OK for one religion to get its holidays off work, why should it be OK for another?
And honestly, I don't know where this issue of Ramadan made such a stink; I never heard of it and I'm generally fairly well-informed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
