Moderated Debate: Church and State

[m42]

Rules: Forum Discussion Guidelines. (http://individualism.com/community/showthread.php?t=18)

The debate will formally commence with two members agreeing to cover opposite stances.

The debate will formally end when either member concedes.

Topic: Religion has/has no place in government.

[John Scott]

Anybody willing to take the position that religion does have a place in government?

[eric]

It already has, in the form of environmentalism.

But that won't work either, as the MSM continually informs me that The Debate Is Over (tm)

All Hail, Earth Mother Gaia!@#!1!

[m42]

It already has, in the form of environmentalism.

But that won't work either, as the MSM continually informs me that The Debate Is Over (tm)

All Hail, Earth Mother Gaia!@#!1!

Eric: Are you taking on the opposing position? :evil:

[kerrin]

Anybody willing to take the position that religion does have a place in government?
I might try for the fun of argument/discussion. However, before I accept the challenge of defending a position that I likely (pending definitions bellow) don't believe, I would want to know what is meant by:

1. "Religion" (i.e. A belief in a metaphyscial being?)
2. "Place in Government" (i.e. Role?)
3. What kind of "government" are we discussing? (i.e. A Theocracy would necessitate religion)

[firetown]

Anybody willing to take the position that religion does have a place in government?

It always will. Officially no, realistically yes.

[eric]

Reminds me of the current blahblah regarding Proposition 8 here in Commiefornia, which is really a church v. state issue to me.

Both sides (which are equal subscribers to a religion, either traditional/overt or alternative/covert) have successfully picked a fight, couching the issue in terms of freedom vs. oppression, each with their own slant.

It is highly depressing to me that the obvious correct solution has not been raised by anyone: dissolve the legal construct of "marriage" and call everything a "civil union" which may be entered into by two consenting adults. If you want to get married, contact the earthly representative of the deity of your choice. If you want to enter into a partnership for legal/tax/etc purposes, enter into a civil union. Bang. Done. End of lame, annoying story.

Honestly, the whole fight strikes me as pathetic, passive-aggressive behavior on the part of both sides. One side which doesn't understand the motivations of the other, and the other which is angry about the ignorance regarding their motivations. However, I am vaguely amused by the demand for "rights" (which already fully exist under the civil-union/domestic-parnershup umbrella, mind you) by a group whose only distinction is that of engaging in non-standard activities with their genetalia.

[firetown]

People will vote according to what is most important to them. If it's religion, then they will vote based on that. If it's their own financial situation, then that. Others vote based on National Security.
People want to feel connected to a candidate. Sarah Palin may have turned some off with her comment regarding the Iraq war being God's call, but I'm sure she has also attracted many new voters with it.
So at the end it's what the voters decide as a whole.

[kerrin]

Reminds me of the current blahblah regarding Proposition 8 here in Commiefornia, which is really a church v. state issue to me.

...the obvious correct solution...: dissolve the legal construct of "marriage" and call everything a "civil union" which may be entered into by two consenting adults. If you want to get married, contact the earthly representative of the deity of your choice. If you want to enter into a partnership for legal/tax/etc purposes, enter into a civil union. Bang. Done. End of lame, annoying story.
I agree. It is the best answer to the "fight." However, do you think the "left" will except this solution? I have heard them say this is simply not possible given the current tax law. They also add the difficultly it would pose for American's currently married and those with the new civil union moving overseas, where marriages are currently recognized—something like they'd be in "legal limbo: in a legal relationship not recognized by the country they lived in." What do you think?

However, I am vaguely amused by the demand for "rights" (which already fully exist under the civil-union/domestic-parnershup umbrella, mind you) by a group whose only distinction is that of engaging in non-standard activities with their genetalia.
You're right the "left's" side seems much more rooted in emotion then rational arguments. Amusing but sad.

[Anenome]

It is highly depressing to me that the obvious correct solution has not been raised by anyone: dissolve the legal construct of "marriage" and call everything a "civil union" which may be entered into by two consenting adults. If you want to get married, contact the earthly representative of the deity of your choice. If you want to enter into a partnership for legal/tax/etc purposes, enter into a civil union. Bang. Done. End of lame, annoying story.

This is the answer, in the end. Government should have no role in marriage apart from recognizing them for legal purposes, such as inheritance, visitation, etc. Government should not be issuing licenses that cost significant amount of money, nor making money off unions.

[kerrin]

This is the answer, in the end. Government should have no role in marriage apart from recognizing them for legal purposes, such as inheritance, visitation, etc. Government should not be issuing licenses that cost significant amount of money, nor making money off unions.
Absolutely.

So how do we go about convincing the "left" that this is the solution. I have found there is so much invested emotion in this "fight" that they are difficult to reason with. Besides the emotions getting in the way they do bring up some points, which I have not studied to speak credibly to, along lines of the current law and the difficulties this change would bring. (see my previous response for specifics).
Personally I think it would take an amendment to clean this mess up. Do you have any knowledge/insight of these "difficulties"?

[Anenome]

The key is to understand what the Left, in this case the Left with a homosexual agenda, wants. They specifically want the word 'marriage' attached. For many of them there may be no compromise on that idea. Some say the psychology behind that is a desire for both acceptance and the normalization of the practice of homosexuality in society. They see the proposal of having them use the word 'civil union' as akin to telling black people that separate schools were 'separate but equal'. So, even using a different word becomes a slight, a smear, a denigration. I think that's overstating it, but ultimately it won't matter.

