Seperation Of Church And State

[Mordekai5]

Normally I would not write about these things, but I have brought a flame suit.

The Seperation Of Church and State is a necessity in my opinion. By keeping any signifigance of a deity out of governmental and scientific decisions will in my opinion further society. And this opinion is based on the following reasons.

Science - Abortion

If a woman chooses to terminate her unborn child; wether it be out of financial issues, marital problems, or just plain not liking kids, that is her and her husbands choice. And, if made out of an educated decision on realistic principles, rather than moral or religious values, can better control the population, and might just reduce the need for jobs by at least 1%.

Science - Stem Cell Research

The applications of stem cell research are truly amazing when looking at it without limitations. When looking at animals, it can clone food for the hungry, and provide more torwards industry by hides. Now without sounding to much like Hitler, creation of "perfect" children can work (but only in a sense). By this, I mean that we can cut down on the amount of birth defects, mental retardation syndrome, autism, etc. etc. AND, this can all be achieved by keeping religious influence out of the mix.

And one more thing...(Puts up flame shield)

Government - Gay Marriage

Yes, if an individual decides to let go of moral boundaries and decides being with a person of the opposite gender as sexual partners suits them, then lets not hate them to much. Gay Marriage is perfectly fine when you think about it. Even though the book of fairytal-AHEM the Bible says it is strictly between a man and woman, we live in a far more advanced society now where decisions are supposed to made by the individual rather than the hold on spiritual beliefs. A man and a woman, yes, are naturally made for each other. But so can a man, and another man. Or a woman, and another woman. In a sense, it is much easier for both to live with each other rather than with the opposite. But, its all meant on FREE CHOICE rather than DIVINE WILL.

Please give your thoughts and opinions on this, and lets allow for a civilized discussion of the topic.

- Mordekai5

 

[Seagull]

you know these forums are basically 95% atheist right

 

[Mordekai5]

you know these forums are basically 95% atheist right

Perfect! I feel right at home

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Preaching to the converted.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

God is dead, science killed it, religious people are just talking to themselves. There, we're done. Now let's roll up our sleeves and solve this Middle Eastern business!

Oh, and actually, 69,6% of the board members are atheists/agnostics, as far as we know. Interestingly, we have more Satanists than Protestants though.

 

[jverne]

i'm a devout catholic and i say church and state should be one...because one cannot exist without the other. i know this, because it's based on the scientific research of subjective opinion of many respected non pedophile priests.


NO, abortion is wrong, because it is genocide of single celled living beings...you think of that when masturbating!...which is also WRONG


stem cell is also very, very wrong. because we were created in God's image so when we genetically engineer a second head or penis, think how silly it would make God look!


Gay marriage is NOT fine! It's clearly written in the bible that being a fag gives you AIDS and condemns you to the eternal burning flames, where Satan tortures you and shoves nasty stuff up your bum.



since you will probably not take my word for it i will post concrete proof of my words.
you can find this and much more here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/




so before you decide to spew out such heresy and lies i suggest, that you inform yourself about the truth first



Praised be the lord!

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I completely agree that the Church and state should be separated.
I remember recently the government had a debate on reducing the the length of abortion laws. Yet instead on voting on using facts, loads of the ministers simply voted yes because of the man upstairs. Which got me thinking how they are they representing the areas that voted for them. We vote for you to do a job and represent us in parliament not the guy upstairs.

I never understood why religion was so against Stem Cell research. All Science was doing was using unfertilized human embryos, which are useless and won't magically grow into a baby to help find cures for terrible conditions. That embryo was going to die anyway and it's not really alive if it's not fertilized, yet religion is against it.

Since the west are very much multiculturalism, you can't have a Church and State without offending people.

 

[kineaesth]

Gay marriage is NOT fine! It's clearly written in the bible that being a fag gives you AIDS and condemns you to the eternal burning flames, where Satan tortures you and shoves nasty stuff up your bum.

+10 respect points for spreading the good word of Jesus, my friend.

OP, I will have none of your heretical babblings.

 

[Mordekai5]

Hmm..interesting points Jverne. But I think, like AJ said, that God is dead and that Science obviously killed it. While I dont doubt the existence of a deity somewhere, I do not believe the Bible is the actual, inspired work of that being, because several doctrines of other gods were written long before the Bible itself. But the sad matter is that religion plays such an unneccessary role in modern society that the direction western civilization is heading in, will all be determined by a book that cannot be proven with even a shroud of evidence.

 

[No Limit]

Hmm..interesting points Jverne. But I think, like AJ said, that God is dead and that Science obviously killed it. While I dont doubt the existence of a deity somewhere, I do not believe the Bible is the actual, inspired work of that being, because several doctrines of other gods were written long before the Bible itself. But the sad matter is that religion plays such an unneccessary role in modern society that the direction western civilization is heading in, will all be determined by a book that cannot be proven with even a shroud of evidence.

