Why do religious people throw themselves between the church and the state?

I'm not throwing myself anywhere.

In this country majority rules. If the majority happen to be swayed by religion, so be it. things are the way they are due to the way our society balances itself. We are still a christian country. Christian laws will be passed.

PS: btw, jewbooks = bible. just thought you should know.

Isn't it obvious?

Religious peoples moral code is the word of their god, therefore it has more value than that of the government. Gods law > Laws of man. So why wouldn't they attempt to impose it upon everyone else?

Don't you see, my salvation is at stake here! They must control me!

(Wow, that last bit was much too much, I think)

ANYWAY. In my insignificant personal opinion, I believe law MUST BE objective, and law MUST BE based on facts. If we are to declare gay marriage unethical, we must present facts as to WHY it is unethical. We must explain why they do not deserve the same rights and protection under the government as everyone else. But that won't be happening. At least not for a while now. Because, as fiscope said, it's boiling down to a popularity contest.

TC, you make valid points, but you're not going to win over any minds by going on rants. Specifically, jewbook. It's called the Torah/Bible, and you're not doing yourself any favors by calling it a jewbook.

Other than that I completely agree, but didn't you know, in America having an opinion that contradicts another opinion makes you biased. You're not a reliable source for objective commentary because you don't completely agree with the conservative right on issue of church and state. /sarcasm.

"Religious peoples moral code is the word of their god, therefore it has more value than that of the government. Gods law > Laws of man. So why wouldn't they attempt to impose it upon everyone else?"

I wholeheartedly agree, but feel I must add that not all religious people take such a hard line on the issue. I do think, though, that the practice of instilling in young children the idea that the only real truth in life is not just the Bible, but their one interpretation of the Bible only serves toaggrevateissues like this.

First off, I don't only worship God within the church building... Second, I support the separation of church and state in the sense that one does not control the other (the state can't force a person into a certain belief system and the nation is not a theocracy). That does not mean I can't have certain views on social issues. Should I instead be hypocritical and support government actions that completely contradict my passions?mindstorm

That certainly is an interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. But really, do you regard your subjective passions to be more important than the objective well-being of the rest of your country?

EDIT:

TO elaborate, do you think that your passionate opinions over objective, fact based analysis will be more beneficial?

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]First off, I don't only worship God within the church building... Second, I support the separation of church and state in the sense that one does not control the other (the state can't force a person into a certain belief system and the nation is not a theocracy). That does not mean I can't have certain views on social issues. Should I instead be hypocritical and support government actions that completely contradict my passions?NaturalJoe

That certainly is an interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. But really, do you regard your subjective passions to be more important than the objective well-being of the rest of your country?

EDIT:

TO elaborate, do you think that your passionate opinions over objective, fact based analysis will be more beneficial?

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

Theokhoth

Yes but is that really best? Why should we stop at democracy, why can't we continue to persue better methods and evolve on what we have so far. The world isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean we can stop trying.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

NaturalJoe

Yes but is that really best? Why should we stop at democracy, why can't we continue to persue better methods and evolve on what we have so far. The world isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean we can stop trying.

Do you have a better system where the people can still vote freely? If so I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, this is the best we can get: people vote based on ideals and what they believe is better for the country.

[QUOTE="NaturalJoe"]

That certainly is an interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. But really, do you regard your subjective passions to be more important than the objective well-being of the rest of your country?

EDIT:

TO elaborate, do you think that your passionate opinions over objective, fact based analysis will be more beneficial?

mindstorm

Gosh. I'm speechless.

Do you have a better system where the people can still vote freely? If so I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, this is the best we can get: people vote based on ideals and what they believe is better for the country.

Theokhoth

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying why can't WE make a better system, not I. WE, as a society. BRAINSTORM or something! Work together in an everyday circumstance, not only in crisis situations! We don't even have to make something entirely new, just build upon democracy. Don't you realise, there were other systems before democracy, and there will be more after it? Why can't we at least think about these things?!

I completely disagree that this is the best we can get. We still have a ****storm of problems, how can you not see that?

Isn't it obvious?

Religious peoples moral code is the word of their god, therefore it has more value than that of the government. Gods law > Laws of man. So why wouldn't they attempt to impose it upon everyone else?

Don't you see, my salvation is at stake here! They must control me!

