separation of church and state

[moon1969]

Are America and Russia theocracies? Orthodox Church is a major power in Russia and americans don"t respect the separation of church and state. America and Russia are not theocracies in the sameway that Sudan and Iran are but America and Russia still are theocracies. Not bad theocracies but still theocracies. When will America have an atheist president?

[drkitten]

Are America and Russia theocracies?

No.


America and Russia are not theocracies in the sameway that Sudan and Iran are but America and Russia still are theocracies.

If you already had made up your mind (incorrectly), why did you ask the question?

When will America have an atheist president?

When one gets elected.

When will you post something informed about the USA?

[madurobob]

See, I though "theocracy" meant that the religion's god was the ruler, or that the rulers were deemed to be divinely appointed right-hand folks of the god. I don't think we're there... or are you using an entirely different definition of "theocracy"?

[drkitten]

See, I though "theocracy" meant that the religion's god was the ruler, or that the rulers were deemed to be divinely appointed right-hand folks of the god. I don't think we're there... or are you using an entirely different definition of "theocracy"?

Actually, I believe the standard definition is more along the lines of "rule by a priest or sacredotal order" than simply rule by a divinely appointed layman. Louis XIV, for all he claimed to rule by "divine right," was not in charge of a theocratic state and actually spent a hell of a lot of time arguing with the actual priests of that particular God.

But that definition doesn't fit either the USA or Russia either.

[KingMerv00]

America sometimes fails to uphold the 1st Amendment but it is nowhere near a theocracy. Overall, I think America is becoming more secular, not less.

[madurobob]

Actually, I believe the standard definition is more along the lines of "rule by a priest or sacredotal order" than simply rule by a divinely appointed layman. Louis XIV, for all he claimed to rule by "divine right," was not in charge of a theocratic state and actually spent a hell of a lot of time arguing with the actual priests of that particular God.

But that definition doesn't fit either the USA or Russia either.

Yup, that's an important distinction.

I'm still not sure what the quip about an atheist president is about. Is this supposed to support the idea that the USA is a theocracy? I guess that'd make us an anti-Semitic misogynistic empire, as well. Huh.

[Moon-Spinner]

Overall, I think America is becoming more secular, not less.

Let us Pray so... ;)

[KingMerv00]

Let us Pray so... ;)

To borrow from Futurama:

Oh all powerful atheismo, I beseech thee...

[Roadtoad]

Touche...

Still, while America is not a theocracy, by any definition, the real question based on the title of the thread is valid. Do we truly have appropriate separation of Church and State? Does the Rule of Law trump the beliefs of our leaders, or for that matter, the masses? From what I see, not always.

[KingMerv00]

Still, while America is not a theocracy, by any definition, the real question based on the title of the thread is valid. Do we truly have appropriate separation of Church and State? Does the Rule of Law trump the beliefs of our leaders, or for that matter, the masses?

I'm not sure if you are being rhetorical but...

The separation is not perfect but it is good. Creationist education in public school is all but defeated, the church is not publicly funded, and blasphemy laws were declared unconstitutional 56 years ago.

moon1969, it is important to have the proper perspective. Be happy we spend our time "only" debating gay marriage and "In God We Trust".

[Roadtoad]

I'm not sure if you are being rhetorical but...

The separation is not perfect but it is good. Creationist education in public school is all but defeated, the church is not publicly funded, and blasphemy laws were declared unconstitutional 56 years ago.

Up to a point. The fact that there's still a push to force creationist views in our public education system is not a good thing, and as I've said in another thread, there's the question of Gay Marriage, (re: Prop. 8 in Ca.)

[KingMerv00]

Up to a point.

As I said. Good, not perfect.

The fact that there's still a push to force creationist views in our public education system is not a good thing,

Creationist education is dead in any legal sense. In modern times, the courts have been doing a great job on the issue. My jaw would literally drop if I heard any court in America defend Intelligent Design.

and as I've said in another thread, there's the question of Gay Marriage, (re: Prop. 8 in Ca.)

I agree with you here. IMO, Prop 8 is currently the biggest church/state problem in America.

[Doubt]

Moon,

Travel to Russia and see if you think it is a theocracy.

[mikeyx]

Are America and Russia theocracies? Orthodox Church is a major power in Russia and americans don"t respect the separation of church and state. America and Russia are not theocracies in the sameway that Sudan and Iran are but America and Russia still are theocracies. Not bad theocracies but still theocracies. When will America have an atheist president?

why do they need an Atheist prez? Maybe yer a'stirring the pot because you have no nativity scene in your town to protest?

[COLONEL]

I found this on another webb site and it makes sense to me . I wonder how far this would get thru congress ?

THE LAW IS THE LAW!
I really love this one
This is one of the better e-mails I have received in a long time! I hope this makes its way around the USA several times over!!!!!

So Be It!

THE LAW IS THE LAW

So 'if' the US government determines that it is against the !

law for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then,

so be it.

And 'if' that same government decides that the

'Ten Commandments'

are not to be used in or on a

government installation, then,

so be it.

I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a

law abiding US citizen.

I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that

smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.

I would like to think that those people have the

American public's best interests at heart.

BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?


Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its

employees should participate in the

Easter and Christmas

celebrations which honor the God

that our government

is eliminating from many facets of American life.

I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.

I'd like the ' US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as

well as Sundays.' After all, it's just another day.

I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives

to not have to worry about getting home for the 'Christmas Break.' After all it's just another day.

I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would

work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other

day of the week to a government that is trying to be 'politically correct.'

In fact....


I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that

it should be just another day....

What do you all think????


If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected

officials will stop giving in to the 'minority opinions'

and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority'

of ALL of the American people.

SO BE IT...........


Please Dear Lord,
Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!

'Amen' and 'Amen'
Touche!


These are definitely things I never thought about but

from now on, I will be sure to question those in

government who support these changes.

At the top, it says 'I hope this makes its way around

the USA several times over!!!!!'

Let's see that it does.

[Lanzy]

Colonel, I agree it makes sense. Lets do away with all holidays that have anything to do with god. I'm all for it.

And maybe America is becomming more secular but it isn't moving fast enough to suit me. An Atheist president? I'm not sure we haven't already had a few, they are first a politician and we know they all lie. Maybe you mean an openly Atheist president? My guess, not is my lifetime.

[COLONEL]

Colonel, I agree it makes sense. Lets do away with all holidays that have anything to do with god. I'm all for it.

And maybe America is becomming more secular but it isn't moving fast enough to suit me. An Atheist president? I'm not sure we haven't already had a few, they are first a politician and we know they all lie. Maybe you mean an openly Atheist president? My guess, not is my lifetime.Well I doubt if the politians and even some of the Atheist would be willing to give up their days off.I bet alot of people would bitch if they had to work those holidays , they would holler discrimination .

[drkitten]

Well I doubt if the politians and even some of the Atheist would be willing to give up their days off.I bet alot of people would bitch if they had to work those holidays , they would holler discrimination .

I doubt they'd holler "discrimination." There are lots of other reasons to oppose stupid government policies than because they're discriminatory.

People want days off. Most people don't especially mind getting religious-themed days off that belong to the wrong religion, as long as they can also take the days off that they want to take (for whatever reason, religious or not).

For example, most colleges used to have "Easter Break"; many have renamed it to "Spring Break" and it doesn't necessarily fall on Easter week --- but the students would still be annoyed if they didn't get the mid-semester break to go blow off steam.

.... not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the proposal is a dumb idea. There's no earthly reason to force courts and government offices to be open seven days a week. There's no particular reason why Sunday in particular should be a day off, but there's also no reason why it shouldn't --- and it makes sense to have a uniform day off when the entire government shuts down instead of staggering it and preventing government agencies from working as smoothly together as they might.

[COLONEL]

DRKITTEN You Are missing my point ,I feel if Sunday and Christmas are Religious Holidays then only the people that have religious beleifs should be the ones to obsere them and the rest of us have all the other days that we can have off . If the courts and the Govt . ran 24 /7 I do not think we would have the back logs that are in the system now . For what they get paid they should work 24 /7

[westprog]

IMO, Prop 8 is currently the biggest church/state problem in America.


The issue is between the wishes of the majority, and the rights of the minority. It doesn't matter what reasons people have for the way they vote. I very much doubt if everyone voting for gay marriage is an atheist, or everyone against is a fundamentalist Christian. The question isn't whether they are voting on the wrong grounds - it's whether they have the right to have their view of the marriage contract hold over the view of the minority that they have the right to have their relationships given equal status.

[NobbyNobbs]

DRKITTEN You Are missing my point ,I feel if Sunday and Christmas are Religious Holidays then only the people that have religious beleifs should be the ones to obsere them and the rest of us have all the other days that we can have off . If the courts and the Govt . ran 24 /7 I do not think we would have the back logs that are in the system now . For what they get paid they should work 24 /7

You obviously don't work for the government.

I do. And despite all the jokes, we work damn hard. As for backlog, my department has a huge one. To deal with it, they are on a major hiring spree, hiring 100 people a month for the next couple years. Even so, the backlog is growing. They just can't get enough people to deal with it, despite the good salary, the great benefits, the flexible work schedule, and the government holidays.

Now you want to people to work more hours, more days, graveyard shifts? Sure, that'll entice people to apply. What a wonderful way to deal with the problem.

:rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

Yup, that's an important distinction.

I'm still not sure what the quip about an atheist president is about. Is this supposed to support the idea that the USA is a theocracy? I guess that'd make us an anti-Semitic misogynistic empire, as well. Huh.

But look at it this way. America is at least now officially not a racist country.

[shadron]

Touche...

Still, while America is not a theocracy, by any definition, the real question based on the title of the thread is valid. Do we truly have appropriate separation of Church and State? Does the Rule of Law trump the beliefs of our leaders, or for that matter, the masses? From what I see, not always.

Perhaps so, but then again, do we have perfect free speech, to we have absolute right to assemble? How about bearing arms (however you interpret that)? Are we always guaranteed absolute defense against search and seizure? etc, etc.

None of these can be thought as perfect, if for no other reason than there are a lot of interpretations of each one. Each on has it's limitation as well. In a nutshell, they are abstract law and are meant to be interpreted from time to time, mainly by a human court system. The courts will wrestle over GW's presumptions against the constitution and find new interpretations there. Law, even constitutional law, isn't the same as scientific fact.

[shadron]

DRKITTEN You Are missing my point ,I feel if Sunday and Christmas are Religious Holidays then only the people that have religious beleifs should be the ones to obsere them and the rest of us have all the other days that we can have off . If the courts and the Govt . ran 24 /7 I do not think we would have the back logs that are in the system now . For what they get paid they should work 24 /7

Now, that's pretty darned cynical. Let he who is working 24/7 himself cast the first stone.

