Mixing religion and politics in the US

[dyanaprajna2011]

The First Amendment allows for the freedom of all people, of any religion, to practice their faith without worry of government intrusion, or something like that. In other words, a Hindu or Sikh can practice their faith just as much as a Christian or Jew.

Now, we have seen the great debate on whether to allow homosexuals the right to marry. Christians oppose on religious grounds, stating that their scriptures decries homosexuality as an abomination.

But, what about religions that allow homosexuality? Eastern religions are far less likely to condemn homosexuality than Abrahamic religions. With this in mind, does not allowing homosexuals the right to marry favor Abrahamic religions, and just one specific interpretation of them at that, over other religions?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The First Amendment allows for the freedom of all people, of any religion, to practice their faith without worry of government intrusion, or something like that. In other words, a Hindu or Sikh can practice their faith just as much as a Christian or Jew.

Now, we have seen the great debate on whether to allow homosexuals the right to marry. Christians oppose on religious grounds, stating that their scriptures decries homosexuality as an abomination.

But, what about religions that allow homosexuality? Eastern religions are far less likely to condemn homosexuality than Abrahamic religions. With this in mind, does not allowing homosexuals the right to marry favor Abrahamic religions, and just one specific interpretation of them at that, over other religions?

I strongly agree with you, but I think the problem is that a lot of anti-gay-marriage groups tend to frame their objections as not having a religious basis, but some kind of moral or scientific one. Or the incredibly pathetic "we can't 'redefine' the word 'marriage'" argument, which Charlie Brooker skewered in quite a concise way.

"If I decided to redefine a spoon as 'something I stick up my ****', that doesn't stop you from enjoying your pudding. Unless it was your spoon."

It's basically all garbage, of course. I've yet to find many people who are against gay marriage who don't belong to some kind of fundamentalist religious movement. The few that aren't tend to just be straight-up homophobes. But, that's just in my experience.

 

[hornsby]

anti gay christians are just cherry picking how to interpret certain scriptures to fall in line with their own opinions.... so homosexuality is just the issue of the day. in the past we had slavery, poligamy, sexism, etc.

history has proven time and again that in the end secular society always prevails and sets things straight in due time.....

mormons had to give up poligamy, and racism....good ol' southern christians gave up slavery.... women's rights are on their way up, and gay rights are also starting to come along slowly but surely.

things are slowly settling down and falling into place globally. at this point we are probably 50% there....but we still have a ways to go. homosexuals wont be persecuted, aggressive muslims will follow the path of the aggressive christians and jews of the past and find a way to "re interpret" their scriptures in a way to avoid honorkillings and other savagery.....the few dictatorships remaining will be destroyed, and eventually religion as a whole will all but die out. ... but thats at least 200 years away still. generations upon generations simply need to pass.....

in a way iam sad i happened to be born in a time when this "healing" is still in progress, but at the same time i am glad i wasnt born any earlier

 

[hornsby]

oh, and by the way, the first amendment was in truth intended to protect christians of different denominations, not muslims or atheists or any other Non christians........the separation of church and state was also meant to keep the state/government from dictating any type of CHRISTIAN religion to the citizens.... nothing more nothing less.....

but over time people re interpreted these amendments more liberally and now it is generally accepted taught and understood that freedom of religion applies to all religions christian OR NOT..and separation of church and state goes both ways.

make no mistake our founding fathers were nowhere near as open minded and accepting as everyone in modern times now seems to believe.

the united states is where it is today thanks to gradual secular liberal progressive humanist thought

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

oh, and by the way, the first amendment was in truth intended to protect christians of different denominations, not muslims or atheists or any other Non christians........the separation of church and state was also meant to keep the state/government from dictating any type of CHRISTIAN religion to the citizens.... nothing more nothing less.....

but over time people re interpreted these amendments more liberally and now it is generally accepted taught and understood that freedom of religion applies to all religions christian OR NOT..and separation of church and state goes both ways.

make no mistake our founding fathers were nowhere near as open minded and accepting as everyone in modern times now seems to believe.

the united states is where it is today thanks to gradual secular liberal progressive humanist thought

This may be the case, but some of the founding fathers weren't even Christians, and many of them had good things to say about Islam. The Constitution, while not being inspired by Christianity, no matter how much they think it was, was a product of Enlightenment era thinking. It itself was quite progressive for it's time. But like you said, we are where we are because of liberalism and humanism, etc.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

But, what about religions that allow homosexuality? Eastern religions are far less likely to condemn homosexuality than Abrahamic religions.

Also, many native American Groups that were here first were ok with Gays.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Also, many native American Groups that were here first were ok with Gays.

True, and that's a whole other can of worms that I have issues with, but that's for another time.

 

[McBell]

oh, and by the way, the first amendment was in truth intended to protect christians of different denominations, not muslims or atheists or any other Non christians........the separation of church and state was also meant to keep the state/government from dictating any type of CHRISTIAN religion to the citizens.... nothing more nothing less.....

Please support this part of your above claim "nothing more nothing less"

 

[Jainarayan]

It's very true that many Christian groups oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, but not having to do with the First Amendment except in a roundabout way. They really don't consider the First Amendment because of their misguided and erroneous belief that the US was "founded on Christian principles". It was only the extent of the equality of all people, as Jesus taught. That's about as Christian a founding of the US you will get. The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion, something that is lost on groups like American Family Council, Focus on Family, or whatever group it is. I believe that gay marriage will be legalized, not on the basis of the First Amendment, but on the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

 

[Levite]

The First Amendment allows for the freedom of all people, of any religion, to practice their faith without worry of government intrusion, or something like that. In other words, a Hindu or Sikh can practice their faith just as much as a Christian or Jew.