(Wow, that last bit was much too much, I think)

ANYWAY. In my insignificant personal opinion, I believe law MUST BE objective, and law MUST BE based on facts. If we are to declare gay marriage unethical, we must present facts as to WHY it is unethical. We must explain why they do not deserve the same rights and protection under the government as everyone else. But that won't be happening. At least not for a while now. Because, as fiscope said, it's boiling down to a popularity contest.

NaturalJoe

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="NaturalJoe"]

That certainly is an interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. But really, do you regard your subjective passions to be more important than the objective well-being of the rest of your country?

EDIT:

TO elaborate, do you think that your passionate opinions over objective, fact based analysis will be more beneficial?

NaturalJoe

Gosh. I'm speechless.

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying why can't WE make a better system, not I. WE, as a society. BRAINSTORM or something! Work together in an everyday circumstance, not only in crisis situations! We don't even have to make something entirely new, just build upon democracy. Don't you realise, there were other systems before democracy, and there will be more after it? Why can't we at least think about these things?!

I completely disagree that this is the best we can get. We still have a ****storm of problems, how can you not see that?

NaturalJoe

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying why can't WE make a better system, not I. WE, as a society. BRAINSTORM or something! Work together in an everyday circumstance, not only in crisis situations! We don't even have to make something entirely new, just build upon democracy. Don't you realise, there were other systems before democracy, and there will be more after it? Why can't we at least think about these things?!

I completely disagree that this is the best we can get. We still have a ****storm of problems, how can you not see that?

NaturalJoe

The systems before democracy kinda failed, as did a few of the systems after it (communism comes to mind). We did get together and brainstorm; the people-run democratic constitutional republic of America was the result. What other forms of government could there possibly be? We've been through anarchy, aristocracy, democracy, communism, fascism, oligarchy, theocracy, timocracy, and everything in between.

There will be a ****storm of problems regardless of the system of government we come up with. Why can't you see that? If you want a system without problems then you'll need to get rid of human nature in the process.

I don't think Religion and Politics should ever join period.

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

Theokhoth

Actually, there is a long history of issues being above the will of the people, e.g. the 13-15th Amendments. The language of the constitution does state that there are certain matters of personal liberty that should not be left up to a popular vote, or in other words people should not be allowed to refuse rights to certain groups of people based on a popular vote.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

theone86

Actually, there is a long history of issues being above the will of the people, e.g. the 13-15th Amendments. The language of the constitution does state that there are certain matters of personal liberty that should not be left up to a popular vote, or in other words people should not be allowed to refuse rights to certain groups of people based on a popular vote.

I never mentioned anything about a majority. I'm talking about people voting on what they want (matters like you mentioned would never be up to vote) on what basis they want.

Anyway, marriage is and always has been a state issue, not a federal one, meaning the Constitution does allow the majority to decide in this matter.

[QUOTE="NaturalJoe"]

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying why can't WE make a better system, not I. WE, as a society. BRAINSTORM or something! Work together in an everyday circumstance, not only in crisis situations! We don't even have to make something entirely new, just build upon democracy. Don't you realise, there were other systems before democracy, and there will be more after it? Why can't we at least think about these things?!

I completely disagree that this is the best we can get. We still have a ****storm of problems, how can you not see that?

Theokhoth

The systems before democracy kinda failed, as did a few of the systems after it (communism comes to mind). We did get together and brainstorm; the people-run democratic constitutional republic of America was the result. What other forms of government could there possibly be? We've been through anarchy, aristocracy, democracy, communism, fascism, oligarchy, theocracy, timocracy, and everything in between.

There will be a ****storm of problems regardless of the system of government we come up with. Why can't you see that? If you want a system without problems then you'll need to get rid of human nature in the process.

You're logic simply states that because democracy is the present system, it is inherently the best one possible, which is simply not true. Besides, you're mixing different philosophies too much, like comparing communism to democracy as if they're inherently at odds. Communism actually draws a lot of parallels with democracy, at least in the Marxian sense. They're certainly not at odds and they're not even dealing with the same issue. While communism is a form of economic operation, democracy is a form of governing. Aristocracy, facism, oligarchy, an anarchy are all fomrs of governing, communism and capitalism are seperate from them in that they don't dictate the form of governing but the form of economy. Besides, such a simplistic analysis is inherently flawed. Communism failed, so it must have been a failed philosophy. That says absolutely nothing as to why it failed, what went wrong, what went right, what could be improved, and any numbers of factors that you just conviently whitewash over.