Unless, of course, you want to run three shifts. Then be prepared for the tripling of your taxes, at least.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The issue is between the wishes of the majority, and the rights of the minority. It doesn't matter what reasons people have for the way they vote. I very much doubt if everyone voting for gay marriage is an atheist, or everyone against is a fundamentalist Christian. The question isn't whether they are voting on the wrong grounds - it's whether they have the right to have their view of the marriage contract hold over the view of the minority that they have the right to have their relationships given equal status.
The issue of church/state separation is not merely one of the interests of theists vs. atheists. In fact, I was dismayed at the Prop 8 protest I attended that so many of the speakers were clerics.
ETA: I was equally dismayed that opposition to gay marriage is always painted as "hatred" when I think it's a screwed up fear of the state somehow infringing on traditional religious definitions of marriage.

I agree with KingMerv that the heart of this issue is a church/state separation problem. We have the legal/state thing that is marriage (with its 1000 or so legal benefits). We also have a religious sacrament or ritual called marriage. The problem is when someone does the latter and it's recognized by the state as being the former. Basically, we let religious people (ministers, rabbis, priests or whatever) act as agents of the state in their houses of worship. We have state recognition of a religious rite. (Can you imagine if we had to give state recognition to baptisms, confirmations, bar mitzvahs, etc?)

I think the solution is to separate the two kinds of marriage. Let no religious ritual done by ANY cleric in ANY house of worship receive state or legal recognition.

Then it will be obvious that the state has no more right to refuse the state-sanctioned version of marriage to gay people (or anyone else) than it does to refuse a fishing license, driver's license, etc.

Meanwhile, to the larger issue of "theocracy"--of course the U.S. is not a theocracy. The church/state separation problems though are rampant. Not just the marriage problem and the stuff left over from the Cold War ("In God We Trust" on our money, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc.), but more importantly public money going to religious enterprises that have expressly religious purposes. It happens in some earmark spending and under the guise of "faith based initiatives".

I also have a huge problem with the Office of the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, whose .gov (i.e. publicly funded) web page (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm) proclaims that the prayer done to open each session of the U.S. Senate is "strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation."

[COLONEL]

You obviously don't work for the government.

I do. And despite all the jokes, we work damn hard. As for backlog, my department has a huge one. To deal with it, they are on a major hiring spree, hiring 100 people a month for the next couple years. Even so, the backlog is growing. They just can't get enough people to deal with it, despite the good salary, the great benefits, the flexible work schedule, and the government holidays.

Now you want to people to work more hours, more days, graveyard shifts? Sure, that'll entice people to apply. What a wonderful way to deal with the problem.

:rolleyes:Well I did work for the GOVT . 18 years military and more times then I care to remember I did work 24 /7 a cat nap here and there .we had civilians that worked with us too and on Holidays and week ends guess who was doing the work ?so I have no sympathy for the 9-5ers out there Compare what our military makes an hour compared to the rest of you govt workers and tell me who works the hardest for the least .And I still get paid by the Govt. only a differant Branch , It's called VA Thru The Disabled Ameican Veterans. Enough said .

[JoeTheJuggler]

To the issue of Sundays and Christmas as being religious holidays: that's just nonsense. Even though the tradition of observing those days may have started with religions (but almost certainly not with Christianity!), they have become entirely secularized now.

It makes no more sense to say that the origin of Christmas makes it religious than to say that using the words "Wednesday" or "Thursday" implies worship of the Norse gods for whom those days are named.

[ponderingturtle]

To the issue of Sundays and Christmas as being religious holidays: that's just nonsense. Even though the tradition of observing those days may have started with religions (but almost certainly not with Christianity!), they have become entirely secularized now.

But when will we get the Saturn Back in Saturnalia?

[ponderingturtle]

The issue of church/state separation is not merely one of the interests of theists vs. atheists. In fact, I was dismayed at the Prop 8 protest I attended that so many of the speakers were clerics.
ETA: I was equally dismayed that opposition to gay marriage is always painted as "hatred" when I think it's a screwed up fear of the state somehow infringing on traditional religious definitions of marriage.

When you see people determined to remove rights form other people, why wouldn't you assume it is hatred?

[drkitten]

DRKITTEN You Are missing my point ,I feel if Sunday and Christmas are Religious Holidays then only the people that have religious beleifs should be the ones to obsere them and the rest of us have all the other days that we can have off .

Nope. I'm not missing your point at all.

What you propose would be unconstitutional (establishing a religious test for days off). Which is both wrong and stupid.

The solution is simple. Sundays and public holidays are simply not "religious holidays" and anyone who likes can take them -- no religious test required.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When you see people determined to remove rights form other people, why wouldn't you assume it is hatred?

As I explained, it's a misunderstood belief that legalizing gay marriage is somehow the government intervening and trying to modify their religious belief.

I simply don't believe that a majority of Californians are hateful. Similarly, my mother here in Missouri doesn't hate gay people either, yet she opposes gay marriage because she thinks it means the government is imposing something on her that opposes her religious beliefs. I don't think their position is rational, but they do see what might be a slippery slope (first the state requires issuing marriage licenses to any couple, next thing you know my church will be required to marry anyone).

The solution is not to cite bible verses at each other. (I'm an atheist, and I think the bible is NO authority at all on legal matters.) The best solution is for the state to have nothing to say about what goes on in a church. We shouldn't give legal recognition to any religious ritual (and that goes for heterosexual marriages).

[JoeTheJuggler]

But when will we get the Saturn Back in Saturnalia?
Exactly--or the "holy" in "holidays". (Saturn was the name of a god--you wouldn't use "the" before it any more than you'd refer to "the Jesus".)

It's called the "etymological" or "genetic" fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html). The source of these words and traditions doesn't matter.

Believe it or not, I've heard fundies try to trap a skeptic by asking him what year it is. The Common Era we use for naming years is based on the traditional "Anno Domino" or "year of the Lord"--years since the birth of Jesus--as if using this numbering system requires believing in the divinity of Jesus!

[JoeTheJuggler]

But when will we get the Saturn Back in Saturnalia?
Exactly--or the "holy" in "holidays". (Saturn was the name of a god--you wouldn't use "the" before it any more than you'd refer to "the Jesus".)

It's called the "etymological" or "genetic" fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html). The source of these words and traditions doesn't matter.

Believe it or not, I've heard fundies try to trap a skeptic by asking him what year it is. The Common Era we use for naming years is based on the traditional "Anno Domino" or "year of the Lord"--years since the birth of Jesus--as if using this numbering system requires believing in the divinity of Jesus!

ETA: As drkitten has been saying, setting up national religious holidays would be unconstitutional. OTOH, we do have an officially sanctioned National Day of Prayer (http://www.ndptf.org/about/index.cfm)--another of those Cold War anti-atheism things. Yup--we still have plenty of separation issues.

[MattusMaximus]

And maybe America is becomming more secular but it isn't moving fast enough to suit me. An Atheist president? I'm not sure we haven't already had a few, they are first a politician and we know they all lie. Maybe you mean an openly Atheist president? My guess, not is my lifetime.

We're slowly but surely heading in that direction. Just about a year ago, we finally had the first openly atheistic politician - Pete Stark - come out of the closet. Stark is a U.S. Congressman.

And the awesome thing is this... he got re-elected despite his open atheism (http://secular.org/news/Pete_Stark_reelection081105.html) :D

As others have said here, the pace of progress is too slow to suit me. But, nonetheless, progress it is.

[KingMerv00]

The issue is between the wishes of the majority, and the rights of the minority. It doesn't matter what reasons people have for the way they vote. I very much doubt if everyone voting for gay marriage is an atheist, or everyone against is a fundamentalist Christian. The question isn't whether they are voting on the wrong grounds - it's whether they have the right to have their view of the marriage contract hold over the view of the minority that they have the right to have their relationships given equal status.

You don't understand how the US Constitution works. The only way to break it is to amend it. If those opposed to gay marriage amended the Constitution, their discrimination would become legal. Immoral but legal.

Discrimination against homosexuals has its roots in religion. That is why I called it a church/state issue. To be fair, I would never argue that in court. To me, it seems a clear cut case of gender discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).

[Pardalis]

Are America and Russia theocracies? Orthodox Church is a major power in Russia and americans don"t respect the separation of church and state. America and Russia are not theocracies in the sameway that Sudan and Iran are but America and Russia still are theocracies. Not bad theocracies but still theocracies. When will America have an atheist president?

Wow, talk about non sequiturs.

[westprog]

You don't understand how the US Constitution works. The only way to break it is to amend it. If those opposed to gay marriage amended the Constitution, their discrimination would become legal. Immoral but legal.

Discrimination against homosexuals has its roots in religion. That is why I called it a church/state issue. To be fair, I would never argue that in court. To me, it seems a clear cut case of gender discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).

The issue is not the motivation of people amending the constitution. It's the right of the majority to impose their views. That's why it's very, very difficult to amend the constitution.

What difference would it make if the reason for banning gay marriage was religious or secular? It is what is done that matters, not what the reasons are.

There are numerous restrictions on sexual practice in America (and most places). Adult siblings are prohibited from having a sexual relationship. Polygamy is banned. It is generally felt that such restrictions are appropriate. They are certainly supported by religious groups. Does that make them invalid?

[KingMerv00]

The issue is not the motivation of people amending the constitution. It's the right of the majority to impose their views. That's why it's very, very difficult to amend the constitution.

America is not always run by a simple majority. The constitution is there to protect the minority no matter what the majority thinks. Pro 8 violates the US Constitution (IMO) and is therefore an invalid law. I don't care what most people think the law should be unless they amend the Constitution.

If most people in California wanted to reinstate slavery, would that be OK with you? I assume not. What legal defense of your position would you give?

What difference would it make if the reason for banning gay marriage was religious or secular? It is what is done that matters, not what the reasons are.

You are wrong legally. To know whether or not a law is a violation of the church/state separation we must see if it has some conceivable secular purpose. If it does not, it is unconstitutional. See The Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test). We do not need to know the mental state of the voters. We only need to know if the law makes sense in a secular context. It does not.

There are numerous restrictions on sexual practice in America (and most places). Adult siblings are prohibited from having a sexual relationship. Polygamy is banned. It is generally felt that such restrictions are appropriate.

I never said the government couldn't regulate sexual behavior in certain rare cases. Pedophilia comes to mind.

Incest should be legal. I may find it unpleasant but that is not a good enough reason to outlaw it. One could make an argument that close relatives should not be allowed to bare children because birth defects qualify as child abuse.

Polygamy is illegal because a marriage contract grants benefits to TWO individuals. Extending those benefits to a third person would lead to an unequal application of the law. If someone could show me a way of giving polygamist groups exactly the same benefits as two-person marriages, I'd fight for its legality.

They are certainly supported by religious groups. Does that make them invalid?

No. See the Lemon Test above.

[COLONEL]

Call me what you want. but I am old fashon . I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman . but I have no problems with the civil unions like in VT ,you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage.

[Twiler]

Call me what you want. but I am old fashon . I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman . but I have no problems with the civil unions like in VT ,you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage.

