I am not aware of anyone passing legislation that suppresses ones ability to worship, but I concede we may have a opposing grasps on the term "suppression" in this context. In any case, suppression of worship would be a violation of ones constitutionally protected rights, and thus unconstitutional, which would mean I, even as an atheist, would be protesting right along side you against such an infringement of rights.
Therein is the amazement of our system. You have zoning regulations, which will prohibit the assembly of people in more than a certain amount. Certain municipalities prevent the assembly of over a certain amount in any local. Yet it's selectively enforced. Church gatherings will be pointed out as being different than say a gathering for a football. As much as I appreciate it that you would stand alongside of me against such infringement of rights, you’ll see that you would probably be the exception, rather than the norm.
Suppression of rights can be brought upon in different fashions. The only way to really see the issue is through the regulations that are put in place, for the benefit of all! Segregation was a good example of what was put in place by the populace to keep the races apart. Then to prevent this from happening, you had busing introduced. The real issue was economic equality between the educational institutions. This is still an issue and has yet to be addressed adequately.
From where I see it, the origins of the phrase have little merit on whether or not this is a principle within the constitution of this country (the Establishment Clause).
Then you see it my way Agreed. Yet you’ll find whenever there is prayer at a ball game, someone is offended and wants it to stop. What do they use to force the issue? You’ve guessed it. “Separation of church and state”. Litigation is then threatened, normally involving an institution that is founded outside the local in question with resources that the local smaller institution does not have. It then becomes more, who has the financial wherewithal to continue the battle in the court system unless they acquiesce to the individual demands.
Not according to the document that outlines this nations governance.
If the majority of individuals in this country wanted to reestablish black slavery, for example, but attempted to do so while upholding the constitution, they would be constitutionally prevented from infringing upon the constitutionally protected rights of black Americans.
That would be true if the document is seen as unchanging from the original thought. However, when it’s seen as a living breathing document and to be interpreted in this fashion, it no longer will provide the protection it is supposed to afford. As far as slavery is concerned, where in the constitution does slavery come into play?
Just as a side bar, I once heard a Black Bishop talk on the attempt to infer a similarity between black slavery and gays. He said it quiet simply. “When I wake up in the morning no matter how much I may want it otherwise, I’ll still be black.”
The fact that the institution of marriage bestows state and federal benefits is conclusive evidence that tells us it is not a religious institution.
If a religious individual wants a marriage with their significant other that is symbolically tied to their God, they can have a church sanctioned ceremony under the guidance of their Lord and Savior that bestows that to them. If the two individuals happen to be homosexual, I see no reason why the church should not have the right to deny them that marriage. The state sanctioned institution of marriage, however, is a completely separate institution that bestows over 1,000 state and federal rights.
So it makes little sense to inject a religious interpretation of marriage into a secular state sanctioned institution that bestows benefits in a way that does not necessitate any one singular religious belief. This is why Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, atheists can all get married regardless of their religious positions.
Yes it doesn’t make any sense to intrude upon a religious belief, and yet it happens. Why doesn’t the government change the terminology to Union instead of marriage? It’s not the reality, but the perception that people have of the word “marriage”, that has become important to the discussion. If you continue along the train of thought that you ended with on identifying marriage outside the religious position, then age of consent, or created origin becomes irrelevant as well, unless moral standing is to be defined by the government.
Even if this is what the majority of them do want, allowing homosexual marriage does not accomplish this. Allowing homosexual marriage does not force a single person to accept homosexual marriage if they don't want to.
It would be as if a woman you know very well started dating a man that you did not like very much. You thought, with all the best intentions, that she should not get married to him. But they both decide that they want to get married and do. You may not like the marriage, and you don't have to accept it, but you cannot legally deny them that right.
See previous comments.
Marriage has not always been defined as between a man and a woman. It certainly wasn't always defined as it is today in the Bible, where things like age of consent and individual consent were not necessarily required.
Exactly, it hasn’t always been defined as such, so why the issue outside of benefits, to have it defined as such to the homosexual community? I repeat why do they strive to have it defined as Marriage instead of say Civil Union? Could it be that they would like to change the culture to accepting a behavior that to most outside of larger metropolitan areas disagree with? Only the long arm of the government has the ability to force this type of change.
If the church wants to offer state sanctioned marriage, it will have to follow the rules of the state sanctioned marriage.
Otherwise, the church can offer a church sanctioned marriage under their God that does not bestow the state and federal rights, and if the couple decides they want the state sanctioned marriage as well, then they can go to a venue that establishes such.
I can almost guarantee you that Godly people did not get married for the rights that the government bestows upon them I do acknowledge that there are some folks who get married to have as you say, have the state and federal rights (I don’t see benefits as rights, but privileges.) bestowed on upon them. Most folks regardless of persuasion do it as an expression of their love for one another. Therein is the problem. A person who loves children or animals etc. who feel that marriage might be expression of love, doesn't make it right either.
Removing the restriction of marriage on homosexual couples is not forcing anyone to accept it. You can continue to not accept homosexual marriage as well as not get married to the same sex. That's why it's the option that maximizes everyone's freedoms.
Indirectly we are, because the “rights” that you speak of which I see as “privileges” require us to pay for them.
Laws are a set of rules to ensure that a society remains relatively safe and harmonious. They may align with ones morality but they also may not.
Who do you want to establish the morals that are acceptable to you?