I just imagined priest falling on there faces in front of state houses....

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

Theokhoth

Actually, there is a long history of issues being above the will of the people, e.g. the 13-15th Amendments. The language of the constitution does state that there are certain matters of personal liberty that should not be left up to a popular vote, or in other words people should not be allowed to refuse rights to certain groups of people based on a popular vote.

I never mentioned anything about a majority. I'm talking about people voting on what they want (matters like you mentioned would never be up to vote) on what basis they want.

Anyway, marriage is and always has been a state issue, not a federal one, meaning the Constitution does allow the majority to decide in this matter.

Marriage is an issue of whether certain groups of people are entitled to certain rights, like the right to file joint returns, the right to pass on posessions, and other matters of civil liberties. if civil liberties are being refused, no matter what level it is at, it is a constitutional matter.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Erm, I'm sorry to inform you that the way this country functions allows people to vote on anything they want on any basis they want, religious or otherwise. To say they "have no place in this country" is more against this country than anything that they've done.

And I know this will shock and appall you, but there are atheists/agnostics/spiritualists against gay marriage too.

theone86

Actually, there is a long history of issues being above the will of the people, e.g. the 13-15th Amendments. The language of the constitution does state that there are certain matters of personal liberty that should not be left up to a popular vote, or in other words people should not be allowed to refuse rights to certain groups of people based on a popular vote.

I never mentioned anything about a majority. I'm talking about people voting on what they want (matters like you mentioned would never be up to vote) on what basis they want.

Anyway, marriage is and always has been a state issue, not a federal one, meaning the Constitution does allow the majority to decide in this matter.

Marriage is an issue of whether certain groups of people are entitled to certain rights, like the right to file joint returns, the right to pass on posessions, and other matters of civil liberties. if civil liberties are being refused, no matter what level it is at, it is a constitutional matter.

The rights you mention are not in the federal constitution but various state constitutions. It is not and never has been a federal constitutional matter except in regards to race.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="NaturalJoe"]

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying why can't WE make a better system, not I. WE, as a society. BRAINSTORM or something! Work together in an everyday circumstance, not only in crisis situations! We don't even have to make something entirely new, just build upon democracy. Don't you realise, there were other systems before democracy, and there will be more after it? Why can't we at least think about these things?!

I completely disagree that this is the best we can get. We still have a ****storm of problems, how can you not see that?

theone86

The systems before democracy kinda failed, as did a few of the systems after it (communism comes to mind). We did get together and brainstorm; the people-run democratic constitutional republic of America was the result. What other forms of government could there possibly be? We've been through anarchy, aristocracy, democracy, communism, fascism, oligarchy, theocracy, timocracy, and everything in between.

There will be a ****storm of problems regardless of the system of government we come up with. Why can't you see that? If you want a system without problems then you'll need to get rid of human nature in the process.

You're logic simply states that because democracy is the present system, it is inherently the best one possible, which is simply not true. Besides, you're mixing different philosophies too much, like comparing communism to democracy as if they're inherently at odds. Communism actually draws a lot of parallels with democracy, at least in the Marxian sense. They're certainly not at odds and they're not even dealing with the same issue. While communism is a form of economic operation, democracy is a form of governing. Aristocracy, facism, oligarchy, an anarchy are all fomrs of governing, communism and capitalism are seperate from them in that they don't dictate the form of governing but the form of economy. Besides, such a simplistic analysis is inherently flawed. Communism failed, so it must have been a failed philosophy. That says absolutely nothing as to why it failed, what went wrong, what went right, what could be improved, and any numbers of factors that you just conviently whitewash over.

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying. I didn't say Democracy is inherently the best because it's the current system; I'm saying that democracy is the best because the American system of government allows for no other philosophy; our Constitution is constructed around will of the people and democratic process.

I'm not "whitewashing" over anything; I'm pointing out that if he wants a better system of government then he needs to look at what's come before.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Actually, there is a long history of issues being above the will of the people, e.g. the 13-15th Amendments. The language of the constitution does state that there are certain matters of personal liberty that should not be left up to a popular vote, or in other words people should not be allowed to refuse rights to certain groups of people based on a popular vote.

Theokhoth

I never mentioned anything about a majority. I'm talking about people voting on what they want (matters like you mentioned would never be up to vote) on what basis they want.

Anyway, marriage is and always has been a state issue, not a federal one, meaning the Constitution does allow the majority to decide in this matter.

