|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 4, 2011 15:48:01 GMT -5
Wow- a lot of old songs have God in it- is that supposed to be significant? I can probably turn on the radio and hear God mentioned in a song within 5 minutes. Interestingly, I saw this movie once with lesbian women referencing God quite a bit- is that significant? No very insignficant IMHO
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,583
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 4, 2011 15:48:14 GMT -5
ok, and all these posts of song lyrics that were all written AFTER the country was founded lend nothing to the original intent of the Fathers when they authored the documents by which our country operates - which by everything I have read, indicates that they wish the government to be aligned with no religion in particular. I'm happy to have a sing-a-long, if nobody minds their glassware shattering. I really can't carry a tune.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 4, 2011 15:54:09 GMT -5
Ok the time for a seventh inning stretch with the Red Sox 7 and the Blue Jays 9
Let's all sing along instead of Neil Diamond's Sweet Caroling since it is a holiday at Fenway Park..
While the storm clouds gather far across the sea, Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free, Let us all be grateful for a land so fair, As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer. "
God Bless America, Land that I love. Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America, My home sweet home
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 4, 2011 16:00:22 GMT -5
chiver, it's important to note that the transaction could only occur between two Israelites, and being an Israelite meant strictly adhering to Old Testament law. In this day and age, the point is moot because we appoint the state as a warden.
It's also worth noting that slavery in the Old Testament is very different from American slavery or modern day sex slavery. Israelite slaves were indentured servants. They sold themselves into slavery if they couldn't pay off their debts, or they couldn't afford to eat, or were enslaved as punishment for various crimes. The term of service lasted for a fixed period, with various conditions having to be met by a master upon a slave's release. There were also fifty-year cycles at the end of which any indentured families would be given back their land and freedom.
Furthermore, as is unimaginable in this day and age, the Law includes provisions for a slave who "loves his master". At the end of a term, an Israelite slave was allowed to receive a mark and become a slave for life if he so desired. It gives you an idea of how fundamentally different the attitudes were.
As an aside, the "seven deadly sins" was a concept introduced by the Catholic Church. No mention of "seven deadly sins" is made anywhere in the Bible.
Obtaining a secular license, fine. But recognize the fact that the state was given the right to administer the institution of marriage, that it wants to "take it in a new, secular direction", and that the two concepts have become disjoint.
My suggestion in another thread is that every US marriage would revert to a civil union unless a heterosexual couple explicitly asked for their union to be recognized by the state as a marriage in a recognized church, mosque, etc.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 4, 2011 16:06:29 GMT -5
Marriage should have never left the church and the government had no business conferring special rights to people that are a product of a religious union. One simple law- the government no longer recognizes marriage- all references to spouse in the tax code, SSA, etc. will be changed to designated partner. Would that be OK?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 4, 2011 16:08:32 GMT -5
Personally, I'd be fine with that.
Others might not and I guess they have their reasons.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 4, 2011 16:14:36 GMT -5
Too bad it seems Christians are more concerned with gay marriage than concepts like usury, feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick, etc. If Jesus returns you folks have some 'splainin to do.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 4, 2011 16:17:09 GMT -5
We can agree on that much.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,583
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 4, 2011 16:17:57 GMT -5
Too bad it seems Christians are more concerned with gay marriage than concepts like usury, feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick, etc. If Jesus returns you folks have some 'splainin to do.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 4, 2011 16:18:06 GMT -5
Onto the festivities- Happy 4th!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 4, 2011 16:21:07 GMT -5
God Bless America - written in 1918 by Irving Berlin.