I hope you know that you will burn in hell for your bullshit, take your blasphemy somewhere else! I totally agree with jverne. Especially on the hole fag thing.

God bless you

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Government should not give marriage licenses, as marriage is a religious sacrament.

civil/domestic partnerships of any two consenting of age humans should be allowed for tax reasons, benficiary reasons (hospital visits, inheritance, etc) and any other legal reasons such as those.


but the term marriage itself should be something the government has 0 involvement in. If you want to be called married do your own little ceremony or go to a church.


This would appease both those who want to defend marriage and those who want queer rights.

 

[V-Man339]

Most of us agree with you on two out of three of these.

Myself agreeing on all of them wholeheartedly, of course.

 

[nurizeko]

Normally I would not write about these things, but I have brought a flame suit.

The Seperation Of Church and State is a necessity in my opinion. By keeping any signifigance of a deity out of governmental and scientific decisions will in my opinion further society. And this opinion is based on the following reasons.

Science - Abortion

If a woman chooses to terminate her unborn child; wether it be out of financial issues, marital problems, or just plain not liking kids, that is her and her husbands choice. And, if made out of an educated decision on realistic principles, rather than moral or religious values, can better control the population, and might just reduce the need for jobs by at least 1%.

Science - Stem Cell Research

The applications of stem cell research are truly amazing when looking at it without limitations. When looking at animals, it can clone food for the hungry, and provide more torwards industry by hides. Now without sounding to much like Hitler, creation of "perfect" children can work (but only in a sense). By this, I mean that we can cut down on the amount of birth defects, mental retardation syndrome, autism, etc. etc. AND, this can all be achieved by keeping religious influence out of the mix.

And one more thing...(Puts up flame shield)

Government - Gay Marriage

Yes, if an individual decides to let go of moral boundaries and decides being with a person of the opposite gender as sexual partners suits them, then lets not hate them to much. Gay Marriage is perfectly fine when you think about it. Even though the book of fairytal-AHEM the Bible says it is strictly between a man and woman, we live in a far more advanced society now where decisions are supposed to made by the individual rather than the hold on spiritual beliefs. A man and a woman, yes, are naturally made for each other. But so can a man, and another man. Or a woman, and another woman. In a sense, it is much easier for both to live with each other rather than with the opposite. But, its all meant on FREE CHOICE rather than DIVINE WILL.

Please give your thoughts and opinions on this, and lets allow for a civilized discussion of the topic.

- Mordekai5

Sling yer hook you villian, I am the allocated troll for this forum. I am the assigned Flame-Troll from the agency, and fortunately this forum has every sub-troll position filled and staffed competently.






Seriously though, its nice your giving your opinion, but what's to discuss?.

Most folk generally share your position and those who don't tend to be the forum nutjobs no-one takes seriously anyway, or in a few cases, regular joes most folk can get along with as long as you never bring up religion ever again when in their company.


Not me though, I rip into religion something rotten.

 

[kineaesth]

Sling yer hook you villian, I am the allocated troll for this forum. I am the assigned Flame-Troll from the agency, and fortunately this forum has every sub-troll position filled and staffed competently.

I do love a bit of arrogance on my narcissism.

 

[theotherguy]

Government should not give marriage licenses, as marriage is a religious sacrament.

civil/domestic partnerships of any two consenting of age humans should be allowed for tax reasons, benficiary reasons (hospital visits, inheritance, etc) and any other legal reasons such as those.


but the term marriage itself should be something the government has 0 involvement in. If you want to be called married do your own little ceremony or go to a church.


This would appease both those who want to defend marriage and those who want queer rights.

For once, I agree with you. This is a compromise that I believe both sides could agree to. Why are we talking about the "sanctity" of marriage in political debates? This is a religious matter that shouldn't even be considered by the state. Marriage licenses should be converted into civil partnership licenses, priests should not be allowed to issue civil partnerships, and the state should not be allowed to grant titles of marriage. The churches alone should have that power, but having the title of "married" should not grant any couple any legal benefits.

 

[Septih]

Government should not give marriage licenses, as marriage is a religious sacrament.

civil/domestic partnerships of any two consenting of age humans should be allowed for tax reasons, benficiary reasons (hospital visits, inheritance, etc) and any other legal reasons such as those.


but the term marriage itself should be something the government has 0 involvement in. If you want to be called married do your own little ceremony or go to a church.


This would appease both those who want to defend marriage and those who want queer rights.

Yeah but you run up against problems when two homosexual christians want to get married, in the eyes of the lord and all that. Not many people seem to complain about atheists getting married.

Personally, civil partnership sounds cold and distant, but I'm not that fussed really.

 

[Krynn72]

We can call them Love Contracts.

 

[nurizeko]

We can call them Love Contracts.

