Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:12:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1494 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
So you would have no objection if the Federal government enacted laws barring
Christians from marrying? I want you to go on record on this, with the
following qualifiers: You can’t claim “our country is based on
Judeo-Christian tradition” because you haven’t yet answered
my request for support of
that claim.
|
I submit that history shows the strong ties between religion and government by
the presence of many state-enforced religions (including Islam in much of the
Middle East, the Anglican Church in England, and Atheism in the ex-U.S.S.R.). I
submit that many formal state religions exerted power on their respective
governments by threats of punishment in the afterlife, including
excommunication. I submit that when devising a set of laws and punishments, you
will be influenced by your own moral compass, which will be greatly affected by
your religion (as evidenced by the Spanish Inquisition in the West, and the
Taliban-enforced requirements for beards and veils in the Middle-East). I
submit that the lawmakers of the US have always been and continue to be largely
of a Judeo-Christian background, and therefore will legislate based on what
they’ve come to believe to be right and wrong. I submit that the mere use of
the phrase “In God We Trust” signifies that the Founding Fathers did indeed
allow some form of religious background to influence the basis for our
government.
What does all that mean? That our government has a Judeo-Christian background,
but not that it’s under Judeo-Christian rule. The 1st Amendment prevents any
religious organization from gaining direct control of the government by imposing
their religion, as a whole, upon the populace. It doesn’t prevent individuals
from voting based on what their respective religions have told them is right or
wrong.
| |
You also can’t claim any entitlement due to long-standing traditions of
Christian marriage, since these are irrelevant to secular law.
|
They’re not wholy irrelevent, or men who are either Mormon or Muslim would be
allowed to marry more than one wife at a time in the US. Marriage, however, is
ultimately ruled by the state, not the church. Your church can refuse to
perform or recognize your marriage for a huge variety of reasons, but they can’t
invalidate it. At the same time, they can be 100% behind your marriage, but it
doesn’t affect your official marital status until you sign the state-issued
contract (ironically, this means that the happy couple either has to begin the
ceremony legally married, or end it legally single, but you’re not legally
married solely because of the ceremony). It’s also not strictly limited to
Christians, as you can be married by a judge, a ship’s captain, or a member of
clergy from any religion...including the First Church of Elvis (but not Atheism,
because they have no recognized clergy).
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