Okay. You're old-fashioned.

[KingMerv00]

Call me what you want. but I am old fashon . I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman . but I have no problems with the civil unions like in VT ,you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage.

Civil unions do not give the same benefits as typical marriage. For one, they do not provide federal benefits.

Out of curiousity, why is the word "marriage" so important to you? Are you afraid you will have to buy a new dictionary when they change the definition?

[COLONEL]

Civil unions do not give the same benefits as typical marriage. For one, they do not provide federal benefits.

Out of curiousity, why is the word "marriage" so important to you? Are you afraid you will have to buy a new dictionary when they change the definition?
Even if Ca. for example, allows marriages you still would not get Fed. Benifits That is somthing the Feds have to change . in Vermont with the civil union you at least get state benefits .
Read My post again I am an old fart, and I am old fashion .
I know I will get a lot of flack on this, but yes I'm against Homosexuality .
and i am not open to debate on this subject and will not comment on it any further .As it has nothing to do with the subject in this forum

[KingMerv00]

Even if Ca. for example, allows marriages you still would not get Fed. Benifits That is somthing the Feds have to change . in Vermont with the civil union you at least get state benefits .

I know that. I just wanted to say that civil unions are not the same as marriage. Judging from your last post, you'd probably be in favor of federal benefits too.

Read My post again I am an old fart, and I am old fashion .
I know I will get a lot of flack on this, but yes I'm against Homosexuality .
and i am not open to debate on this subject and will not comment on it any further .As it has nothing to do with the subject in this forum

*Throws flack at COLONEL*:D

If you don't want to talk about it, that is your prerogative but this is a skeptic forum where all beliefs are subject to debate and should be supported by evidence.

I won't force the issue but you really should be willing to analyze all of your opinions, not just the ones that are easy to talk about.

[westprog]

America is not always run by a simple majority. The constitution is there to protect the minority no matter what the majority thinks. Pro 8 violates the US Constitution (IMO) and is therefore an invalid law. I don't care what most people think the law should be unless they amend the Constitution.

If most people in California wanted to reinstate slavery, would that be OK with you? I assume not. What legal defense of your position would you give?


If they wanted to reintroduce slavery, I would not regard it as a church vs. state issue. That's the point. That would be regardless of the justifications used by the proponents.

Would you regard religiously-inspired opposition to slavery, such as John Brown, to be invalid?




You are wrong legally. To know whether or not a law is a violation of the church/state separation we must see if it has some conceivable secular purpose. If it does not, it is unconstitutional. See The Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test). We do not need to know the mental state of the voters. We only need to know if the law makes sense in a secular context. It does not.



I never said the government couldn't regulate sexual behavior in certain rare cases. Pedophilia comes to mind.

Incest should be legal. I may find it unpleasant but that is not a good enough reason to outlaw it. One could make an argument that close relatives should not be allowed to bare children because birth defects qualify as child abuse.

Polygamy is illegal because a marriage contract grants benefits to TWO individuals. Extending those benefits to a third person would lead to an unequal application of the law. If someone could show me a way of giving polygamist groups exactly the same benefits as two-person marriages, I'd fight for its legality.



No. See the Lemon Test above.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Call me what you want. but I am old fashon . I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman . but I have no problems with the civil unions like in VT ,you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage.

For myself, I don't care what it's called. I just think that the state shouldn't recognize anything performed as a religious ritual. The ceremony done by the state should be the same for anyone who wants it (gay or straight). So if the legal version is "civil union" that's fine, as long as it's "civil union" for straight people as well. (I believe this is the model for many countries in Europe.)

If you want to pretend the word "marriage" is something different and perform a ritual in your church (and by the way, gay people could perform such a ritual in any church that accepts it--the state obviously has no power to tell them it cannot), that's up to you and should be no concern of the state.

[JoeTheJuggler]

FWIW, we already have examples of church-state separation over similar issues.

We give an infant its official name on the birth certificate. (There's no ceremony, but there are legal documents.) You can still consider your child not to have a name in a religious context until it's "christened" in church.

Similarly, the Catholic Church already distinguishes marriage within the church from anything else. And it has no divorce, so if a Catholic couple is married in the church, (which in the current system is both a civil/legal marriage recognized by the state and a religious sacrament) and wants to dissolve the marriage, they can get a divorce from the state which is not recognized by the Church. For the Church, since they admit no such thing as ever breaking a sacrament, you can get an annulment which basically means the marriage never happened in the first place.

I don't know if other major religions do anything in particular with divorce. I'm pretty sure that people who've gotten married in a church never go to a church for a divorce. (The state certainly gives no legal recognition to a Catholic annulment.)

[drkitten]

Even if Ca. for example, allows marriages you still would not get Fed. Benifits That is somthing the Feds have to change

So you knew you were lying when you said that "you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage"?

Your religion encourages lying to people, but not homosexuality?

[Darth Rotor]

I agree with you here. IMO, Prop 8 is currently the biggest church/state problem in America.
Sorry, Merv, it isn't a church state problem, it is a purely political problem.

Like many other political problems, two constituencies are in major disagreement with the way forward. Separation of church and state has bloody eff all to do with the opinions the citizens hold. The issue went to a vote and come one way X. It can go to a vote again, and come out way X, or way Y, or way Z. This depends upon the changes or modification of the opinions, or the ability of one side or another to energize their voting blocs.

DR

[COLONEL]

So you knew you were lying when you said that "you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage"?

Your religion encourages lying to people, but not homosexuality?Read my other post, I did not lie I said in Vermont with the civil union you do get all state benefits .meaning the same as if you were married

[KingMerv00]

If they wanted to reintroduce slavery, I would not regard it as a church vs. state issue. That's the point. That would be regardless of the justifications used by the proponents.

Would you regard religiously-inspired opposition to slavery, such as John Brown, to be invalid?

I think you are deliberately missing my point. You said it is about majority rule. I said that majority is not the only thing that matters. Then you ignored the rest of my post which was actually more relevant to the discussion.

[KingMerv00]

Sorry, Merv, it isn't a church state problem, it is a purely political problem.

Like many other political problems, two constituencies are in major disagreement with the way forward. Separation of church and state has bloody eff all to do with the opinions the citizens hold. The issue went to a vote and come one way X. It can go to a vote again, and come out way X, or way Y, or way Z. This depends upon the changes or modification of the opinions, or the ability of one side or another to energize their voting blocs.

DR

I addressed this in one of my later posts. I said that Prop 8 is a 14th amendment issue but discrimination against homosexuals has its roots in religion. Laws like Prop 8 have no secular purpose and therefore are tangentally related to religion.

I also said that if I were in court I wouldn't argue it as a church/state issue even though there is a tenuous connection.

[CWL]

A question to Americans, secular and religious alike.

If the state is truly separated from the church in the US, why these constant references to God in formal speeches? "God bless America" this and "God bless America" that. It is one thing that religious voters may be prone to voting for politicians who confess belief, I can understand and accept this. But is it really appropriate for, e.g., the President to make religious statements when exercising his (or her) office?

And what's up with the "In God we trust" thing on US money. Should a state make religious statements on its official currency if it is separated from the church?

And what about the "one Nation, under God" thing? Should a state have such a religious reference in its formal and official Plegde of Allegience? BTW, this was actually only added to the pledge as late as in the 1950's...

[JoeTheJuggler]

A question to Americans, secular and religious alike.

If the state is truly separated from the church in the US, why these constant references to God in formal speeches? "God bless America" this and "God bless America" that. It is one thing that religious voters may be prone to voting for politicians who confess belief, I can understand and accept this. But is it really appropriate for, e.g., the President to make religious statements when exercising his (or her) office?

You're confusing statements made by an individual with the concept of separation of church and state. Even if we had a true wall of separation, a person is free to say whatever he or she likes (yes with certain limitations) under the First Amendment.

What you're talking about is merely politicians pandering to majority sentiments. You'll always have that. What that majority sentiment is might change.

And what's up with the "In God we trust" thing on US money. Should a state make religious statements on its official currency if it is separated from the church?

And what about the "one Nation, under God" thing? Should a state have such a religious reference in its formal and official Plegde of Allegience? BTW, this was actually only added to the pledge as late as in the 1950's...
I agree, and these items have been mentioned several times on this thread already. As it stands, the courts have (wrongly IMHO) ruled that these things are not religious statements like prayers but are merely historical traditions--ignoring their legislative origins in the Cold War.

For organizations like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org), there are bigger fish to fry right now, while still voicing opposition to these less substantive issues.

[KingMerv00]

A question to Americans, secular and religious alike.

If the state is truly separated from the church in the US, why these constant references to God in formal speeches? "God bless America" this and "God bless America" that. It is one thing that religious voters may be prone to voting for politicians who confess belief, I can understand and accept this. But is it really appropriate for, e.g., the President to make religious statements when exercising his (or her) office?

The separation of church and state could never be total.

To stop the president from mentioning religion would be a violation of freedom of speech. We can debate whether or not it is appropriate but it is and should remain legal.

And what's up with the "In God we trust" thing on US money. Should a state make religious statements on its official currency if it is separated from the church?

And what about the "one Nation, under God" thing? Should a state have such a religious reference in its formal and official Plegde of Allegience? BTW, this was actually only added to the pledge as late as in the 1950's...

I believe they are violations of the 1st amendment but I just can't get worked up enough about it to care that much. That being said, if I were a judge and the case came before me, I would declare both unconstitutional.

[drkitten]

Read my other post, I did not lie I said in Vermont with the civil union you do get all state benefits .meaning the same as if you were married

So now you're telling another lie when you said that you got all the state benefits. You said, and I quote "all the benefits."

My, how the untruths just PILE up, don't they? Aren't you afraid your insecure little god will punish you for breaking the commandment about false witness?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I addressed this in one of my later posts. I said that Prop 8 is a 14th amendment issue but discrimination against homosexuals has its roots in religion. Laws like Prop 8 have no secular purpose and therefore are tangentally related to religion.
I agree wholeheartedly.


I also said that if I were in court I wouldn't argue it as a church/state issue even though there is a tenuous connection.
I'm curious, how would you argue it, and why avoid the church/state issue?

In my opinion, the church/state issue is behind it all. If we separated the legal/civil construct of marriage from the religious idea of marriage, it would be a simple next step to throw out any of these anti-homosexual laws or amendments.

As I said, I don't think these laws are getting passed in places like Missouri and California out of hate. (I don't deny that there are some extremely homophobic hate-filled people. I deny that they are in the majority or solely responsible for passing these laws.) I think if you cleaned up the issue and got proper separation, people would realize that the state is not going to attack their religious definition of marriage. This majority would then have no more reason to refuse gay people marriage licenses than they would driver's licenses or fishing licenses.

[drkitten]

A question to Americans, secular and religious alike.

If the state is truly separated from the church in the US,

You're giving a metaphor WAY too much weight.

