Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Marriage
#26
It'd be good to meet you, though my ways may shock you a little!! Big Grin
Cave canem
#27
Rufus Wrote:Cailean, sometimes it feels as if your answers are too "correct". Sorry. How about a little more "heart?"
Not sure what to do with this... I'll try to lay out what I believe:

The Public Law
1) The public law applies to all people of a given jurisdiction regardless of their faith.
2) Religious law is relevant only to those who are faithful to the particular religion. For example, Islamic law has no legitimacy to Christians, and vice-versa. Similarly, no religious law is relevant to those of no faith.
3) If the public law is based on a particular religious doctrine, the remainder of the population is alienated and marginalized.
4) The public law must be as inclusive as possible to allow the full participation of all people in the state.

If you want people to follow the Word of God (which we all do), you must bring them to know God first, and then teach them His ways. In the meantime, forcing people to conform to a narrowly defined worldview only serves to push them further from God.

The separation of Church and State was achieved at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, bringing peace to Europe after a generation of religious war. They recognized, as we should, that states containing multiple faiths cannot be governed peacefully if the government supports or represents a particular religious belief.
<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
#28
Wow... you've done your research! I think it's true that religious law would only gain support of those sharing the same religion, and would alienate others.

Just look at some Islamic countries where basically you've got no choice but to conform - lest you end up in jail. Swing the other way though and you've got a society that doesn't know what to stand for anymore.

Surely there must be a middle groundand surely there must be room for religion in government?
#29
shuttertalk Wrote:I think it's true that religious law would only gain support of those sharing the same religion, and would alienate others.
It's not as much a case of gaining support as it is about the law being legitimate to the people. In any theocracy, the public law is justified by scripture. If you do not have faith in that scripture, then the public law is illegitimate to you and you are under no moral obligation to follow it - though are would be legal consequences! This is why using scripture to justify public laws (such the ban on same-sex marriage) only makes matters worse.
Quote:surely there must be room for religion in government?
As long as there are religious people in government, there will always be religion in government. A problem only arises when there is religion in law.
<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
#30
shuttertalk Wrote:Wow... you've done your research!
Well, it's a pretty hot topic up here. Four out of ten Canadian provinces have allowed same-sex marriage within the past year or so. The fact that I'm neck deep in political philosophy and history at the moment tends to magnify everything.
<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
#31
"The public law applies to all people of a given jurisdiction regardless of their faith".
In theory.

In practise, this just isnt so. Certain groups, (as I may have said before), will flout the law, claiming religious persecution by it, (the law).

"Religious law is relevant only to those who are faithful to the particular religion. For example, Islamic law has no legitimacy to Christians, and vice-versa".

Not so. Religious law is becoming the snare by which Christians are being trapped.

"If the public law is based on a particular religious doctrine, the remainder of the population is alienated and marginalized".

Theory. Not reality. In fact, the minority groups "law" infects the majority, and attempts to place guilt and discriminatory practises where none should exist.

Cal, I'm sorry man, but you speak from a political stance. No politicing will ever get this right.
Cave canem
#32
There is still some hope left....

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/0...19497.html
God has placed me on earth to accomplish certain things.
Right now, I am so far behind that I will never die.
#33
Awesome! It's great when biblical truths are upheld...
#34
Good news!
Cave canem
#35
Well, I don't know if it's good news when a government begins defining (and limiting) inter-personal relationships. I would much prefer the government get out of the relationship business altogether. The Christian lifestyle is the responsibility of the Church, not the Government. If we do our jobs as Christians (without using the big stick of Government) the same ends would be achieved but without the animosity, anger and distrust. The order of achieving Christian lifestyles should be Preach --> Convert --> Conform. If we try conforming first we may never get the opportunity to do the other two. This is, of course, more difficult than legislating conformity - but that just leads me to believe that it is the right way.
<><
Camera: Panasonic Lumix FZ10
Image Management/Editing:ArcSoft PhotoBase4
Advanced Image Editing: Adobe PhotoShop 7
#36
OOOOOOO!

You are determined to disagree!!

Why not limit disease spreading, family wrecking, unatural behaviours where possible? Quite apart from a Christian perspective, these things are unhealthy!

Or should a government allow bestiality and necrophilia too?
Cave canem
#37
By keeping the govt out of things like defining what is a marriage, you're also making it very difficult for the govt to offer aid to couples & families who really need it.

Compare a man-woman couple vs a man-man couple, and even a man-dog couple just to take it to the extreme (without legal constraints, anything is possible?). Right now in Australia, the government supports families with financial aid where the combined income of the couple is below a certain threshold.

Firstly, if the govt decides to withdraw aid because it cannot legally determine a fair manner to distribute aid, then the couples who require aid will miss out. If the govt decides to distribute aid regardless of the makeup of the couple, then any man and his dog can rort the system and deceitfully gain aid (at the expense of you and I as taxpayers).

It's fine to tell the govt to get out of people's interpersonal business, and let them partner whomever they choose, but I feel the issue is not as simple as that, and there are many factors that make it impossible for society to function properly for the govt to step away from something as important as this.
God has placed me on earth to accomplish certain things.
Right now, I am so far behind that I will never die.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Marriage00