Here's an example for Now.org: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Notice that they put special emphasis on desiring to use the word marriage for themselves:
A civil union is a legal status granted by a state... It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

So clearly it is both the legal difference and the word difference. "Dignity, clarity, security and power". 'Dignity' they consider two different words a slight against them. 'Clarity' having two words implies a difference, and while there may be a religious difference there should be no legal difference. They want to use the legal similarity to propagandize the religious difference also. 'Security' meaning the legal conflation of the two which would make it hard if not impossible to ever separate again. And finally 'power'. That's the telling word. Having everyone call it 'marriage' equal explicit equality and powerful propaganda. It means the redefinition of a word. It means a lot more than that, but such couples would love to be able to say 'we're married' in front of anyone and have it be legally true.

Now, I think our solution is a bit different because we don't even want the law to use the word 'marriage' for anyone. So we would achieve, in a way, what they want. We would make all couples use the word 'civil union' and thus their legal concern would be taken care of, and also their concern to have the same word as hetero couples. As for calling it a marriage, they may want the word used for everyone to be 'civil marriage' rather than 'civil union'. It's really immaterial. I personally think of the word 'marriage' having a religious flavor and context which is more appropriate in the religious context. The State does not 'marry' people, God does, some may say. So I would prefer the state to just recognize unions.

The real failure was letting government inject itself into marriage in the first place. In a tolerant society we ultimately can't prevent homosexual unions. But part of their agenda is to use that legal fact to force social acceptance. I think that is where the Left on this issue, and many others, crosses the line.

They will use this to, for instance, attempt to litigate churches into the ground who will not want to hire homosexuals. That's where they go wrong and venture into fascism and authoritarianism. The right of free association should preclude this, but the Left cannot help using power to further agenda - it's what their ideology is based on.

This is also part of what caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The Left told mortgage lenders that the government was going to racially profile all of their mortgages. When you fill out a mortgage application there is a section that requires race of the applicant to be filled out, and filled out truthfully. Members of the Clinton government threatened organizations if their racial numbers appeared biased, good loan or not. Companies should have balked, but the gov sweetened the deal by using Freddie & Fannie to back even the riskiest loans. So, it wasn't until Fannie and Freddie - government-run companies themselves - failed that the industry imploded.

[firetown]

The bottom line is that you cannot tell people to vote for whom and for what reason. If people want to vote because they believe their religious beliefs are met by one candidate, then you have to accept that people do.

[kerrin]

The bottom line is that you cannot tell people to vote for whom and for what reason.
First, I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion?
Second I find this kind of silly. Politics is all about convincing someone else that your ideas are better for them then another person's ideas. I respect other peoples beliefs this doesn't mean I "cannot tell" them about who I think is best any why. If I think their reasons for voting are not good why should I not try and convince them so? Why would you say I "cannot tell for whom and for what reason?" What do you base this statement on?


If people want to vote because they believe their religious beliefs are met by one candidate, then you have to accept that people do.
Sure I accept people making choices based on poor reasons...with all due respect, it would seem I accept this more so then you accept the "losers" (IMO this denotes a lack for respect) voting for the candidate you don't like.

[firetown]

Let me change "losers" into "victims" please, people with the victim mentality.
When I watch Farakkahn speak about the new Messiah, then we need to accept the fact that religion does play a huge role in the election.

[kerrin]

...we need to accept the fact that religion does play a huge role in the election.
It is true, it currently plays a role. The whole point of this discussion is about removing this nasty plague on politics as it currently exists. Just because the current reality is as such does not mean we shouldn't try to change this reality.

[firetown]

Many don't realize how strong some people believe. I don't ever see it happening. If people really believe in something, they are willing to die for that belief and are definitely willing to vote for it as well.

[kerrin]

Anenome,

You make some excellent points.


Now, I think our solution is a bit different because we don't even want the law to use the word 'marriage' for anyone. So we would achieve, in a way, what they want. We would make all couples use the word 'civil union' and thus their legal concern would be taken care of, and also their concern to have the same word as hereto couples. As for calling it a marriage, they may want the word used for everyone to be 'civil marriage' rather than 'civil union'. It's really immaterial. I personally think of the word 'marriage' having a religious flavor and context which is more appropriate in the religious context. The State does not 'marry' people, God does, some may say. So I would prefer the state to just recognize unions.
I agree. What about the other points the "left" brings up about this not being practically possible, requiring tons of legislation to accomplish, and those citizens stuck in "legal limbo" when going over seas were other nations would not recognize such a union (they still use 'marriage').

What is interesting to me is that the "left" will counter this point and say the reason to keep the word 'marriage' defined by the state is because of the its historical use of 'marriage.' (This also amuses me since usually they don't appeal to historical norms to support their agenda).

The real failure was letting government inject itself into marriage in the first place. In a tolerant society we ultimately can't prevent homosexual unions. But part of their agenda is to use that legal fact to force social acceptance. I think that is where the Left on this issue, and many others, crosses the line.
Yes, that was the original failure and where both sides cross the line in seeking to legislate social acceptance/oppression.


This is also part of what caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The Left told mortgage lenders that the government was going to racially profile all of their mortgages. When you fill out a mortgage application there is a section that requires race of the applicant to be filled out, and filled out truthfully. Members of the Clinton government threatened organizations if their racial numbers appeared biased, good loan or not. Companies should have balked, but the gov sweetened the deal by using Freddie & Fannie to back even the riskiest loans. So, it wasn't until Fannie and Freddie - government-run companies themselves - failed that the industry imploded.
I would lay the blame of this on both Democrats (starting with Clinton's regime) and Republicans ( Bush did nothing to reverse this and in fact encouraged it further (http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/gw-bush-on-the-housing-boom-oct-2002/) ).

[kerrin]

Many don't realize how strong some people believe. I don't ever see it happening. If people really believe in something, they are willing to die for that belief and are definitely willing to vote for it as well.
Fine, they believe strongly and will die for their beliefs (fyi: so will muslim-extremist). But just because you "don't ever see it happening" doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts or discuss how to change the status quo.