I agree that the mention of God on the money and in the Pledge are probably technical violations of the establishment clause, but there's a long-standing legal principle that predates the United States itself of de minimis not curat lex. Technically translated as "the law does not concern itself with trifles," I prefer to think of it as the "get a life!" rule.

Whenever your initial response to a lawsuit is just to scream "get a LIFE," it's a good candidate for de minimis. More formally stated (from an 1818 decision),

"Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked."

[CWL]

You're confusing statements made by an individual with the concept of separation of church and state. Even if we had a true wall of separation, a person is free to say whatever he or she likes (yes with certain limitations) under the First Amendment.

To stop the president from mentioning religion would be a violation of freedom of speech. We can debate whether or not it is appropriate but it is and should remain legal.

I should have been more clear on this point. Of course the President is - and should be - free to say whatever he wants from a legal point of view. My question was rather, is it appropriate that a head of state uses religious expressions when practicing his office in a state which should be separated from the church?

Personally I would say no to that answer. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying it should be illegal but what a head of state says officially should be more considerate and yes - more appropriate. There are many things which are not considered appropriate for an official of the state to say or do when exercising his/her office and IMHO this should be one of them.

What about the Americans who are not believers in the One God - or any god at all for that matter? Is the President not addressing them when making formal speeches... that's at least the feeling I get.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I should have been more clear on this point. Of course the President is - and should be - free to say whatever he wants from a legal point of view. My question was rather, is it appropriate that a head of state uses religious expressions when practicing his office in a state which should be separated from the church?

Personally I would say no to that answer. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying it should be illegal but what a head of state says officially should be more considerate and yes - more appropriate. There are many things which are not considered appropriate for an official of the state to say or do when exercising his/her office and IMHO this should be one of them.

What about the Americans who are not believers in the One God - or any god at all for that matter? Is the President not addressing them when making formal speeches... that's at least the feeling I get.

The problem is that separation of church and state is a legal issue. Whether or not something is appropriate is irrelevant to this issue.

Besides, "appropriate" to whom or what?

I think it's entirely appropriate for politicians to pander to the majority--as long as the minority has proper legal protections. (See? We're right back to the legal thing.) That's partly why the big important issues, like changing the Constitution, require more than a majority. It would be awful if things like basic human rights were subject to faddish thinking.

Meanwhile, I can only wish for the day when candidates will try hard for the atheist vote.

[drkitten]

I'm curious, how would you argue it, and why avoid the church/state issue?

In my opinion, the church/state issue is behind it all. If we separated the legal/civil construct of marriage from the religious idea of marriage, it would be a simple next step to throw out any of these anti-homosexual laws or amendments.

I'm afraid that your "opinion," as you describe it, has relatively little legal weight, precisely because the connection you draw is sufficiently vague and speculative that there's not any compelling reason for a court to take it seriously.

For example:


As I said, I don't think these laws are getting passed in places like Missouri and California out of hate. (I don't deny that there are some extremely homophobic hate-filled people. I deny that they are in the majority or solely responsible for passing these laws.)

If you really wanted to make a church/state claim stick, you'd need to be able to prove your denial instead of just state it.

And even then, you'd still need to prove that there was no secular or public policy purpose that could be supported by a ban on homosexual marriage -- and in practical terms, the burden of proof would indeed be upon you, because if you let it become a "battle of experts" about whether or not children are better off when raised in a heterosexual household, you'd lose the case. If you presented it in such a way that your opponent could find a Ph.D. to testify about the harmful effects of homosexuality on [whatever], that alone would be enough for the court to find that the policy had a "rational basis" in furthering a legitimate secular purpose.

And that ultimately, is why framing this as a church-state claim is a bad idea; it's hostile (legal) territory and there are better arguments in terms of human rights and equal protection.

[CWL]

The problem is that separation of church and state is a legal issue. Whether or not something is appropriate is irrelevant to this issue.

No it isn't if we agree to discuss whether or not something is appropriate instead of discussing whether or not it is legal.

Besides, "appropriate" to whom or what?
To me - or to you for starters, if you are interested in discussing the issue. Or according to the majority or according to Donald Duck if you wish. Whether or not anything is "appropriate" is of course an inherently subjective matter.

I think it's entirely appropriate for politicians to pander to the majority--as long as the minority has proper legal protections. (See? We're right back to the legal thing.) That's partly why the big important issues, like changing the Constitution, require more than a majority. It would be awful if things like basic human rights were subject to faddish thinking.

Agreed.

Meanwhile, I can only wish for the day when candidates will try hard for the atheist vote.

Again agreed. But it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[KingMerv00]

I'm curious, how would you argue it, and why avoid the church/state issue?

First let me say that one COULD make a church/state argument in court. I don't think it would have much of a chance considering how the SCOTUS has been interpreting the 1st amendment. I would only play the card if all else failed. If I found myself in that tough position, I would say that the Lemon Test (the current legal test in these matters) requires all laws to have a conceivable secular purpose. Prop 8 has no conceivable secular purpose, therefore it is unconstitutional.

The better argument is based on the 14th amendment which requires the equal application of laws to all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc. Marriage is a state recognized contract between two individuals. With Prop 8, California ignores certain contracts based solely on the gender of the members. This a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

[drkitten]

Personally I would say no to that answer. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying it should be illegal but what a head of state says officially should be more considerate and yes - more appropriate. There are many things which are not considered appropriate for an official of the state to say or do when exercising his/her office and IMHO this should be one of them.

Personally, I consider it inappropriate for an official to detain and torture suspects without recourse to trial.

I find that my feelings of "appropriateness" are not necessarily considered actionable by the courts.


What about the Americans who are not believers in the One God - or any god at all for that matter? Is the President not addressing them when making formal speeches... that's at least the feeling I get.

What about the Americans who believe that all formal speeches should begin with "In the name of Allah, the benevolent and merciful"? Is the President not addressing them? What about the Americans who believe that all speeches should be delivered in Homeric heroic verse?

You see the problem; no one speech can possibly satisfy everyone. And what the President says is (legally) almost entirely his own business, especially since he doesn't have a captive audience (things get a little different then). What he does (as policy) is reviewed much more strictly, largely because of the de minimis rule I cited above.

[KingMerv00]

And even then, you'd still need to prove that there was no secular or public policy purpose that could be supported by a ban on homosexual marriage -- and in practical terms, the burden of proof would indeed be upon you, because if you let it become a "battle of experts" about whether or not children are better off when raised in a heterosexual household, you'd lose the case. If you presented it in such a way that your opponent could find a Ph.D. to testify about the harmful effects of homosexuality on [whatever], that alone would be enough for the court to find that the policy had a "rational basis" in furthering a legitimate secular purpose.

Being married is not the same as having children. :D

[CWL]

Personally, I consider it inappropriate for an official to detain and torture suspects without recourse to trial.

Agreed. And you probably also agree that it would be inappropriate for an official to show his genitals when greeting foreign dignitaries. Lot's of things are inappropriate.

I find that my feelings of "appropriateness" are not necessarily considered actionable by the courts.
Yes, but again, that's besides the point if we are discussing whether or not you feel that something is appropriate. I was merely curious. In the country where I live, i.e. Sweden, it would be considered entirely inappropriate for an official to make religious statements when exercising office - even for an official who belongs to the Christian Democratic Party. But then again, the majority of Swedes are secular. So perhaps we can conclude that what is generally considered as "appropriate" for an official to say is decided by the general public opinion (i.e. what the majority feels is appropriate)?

What about the Americans who believe that all formal speeches should begin with "In the name of Allah, the benevolent and merciful"? Is the President not addressing them? What about the Americans who believe that all speeches should be delivered in Homeric heroic verse?
Good questions. Personally I would like to the president to do all speeches old school style backed by a P-funk orchestra. Preferably with Bootsie Collins on bass.

You see the problem; no one speech can possibly satisfy everyone. And what the President says is (legally) almost entirely his own business, especially since he doesn't have a captive audience (things get a little different then). What he does (as policy) is reviewed much more strictly, largely because of the de minimis rule I cited above.
I agree, but to be honest it should be more pleasing to everybody if the President refrained from making religious statements when exercising his office. And although we both agree that it is not a legal issue, such a "norm", if you will, would perhaps be more in line with the legal principle of separation of church and state?

[drkitten]

Being married is not the same as having children. :D

But they're closely enough related that setting state "marriage policy" on the basis of its likely effect on children's well being is appropriate and rational -- and a legitimate secular purpose.

Owning a gun is not the same as having children, but that doesn't prevent states from issuing rules regarding mandatory trigger locks.

I think you've just proven my (and your own) point about not using the 1st amendment and a church-state claim. It's too hard to claim that there is no conceivable secular purpose. I grant that if that's the best card in your hand you might have to play it,.... but in that case, (I think) you've been dealt a losing hand.

[drkitten]

AI was merely curious. In the country where I live, i.e. Sweden, it would be considered entirely inappropriate for an official to make religious statements when exercising office - even for an official who belongs to the Christian Democratic Party. But then again, the majority of Swedes are secular. So perhaps we can conclude that what is generally considered as "appropriate" for an official to say is decided by the general public opinion (i.e. what the majority feels is appropriate)?

Oh, "appropriate" is almost always a social decision.

That's part of the problem, though. The courts are not the place to enforce social convention.

Let me spin it around. Let's suppose that the Minister for Higher Education did make religious statements in one of his public speeches.

So what? As in, what would happen to him? Would the PM sack him? Would the voters impeach him on the spot? Would he be arrested? Would there be a vote of confidence and the fall of the government?

If not, why not?

If so, how can you possibly get anything done in Sweden?



I agree, but to be honest it should be more pleasing to everybody if the President refrained from making religious statements when exercising his office. And although we both agree that it is not a legal issue, such a "norm", if you will, would perhaps be more in line with the legal principle of separation of church and state?

As I said, you're giving too much weight to a metaphor, which is all the expression "(a wall of ) separation between church and state" really is.

The actual legal principle is both simpler and more complex. There are actually two rules in the States. The first is the establishment principle -- the government cannot act to establish a religion. The second is the free exercise principle -- the government cannot act to prevent someone from (freely) exercising his personal religion.

A President invoking God in a speech is exercising his personal religion, as is his right. As long as he's not "establishing" religion --- essentially, forcing others to participate in his own religion --- he is in the clear. US law and custom generally falls under the heading of "you have the right to say whatever you like, and it is not the government's job to regulate what others will listen to."

[KingMerv00]

I agree with DrK but I wanna add it is odd when the president wears his religion on his sleeve. Why does he bother when he will have to justify all of his legislation through secular means anyway?

I mean I know WHY. He is pandering. But do the panderees think it is relevant?

[CWL]

Oh, "appropriate" is almost always a social decision.

That's part of the problem, though. The courts are not the place to enforce social convention.

Let me spin it around. Let's suppose that the Minister for Higher Education did make religious statements in one of his public speeches.