The government decides what laws to pass based on the principles of its founding document, the constitution, which detail ways the founding fathers thought best to govern and perpetuate a safe and harmonious society. The laws and a person's individual morality are separate things.
The constitution is more of an outline to how a government was to be established. If you truly want to know what the founding fathers thought on, then reviewing some of their writings would provide a better foundation for understanding their motivations and inspirations. Like us, I’m sure they believed that those who followed would always have a similar belief system that they had. Most people would. This was not to be. It wasn’t for them, and it won’t be so for us. I do cry for this country that in accepting everything it will stand for nothing.
Man is not predisposed by nature to do what is right; rather what is expedient, and beneficial to them. The concept of right and wrong is only defined by the immediate need to be satisfied. The laws are put in place for the very reason that man has no ingrained moral compass. The law defines what is not acceptable and that is all. It like man cannot change the nature of man. That’s why as society becomes more accepting of what was considered unnatural behavior in the past, the very people who are selected to create the laws, carry along with them this acceptance so the laws become more self serving when the sole guidance is internal instead of external.
My foundation for my morality is myself and I also believe that everyone, not just me, dictates their own morality. It is the very reason you can agree with certain moral judgements within the Bible and others can disagree.
Yes you define what is morally acceptable, but you are influenced. What I meant by the question was. Where did you get it from? Me? Initially, it came from my parents, my school, and my church, those I hung around with. Eventually it started to include the material I started to read. My observations of peoples and who they interacted with taking into account the environment they were in. Yet I really didn’t have what one would call a solid morale foundation. I could easily be swayed, if the argument seemed reasonable enough. I was more like Mahatma Gandhi, when asked by his disciples how he had changed his position on something he had talked about two weeks prior. He said that was true then, but I have since gathered more knowledge that now makes this true. Meaning there is no absolute truth. I found out this was not true, because if it were, then chaos was truly the only way to go or if you will the law of “tooth & claw”.
When I was given the faith to believe in Jesus Christ as someone who had lived, died, and who was raised from the dead, another change was wroth in me and continues to this day. The playing field had changed. The field was and is the spirit within me. I had already known of the bible, the Koran, metaphysics, atheism, yet the awareness of them had actually changed nothing within me. Right and wrong, was not defined by them, or even the laws of man, which I did not attribute to God, but just some person I had or had never met. They really did not define for me what was morally right or wrong. I guess you can say it was closer to “do unto others as you would want others to do unto you”. Yet that wasn’t true either, because I didn’t want any consequences for my actions, even if they hurt someone else. Kind of like most children who even when told to not do something, will go ahead and do it anyway, and only regretting the punishment of caught.
That others agree or disagree with outside of Christ Jesus has really become irrelevant to me. I can’t change what someone believes or doesn’t believe. What they see as morally acceptable or not, will not be changed by what I say, no matter how eloquent it may be. The Word of God will also not change a person, no matter how many times it is read. Influence some, yes; change no. That is probably why this site is comforting, because for the most part, folks here at TJ call Jesus, Lord and Savior. For the others who don’t I just most times awkwardly attempt to introduce them to the Gospel. It’s the one thing that I know is true and unchanging.
Time to move on
On the contrary, eternal afterlife makes this one sound rather inconsequential and bland. My realization that I likely have but one life to live brings me great hope and desire to strive to leave this place better than its condition upon my entering it.
I also find no reason to believe anyone has a purpose that is not largely influenced by themselves. I try and find purpose and meaning in everything that I do, but I refrain from extending that purpose or meaning to anything supernatural or religious.
Not to depress you but man has not changed one iota over time. Does the futility of effort not then affect one who would give their all to make it a better place then when they got there? Would our founding fathers have looked at this nation now and seen it as being good and not see how their effort was somehow lacking? If as you say, that it’s all about leaving it better, does the knowledge of man’s past failures in this endeavor not have you look to something more? Egypt and the building of the pyramids is a perfect example of man’s futility. Even the knowledge of how they built them is lost! Wouldn't that be futility of effort especially since the purpose has been lost or exposed as something spiritual? God only knows the answer to that (sorry but I couldn’t help but add that here )
As far as supernatural, it’s all around you. Science has yet to determine where the spark that generates thought comes from. Yet, we do have them. We have plenty of theories of what is around us, but we really don’t know. My brother-in-law, who is a professor of physics, believes in a God! Amazing, that one who’s knowledge in mathematics, and makes my thought processes seem simple in academia, still agrees with me that there is a God.
I would suggest that you stop refraining from looking for meaning to anything supernatural or religious. You’re actually missing the best parts!
I will take a gander at your testimony. Thank-you for that invitation and for publicly posting it.
No problem. It’s the one thing that I have which I can call mine.
Thank-you as well as Agua for the clarification on that. And nothing you've said to me has insulted me in any way. You've been very polite and I hope I have been the same.
Also, there were sections of your post that I cut out to save space, or that I deemed irrelevant to the portion of my answer it was tied to. I hope you don't feel I misrepresented your position, but if my answers demonstrate that please let me know.
Respectfully,
Traverse
Nope you haven’t misrepresented anything. I’m of the belief that 10 people can watch an accident, and tell 10 different stories of the event. Doesn’t mean anyone of them has lied, just that we have a tendency to see the same thing differently, because we have a tendency to focus on different things. That’s why the Gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John seem so conflicting to researchers.
Anytime you want to talk, just shoot me a message.
With all sincerity, future brother in Christ I hope and pray.
C4E
