Marriage is technically a religious institution, so the separation of church and state should prevail on both the federal and state levels.
No it isn't.
I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
Turquoise wrote:
Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
For the most part, we do have proper separation of church and state, but the fact that our populace is so religious makes the issue muddled.
Let me put it this way. Our system is designed to keep religion and state separate, but there is a constant push by the people themselves to get religion involved in social policy. In certain ways, you could analogize this tendency with what is currently happening in Turkey. They have a secular government, but there is a sizable minority of people there that want more religion in government. The only difference between us and them is that our minority of theocons is Christian, while theirs is Muslim.
Bertster7 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
I'm thinking mostly of the Church of England and the fact that tax money is used to fund religious schools.
I don't know where this idea comes from, but marriage is not inherently a religious institution.
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
Turquoise wrote:
Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
For the most part, we do have proper separation of church and state, but the fact that our populace is so religious makes the issue muddled.
Let me put it this way. Our system is designed to keep religion and state separate, but there is a constant push by the people themselves to get religion involved in social policy. In certain ways, you could analogize this tendency with what is currently happening in Turkey. They have a secular government, but there is a sizable minority of people there that want more religion in government. The only difference between us and them is that our minority of theocons is Christian, while theirs is Muslim.
Bertster7 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
I'm thinking mostly of the Church of England and the fact that tax money is used to fund religious schools.
What's wrong with that? They're schools and are therefore publicly funded. You don't have to follow that religion to attend them (though in practice you are unlikely to get in if you don't).
Why does having the Church of England link the government to the Church? It links the Queen, as the head of the religion, but that's about it. In fact the origins of the Church of England and the reformation are very good things in my opinion, since they pulled England out of the dark ages and set them on the path towards the renaissance. Having a Church that was essentially run by the King helped a lot, which sounds bizarre I know, but trust me on this.
It's true, over here we have an Official State Religion (Christianity) and no real separation of Church and State. Yet the reality here is quite different. Yet in the USA, everyone always talks about Separation of Church and State, and how the USA has no official religion, yet Religion is in all your institutions and is a key part of the USA, it's even on your money.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
For the most part, we do have proper separation of church and state, but the fact that our populace is so religious makes the issue muddled.
Let me put it this way. Our system is designed to keep religion and state separate, but there is a constant push by the people themselves to get religion involved in social policy. In certain ways, you could analogize this tendency with what is currently happening in Turkey. They have a secular government, but there is a sizable minority of people there that want more religion in government. The only difference between us and them is that our minority of theocons is Christian, while theirs is Muslim.
Bertster7 wrote:
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
I'm thinking mostly of the Church of England and the fact that tax money is used to fund religious schools.
What's wrong with that? They're schools and are therefore publicly funded. You don't have to follow that religion to attend them (though in practice you are unlikely to get in if you don't).
Why does having the Church of England link the government to the Church? It links the Queen, as the head of the religion, but that's about it. In fact the origins of the Church of England and the reformation are very good things in my opinion, since they pulled England out of the dark ages and set them on the path towards the renaissance. Having a Church that was essentially run by the King helped a lot, which sounds bizarre I know, but trust me on this.
so youre head of state is not also the head of a major religious organization? hmm....
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
It's true, over here we have an Official State Religion (Christianity) and no real separation of Church and State. Yet the reality here is quite different. Yet in the USA, everyone always talks about Separation of Church and State, and how the USA has no official religion, yet Religion is in all your institutions and is a key part of the USA, it's even on your money.
"In God We Trust" ..give me a fucking break...
Ill give you a break
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-08-24 10:49:30)
What's wrong with that? They're schools and are therefore publicly funded. You don't have to follow that religion to attend them (though in practice you are unlikely to get in if you don't).
In my personal opinion, I believe that no religious school (whether here or over in your country) should be funded by taxes. To do so implies patronage of the said religion. When you consider the tax breaks religion is given, this is just adding insult to injury against atheist taxpayers or taxpayers of a different religion from the institution being funded.
Bertster7 wrote:
Why does having the Church of England link the government to the Church? It links the Queen, as the head of the religion, but that's about it. In fact the origins of the Church of England and the reformation are very good things in my opinion, since they pulled England out of the dark ages and set them on the path towards the renaissance. Having a Church that was essentially run by the King helped a lot, which sounds bizarre I know, but trust me on this.
Those times have past. Your government should evolve past tradition, as should my own. Secular logic should reign supreme in terms of law.
Also if you sign up to the Armed Forces and you have to take the oath, you don't even have to mention god if you don't want to. I bet in the USA you have to take an Oath which talks about some deity
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
Turquoise wrote:
Granted, the irony is that your country's government has more of an official connection to religion.