So what? As in, what would happen to him?

Probably the same thing which would happen to the President if he openly confessed to being an atheist in a public speech. Public outcry? Badgering by the press? Perhaps finding it impossible to continue to hold office under such pressure?

Who knows? None of these things are bound to happen as leading politicians are sure to follow the generally accepted norms of society (whether or not those norms happen to coincide with their own personal beliefs).

As I said, you're giving too much weight to a metaphor, which is all the expression "(a wall of ) separation between church and state" really is.

The actual legal principle is both simpler and more complex. There are actually two rules in the States. The first is the establishment principle -- the government cannot act to establish a religion. The second is the free exercise principle -- the government cannot act to prevent someone from (freely) exercising his personal religion.

A President invoking God in a speech is exercising his personal religion, as is his right. As long as he's not "establishing" religion --- essentially, forcing others to participate in his own religion --- he is in the clear. US law and custom generally falls under the heading of "you have the right to say whatever you like, and it is not the government's job to regulate what others will listen to."

The principle is the same under Swedish law. And again, I agree that the question is of little or no interest from a legal perspective. I was more interested with the socioligical aspect of the phenomenon that the President of the US is generally obliged to end his speeches with "God bless America", whereas the PM of Sweden is generally obliged not to end his speeches with "God bless Sweden".

... and of course, in the end there is always the risk that the views of the general public - or a strong interest group - will lead to legislation. Laws are not made in a moral vacuum. An interesting example is the bill introduced to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance after campaigning by the Knights of Columbus and Presbyterians. This is harmless enough, but if such tendences ae kept unchecked we might soon find that more insidious laws based on religion can be passed.

[drkitten]

I mean I know WHY. He is pandering. But do the panderees think it is relevant?

I think that the panderees are dumb, frankly. But I also think that most (or, at least, many) do not realize that they are being pandered to, and honestly feel better thinking that because so-and-so is explicitly religious, he must be a good guy and is therefore making honest, upright, moral, and correct decisions.

Perhaps relevant --- one of the "standard" things that (US) defense lawyers do is to try to enhance the the religious appeal of their clients; make them appear to be pious, God-fearing, &c people. It's a standard part of trial preparation, and a standard thing to put into evidence via character witnesses.

Why?

Why do we even bother with character witnesses at all? Does the fact that the defendant was a former altar boy and Eagle Scout make it somehow less likely that he broke into a liquor store and emptied the till? Does it mean that he deserves less punishment?

I dunno. I don't think so. But it still works, which is why the lawyers do it in the first place.

CWL, do they have character witnesses in Swedish trials?

[KingMerv00]

Perhaps relevant --- one of the "standard" things that (US) defense lawyers do is to try to enhance the the religious appeal of their clients; make them appear to be pious, God-fearing, &c people. It's a standard part of trial preparation, and a standard thing to put into evidence via character witnesses.

That only makes sense if religiousity implies morality. You know my feelings on that so I won't belabor the point.

[CWL]

CWL, do they have character witnesses in Swedish trials?
I'm not a trial lawyer so I am speaking a bit out of my field here - but I would say rarely, although there is certainly nothing in Swedish procedural law which would prevent a party from calling a character witness (unless of course entirely irrelevant to the case in which case the evidence might be dismissed by the court). Swedish evidence theory is generally more concerned with proving factual circumstances, but then again for instance in a criminal trial the character of the defendant might naturally be of relevancein considering any subjective prerequisites for conviction of a certain crime (i.e. whether or not a certain action was made with intent). It would certainly be relevant when considering any penalty if the defendant is found guilty (in which case e.g. the likelyhood of the defendant relapsing to criminal behaviour would be relevant).

[drkitten]

That only makes sense if religiousity implies morality.

Not quite. It only make sense if the jury believes that religiosity implies morality.

The simple and unfortunate fact is that it does make sense for a defense lawyer to introduce the defendant's history as an altar boy.

... and that answers your question about why the President panders to the electorate by wearing Christ on his sleeve. For the same reason the defense attorney panders to the prejudices of the jury.

[CWL]

Forgot to say: If a character witness was called and admitted to a Swedish court, the defence lawyer would certainly not be arguing, or pursuing a line of questioning to prove,
that the defendant is God-fearing. I would say that religion has no place whatsoever in Swedish courts.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No it isn't if we agree to discuss whether or not something is appropriate instead of discussing whether or not it is legal.
That's fine, but then you're no longer discussing the issue of church/state separation.


To me - or to you for starters, if you are interested in discussing the issue. Or according to the majority or according to Donald Duck if you wish. Whether or not anything is "appropriate" is of course an inherently subjective matter.
I'm glad you understand my point. The question really has no objective or context-free meaning. If we're leaving the context of the legality of someone's actions, what context are we in?

[JoeTheJuggler]

First let me say that one COULD make a church/state argument in court. I don't think it would have much of a chance considering how the SCOTUS has been interpreting the 1st amendment. I would only play the card if all else failed. If I found myself in that tough position, I would say that the Lemon Test (the current legal test in these matters) requires all laws to have a conceivable secular purpose. Prop 8 has no conceivable secular purpose, therefore it is unconstitutional.

The better argument is based on the 14th amendment which requires the equal application of laws to all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc. Marriage is a state recognized contract between two individuals. With Prop 8, California ignores certain contracts based solely on the gender of the members. This a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

I guess my thinking is that both arguments should be raised. If we stop giving official state recognition and legal status to religious rituals, then the business of granting marriage licenses becomes strictly an issue of equal protection. Again, then a great many of the people who voted for Prop 8 would see the equal protection issue as being obvious.

As I said, these people would no more want to deny gay people the right to drive a car or whatever--and that would be obvious in the case of marriage if we separated religious "marriage" from state/legal "marriage".

If, on the other hand, we legalized gay marriage once and for all by a case based on the equal protection clause, but continued having priests, ministers, rabbis etc. act as agents for the state and granting recognition to their ceremonies, we could face the same issues again when, for example, a threesome wants to get married, or when a state decides that transgender people can't marry.

It also leaves open the big problem that the state has to determine who is a legitimate state agent in a religious context. (I'm not sure, but in some states a mail-order divinity degree from the Church of xyz doesn't cut it. Why? Do we require these state agents to be Bible scholars?) I think making this determination already is excessive entanglement.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with DrK but I wanna add it is odd when the president wears his religion on his sleeve. Why does he bother when he will have to justify all of his legislation through secular means anyway?

I mean I know WHY. He is pandering. But do the panderees think it is relevant?

I think there's enough ignorance on the issue for it to be politically profitable. Plenty of people, even some vaguely in favor of separation of church and state, think that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.

Even those who don't go that far, still think the establishment clause strictly means that government can't favor one religion over another. (In other words, many people think it's fine for the government to assume you belong to the church of your choice and worship the god of your choice.) That's the basic message I get from that National Day of Pray organization I linked to earlier in this thread.

[CWL]

I'm glad you understand my point. The question really has no objective or context-free meaning. If we're leaving the context of the legality of someone's actions, what context are we in?

I suppose we're entering the realm of sociology. Then again, laws and judges do not operate in a social or moral vacuum so I think this aspect is worth exploring even when considering the matter from a legal perspective. What I am saying is that judges and lawmakers are likely to be influenced in some form by public opinion (although perhaps they should not let themselves be, but such is reality).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Perhaps relevant --- one of the "standard" things that (US) defense lawyers do is to try to enhance the the religious appeal of their clients; make them appear to be pious, God-fearing, &c people. It's a standard part of trial preparation, and a standard thing to put into evidence via character witnesses.


You're right. I sat on a civil trial of a guy trying to sue his company for an injury that was clearly not work-related (or at least not in the way his case was being made). At one point, he took the stand, and his lawyer asked him to describe his typical day (now that he can no longer work).

The guy actually said that the first thing he does after breakfast is to sit down and read the Bible every day.

I think it had the opposite effect of what was intended. Generally 12 people are different enough and bright enough that even the religious people on the jury were offended by such an obvious attempt at piety.

For politicians, I think it's largely the same. Even very fundamentalist believers (of whatever faith) recognize that someone who paints himself as being religious can be falsely pious. I imagine it irks them worse than it irks me (an atheist).

I think with politicians, it's rather like the lapel-pin U.S. flag. It's not that we think anyone is more or less patriotic than someone else because of the size of their pin. It's that it's still politically dangerous to reject the pin (or come out as a secularist).

I do hope that public attitudes are changing on both issues. I imagine we're pretty close to a culture where publicly calling oneself "not religious" or even "atheist" isn't necessarily political suicide.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And even then, you'd still need to prove that there was no secular or public policy purpose that could be supported by a ban on homosexual marriage -- and in practical terms, the burden of proof would indeed be upon you, because if you let it become a "battle of experts" about whether or not children are better off when raised in a heterosexual household, you'd lose the case. If you presented it in such a way that your opponent could find a Ph.D. to testify about the harmful effects of homosexuality on [whatever], that alone would be enough for the court to find that the policy had a "rational basis" in furthering a legitimate secular purpose.

And that ultimately, is why framing this as a church-state claim is a bad idea; it's hostile (legal) territory and there are better arguments in terms of human rights and equal protection.
First, I wasn't arguing that the church/state argument would be an easier one to make. I'm just saying that it is ultimately what's behind this problem. I think addressing it would make the BEST solution.

ETA: Same as with KingMerv---when you use the term "better" argument, do you mean "more likely to win"? (I'm definitely not a legal mind in that respect. I think there's an objectively "best" argument in terms of legal logic which is the one I'd prefer to argue, whether or not it is the one most likely to sell to the current court.)

As far as the argument itself, maybe I don't understand how the burden of proof works on the Lemon Test, but it would certainly be easy enough to show that the child-raising interest as a sufficient secular purpose for banning gay marriage doesn't hold up.

Surely any number of other demographics (past conviction for DWI, history of any violent felony, lower economic status, etc.) are a better predictor of bad child-raising abilities than sexual preference. Since about half of marriages end in divorce anyway, I'm not sure you can make a compelling argument that the main state interest in marriage is to have a man and a woman present to raise a child.

In the case of Prop 8, it would be easy enough to show that the campaign to pass it was primarily financed by religious interests making largely religious-based arguments. That connection is not in the least bit vague.

[COLONEL]

So now you're telling another lie when you said that you got all the state benefits. You said, and I quote "all the benefits."

My, how the untruths just PILE up, don't they? Aren't you afraid your insecure little god will punish you for breaking the commandment about false witness?some how you are missing what I was trying to say I will try to put it this way If you enter a civil union then your partener he she it what ever is entitled to get the same benefits as a married couple . IEHealth insurance, to be claimed on state tax returns survivor benefits etc .etc . One Thing you should know I do not lie and I do resent you being so narrow minded that you have to accuse me of lying .I was Just trying to point out that a civil union and marriage is basicly the same except here a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman .if this does not clear up what I am trying to get across let me know. I will give you my phone number and try to explane it over the phone

[JoeTheJuggler]

Colonel: if you're trying to argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry but should be allowed to have civil unions that are the same in every respect as marrriage, why make the separate name?

