Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Totally correct. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It is a restriction on congress.

You are entirely correct. They wanted Goverment restricted in what it could do. You know, the whole charter of negative liberties and stuff.

[thesometimesaint]

For those on the Left who have deep concerns about the influence of the Religious Right in the U.S., may want to take a perspective-orienting gander across the pond at what has been happening within the bastions of liberalism (Europe) and the so-called "Islamic Problem."

It is not coincidental that the biggest "problem" areas are within Liberal countries, since certain Liberal policies (like a lax immigration policies and multi-culturalism) lend themselves to the "problem."

Islamics and Socialists make for strange bed-fellows because their end game is conflicting. However, they tend to be in bed with each other since they often share the same means to their divergent ends. Kevin D. Williamson, in his book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism," points out a number of corollaries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So are you now arguing that Muslims and Liberals should have no rights? Are you a Pam Geller acolyte?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is what has plagued many of the opponents of SSM. Each argument has been refuted until they are eventually left with "Well god told me so".

Not really refuted. Its just that you have set the bar of refutation pretty low.

One thing about this argument about SSM that I find so interesting what what Wade had posted in another thread. Specifically about Prop 8. That proposition really hadnothing to do with equality as in CA there were Civil Unions set up that gave gay couples the same rights from a governmental stand point as hetero couples. They wanted to win a different argument. So I am not so sure that anything has been refuted in the regards of SSM and that debate. I am not for gay marriage because you cannot give me one good reason to change the tradional definition of marriage. It is not and has never been about equal rights. I know many people think it is but the simple fact, and the evidence backs this up, it is not about rights.

[thesometimesaint]

You failed to note that the constitution does not prohibit bringing religious values into the debate. It only restricts congress(and the states) from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I never said they should be prohibited. In fact I encourage all to have an impute. What I object to is subjecting our laws to the dictates of the church.

Edited March 12, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

You failed to note that the constitution does not prohibit bringing religious values into the debate. It only restricts congress(and the states) from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

you are free to bring them into the debate, but when the legislation is passed it better have a justification other than establishing religion. Congress can neither interfere with the free exercise of religion nor can it establish religion. Personally, it is difficult for me to see how you defend a statute that seeks to impose a religious based definition, it must have some other basis when that definition carries with it certain rights. Prop 8 seeks to restrict certain people from achieving a status. The child rearing argument has become specious in all of the States which allow gay adoptions. The procreation argument has become specious in all of the States because they allow elderly to marry. The child rearing argument has been undone by the studies which conclusively show same sex couples have a better track record. So it has been increasingly hard to defend traditional marriage as was established by the Roman Pagans and then made part of Christian doctrine when Church and State merged under Emperor Constantine.

[ERayR]

I never said they should be prohibited. In fact I encourage all to have an impute. What I object to is subjecting our laws to the dictates of the church.

That is congresses job.

[Storm Rider]

I cannot imagine anything so puny as a nation trying to function devoid of God or his principles of happiness. Nor have I see this secular nirvana that is devoid of religious morals that people seem hell-bent on creating anywhere prevalent in history. I think what the argument boils down to is one side only having a problem when their personal desires and wants conflict with morality. It seems rather naïve to me to discount social history in favor of becoming slaves to our own passions, wants, and desires. No, before you going ape crazy telling me all of the exceptions throughout history to social norms and how the animal kingdom is also replete with examples of alternative life styles, please understand that I am already aware of them and they remain exactly that, exceptions. They are not nor have they ever been the norm. Jeremy Rifkin's book, The European Dream makes a rather assumption laden attack on the American Dream and its strong religious foundation. There seem to be a whole host of people who think it is time to kill God permanently as he is the root of all evil in preventing humans from being free to wallow in whatever and wherever their passions lead them. There is much to criticize in religious peoples' intolerance and in the hypocritical piety of those in the religious world; however, I worry about this world that the few are dragging us toward. Frankly, the heaven that I have always envisioned is a monarchy that is based upon religious principles and morals. I always thought it was a good thing to strive toward that ideal and it always grates badly on the ear when I hear other religious people think that ideal is a terrible idea.