How about "Statement of debt sharing with Sex on the side on your Birthday and every Anniversary of the Signing"?.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yeah but you run up against problems when two homosexual christians want to get married, in the eyes of the lord and all that. Not many people seem to complain about atheists getting married.

Personally, civil partnership sounds cold and distant, but I'm not that fussed really.

You can't force the church to marry anybody- they are a private organization. If two gays want to get married in the eyes of the lord but can't it's not the governments problem. The governments sole responsibility should be to make sure they have equal protection under the law and the same monetary/tax rights.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Now listen here OP. The Bible is the indisputable, infallible word of God. I mean, it says it is, so it must be right?

If the Bible asks us to stone fags to death for doing a harmless act in private, then we shall!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hang on, if the church and state are apart, how can one ensure morality in the state, and rigour in the church?

 

[PvtRyan]

You can't force the church to marry anybody- they are a private organization. If two gays want to get married in the eyes of the lord but can't it's not the governments problem. The governments sole responsibility should be to make sure they have equal protection under the law and the same monetary/tax rights.

On the other hand, would it ever be allowed if churches suddenly decided not to wed blacks or forge interracial marriages? Discrimination is selection based on what someone is, like skin color or sexuality. Now you could argue that a man marrying another man is an act that the church could choose to not support as a private institution. However, so is a black man marrying a white woman.

Over here, getting married in church has no legal value, you have to get married before the state before you are allowed to get a ceremonial marriage (in church). Marriage before the state (civil marriage) can be between equal sexes. I don't think churches are forced to do this, but I don't think there are many that would object and it does happen.

 

[CptStern]

Government should not give marriage licenses, as marriage is a religious sacrament.

no, religion does not have exclusivity to the word "marriage" ..even the christians didnt see it as a religious ceremony till 1545

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[18][19] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."

marriage as a traditional ceremony had already existed for thousands of yeares ..christianity does not own the term "marriage" ..in fact early christian marriages followed Roman traditions, which incidentily allowed same sex marriages for a time period ..same recognition as heterosexual so your point about queers or sacrament is baseless. the christians can go **** themselves they have zero say in anything except what they themselves do or say

 

[PvtRyan]

no, religion does not have exclusivity to the word "marriage" ..even the christians didnt see it as a religious ceremony till 1545



marriage as a traditional ceremony had already existed for thousands of yeares ..christianity does not own the term "marriage" ..in fact early christian marriages followed Roman traditions, which incidentily allowed same sex marriages for a time period ..same recognition as heterosexual so your point about queers or sacrament is baseless. the christians can go **** themselves they have zero say in anything except what they themselves do or say

I don't think he's arguing that only churches should be allowed to marry. I think he's arguing that anyone should be allowed to call any ceremony "marriage".

 

[No Limit]

Did the troll disappear? This was going to be fun

 

[CptStern]

I don't think he's arguing that only churches should be allowed to marry. I think he's arguing that anyone should be allowed to call any ceremony "marriage".

I didnt get that from his post. to me it sounds like he's saying that "marriage" should be exclusive to religion whereas "civil union" is marriage outside of religion. I dont agree, marriage has been a social tradition far longer than it has been a religious one

 

[The Monkey]

You didn't need to bring the flamesuit, except maybe for your comment that homosexuals "let go of moral boundaries". WTF are you talking about?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I didnt get that from his post. to me it sounds like he's saying that "marriage" should be exclusive to religion whereas "civil union" is marriage outside of religion. I dont agree, marriage has been a social tradition far longer than it has been a religious one

I'm saying that the government should have no stance on 'marriage' and only offer domestic partnerships/civil unions to ANYONE, straight or gay or platonic. If you want to call yourselves married go ahead but the government shouldn't have any official recognition of 'marriage.'

You're missing the point of that and just causing friction when the same rights could be achieved WITHOUT 'seperate but equal' status even getting in the way. The government doesnt have to be in the business of regulating 'marriage' - just domestic partnerships or civil unions.

It should be cold and simple- that's all gvt. needs to be is official and small. Not all encompassing.

On the other hand, would it ever be allowed if churches suddenly decided not to wed blacks or forge interracial marriages? Discrimination is selection based on what someone is, like skin color or sexuality. Now you could argue that a man marrying another man is an act that the church could choose to not support as a private institution. However, so is a black man marrying a white woman.

The church wouldn't have to marry those people. They're a private organization- they can refuse whoever they want to. I don't know many that would refuse to do so but IF they did then that's their right.

Over here, getting married in church has no legal value, you have to get married before the state before you are allowed to get a ceremonial marriage (in church). Marriage before the state (civil marriage) can be between equal sexes. I don't think churches are forced to do this, but I don't think there are many that would object and it does happen.