The courts long ago rejected "separate but equal"--even if the things are truly otherwise equal. Again, I don't care what name is used, but if you disallow gays from having "marriage" under the state, you should similarly disallow everyone else from that same thing. In other words, I'm fine with "civil union" as long as that's what everyone gets (from the state).

[COLONEL]

Colonel: if you're trying to argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry but should be allowed to have civil unions that are the same in every respect as marrriage, why make the separate name ,
Well Joe it is the same ,but as I said ,I am an old fart set in my ways and thank you for seeing what I was trying to say .

[Roadtoad]

Colonel: if you're trying to argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry but should be allowed to have civil unions that are the same in every respect as marrriage, why make the separate name?

The courts long ago rejected "separate but equal"--even if the things are truly otherwise equal. Again, I don't care what name is used, but if you disallow gays from having "marriage" under the state, you should similarly disallow everyone else from that same thing. In other words, I'm fine with "civil union" as long as that's what everyone gets (from the state).

At risk of inciting a fight...

I have serious questions concerning the government's role in marriage in the first place. Considering marriage is largely a religious act, rather than secular, (kids notwithstanding), I find the involvement of government offensive.

I understand there's a public health component to this, as well as the rights of kids, but marriage has become a club to be used against the "pervert du jour" of the Religious Right. (No offense intended.) Decades ago, it was people of different races. Then it was people of different beliefs. Now, it's used against gays and lesbians. Who's next? Libertarians and Democrats?

[moon1969]

Israel is more secular than America. And the way Bush used religion :mad: Well I guess americans just are religious people.

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
--George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign

Sure "God" wants him how special. And then there are people like Pat Robertson and hypocrites like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig. Why can"t America be a secular state like Israel is?

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."
--Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen quoting Bush when they met in Aqaba; reported in The Haaretz Reporter by Arnon Regular

Bush simply just used religion to promote the PNAC agenda.

[KingMerv00]

At risk of inciting a fight...

I wanna fight but not because of your views. :D

No matter how many times I get into a same-sex marriage debate someone always wants to discuss whether or not marriage should be legally recognized. The topic is a valid one but it is also very different.

Imagine someone passed a law which would excuse all drug use by females. Then someone came in and wanted to talk about the legality of drug regulation. In my opinion both issues are separate enough to stay in different threads. The first is an equal protection issue and the second is a debate over the right to be left alone.

I'm not really upset, I just don't understand this constant urge to push the debate in that one direction.

[NobbyNobbs]

Well I did work for the GOVT . 18 years military and more times then I care to remember I did work 24 /7 a cat nap here and there .we had civilians that worked with us too and on Holidays and week ends guess who was doing the work ?so I have no sympathy for the 9-5ers out there Compare what our military makes an hour compared to the rest of you govt workers and tell me who works the hardest for the least .And I still get paid by the Govt. only a differant Branch , It's called VA Thru The Disabled Ameican Veterans. Enough said .

You have no idea what department I work in. You have no idea what work I do. And you certainly don't know what I am paid. So when you say "you govt workers", you might want to qualify your statement.

Call me what you want. but I am old fashon . I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman . but I have no problems with the civil unions like in VT ,you get all the benefits of being married .except it is called civil union not marriage.


So...exactly the same, only different, eh? How is this different from having two different water fountains, one for blacks and one for whites?

[articulett]

I think Jon Stewart was brilliant on this topic when Mike Huckabee was his guest recently:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2

[Skeptic Ginger]

America sometimes fails to uphold the 1st Amendment but it is nowhere near a theocracy. Overall, I think America is becoming more secular, not less.Two steps forward, one step back. Since we have been in that one step back mode for a while it begins to look as though we are becoming a more theocratic nation, but if you look at a longer stretch of history, it doesn't look quite so depressing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think Jon Stewart was brilliant on this topic when Mike Huckabee was his guest recently:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2I second that opinion. Stewart can really hit home with these guys when they are willing to have an honest discussion with him. Of course, Huckabee was stuck within his distorted world view. That was too bad. But Stewart expressed his incredible grasp on reality in the conversation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

DRKITTEN You Are missing my point ,I feel if Sunday and Christmas are Religious Holidays then only the people that have religious beleifs should be the ones to obsere them and the rest of us have all the other days that we can have off . If the courts and the Govt . ran 24 /7 I do not think we would have the back logs that are in the system now . For what they get paid they should work 24 /7The Christmas holiday evolved from the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Now it has evolved into a holiday celebrating capitalism and buying things. I continue to observe the holiday, thank you, and how I celebrate it should be of no concern to you.

The same goes for having regular days off and coordinating them with other people's days off such as one's children's days off from school.

Your argument is stupid.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The issue of church/state separation is not merely one of the interests of theists vs. atheists. In fact, I was dismayed at the Prop 8 protest I attended that so many of the speakers were clerics.
ETA: I was equally dismayed that opposition to gay marriage is always painted as "hatred" when I think it's a screwed up fear of the state somehow infringing on traditional religious definitions of marriage.

I agree with KingMerv that the heart of this issue is a church/state separation problem. We have the legal/state thing that is marriage (with its 1000 or so legal benefits). We also have a religious sacrament or ritual called marriage. The problem is when someone does the latter and it's recognized by the state as being the former. Basically, we let religious people (ministers, rabbis, priests or whatever) act as agents of the state in their houses of worship. We have state recognition of a religious rite. (Can you imagine if we had to give state recognition to baptisms, confirmations, bar mitzvahs, etc?)

I think the solution is to separate the two kinds of marriage. Let no religious ritual done by ANY cleric in ANY house of worship receive state or legal recognition....It's like you are arguing that certain religions have a copyright on the word, marriage, and therefore other people, some theists, some not, are not allowed to use the word, even if their religious beliefs include gay unions within the definition of marriage.

It's a bogus argument.

And as the Jack Black musical (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones) points out, the Bible says gays are an abomination along with shrimp cocktail. People making their zealous claims about homosexual sinners are just cherry picking the Bible and applying standards that suit their paranoia about people who are different.


(I just noticed they made that musical 3:16 minutes long, tee hee.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... yet she opposes gay marriage because she thinks it means the government is imposing something on her that opposes her religious beliefs....:id:


But I suppose that point is lost on you here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

For myself, I don't care what it's called. I just think that the state shouldn't recognize anything performed as a religious ritual. The ceremony done by the state should be the same for anyone who wants it (gay or straight). So if the legal version is "civil union" that's fine, as long as it's "civil union" for straight people as well. (I believe this is the model for many countries in Europe.)

If you want to pretend the word "marriage" is something different and perform a ritual in your church (and by the way, gay people could perform such a ritual in any church that accepts it--the state obviously has no power to tell them it cannot), that's up to you and should be no concern of the state.If that is your view, then what about a religion that accepts gay marriage calling it marriage? There are such churches you know.

[Skeptic Ginger]

At risk of inciting a fight...

I have serious questions concerning the government's role in marriage in the first place. Considering marriage is largely a religious act, rather than secular, (kids notwithstanding), I find the involvement of government offensive.

I understand there's a public health component to this, as well as the rights of kids, but marriage has become a club to be used against the "pervert du jour" of the Religious Right. (No offense intended.) Decades ago, it was people of different races. Then it was people of different beliefs. Now, it's used against gays and lesbians. Who's next? Libertarians and Democrats?Marriage is a legal contract with all sorts of rules attached. The state is involved.

Quibbling over the terms, "marriage" vs "civil union", is as contrived an argument as claiming marriage is between a man and a woman because they can have biological children. People are simply rationalizing an irrational position.

[slingblade]

Marriage is a legal contract with all sorts of rules attached. The state is involved.

It's both. It's religious and it's a legal contract.


Quibbling over the terms, "marriage" vs "civil union", is as contrived an argument as claiming marriage is between a man and a woman because they can have biological children. People are simply rationalizing an irrational position.

I don't think they are. I think you're taking exception where none exists.

Marriage has its civil side and its religious side. They are often taken together, but they don't have to be. Knowing that, it seems a simpler thing to simply separate the two aspects: all consenting adult persons, of any gender, may enter a civil union contract, just like marriage, except it isn't religiously sanctioned. Those wishing to have the sanction of their religion on their union as well may enter the CU contract during a religious ceremony, but they would have to abide by the dictates of their religion to do so.

We've already changed the nature of traditional marriage by allowing divorce in so many cases, the RCC being a notable exception. But though a certain number may decry it, I opinine that the vast majority of religious married persons today would probably balk at the notion that a divorce, should they choose or need to seek one, wouldn't be forthcoming. Yet, it used to be so. You used to have to be pretty serious about marriage, knowing it was almost impossible to get out of it. Anyone who wants to talk about the "sanctity" of marriage should be able to see that allowing easier divorces pretty much wrecked the "sanctity" part already. Any fool can get married today, because any fool can get out of it tomorrow.

I think the union of two people should be, if anything, a matter for the state, with the religious trappings tossed on like sprinkles on ice cream. The sprinkles part is nice, but you don't have to have it if you don't want it.

[COLONEL]

You have no idea what department I work in. You have no idea what work I do. And you certainly don't know what I am paid. So when you say "you govt workers", you might want to qualify your statement.
OK as I said tell me how you or other Govt.workers ,work harder then the men and women in the Military . You get holidays off , I'm sure most nights you get plenty of sleep . and unless you are a postal employee I doubt if anyone is shooting at you . on an average you work an 8 hour day with weekends off . and you get to go home every day.If you make more then $2,145 .00 a month and that is for a SGt with four years of service you are making more money then someone in the military . Most soldiers are Pvts and Spec 4's and make an average of $1,800.00 a month now divided by 30 days = $60.00 a day divided by 24 hours because in the military you can work 24 hrs. ,that is $ 2.50 an hour if I did my math right and that is before taxes . and if you are one of the lucky ones to make it until retirement ,The average is SSGT. E6 after 10 years you will make $2,700.00 a month .and when you retire you get 3/4 of that if you are lucky .
You are right I do not know anything about you or what dept. you are in . so why not enlighten me .But if our military can run 24 hours a day, why not the rest of the Govt. ?

[drkitten]

some how you are missing what I was trying to say I will try to put it this way If you enter a civil union then your partener he she it what ever is entitled to get the same benefits as a married couple .

And we've already established that this is untrue. So it's a third lie.

One Thing you should know I do not lie

On the contrary -- I have three lies in my pocket and this makes four.

I do resent you being so narrow minded that you have to accuse me of lying

I'm sure you do. It really hurts when people point your lies out for what they are, doesn't it?

My sympathy is limited.

I was Just trying to point out that a civil union and marriage is basicly the same except here a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman

And a fifth. It's NOT.