[thesometimesaint]

That is congresses job.

However Congress is specifically prohibited from doing such.

[ERayR]

you are free to bring them into the debate, but when the legislation is passed it better have a justification other than establishing religion. Congress can neither interfere with the free exercise of religion nor can it establish religion. Personally, it is difficult for me to see how you defend a statute that seeks to impose a religious based definition, it must have some other basis when that definition carries with it certain rights. Prop 8 seeks to restrict certain people from achieving a status. The child rearing argument has become specious in all of the States which allow gay adoptions. The procreation argument has become specious in all of the States because they allow elderly to marry. The child rearing argument has been undone by the studies which conclusively show same sex couples have a better track record. So it has been increasingly hard to defend traditional marriage as was established by the Roman Pagans and then made part of Christian doctrine when Church and State merged under Emperor Constantine.

So we are back to Prop 8. Prop 8 does have societal ramifications. We just don't all agree on how those ramification affect society.

[thesometimesaint]

I cannot imagine anything so puny as a nation trying to function devoid of God or his principles of happiness. Nor have I see this secular nirvana that is devoid of religious morals that people seem hell-bent on creating anywhere prevalent in history. I think what the argument boils down to is one side only having a problem when their personal desires and wants conflict with morality. It seems rather naïve to me to discount social history in favor of becoming slaves to our own passions, wants, and desires. No, before you going ape crazy telling me all of the exceptions throughout history to social norms and how the animal kingdom is also replete with examples of alternative life styles, please understand that I am already aware of them and they remain exactly that, exceptions. They are not nor have they ever been the norm. Jeremy Rifkin's book, The European Dream makes a rather assumption laden attack on the American Dream and its strong religious foundation. There seem to be a whole host of people who think it is time to kill God permanently as he is the root of all evil in preventing humans from being free to wallow in whatever and wherever their passions lead them. There is much to criticize in religious peoples' intolerance and in the hypocritical piety of those in the religious world; however, I worry about this world that the few are dragging us toward. Frankly, the heaven that I have always envisioned is a monarchy that is based upon religious principles and morals. I always thought it was a good thing to strive toward that ideal and it always grates badly on the ear when I hear other religious people think that ideal is a terrible idea.

If all men were angels no government would be necessary.

If all men were devils no government would be possible.

[ERayR]

However Congress is specifically prohibited from doing such.

No congress can see to it that nothing is enacted that establishes a state religion.

[ERayR]

If all men were angels no government would be necessary.

If all men were devils no government would be possible.

See we can agree on some things.

[thesometimesaint]

See we can agree on some things.

I think we agree far more than we disagree. But it is the disagreements that are more interesting on a message board.

[Nathair/|\]

I'm too tired to think it through right now, but this post, and especially the first paragraph seems relevant.

http://www.patheos.c...infinitesimals/

The point of posting this is that if the author is correct to equate personal values with personal religion, there is no way to keep religious morality out of political discourse. Everything we do that's at all important is driven by religion.

[wenglund]

I have not read the briefs on Prop 8, however, I have read the case which paved the way for Civil Unions and eventually gay marriage in Vermont. And although Vt was a Common Benefits clause case after going through each of the arguments against and explaining that each argument had already been nullified by legislative action, they were left with only religion and that was an unacceptable argument. I do not think, however, that it is necessarily a slam dunk with the SCOTUS. As I understand the brief filed by the President , even he has not gone with an absolute right, but has simply argued that if a State has granted all the rights other than the use of the term married that it cannot discriminate in that use. The SCOTUS used an obtuse cultural argument in US v Reynolds which avoided the religious freedom argument when the Church sought to defend polygamy. There has been a lot of water under the dam since then and we have switched sides in the traditional marriage debate, but we may see a similar obtuse argument come out again.