More than 140 years after the Declaration of Independence.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,583
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 4, 2011 16:29:53 GMT -5
comments in the quote. chiver, it's important to note that the transaction could only occur between two Israelites, and being an Israelite meant strictly adhering to Old Testament law. In this day and age, the point is moot because we appoint the state as a warden. It's also worth noting that slavery in the Old Testament is very different from American slavery or modern day sex slavery. Israelite slaves were indentured servants. They sold themselves into slavery if they couldn't pay off their debts, or they couldn't afford to eat, or were enslaved as punishment for various crimes. The term of service lasted for a fixed period, with various conditions having to be met by a master upon a slave's release. There were also fifty-year cycles at the end of which any indentured families would be given back their land and freedom. Furthermore, as is unimaginable in this day and age, the Law includes provisions for a slave who "loves his master". At the end of a term, an Israelite slave was allowed to receive a mark and become a slave for life if he so desired. It gives you an idea of how fundamentally different the attitudes were. so for those rare occasions that something would happen that would fall under the guidance of the Bible, you can sit back and defer judgment. well, that's awfully gracious, generous and liberal of you not to judge. keep up the great work. As an aside, the "seven deadly sins" was a concept introduced by the Catholic Church. No mention of "seven deadly sins" is made anywhere in the Bible. I've mentioned in a few places on this board that I am a recovering Catholic. while I am fairly well educated in the basics of other religions due to my curiosity from an objective standpoint, the line between Catholicism and general Christianity does sometimes get blurred. mea culpa. Obtaining a secular license, fine. But recognize the fact that the state was given the right to administer the institution of marriage, that it wants to "take it in a new, secular direction", and that the two concepts have become disjoint. My suggestion in another thread is that every US marriage would revert to a civil union unless a heterosexual couple explicitly asked for their union to be recognized by the state as a marriage in a recognized church, mosque, etc. why is it that it's OK for a government to recognize a religious ceremony to unite two people as a marriage, if the government cannot perform the same union secularly because it is only allowed to perform civil unions? why wouldn't it be acceptable for the "married" couple to be recognized by their church (temple/mosque/whatever) as married, but by the government as civilly united? you can't have it both ways, IMHO.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 4, 2011 17:20:18 GMT -5
ACLU does p off some people...they do pick some controversal topics that upsets many, however, while the groups they go to court to defend might at times be not the most populer in the country..the rights they are defending do benefit all of us, and it is interesting as to how many of those cases they take on, when they reach the SCOTUS, are won by them..which means the original laws passed and the rulings of the lower courts were wrong , constitutuionally, in the decisions they came up with.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:53:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 17:27:29 GMT -5
I've been to more than one Christian wedding that used the woman is to man I'd man is to god phrase... And know Christians who not only don't accept people of other faiths... But also don't accept other denominations.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 4, 2011 17:35:32 GMT -5
"Rare occasions" is a rather odd choice of words, Ms. chiver. The number of laws and statutes "applicable" (in the sense we've defined it) in modern-day western society still vastly exceeds those whose purpose is being fulfilled by our lavish social institutions.
The number that find relevance across the span of all modern-day nations, many of which have no social protections at all, is greater still.
And let us not forget the thousands of years over which no social institutions existed to fulfill any part of the Law. If your village was raided, if some warlord wanted your cattle, if you ran out of food during a drought, if you lost your house in a landslide, then you and your family were in a desperate fight for your lives. No courthouses. No jails. No Medicaid. No food stamps. Just you, your immediate neighbours, and your God.
I suggest the recognition as a matter of courtesy/consistency for currently married couples. It would allow couples who were "united" (as a secular contract with the state) and married (as a religious covenant with God) to use the term "married" to refer to both. That is, the latter would imply the former. The former would not necessarily imply the latter.
Consider it a form of backwards compatibility. ;D
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,583
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 4, 2011 18:14:33 GMT -5
again, comments in the quote."Rare occasions" is a rather odd choice of words, Ms. chiver. The number of laws and statutes "applicable" (in the sense we've defined it) in modern-day western society still vastly exceeds those whose purpose is being fulfilled by our lavish social institutions. lavish social institution? if by that you mean equal civil rights for men and women, gays and straights, people of all color, then I disagree that what we have is lavish.The number that find relevance across the span of all modern-day nations, many of which have no social protections at all, is greater still. with all due respect, the nations outside the borders of the US have no bearings on whether the US is a Christian nation.And let us not forget the thousands of years over which no social institutions existed to fulfill any part of the Law. If your village was raided, if some warlord wanted your cattle, if you ran out of food during a drought, if you lost your house in a landslide, then you and your family were in a desperate fight for your lives. No courthouses. No jails. No Medicaid. No food stamps. Just you, your immediate neighbours, and your God. I'm not sure I follow you here - do you mean to imply that the situation you describe is better than what we have now?I suggest the recognition as a matter of courtesy/consistency for currently married couples. It would allow couples who were "united" (as a secular contract with the state) and married (as a religious covenant with God) to use the term "married" to refer to both. That is, the latter would imply the former. The former would not necessarily imply the latter. Consider it a form of backwards compatibility. ;D hmm....I concur with those same-sex couples that feel this is another instance of "separate but equal" in the eyes of the law. I happen to be straight, so I don't see this ever being an issue for me either way (I live in MA anyway, BTW), but still recognize that it's fishy.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 4, 2011 18:24:19 GMT -5
Well, don't argue marriage with me- I'm the one that just said you don't need a permission slip from the state to get married. I don't think there should be tax breaks for it, spousal benefits, or any other kind of recognition of marriage other than insofar as there is a civil contract which the goverment should be charged with upholding. As I reminded our leftie friends- the marriage license was put in place by some unsavory politicians to put a halt on interracial unions. There might be some good arguments for state sanctioned marriage, but being left alone to me is the higher value.