Case in point -- a Nebraska court is not required to recognize a VT civil union in matters of inheritance. It would be required to recogize a VT marriage.

And you know this, which makes your untrue statement a lie.

if this does not clear up what I am trying to get across let me know.

There's nothing to clear up. You, sir, are a liar. I have five documented lies you've written in this thread alone.

[NobbyNobbs]

OK as I said tell me how you or other Govt.workers ,work harder then the men and women in the Military . You get holidays off , I'm sure most nights you get plenty of sleep .

Incorrect. During the week, I'm lucky to get 5 hours on any particular night. Usually it's 4 or less. There are some nights I get none.


and unless you are a postal employee I doubt if anyone is shooting at you . on an average you work an 8 hour day with weekends off

Incorrect. On average, I work a 12 hour day, and I work every other weekend.

. and you get to go home every day.

Incorrect. I generally stay at the office for 3-4 days at a stretch.

If you make more then $2,145 .00 a month and that is for a SGt with four years of service you are making more money then someone in the military

I don't.

. Most soldiers are Pvts and Spec 4's and make an average of $1,800.00 a month now divided by 30 days = $60.00 a day divided by 24 hours because in the military you can work 24 hrs. ,that is $ 2.50 an hour if I did my math right and that is before taxes .

First of all, your math is incorrect. Even in the military, you do not work 24 hours a day for 30 days. So that figure of $2.50 an hour is horrendously low. Secondly, out of my salary I need to pay for food, my electric bill, my water bill, my mortgage, my incidentals...all those things that folks on active duty are provided courtesy of our tax dollars. And I don't get college benefits. (Mind you, I don't begrudge them these benefits at all. They deserve them. I'm just saying you need to include them when determining "income".)

Once again, you know nothing about my situation. Do not presume.

[Roadtoad]

It's both. It's religious and it's a legal contract.




I don't think they are. I think you're taking exception where none exists.

Marriage has its civil side and its religious side. They are often taken together, but they don't have to be. Knowing that, it seems a simpler thing to simply separate the two aspects: all consenting adult persons, of any gender, may enter a civil union contract, just like marriage, except it isn't religiously sanctioned. Those wishing to have the sanction of their religion on their union as well may enter the CU contract during a religious ceremony, but they would have to abide by the dictates of their religion to do so.

We've already changed the nature of traditional marriage by allowing divorce in so many cases, the RCC being a notable exception. But though a certain number may decry it, I opinine that the vast majority of religious married persons today would probably balk at the notion that a divorce, should they choose or need to seek one, wouldn't be forthcoming. Yet, it used to be so. You used to have to be pretty serious about marriage, knowing it was almost impossible to get out of it. Anyone who wants to talk about the "sanctity" of marriage should be able to see that allowing easier divorces pretty much wrecked the "sanctity" part already. Any fool can get married today, because any fool can get out of it tomorrow.

I think the union of two people should be, if anything, a matter for the state, with the religious trappings tossed on like sprinkles on ice cream. The sprinkles part is nice, but you don't have to have it if you don't want it.

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.

I'd add that the whole business of "Civil Unions" is pretty insulting once you get down to the brass tack of it. You're going to recognize two people of the same sex uniting in everything except wedlock. But if that's your goal, why is the only difference a matter of your terminology? Either it's marriage or it's not.

Peggy and I cannot have any more kids. Period. Are we still married? Would we still be married if we lived in different houses in different parts of the country? What defines a marriage? If the only thing that makes a marriage is a sheet of paper declaring the State's approval, why is this even an issue?

As I've said before, this issue is partly one of validation of my own marriage. If two men or two women cannot marry, simply on the basis of the beliefs or prejudices of the majority, what is to prevent my marriage from being annulled at their will?

[MattusMaximus]

For organizations like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org), there are bigger fish to fry right now, while still voicing opposition to these less substantive issues.

Joe, I'm glad that someone in this thread finally mentioned AU (http://au.org). They are solely dedicated to church-state issues in the United States, and you wouldn't believe how much insanity they've saved the US citizenry from over the years. I have been a long-time member and supporter of AU (http://au.org), and I encourage everyone here (religious or not) to consider joining them.

[MattusMaximus]

On another note, I think this entire "civil unions" vs. "marriage" argument is screwy.

I think the best way to go is for the government to perform civil unions - for both hetero- and homosexual couples. Everything we currently call "marriage" would be a civil union, a secular institution recognized by the state.

But if you want a marriage, go to a church. And a religiously based marriages would have the same benefits of civil unions. This would take the entire religious connotation behind the word marriage and put it in the proper context, while also respecting separation of church and state.

As it stands now, the whole thing is ass-backwards :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's both. It's religious and it's a legal contract.




I don't think they are. I think you're taking exception where none exists.

Marriage has its civil side and its religious side. They are often taken together, but they don't have to be. Knowing that, it seems a simpler thing to simply separate the two aspects: all consenting adult persons, of any gender, may enter a civil union contract, just like marriage, except it isn't religiously sanctioned. Those wishing to have the sanction of their religion on their union as well may enter the CU contract during a religious ceremony, but they would have to abide by the dictates of their religion to do so.

We've already changed the nature of traditional marriage by allowing divorce in so many cases, the RCC being a notable exception. But though a certain number may decry it, I opinine that the vast majority of religious married persons today would probably balk at the notion that a divorce, should they choose or need to seek one, wouldn't be forthcoming. Yet, it used to be so. You used to have to be pretty serious about marriage, knowing it was almost impossible to get out of it. Anyone who wants to talk about the "sanctity" of marriage should be able to see that allowing easier divorces pretty much wrecked the "sanctity" part already. Any fool can get married today, because any fool can get out of it tomorrow.

I think the union of two people should be, if anything, a matter for the state, with the religious trappings tossed on like sprinkles on ice cream. The sprinkles part is nice, but you don't have to have it if you don't want it.Ideally, I would agree but reality doesn't. If the 'marriage' thing is all religion, then what's with the claim certain believers get to define it for other believers?

In other words, if you want to change the whole dispute, then separate the two, get the state out of the business of religion and religion out of the business of the state. Fine, I have no disagreement with that.

But that isn't what is going on here. Instead, certain god believers want the state to define marriage for all god believers and they want to deny non-god believers the right to use the term, marriage.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How about passing a law that prohibits everyone except Christians from referring to their god as god? "God is defined as the Christian God". And let's add a prohibition against calling houses of worship "churches" unless people worship the Christian God in them.

How is it people in this thread are ignoring the fact not everyone agrees with the claim "marriage" has any universal definition, let alone a definition that is consistent with only some religions?

[articulett]

When I was a waitress we were told to "marry" the catsup (put the partially empty containers of catsup in with other partially emptied containers of catsup.)

[Pardalis]

Bush simply just used religion to promote the PNAC agenda.

What kind of an idiot are you?

[Roadtoad]

Marriage has become a political tool, one more way for people to determine who's "Us" and "Them." It's easier to control people when they're divided. Frankly, if we'd quit looking at one another for ways to separate ourselves, these bastards would find it harder to control us.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No matter how many times I get into a same-sex marriage debate someone always wants to discuss whether or not marriage should be legally recognized. The topic is a valid one but it is also very different.

I'm certainly not saying there should be no legal recognition of marriage. I'm only saying there should be no legal/state recognition of religious rituals.

I think marriage should be what happens in a civil courthouse. If you want to have an additional ceremony in a church, that's up to you, but it has no bearing on the legality of the marriage.

The entanglement problem is very real.

I just ran across a story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-121508-atheist-wedding-dec16,0,4028958.story) about Las Vegas denying a guy a license to perform weddings because he is an atheist;

LAS VEGAS - In a city launched by shotgun weddings and quickie divorces, which offers the chance to be wed by faux Liberaces, King Tuts and Grim Reapers, there remains at least one nuptial taboo: you can't be married by an atheist.

Michael Jacobson, a 64-year-old retiree who calls himself a lifelong atheist, tried this year to get a license to perform weddings. Clark County rejected his application because he had no ties to a congregation, as state law requires. So Jacobson and attorneys from two national secular groups — the American Humanist Association and the Center for Inquiry — are trying to change things. If they can't persuade the state Legislature to rework the law, they plan to sue.

Again, it might be possible to argue this in terms of equal protection, but it makes MUCH more sense to see it as a church/state separation problem.

[JoeTheJuggler]

On another note, I think this entire "civil unions" vs. "marriage" argument is screwy.

I think the best way to go is for the government to perform civil unions - for both hetero- and homosexual couples. Everything we currently call "marriage" would be a civil union, a secular institution recognized by the state.


I'd go along with that--as I've said elsewhere in this thread.

The trouble is that states offering "civil unions" so far (I believe) are only offering that to gay couples while heteros can still get a state issued "marriage" license. Even if these "civil unions" have all the same accidents as "marriage", this approach should be rejected because "separate but equal" has been rejected as not possible.

[CWL]

Well, what about Military Chaplains, such as e.g. the US Navy Chaplain Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Chaplain_Corps) - i.e. in practice clergy employed by the State. What's up with that?

[drkitten]

Well, what about Military Chaplains, such as e.g. the US Navy Chaplain Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Chaplain_Corps) - i.e. in practice clergy employed by the State. What's up with that?

Free exercise clause. Soldiers have rights, including the right to a trial if accused of a crime, and hence the military has to employ lawyers and provide access to them. Soldiers have the right to vote, which means that the government needs to provide them access to ballots. Soldiers also have the right to practice their religions freely, which means that the military needs to provide them access to religious personnel. Since it's impractial to ship them back to their home parish every Sunday, the military has taken the more practical approach of providing chaplains.

BUT there are some fairly strict regulations to which chaplains need to adhere, regulations that basically amount to a state-enforced ecumenicalism. A chaplain has to be willing to minister to ANYONE regardless of their religion precisely because they may be the only religious personnel around. The Army regulations are explicit: "Each chaplain will minister to the personnel of the unit and facilitate the “free-exercise” rights of all personnel,
regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the unit member."

There's also a good secular argument for having chaplains. It improves unit morale, which any commander will tell you is important to an effective fighting force.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But I suppose that point is lost on you here?

If that is your view, then what about a religion that accepts gay marriage calling it marriage? There are such churches you know.
Skepticgirl, I think you have a misperception of my position. I am decidely pro-gay marriage. I'm even a bit of an activist. (Um---irony?)

Yes--I'm totally fine with churches performing gay marriages and calling it marriage.

I'll summarize my position again. I think the basic issue is a separation of church and state issue. The state should not give any particular legal recognition to any religious ritual (for anyone--straight, gay or otherwise). The 1000 or so legal benefits of marriage that actually exist (everything from child custody laws, inheritance laws and so on) is NOT a matter for religions to have any say about.

The best solution would be for the state to conduct all legal marriages. As I've said several times, then I think it would be abundantly clear to the courts and the majority of voters that there is no more legal basis to refuse gays a marriage license than to refuse them a driver's license or fishing license. That is, once we get the church/state separation cleaned up, the equal protection issue should be obvious.