I have read the court rulings in most every SSM case (federal and state), and I have read the legislative records for several DOMA laws (federal and state), and I don't recall a single religious argument for or against either. The argument put forward in favor of traditional marriage have been one of tradition and state interest. These are also the arguments that I have consistently raised on this board.

And, the legal arguments in favor of perverting the definition of marriage didn't raise the Establishment Clause issue either. Again, this is because it isn't relevant or necessary.

As for the Free Exercise argument being raised in the future, that depends upon how much further the law will be pressed. If it gets to the point where it is viewed as infringing unduly on religious liberty, then it will legitimately be raised, Otherwise, there would be no need or point. The rational case for traditional marriage and against bastardizing that tradition is compelling and really the only rational argument on the table. Unfortunately, it has increasingly failed to bear sway against the pop cultural inanity, As such, if compelling reason fails to bear sway with the majority of Americans, then I don't see that anything will. This is why I have taken a vow of silence (I am making an exception here to correct some misunderstandings and also because I felt you were due a response) since I am wasting my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So are you now arguing that Muslims and Liberals should have no rights? Are you a Pam Geller acolyte?

No, and no. One cannot reasonably extrapolate anything close to that from what I said--which explains why you would ask.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You have to be careful when you jump across the pond. The legal precedents and history are different. They had to cope with the churches having oppressive political control for much longer than we did. Our theocracies were primarily limited to New England and tended to mellow rather rapidly because people could vote with their feet. In parts of Europe it is accurate to say they adopted freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion as we have here.

I agree that the legal precedence and history are different. It is just that some people in this country seem intent on taking us politically and socially towards Europe. And, so, I thought it would be useful to give them a sense for how such a movement might end up.

However, the gist of my comment was to point out that currently we don't have it so bad over here, and to be grateful and stop complaining.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

When Mormons start to think that they need government to force their morality on citizens, they in my opinion are pushing another plan of salvation that was rejected in the grand counsels of heaven.

Just Mormons? Interesting!

[USU78]

No not really, citizens are influenced by their religious beliefs and some religious beliefs have a rational bearing that can be agreed upon, however, when justifying a law you cannot play the religious trump card. That is what has plagued many of the opponents of SSM. Each argument has been refuted until they are eventually left with "Well god told me so". Which does not fly well under the Constitution. Religion in America is a subject that is somewhat peculiar as it has special treatment. We are free to believe that God has told us this and that, but we are not free to tell others that they have to believe and conform their actions to what we believe unless we can articulate another secular reason for it. It just means that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc have to frame their political discourse in non-religious grounds. Otherwise, you wind up forcing people to conform to strictly religious tenets to which they do not ascribe. Ultimately, this is in the best. Interest of religion which otherwise may tend to fossilize

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble identifying who in the world is using the "[G]-d told me so" argument, or why it should not be given its place in public discourse. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't [arguably] as valid or more persuasive than any specious "Gay is the new Black"-type argument presented. Just because the IXth Circuit Court of Appeals despises religion-based argumentation doesn't mean that argumentation isn't good, or won't carry the day, assuming sufficient non-knee-jerk-Social-Engineering justices when it comes down to voting.

I despise the fossilized Socialist argumentation that you admire.

Should I have the right to rid the public square of your particular brand of childishness?

Or should we both have equal access?

[USU78]

I don'T see anyone denying religionists a seat at the table, they in fact enjoy special protections under the Constitution. But, since we are not all of the same faith or perhaps of any faith, we have to justify our arguments in non-religious terms in the political realm. Obviously religion is going to continue to bias us towards certain views. For example Mormonism takes a dim view of intoxicants so we may expect that most Mormons will probably not be enthusiastic about ending the prohibition of marijuana. But I don't think such should go in and base their argument on the WoW. Instead they will argue against its side effects, it's potential to lower inhibitions especially amongst youth, etc. etc. (don't get me wrong I am actually in favor of eliminating the prohibition). Otherwise, you might have an Orthodox Jew coming in and demanding we legislate against frog legs and pork.