Marriage is an issue of whether certain groups of people are entitled to certain rights, like the right to file joint returns, the right to pass on posessions, and other matters of civil liberties. if civil liberties are being refused, no matter what level it is at, it is a constitutional matter.

The rights you mention are not in the federal constitution but various state constitutions. It is not and never has been a federal constitutional matter except in regards to race.

It was not a constitutional matter in regards to race until we amended the constitution. Africans were deemed to be less than full people in the constitution, we changed that. The constitution clearly uses language that says matters of civil liberties are not to be presided over by a simple majority vote of the people. That hasn't changed, the only thing that has changed is what we view as matters of civil liberties. People voted for Jim Crow laws back in the day too and people called those a matter of states rights, that doesn't make them justified.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

The systems before democracy kinda failed, as did a few of the systems after it (communism comes to mind). We did get together and brainstorm; the people-run democratic constitutional republic of America was the result. What other forms of government could there possibly be? We've been through anarchy, aristocracy, democracy, communism, fascism, oligarchy, theocracy, timocracy, and everything in between.

There will be a ****storm of problems regardless of the system of government we come up with. Why can't you see that? If you want a system without problems then you'll need to get rid of human nature in the process.

Theokhoth

You're logic simply states that because democracy is the present system, it is inherently the best one possible, which is simply not true. Besides, you're mixing different philosophies too much, like comparing communism to democracy as if they're inherently at odds. Communism actually draws a lot of parallels with democracy, at least in the Marxian sense. They're certainly not at odds and they're not even dealing with the same issue. While communism is a form of economic operation, democracy is a form of governing. Aristocracy, facism, oligarchy, an anarchy are all fomrs of governing, communism and capitalism are seperate from them in that they don't dictate the form of governing but the form of economy. Besides, such a simplistic analysis is inherently flawed. Communism failed, so it must have been a failed philosophy. That says absolutely nothing as to why it failed, what went wrong, what went right, what could be improved, and any numbers of factors that you just conviently whitewash over.

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying. I didn't say Democracy is inherently the best because it's the current system; I'm saying that democracy is the best because the American system of government allows for no other philosophy.

I'm not "whitewashing" over anything; I'm pointing out that if he wants a better system of government then he needs to look at what's come before.

You're whitewashing by saying communism failed and implying that because it failed it is inherently flawed.

That's still circular logic, democracy exists as the dominant form of government in America, therefore it is the best form of government.

I also don't think he was arguing against democracy, and I certainly wasn't. I was saying that the logic you were using is flawed. At any rate, what he and I are saying is not that democracy is outdated or obsolete, but rather arguing to what level it should be implemented. Even you admitted, by virtue of saying that an issue such as slavery cannot be subject to a popular vote, that there are limits to how far democracy should be allowed to go in governing everyday life.

I don't see why anyone feels the need to join these groups(including atheists) and get involved in all of those useless demonstrations. But I am lazy so of course it is silly to me.

It was not a constitutional matter in regards to race until we amended the constitution. Africans were deemed to be less than full people in the constitution, we changed that. The constitution clearly uses language that says matters of civil liberties are not to be presided over by a simple majority vote of the people. That hasn't changed, the only thing that has changed is what we view as matters of civil liberties. People voted for Jim Crow laws back in the day too and people called those a matter of states rights, that doesn't make them justified.

theone86

Until the Constitution is amended, then, it IS legally justified. You're arguing on a moral "what should be" basis, but what IS is that marriage is a state matter; the rights that come with marriage are also a state matter. The Supreme Court has ruled this consistently, the Constitution never mentions marriage at any point (thus leaving the matter to the states as described in the Tenth Amendment). In order for the Constitution to be amended you need the approval of two-thirds of the people voted by the states in the Houses of Congress.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

You're logic simply states that because democracy is the present system, it is inherently the best one possible, which is simply not true. Besides, you're mixing different philosophies too much, like comparing communism to democracy as if they're inherently at odds. Communism actually draws a lot of parallels with democracy, at least in the Marxian sense. They're certainly not at odds and they're not even dealing with the same issue. While communism is a form of economic operation, democracy is a form of governing. Aristocracy, facism, oligarchy, an anarchy are all fomrs of governing, communism and capitalism are seperate from them in that they don't dictate the form of governing but the form of economy. Besides, such a simplistic analysis is inherently flawed. Communism failed, so it must have been a failed philosophy. That says absolutely nothing as to why it failed, what went wrong, what went right, what could be improved, and any numbers of factors that you just conviently whitewash over.

theone86

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying. I didn't say Democracy is inherently the best because it's the current system; I'm saying that democracy is the best because the American system of government allows for no other philosophy.