We need to stop having religious rituals performed by priests and ministers and so on recognized as having any legal status (just as we don't give any official legal status to baptisms, bar mitvahs and the like). Those clergymen and women should not act as agents of the state.

See the link I posted earlier in this thread about Las Vegas refusing to give an atheist a license to perform state-recognized marriage ceremonies. The entanglement is real.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, what about Military Chaplains, such as e.g. the US Navy Chaplain Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Chaplain_Corps) - i.e. in practice clergy employed by the State. What's up with that?

The argument (which I don't wholly buy) is that military personnel would otherwise not get to practice their religions (a First Amendment right) if it weren't for the Chaplain Corps. I see several problems with that reasoning, but I don't have as big a problem with that as I do with the Office of the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate.

Their webpage (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm) (on a .gov website--paid for by the U.S. taxpayers) says that the prayer that opens each session of the Senate is for the purpose of
strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Free exercise clause. Soldiers have rights, including the right to a trial if accused of a crime, and hence the military has to employ lawyers and provide access to them. Soldiers have the right to vote, which means that the government needs to provide them access to ballots. Soldiers also have the right to practice their religions freely, which means that the military needs to provide them access to religious personnel. Since it's impractial to ship them back to their home parish every Sunday, the military has taken the more practical approach of providing chaplains.


OK. . .I guess I'll voice my objections to these then. I admit, this isn't high on my list of separation issues, but it's there.

The military must allow military personnel to exercise their religions freely. It doesn't follow that the military must provide clergymen to perform religious rituals. You've set up a false dichotomy where soldiers either need to be able to go home to their parish every Sunday, or we must have the Chaplain Corps (which doesn't necessarily result in a given soldier's being able to have all his religious needs met--certainly not as well as if he were at home).

First, military personnel serving on U.S. soil could easily have free access to churches, synagogues or whatever near their bases. If there's a practical issue of distance, the military could easily allow members of those religions to come on the base and minister to their people. This could be done at the expense of those churches and not the U.S. taxpayer.

The argument is stronger when considering personnel serving overseas or on a ship at sea. However, overseas, there is certainly no dearth of religious people who would be willing to take care of the religious needs of the soldiers. There might be places where clerics of a particular faith aren't represented, but that is the case with the Chaplain Corps anyway.

If the argument is that you can't find a Catholic priest in Iraq--which is false, by the way--I point out that there is no requirement for the Chaplain for any given soldier to be Catholic. . or Jewish or Muslim or whatever. Any individual soldier has to make do the best they can, a situation that can be attained on the dime of the religions involved without a taxpayer financed Chaplain Corp.

I had this same discussion on a forum a while ago, and someone said that Chaplains, unlike regular religious clerics, are trained in addressing the religious needs of all faiths. I don't see how that is possible. Only an ordained Catholic priest, for example, can consecrate hosts for their sacrament of eucharist. I don't know how it's handled in the Chaplain Corps, but I suspect that where there's a Catholic priest, they consecrate enough hosts to ship to other units where they are given by Catholics who are ordained as deacons or whatever the term is for lay people allowed to pass out communion. This same system could be done without the Chaplain Corps by the church on its own dime.

But again, as a separation issue, this one is extremely low on my list of priorities. I get Church & State, the monthly newsletter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and I read about much more egregious First Amendment violations there all the time.

[drkitten]

The military must allow military personnel to exercise their religions freely. It doesn't follow that the military must provide clergymen to perform religious rituals.

You're right, it doesn't.

You've set up a false dichotomy where soldiers either need to be able to go home to their parish every Sunday, or we must have the Chaplain Corps (which doesn't necessarily result in a given soldier's being able to have all his religious needs met--certainly not as well as if he were at home).

... but that's not at all a false dichotomy; as you point out, military personnel serving in the US may have access to local churches, but we can't guarantee that all units will be serving in the US. In times of war, the personnel may be anywhere and may not have access to the locals or time to visit them.

Once we've established that the soldiers have a right to practice their religion and that the military has an obligation to support that right, then there's fairly wide latitude in how the obligation will be met, and hiring ecumenical clergy on a full-time basis is one of many options.

It simply happens to be the best option, because it makes it easiest to gear up for the primary situation to which the military is dedicated -- wartime duty in unfriendly territory or at sea.

If I had suggested that the Army Medical Corps be disestablished, on the grounds that soldiers stationed in the US have access to civilian hospitals, you would think me out of my mind. But you've just made the same suggestion w.r.t. the Chaplain's Corps. It's equally nonsensical; it meets neither the needs of the soldiers nor the efficiency needs of the Armed Forces.

[COLONEL]

I noticed while I was in the service that Chaplains seemed to know a little about all religions and on Sundays if they had time ,they would do several differant services . If the didn't they would do the service in their denomonation . It was interesting at times .

[JoeTheJuggler]

... but that's not at all a false dichotomy; as you point out, military personnel serving in the US may have access to local churches, but we can't guarantee that all units will be serving in the US. In times of war, the personnel may be anywhere and may not have access to the locals or time to visit them.
Then why do we have chaplains on U.S. bases and other places (most of them really) where access to local churches is easy and convenient?


Once we've established that the soldiers have a right to practice their religion and that the military has an obligation to support that right,
Right there is where I disagree. They have an obligation to allow access for them to practice their religion, but they have no obligation to "support" that right.

then there's fairly wide latitude in how the obligation will be met, and hiring ecumenical clergy on a full-time basis is one of many options.
I agree. The trouble is I think that this options violates the separation of church and state. It introduces some entanglement issues, plus there is the de facto circumstance of bias in favor of majority religions. (You can go to a chapel service conducted by a protestant minister, or you can stay here and clean your locker, sort of thing.)

It simply happens to be the best option, because it makes it easiest to gear up for the primary situation to which the military is dedicated -- wartime duty in unfriendly territory or at sea.
I respectfully disagree with the opinion that it is the best option. Again, though, I think there are much higher priority problems of church/state separation that need to be addressed before I'll worry too much about the Chaplain Corps.

If I had suggested that the Army Medical Corps be disestablished, on the grounds that soldiers stationed in the US have access to civilian hospitals, you would think me out of my mind. But you've just made the same suggestion w.r.t. the Chaplain's Corps. It's equally nonsensical; it meets neither the needs of the soldiers nor the efficiency needs of the Armed Forces.
There is no constitutional problem with the state establishing, financing and even controlling any sort of health care system. It's a false analogy.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I noticed while I was in the service that Chaplains seemed to know a little about all religions and on Sundays if they had time ,they would do several differant services . If the didn't they would do the service in their denomonation . It was interesting at times .

I still find that difficult to accept. I think they do the best they can within the constraints of conflicting doctrine. I know for a fact that only an ordained priest can consecrate the eucharist for Catholics. A protestant minister or a rabbi really can't conduct the complete Catholic mass. I suspect there are similar issues among other religions.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a couple of examples of government earmarks I got from Americans United literature. The quotes are from, I think, the brochures or websites of the programs receiving taxpayer money.

$282,00 to the World Impact Youth Program
"A Christian missions organization seeking to present Christ to the unchurched thorugh all of our ministries"

$375,000 to Camp Barnabas
"Volunteers should be ready to help us spread the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ"

$595,000 to Morning Star Ranch
"Made available to all followers of Christ"

$490,000 to Detroit Rescue Missions Summer Camp
"A Christian summer camping experience"


The most recent issue of Church & State says that "a recently publicized memo by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice" okays organizations that received federal funding under Bush's faith-based initiatives program to discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs.

It goes on to say,

The Bush administration signed off on a $1.5 million federal grant to World Vision, an organization that hires only those who agree to accept its statement of faith and the Apostle's Creed. The evangelical Christian group received the DOJ funding under a statute that forbids discriminatory hiring.

The town of Edmond, Oklahoma keeps trying to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars to put up religious statutes in front of churches. (Same issue of Church & State.)

The town of Alorton, Illinois (not far from St. Louis where I live) has taxpayer-financed welcome signs that say, "Welcome to the Village of Alorton, IL, Where Jesus is Lord".

I could go on and on.

[drkitten]

Then why do we have chaplains on U.S. bases and other places (most of them really) where access to local churches is easy and convenient?

Because it's easier to maintain a Chaplain's Corps as a standard part of the military structure than it is to recreate it on every deployment and then to eliminate it on return.

The same reason that they have dentists in the military even when the troops are stateside. Because that way, chaplains are immediately available and trained -- and also because that way, they can be trained to the specifications the military requires (including the necessary degree of ecumenicalism so they can service soldiers of all faiths).


Right there is where I disagree. They have an obligation to allow access for them to practice their religion, but they have no obligation to "support" that right.

Well, then, you're wrong. It's very clearly established in case law that the government has the obligation to support constitutional rights. That's one reason, for example, that the government needs to provide you a lawyer if you can't afford one. That's why the government needs to waive filing fees for legal proceedings if you can't pay them.

Otherwise, they could simply make most of their courtroom troubles disappear by refusing to support, for example, the "right to counsel" and simply not allow lawyers to see their clients.

The trouble is I think that this options violates the separation of church and state. It introduces some entanglement issues, plus there is the de facto circumstance of bias in favor of majority religions.

No, no, and no. No, it does not violate church/state separation, no, it does not introduce entanglement issues, and no, the de-facto bias is not a problem. Like any organization, the government is forced to work with what it has -- if only 1% of the population is Muslim, you can neither reasonable expect that more than 1% of the Chaplain's Corps will be Muslim, or that any particular cleric will have better than 1% chance of being Muslim.

You can go to a chapel service conducted by a protestant minister, or you can stay here and clean your locker, sort of thing.

Or you can request that the protestant minister conduct an islamic service, something that he is required under regulations to do unless something else intervenes. He can be disciplined, even court-martialed, for refusing to do so.

Now, you're right that there are some things that he can't do -- a Protestant minister can't consecrate a Catholic Host (although many Catholic priests will pre-consecrate the Host for such occasions; this has been a problem with a known solution since the Dark Ages). That's not really the state's concern, though, since it makes no guarantees about the availability of a card-carrying clergyman of every possible faith. That's not a reasonable expectation, nor would the Constitution demand that.


There is no constitutional problem with the state establishing, financing and even controlling any sort of health care system. It's a false analogy.

Nor is there any constitutional problem with the state establishing, financing, and even controlling any sort of religious care system as long as it's evenhanded about it and it has a clear secular purpose.

[Radrook]

....Not bad theocracies but still theocracies. When will America have an atheist president?

Perhaps when the majority of voters perceive the atheistic mentality as representing their own?

[articulett]

Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.

At one time there were no rulers that lack a belief in astrology.

In the future there will be time when a leader has no superstitions-- that is, they will lack a belief in demons, sprites, guardian angels, and gods-- equally.