|
|
Tigerwife3
New Member
Joined: May 18, 2011 12:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 45
|
Post by Tigerwife3 on Jul 4, 2011 18:37:01 GMT -5
Who or what is going to stop a couple united in a civil union (if that is what all non-religious legal unions are called) from calling themselves married?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 4, 2011 18:42:31 GMT -5
It's not particularly surprising to hear this from a lefty. They think the same thing about the Constitution.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 4, 2011 18:44:34 GMT -5
Who or what is going to stop a couple united in a civil union (if that is what all non-religious legal unions are called) from calling themselves married? Nobody. It's not about love, or religion. It's about social welfare, rules, and regulations. It's about forcing another definition of marriage on everyone-- including your company which if it has spousal benefits, or a family health plan will have to provide the same to gay couples.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,583
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 4, 2011 18:46:05 GMT -5
Well, don't argue marriage with me I wasn't. I was debating semantics with Virgil. I would like to ask you though - you have your own shades of grey in how you view marriage and all it encompasses (tax benefits and such). why are your shades of grey correct, while mine - or Virgil's, or oped's, or whoever's - are wrong? Tigerwife - why should there be two different terms for the same thing?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,583
|
Post by chiver78 on Jul 4, 2011 18:47:42 GMT -5
Who or what is going to stop a couple united in a civil union (if that is what all non-religious legal unions are called) from calling themselves married? Nobody. It's not about love, or religion. It's about social welfare, rules, and regulations. It's about forcing another definition of marriage on everyone-- including your company which if it has spousal benefits, or a family health plan will have to provide the same to gay couples. did you not just say that you are OK with same-sex couples being granted legal recognition of their commitments? why is it OK in your eyes to deny the benefits you list here to one set of couples??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 18:51:31 GMT -5
The author of the declaration of independence did NOT believe that Jesus was the son of God and a virginal Mary... I do think that disqualifies him from your Christian religion... Our founders distrusted religion almost as much as democracy.. But he did believe in God... They distrusted organized religion because they'd seen that with the head of the Church of England, the Church as State, King George. i share his distrust. which is precisely why the Christian Nation idea terrifies me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 18:53:24 GMT -5
ACLU does p off some people... sure. defending the civil liberties of those who most think should not have them will generally infuriate people. that goes for both radical conservatives AND radical liberals.
|
|
Tigerwife3
New Member
Joined: May 18, 2011 12:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 45
|
Post by Tigerwife3 on Jul 4, 2011 18:54:02 GMT -5
Chiver78-All should be called marriage in my opinion. A church service is simply a religious blessing upon the civil marriage. Much like the do in Europe-city hall first and then a church ceremony if they wish.
Civil unions sound so second class.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 4, 2011 19:06:57 GMT -5
We have what is known as a "cradle to grave" society. A Google search on "cradle to grave welfare" will give you an example of how vast our system of social protections is.
We seem to be arguing different things. I'm point out that biblical Laws with seemingly no relevance today (as their function is fulfilled by our social institutions) still have relevance elsewhere in the world, and over vast periods of time.
"Equality" doesn't come into play. No two contracts are being compared.
As far as the marriage contract is concerned, there is one secular contract to bind all couples. Allowing a couple married in a religious ceremony to bind their marriage covenant to the state contract (which, in a manner of speaking, is what Christian couples are doing anyway) is a legal convenience.
If homosexual couples wanted to start a religion, deem one of their sacraments "the enjoining", and petition the state for the right to bind enjoining to the state civil union contract, they would be well within their right to do so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,155
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 4, 2011 19:12:12 GMT -5
We have what is known as a "cradle to grave" society. A Google search on "cradle to grave welfare" will give you an example of how vast our system of social protections is. We seem to be arguing different things. I'm point out that biblical Laws with seemingly no relevance today (as their function is fulfilled by our social institutions) still have relevance elsewhere in the world, and over vast periods of time. "Equality" doesn't come into play. No two contracts are being compared. As far as the marriage contract is concerned, there is one secular contract to bind all couples. Allowing a couple married in a religious ceremony to bind their marriage covenant to the state contract (which, in a manner of speaking, is what Christian couples are doing anyway) is a legal convenience. If homosexual couples wanted to start a religion, deem one of their sacraments "the enjoining", and petition the state for the right to bind enjoining to the state civil union contract, they would be well within their right to do so. Virgil- would it not also be true that denominations that recognize same sex couples CURRENTLY should be entitled to give them a religious marriage?
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 4, 2011 19:24:08 GMT -5
Who or what is going to stop a couple united in a civil union (if that is what all non-religious legal unions are called) from calling themselves married? That's not their issue, they want you to call them married. The whole "gay marriage" issue is about forcing the rest of society (the 98% that isn't gay) to think about, talk about and "accept" (whether you want to or not) their lifestyle choice...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jul 4, 2011 20:05:31 GMT -5
I would have to say yes.
Although this wouldn't be an issue for long. The "Christian" churches that currently perform homosexual unions and ordinate homosexual ministers to the pulpit (predominantly the Anglican Church and the United Church) are currently in membership freefall. Within a generation, they'll cease to exist.
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Jul 4, 2011 20:14:33 GMT -5
I learned a few years ago not to debate religion on political boards, and to not to debate politics on religion boards ~ this has served me well. (Especially when it's clear I'm surrounded by heathens!) (grin) ;D
|
|