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
Let me restate... The history of religion's connection to marriage is heavily emphasized in American politics. This is why it becomes a religious institution. There are quite a few Christians who believe that marriage was started as a concept by God, so even though they have no evidence to back up their claim, their strong belief in it trumps logic. The same could be said for other religions like Islam.
The point is... religion is integral enough in our culture that marriage is seen as religious, so the only way to separate religion from the debate is to replace it with civil unions.
Sadly, the logic you're using is not really applicable to our politics, because the U.K. is considerably less religious than America.
All fair points, but technically, in a nation which claims to have proper separation of Church and state and has since its inception, these should not be valid arguments.
How so? Unless you actually count the Queen as part of government.
It's true, over here we have an Official State Religion (Christianity) and no real separation of Church and State. Yet the reality here is quite different. Yet in the USA, everyone always talks about Separation of Church and State, and how the USA has no official religion, yet Religion is in all your institutions and is a key part of the USA, it's even on your money.
"In God We Trust" ..give me a fucking break...
This is a good point. Your populace is generally more secular than ours. However, I really do think you're letting Islam push you guys around too much over there. You shouldn't have to be so politically correct to avoid offending Muslims.
Still, your mentioning of "In God We Trust" is very valid. Did you know that the only reason why we have that on our money is because the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic social club) lobbied to have it put on our money? In the buildup of our rivalry against atheist Communism, many religious groups tried to distinguish us from them by including religious references in our government's institutions. This is when the separation of church and state really began to decay here.
Sadly, it's been injured ever since, and the evangelicals don't help things any.
your head of state is a religious figure. you lose.
Do you know the history of how that happened?
The king wanted a divorce. The Pope wouldn't let him have it. He told the Pope to fuck off and took over the Church himself.
That is the sort of reverential treatment religion gets over here. The C of E is less like a religion and more like a British institution. They allow virtually everything, female Bishops, gay priests etc.
It's like a sort of evolved religion where they don't care so much about the rules of their religion, but rather worry about offending anyone - which is almost the complete opposite of most religions.
Turquoise wrote:
In the buildup of our rivalry against atheist Communism, many religious groups tried to distinguish us from them by including religious references in our government's institutions. This is when the separation of church and state really began to decay here.
Funny on so many levels. Mainly because they're the same religion......
It's like a sort of evolved religion where they don't care so much about the rules of their religion, but rather worry about offending anyone - which is almost the complete opposite of most religions.
This is a problem though... When you give radical Muslims an inch, they take a mile. The main cultural issue your country faces right now is the uneven balance inherent here. The Christians don't want to offend the Muslims, but certain people among your Muslims push as hard as they can for more privileges for their religion. All it takes is a few clever radical clerics to manipulate a good portion of the Muslims in your country. For example, look at the Green Lane Mosque controversies.
As annoying as religion can be in America, one of the only things I like about evangelicals here is that they have the balls to shoot down any demands from radical Muslims here. As annoying as certain evangelical dogmas are in our society (and how they affect things like media), I find them generally much more palatable than the ones supported by radical Muslims.
Ironically, there is a certain benefit to a society having its own "native" dogmas. It protects the said society from being intimidated by foreign ones that might be even more conservative in nature.
Bertster7 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
In the buildup of our rivalry against atheist Communism, many religious groups tried to distinguish us from them by including religious references in our government's institutions. This is when the separation of church and state really began to decay here.
Funny on so many levels. Mainly because they're the same religion......
It's like a sort of evolved religion where they don't care so much about the rules of their religion, but rather worry about offending anyone - which is almost the complete opposite of most religions.
This is a problem though... When you give radical Muslims an inch, they take a mile. The main cultural issue your country faces right now is the uneven balance inherent here. The Christians don't want to offend the Muslims, but certain people among your Muslims push as hard as they can for more privileges for their religion. All it takes is a few clever radical clerics to manipulate a good portion of the Muslims in your country. For example, look at the Green Lane Mosque controversies.
As annoying as religion can be in America, one of the only things I like about evangelicals here is that they have the balls to shoot down any demands from radical Muslims here. As annoying as certain evangelical dogmas are in our society (and how they affect things like media), I find them generally much more palatable than the ones supported by radical Muslims.
Ironically, there is a certain benefit to a society having its own "native" dogmas. It protects the said society from being intimidated by foreign ones that might be even more conservative in nature.
Bertster7 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
In the buildup of our rivalry against atheist Communism, many religious groups tried to distinguish us from them by including religious references in our government's institutions. This is when the separation of church and state really began to decay here.