I'm not "whitewashing" over anything; I'm pointing out that if he wants a better system of government then he needs to look at what's come before.

You're whitewashing by saying communism failed and implying that because it failed it is inherently flawed.

That's still circular logic, democracy exists as the dominant form of government in America, therefore it is the best form of government.

I also don't think he was arguing against democracy, and I certainly wasn't. I was saying that the logic you were using is flawed. At any rate, what he and I are saying is not that democracy is outdated or obsolete, but rather arguing to what level it should be implemented. Even you admitted, by virtue of saying that an issue such as slavery cannot be subject to a popular vote, that there are limits to how far democracy should be allowed to go in governing everyday life.

Typically, if a type of government or economy consistently fails and leads to the deaths of hundreds of millions in a 100-year timespan, that is a sign of flawness.

Democracy IS the best form of government FOR AMERICA because America ALLOWS FOR NO OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

He was arguing that people should "brainstorm" and come up with a better system, when we've done that and this is the system we've come up with. American is a Constitutional Republic and not a pure democracy; I never said otherwise.

[QUOTE="NaturalJoe"]

Isn't it obvious?

Religious peoples moral code is the word of their god, therefore it has more value than that of the government. Gods law > Laws of man. So why wouldn't they attempt to impose it upon everyone else?

Don't you see, my salvation is at stake here! They must control me!

(Wow, that last bit was much too much, I think)

ANYWAY. In my insignificant personal opinion, I believe law MUST BE objective, and law MUST BE based on facts. If we are to declare gay marriage unethical, we must present facts as to WHY it is unethical. We must explain why they do not deserve the same rights and protection under the government as everyone else. But that won't be happening. At least not for a while now. Because, as fiscope said, it's boiling down to a popularity contest.

dodgerblue13

In jest and blatent hyperbole.

I was exaggerating, and referring to the ones that regard their religious law as more important than the laws of government. The ones who come knocking on my door and tell me to pray at school. Do you not agree that those ones exist? Regardless, by no means am I speaking in facts. This is gamespot forums, this is not my ideal court of law.

How do you think people will react to a change in the system? Do you think that everyone will enjoy it? Do you think the common man will love getting the little say-so he do has taken away from him? A "better" system is fairy tale. Give government more control and the people will become oppressed. Give the people more control and the next president will be chosen from the winner of a reality TV show. The only way to give the people more of a voice is if they would be able to logically produce intelligent and worthwhile decisions, which would never happen. And increasing the power of the government surely isn't the way to go. There certainly were systems before, during, and after democracy, but when have you heard of a perfect society? You haven't. Don't you realize this? How can you not see that?dodgerblue13

So in your mind, this is it? This is as good as it gets?

Of course it's not going to get easier before it gets better. That doesn't mean we can stop pondering. Sure, a perfect society seems unattainable, but we can at least try to better this system. I Guess I'm just trying to remain positive, because if this is all we can amount to, I must say I'm quite frightened.

[QUOTE="NaturalJoe"]

You missed my point entirely. I'm saying why can't WE make a better system, not I. WE, as a society. BRAINSTORM or something! Work together in an everyday circumstance, not only in crisis situations! We don't even have to make something entirely new, just build upon democracy. Don't you realise, there were other systems before democracy, and there will be more after it? Why can't we at least think about these things?!

I completely disagree that this is the best we can get. We still have a ****storm of problems, how can you not see that?

Theokhoth

The systems before democracy kinda failed, as did a few of the systems after it (communism comes to mind). We did get together and brainstorm; the people-run democratic constitutional republic of America was the result. What other forms of government could there possibly be? We've been through anarchy, aristocracy, democracy, communism, fascism, oligarchy, theocracy, timocracy, and everything in between.

There will be a ****storm of problems regardless of the system of government we come up with. Why can't you see that? If you want a system without problems then you'll need to get rid of human nature in the process.

You're right. At least in part. Human Nature needs to be altered. Obviously, I'm not the person to do it. But in my mind, our values, roles and perceptions of society need to change.

EDIT: apologies for the double post.