Q:I love seeing you all shedding light on truth. What are your thoughts on the legalization of lawful homosexual marriage as far as our secular govt goes? I foresee our country ultimately nationally recognizing it under the guise of "equality". I fully understand the Church never can allow it as a sacrament, with the true purpose of marriage as it is. What do you foresee coming to religious freedom, as many religions reject the homosexual act?
Government marriage at all is an infringement on the 1st amendment and all government marriage should be abolished leaving marriage to religion and religion only. State backing and recognition of gay marriage will only lead to government coercion of accepting gay “marriage” regardless of one’s conscience saying that one is a bigot. As I’ve said before, a couple sued a photographer for denying his service at a gay couple’s wedding successfully under “discrimination. Also, in July, a lesbian woman filed a class action law-suit St. Joseph’s medical center in Westchester county, NY after gay marriage was recognized by New York which is essentially saying that religious affiliated businesses must obey the state rather than the religion to which they are affiliated. So much for the 1st amendment.
Q:"Traditional marriage is integral to our Judeo-Christian heritage." -Fmr. Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., of Maryland. Why is it right for legislatures to say things like this? As a person, fine--say that all you want, but as a CIVIL servant, you have NO right to deny a CIVIL right. You ask for separation of church and state...until it leads to gay marriage, right?
Separation of church and state is no where in our constitution. I think you refer to this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The churches cannot control the state and the state cannot control the churches. This doesn’t mean morals and God is separate from the state.
you know, if government gets out of marriage, we wouldn’t have this problem…just sayin.
Q:Marriage does not belong to religion. Marriage is in fact a right. We don't live in the dark ages anymore where religion rules all. Not everyone is religious. I'm atheist, should I be denied the right to get married then? There's so many religions in the world, and not all follow your bible. "Separation of church and state" should be drilled into more peoples' heads.
Marriage is a covenant between spouses and God (or higher authority). As an atheist, you renounce the existence of God and all spirituality which means you don’t believe in marriage. Take God out of the picture and what you now describe is an agreement between two people, which is a legal contract, not a marriage.
Marriage belongs to the religions. It began there. The state took it from the religions (for whatever reason) and started implementing laws, regulations, and started dispensing them. By doing so, they essentially promote a religion (based on the description of marriage they choose and the laws surrounding it), which is prohibited by the first amendment.
The reason the state should get out of marriage is because there are so many religions and we live in an pluralistic society. Not everyone agrees on the definition of marriage, so it should be left to the religions.
You misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state (which was a paraphrasing anyway). The point was that the church doesn’t run the state or the state doesn’t run the churches (which was happening in Europe at the time). The authors wanted a secular government. This doesn’t mean morals and God should be out of the government.
Q:separation of church and state... don't even get me started. Libs don't know anything. They still think the point is to protect the state
Q:Does separation of church and state mean anything to you? Christianity has absolutely zero standing on how the laws play out. The government works in the best interested of the LIVING people, not the fetuses (which may be human, but are not alive.) They pick the citizens over unborn children, because the citizens are the ones that are present. And gay marriage? Religion has nothing to do with that either. Seriously though, separation of church and state.
Does separation of Church and state mean anything to you?
Yes, it does. It probably doesn’t mean to me what it means to you, though. I am a firm believer in original intent. In other words, reading in context and understanding the times and character everything was written in.
When Jefferson made his comment about the wall of separation between the Church and the state, his intention was to make sure that the United States didn’t become like Europe—ruled by the church in a litteral sense.
Christianity has absolutely zero standing on how the laws play out.
Considering that the Catholic Bishops just got Obama to tweak the HHS mandate, I feel you are slightly misinformed to think that the Church has no standing on the laws.
The government works in the best interested of the LIVING people, not the fetuses (which may be human, but are not alive).
I’m assuming you mean ‘best interest’ sorry if you meant something else :/
Yes, we have a government for the people and by the people—or at least we used to. As to your fetus remark, I am very truly curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that a fetus is not living. Do you have any scientific evidence to back your claim? I really don’t see where you’re coming from. Regardless, I’d be interested to hear your argument.
They pick the citizens over unborn children because the citizens are the ones that are present.
..and the unborn children are past? Or are they not really there? Again, I don’t really understand the logic behind that statement. I’d like to hear the argument you have for that.
Also, anon, the government doesn’t have to pick between protecting its citizens and the unborn children. The government can and should protect both from being killed. Again, nobody is trying to kill the mother. Somebody is trying to kill her child. The government should protect the child from being killed and if the mother is threatened, then the mother as well.
And gay marriage? Religion has nothing to do with that either. Seriously though, separation of Church and state.
This country was founded upon Christian morals and principles. Many of the founders were ministers and some were even bible scholars! Who are you to all of the sudden say that we shouldn’t continue the rich heritage our founders left us?
In addition, I hope you understand that my arguments against gay marriage aren’t ‘the bible says it’s bad’ or anything religious.
Q:"Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools." I'm not American but I think separation of religion and education is important especially if you're only considering the bible! What about everyone who isn't Christian or who like me don't/can't believe in a God? (Atheists and Agnostic people) You can educate people on religion and religious teachings but it shouldn't be intrinsic to teaching.
I know this was a while ago, but I posted that quote just to show how our founding fathers weren’t in favor of the common day term, “separation of church and state.” That’s all.
What’s wrong about learning about religion and the religion our culture and laws are mostly based off? You don’t seem to have an issue educating people about the three largest religions in our country (and the world), so why not teach it? Especially with all the hate, slander, and widespread misconceptions about them. You don’t have to agree with them to learn about them.
Q:if you're not for the separation of church and state, are you for immigration? i'm pretty certain a lot of immigrants are not christian. also, atheists and agnostics and all the non-practicing types. they exist. shouldn't it be up to each person to live up to the laws of god? why enforce the laws of god? free will and stuff! why legislate your beliefs when not everyone is you?
I don’t think you understand my position.
I believe in the separation of Church and State meaning the church shouldn’t run the state like they used to in Europe. I don’t agree with the separation of God (morals) and state. Our founders weren’t for this and we shouldn’t be for it either.
Q:Also, "We are not forcing anybody to become Christian or obey the laws of Christianity. ". I'm sorry, but that's a huge contradiction. You're not forcing anyone to obey the laws of Christianity, yet you think that gay marriage and abortions should be illegal? That's exactly forcing people to obey the laws of Christianity. I'd love to hear your views on the separation of church and state!
Am I making a religious claim?
I hope you understand that my reasoning for both of those have not been religious…
Separation of Church and state
1. What we all think of when we hear, “separation of Church and State,” was never meant by the Founders. It’s very sad that this one sentence out of a letter has been taken out of context and distorted to mean something it was never meant to.
Now let me try to explain my view. There should be separation of church and state in the sense that no Church should run the state. This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be ministers in the state. This only means that any certain church shouldn’t run the state like the Catholic Church ran Rome. In short: I agree with the separation of Church and state, not the separation of morals or God and state.
Thanks :) I hope I have made my opinion somewhat clearer.
Q:For everyone of you "America is a Christian nation" quotes, you can find another that contradicts it. By using quotes like the one you just posted you are making the mistake of assuming (or at least implying) just because that one person (illogically) believes Christianity would solve all political and social dilemmas, there are countless others who do believe in separation of church and state.
Of course. Not everybody has the same view. I am well aware of the fact that many people today are whole-heartedly in favor of the separation of church and state.
All I am trying to illustrate through my many quotes is that this is not what the Founding Fathers ever envisioned.