Funny on so many levels. Mainly because they're the same religion......
I don't follow you... What do you mean?
Once again. There is no Muslim problem here, so it is a non-issue.
As for the Communism stuff, the Soviets are all Christians.
Gay marriage in California to British Government and Radical Muslims in 3 pages. Nice.
Look at how many topics end up connecting to Iraq somehow.
Good point. However, I'm just admiring the complete difference between Gays marriage in California and Radical Muslims in Britain. Kinda one notch up from Obama to Iraq.
Once again. There is no Muslim problem here, so it is a non-issue.
Well, it's apparently a problem in the Netherlands, since making cartoons of Mohammed can either result in death or actual prosecution.
There is a fight between freedom of speech and radical Islam. Most Muslims seem to understand the freedom of speech, but there are a few that seriously don't. You can't tell me there hasn't been a conflict involving freedom of speech in the U.K. over this.
Bertster7 wrote:
As for the Communism stuff, the Soviets are all Christians.
Not necessarily... Some of the former Soviet republics have Christian populations, but... Russia is heavily atheist compared to most countries. Communism basically banned religion for a while.
I'm not saying the atheist/religious dichotomy had any relevance, but you know how religious people get about these things.
Once again. There is no Muslim problem here, so it is a non-issue.
Well, it's apparently a problem in the Netherlands, since making cartoons of Mohammed can either result in death or actual prosecution.
There is a fight between freedom of speech and radical Islam. Most Muslims seem to understand the freedom of speech, but there are a few that seriously don't. You can't tell me there hasn't been a conflict involving freedom of speech in the U.K. over this.
Can't I?
They brought in new laws about hate speech a few years back, which gave them powers to arrest these people. That's about it.
Once again. There is no Muslim problem here, so it is a non-issue.
Well, it's apparently a problem in the Netherlands, since making cartoons of Mohammed can either result in death or actual prosecution.
There is a fight between freedom of speech and radical Islam. Most Muslims seem to understand the freedom of speech, but there are a few that seriously don't. You can't tell me there hasn't been a conflict involving freedom of speech in the U.K. over this.
Can't I?
They brought in new laws about hate speech a few years back, which gave them powers to arrest these people. That's about it.
Well hey, I'm glad to hear it. I really hope you're right. I guess I must have mixed up U.K. policy with Dutch policy.
Gay marriage in California to British Government and Radical Muslims in 3 pages. Nice.
Look at how many topics end up connecting to Iraq somehow.
It's Israel's fault.
We just hit the D&ST trifecta!
BTW, separation of church and state does exist. Our head of state isn't the head of the National church. We don't even have a national church.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean religion can't play a role. It means that no single religion can play any more of a role than any other. Read the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-08-24 11:51:27)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” ― Albert Einstein Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
Well, apparently you can seeing as how the State of California is now not allowing religious views and biases in defenses against Gay marriage. Marriage is not a religious act. Granted it heavily involved religion when it was first started, but it was not brought about solely by religion.
Do you know what I find very very interesting? This video below put up in California for allowing Gay marriage. It has a profound effect simply because it takes the view between a man and woman and...well...just watch it. It's not long and you'll see what I mean.
EDIT: If it weren't for fucking religion we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
As for "In God We Trust" in our currency, I believe that was put in back in the times of fighting Communists and we were trying to prove something to them, or something along those lines, and it just never got taken out.
Last edited by xBlackPantherx (2008-08-24 12:40:58)
Gay marriage in California to British Government and Radical Muslims in 3 pages. Nice.
Look at how many topics end up connecting to Iraq somehow.
It's Israel's fault.
We just hit the D&ST trifecta!
BTW, separation of church and state does exist. Our head of state isn't the head of the National church. We don't even have a national church.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean religion can't play a role. It means that no single religion can play any more of a role than any other. Read the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There is a big difference between employing religious values in your judgment and actually having things like "In God We Trust" on currency. The latter really is a violation of the separation of church and state.
You can't start a gay thread and "not allow" religion. It is a fundamental aspect of our society, and many of our laws are based off of judeo-christian values. It's like talking about sodomy without a penis. You can do it....it's pretty stupid though.
Well, apparently you can seeing as how the State of California is now not allowing religious views and biases in defenses against Gay marriage. Marriage is not a religious act. Granted it heavily involved religion when it was first started, but it was not brought about solely by religion.
Do you know what I find very very interesting? This video below put up in California for allowing Gay marriage. It has a profound effect simply because it takes the view between a man and woman and...well...just watch it. It's not long and you'll see what I mean.
Wow, it sounds like a real cocksucker not being able to get Married. I guess civil union doesn't doesn't do it for perverts.