Same here you have to get a marriage license from the state. But the entire issue is religious people get upset about 'marriage.'

this whole issue could be solved by making them civil unions (in the eyes of the gvt.) for EVERYONE. If you want to be 'married' thats solely on the couple to decide if they are or not or what they feel they need to do to be recognized as it.

 

[CptStern]

I'm saying that the government should have no stance on 'marriage' and only offer domestic partnerships/civil unions to ANYONE, straight or gay or platonic. If you want to call yourselves married go ahead but the government shouldn't have any official recognition of 'marriage.'

You're missing the point of that and just causing friction when the same rights could be achieved WITHOUT 'seperate but equal' status even getting in the way. The government doesnt have to be in the business of regulating 'marriage' - just domestic partnerships or civil unions.

It should be cold and simple- that's all gvt. needs to be is official and small. Not all encompassing.

I'm not missing your point, you, however are missing my point. Religion has no claim over marriage, this is a relatively recent adoptation by religion. they have as much exclusivity to the term as does what would be traditionally called civil union. I dont think we should give people who are prone to flights of fancy ownership over something that wasnt theirs to begin with

The church wouldn't have to marry those people. They're a private organization- they can refuse whoever they want to. I don't know many that would refuse to do so but IF they did then that's their right.

it was addressed to me but I'll answer anyways. Since religions couldnt be forced to marry same sex couples it begs the question why do they have such a big problem with this if it wouldnt affect them in the least. the only possible answer is ingrained bigotry. For this reason I have no problem fighting them tooth and nail even though whatever the outcome it doesnt affect me directly or indirectly

Same here you have to get a marriage license from the state. But the entire issue is religious people get upset about 'marriage.'

because they're ****ing bigots. this doesnt affect them whatsoever

this whole issue could be solved by making them civil unions (in the eyes of the gvt.) for EVERYONE. If you want to be 'married' thats solely on the couple to decide if they are or not or what they feel they need to do to be recognized as it.

I dont agree with changing the status quo just to suit some special interest group ...I mean if the religious wont do that, why should we? I say **** em, deal with it

 

[Qonfused]

I dont agree with changing the status quo just to suit some special interest group ...I mean if the religious wont do that, why should we? I say **** em, deal with it

Sounds a lot like "no gay marriage because it would change the definition of marriage" only from the other side. If it's essentially the exact same thing only under a different word, I don't really see the problem. Obviously "civil union" doesn't have the same ring as "marriage" but I guess I don't understand the big deal behind a word (from both sides).

 

[CptStern]

seperate but equal is not equal ..and no it wouldnt not change the definition of marriage because other than legal the only other source as to one man and one woman is from the bible and since they wouldnt be forced to change anything their definition of marriage remains intact

 

[nurizeko]

I have to be with Stern on this one, Marriage is not a Christian or even solely religious concept.

Homosexuality and monogamous relationships have been part of the human species far longer then organized over-bearing faith so in all honesty arguing against it seems futile.


A man who marries another man isn't going to turn you or your family gay, its not causing you a divorce (unless your partner cant reconcile with your homophobia) so all in all, its not worth worrying about.

Let the homosexuals marry off like us hetero's and live and let live.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

seperate but equal is not equal ..and no it wouldnt not change the definition of marriage because other than legal the only other source as to one man and one woman is from the bible and since they wouldnt be forced to change anything their definition of marriage remains intact

That's what I'm saying - it WON'T be seperate but equal. EVERYONE will equally have a civil partnership in the eyes of the government. Marriage itself is for those couples to sort out. The civil partnership should just be for official reasons and relate nothing to love.

 

[PvtRyan]

Could we at least call it something less cold? D:

 

[Cornerstone]

Like butt buddies? Boy that would screw with everyone's heads.

Take that society!

 

[Saturos]

I wonder if the OP realizes that jverne, and all the others who pretended to be christian for the amusement of a flame war, was full of shit?

BTW, you all are guilty of flamebaiting.

 

[Stigmata]

seperate but equal is not equal ..and no it wouldnt not change the definition of marriage because other than legal the only other source as to one man and one woman is from the bible and since they wouldnt be forced to change anything their definition of marriage remains intact

So what if their definition of marriage remains intact? That's their definition, not yours. The whole point of freeing up the word from its legal wranglings is to let it be used freely by whoever wants to. If this were the case, two men would get a civil union and call themselves "married". Christians, with their freedom of speech, can say all they want about how they're not "really" married, but since marriage wouldn't be legally defined anymore, the men would be perfectly right to refer to themselves as married.

 

[Krynn72]

Thats the opposite of what the religious want though, which is what the problem is.

 

[Tyguy]

the world is ****ed three times towards the weekend. All we can really do is ride it out and enjoy the explosions.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Guys, you are missing the point. The Bible says that marriage is one man, and one woman. And the Bible is the word of God. I'm pretty certain God's definition of marriage is the official one