Now, we have seen the great debate on whether to allow homosexuals the right to marry. Christians oppose on religious grounds, stating that their scriptures decries homosexuality as an abomination.

But, what about religions that allow homosexuality? Eastern religions are far less likely to condemn homosexuality than Abrahamic religions. With this in mind, does not allowing homosexuals the right to marry favor Abrahamic religions, and just one specific interpretation of them at that, over other religions?

This is the problem with the whole "issue" over same-sex marriage in the US. There is no rational argument for not permitting it save those that come not only from religious arguments, but from certain, specific schools of thought in certain Western religions.

There is supposed to be a wall of separation between religion and state in the United States. It is supposed to be there for good reason: by not establishing in our laws the favoring or even specific enfranchisement of one religion or its views over another, we theoretically preserve a pluralistic and tolerant society, a fair and even playing field for Americans of all faiths and beliefs.

Frankly, not only is it ridiculous that we are even considering that same-sex marriage should be illegal, but it is hard to defend the government being in the business of authorizing marriages at all. IMO, all relationships-- both same-sex and straight-- should be given domestic partnership licenses by the government to confer the legal rights and privileges currently associated with marriage, and actual marriage qua marriage should be left to religious institutions to define and authorize as they see fit.

 

[McBell]

Frankly, not only is it ridiculous that we are even considering that same-sex marriage should be illegal, but it is hard to defend the government being in the business of authorizing marriages at all. IMO, all relationships-- both same-sex and straight-- should be given domestic partnership licenses by the government to confer the legal rights and privileges currently associated with marriage, and actual marriage qua marriage should be left to religious institutions to define and authorize as they see fit.

Why should religion get the word "marriage"?

 

[hornsby]

The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion,.

thats your modern interpretation along with the belief that this refers to ALL religions or lack thereof.

our founders never intended for such interpretations, and if they knew it would end up being interpreted this way hundreds of years in the future they would have done their darndest to be more specific.

 

[McBell]

thats your modern interpretation along with the belief that this refers to ALL religions or lack thereof.

our founders never intended for such interpretations, and if they knew it would end up being interpreted this way hundreds of years in the future they would have done their darndest to be more specific.

How is your opinion on what the founding fathers meant any better than his?

 

[hornsby]

How is your opinion on what the founding fathers meant any better than his?

because i base my opinion on their lives culture and times..... he is basing his opinion on modern views.

 

[crossfire]

This is the problem with the whole "issue" over same-sex marriage in the US. There is no rational argument for not permitting it save those that come not only from religious arguments, but from certain, specific schools of thought in certain Western religions.

There is supposed to be a wall of separation between religion and state in the United States. It is supposed to be there for good reason: by not establishing in our laws the favoring or even specific enfranchisement of one religion or its views over another, we theoretically preserve a pluralistic and tolerant society, a fair and even playing field for Americans of all faiths and beliefs.

Frankly, not only is it ridiculous that we are even considering that same-sex marriage should be illegal, but it is hard to defend the government being in the business of authorizing marriages at all. IMO, all relationships-- both same-sex and straight-- should be given domestic partnership licenses by the government to confer the legal rights and privileges currently associated with marriage, and actual marriage qua marriage should be left to religious institutions to define and authorize as they see fit.

Buddhism leaves marriage up to the secular authorities. (Well there might be a few monks in Japan who perform marriages.) Removing marriage from secular government would mess with Buddhist tradition. Buddhists wouldn't be able to get married anymore.

I agree that religious authorities who perform marriages should be able to say, "sorry, we have no religious tradition by which to bless your union," and not be obligated to perform wedding ceremonies on request. However, secular government employees who perform marriages should be obligated to marry anyone legally qualified to be married upon the parties' request. Failure to do so would constitute a breach of the equal protection under the law, imo.

 

[McBell]

because i base my opinion on their lives culture and times..... he is basing his opinion on modern views.

Prove it.

 

[hornsby]

Prove it.

prove what? that our founding fathers were products of their environment rather than an environment hundreds of years in the future?

next you are going to ask for the math as you did in the other thread.

funny kid.

 

[McBell]

prove what? that our founding fathers were products of their environment rather than an environment hundreds of years in the future?

next you are going to ask for the math as you did in the other thread.

funny kid.

So once again you make claims and flat out refuse to support them.

Now that I know not to take you seriously, I will stop asking you to support your claims.

 

[crossfire]

but it is hard to defend the government being in the business of authorizing marriages at all. IMO, all relationships-- both same-sex and straight-- should be given domestic partnership licenses by the government to confer the legal rights and privileges currently associated with marriage, and actual marriage qua marriage should be left to religious institutions to define and authorize as they see fit.

Buddhist monks are prohibited from performing any kind of ceremony for lay persons. There is a small allowance for doing something "for luck," but that's it.

 

[hornsby]

So once again you make claims and flat out refuse to support them.

Now that I know not to take you seriously, I will stop asking you to support your claims.

aha... pick up a history book and educate yourself on our founding father's lives, times, beliefs and social environment that shaped them. i wont do it for you. ill give you a hint though. gay rights and freedom FROM religion werent on the menu.