This whole thread is about prohibiting religious input into civic issues of interest to the religious. How in the world can you deny we're having the very conversation you're claiming isn't happening?

[Stone holm]

This whole thread is about prohibiting religious input into civic issues of interest to the religious. How in the world can you deny we're having the very conversation you're claiming isn't happening?

There is a difference between allowing religionists a seat at the political table and giving weight to religious beliefs when proposing laws which are aimed at conforming the actions of non-believers to those religious beliefs. I have no quarrel with people using religious beliefs as a shield either. For example, I would expect the Courts to shield the Church from being required to perform SSMs. But, I have a problem with us saying to the local Universalist Church , you can't perform SSMs, or to a justice of the peace that you can't perform such marriages. When it comes to using religion as a sword, then I believe that the original poster is correct. You would most always find me advocating to protect the ability of individuals and groups to conform themselves to their religious convictions. It's when those groups or individuals attempt to force others to conform by legislative means that I see a problem. If you don't believe in SSMs well then don't get or perform one.

[california boy]

Just Mormons? Interesting!

The reason why I singled out Mormons in this statement is because Mormons have a unique view on the evils of forcing people to obey God's laws. So for a Mormon to resort to government force to prevent people from sinning, then they are ascribing to the plan that was rejected. Certainly other religious groups want to force people to live by morals that churches teach, but those churches lack the understanding of why God is against such a plan.

[california boy]

And, the legal arguments in favor of perverting the definition of marriage didn't raise the Establishment Clause issue either. Again, this is because it isn't relevant or necessary.

As for the Free Exercise argument being raised in the future, that depends upon how much further the law will be pressed. If it gets to the point where it is viewed as infringing unduly on religious liberty, then it will legitimately be raised, Otherwise, there would be no need or point. The rational case for traditional marriage and against bastardizing that tradition is compelling and really the only rational argument on the table. Unfortunately, it has increasingly failed to bear sway against the pop cultural inanity, As such, if compelling reason fails to bear sway with the majority of Americans, then I don't see that anything will. This is why I have taken a vow of silence (I am making an exception here to correct some misunderstandings and also because I felt you were due a response) since I am wasting my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is a summary of the legal briefs against Prop 8

Quote

The only substantive question in this case is whether the State is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships-their love-of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Proponents have not once set forth any justification for discriminating against gay men and lesbians by depriving them of this fundamental civil right.

Quote

The Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the most important relationship in life.

From the District Courts ruling, the brief notes"

Quote

Marriage has evolved in its definition of marriage by traditional and unbalanced gender roles. Instead, it's defined by commitment, partnership, cohesive family units, and the liberty of spouses. The court also found numerous benefits available only through marriage" psychological benefits, legal protection, and longer life: These are also benefits that flow to couples' children. In short, the District Court found that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it creates the Equal Protection clause because it unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental rights of marriage. And second it violates the equal protection clause because it creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation. And it does these things without serving any governmental interest.

From the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, the brief notes

Quote

The proponents couldn't explain how rescinding marriage supported any government interest. It too ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

This is their argument.

Quote

1. The Proponents shouldn't even be able to bring this case before the supreme court. They have never claimed to be injured by the overturning of Prop 8

2. Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause because it denies gay men and lesbians their fundamental right to marry without furthering a legitimate-let alone compelling- state interest."

3. It also violates the Equal Protection Clause because it creates an unequal status for gay and lesbian couples.

4. Prop 8 cannot be squared with the pursuit principle of equality and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is the bedrock promise of America

Edited March 13, 2013 by california boy

[wenglund]

The reason why I singled out Mormons in this statement is because Mormons have a unique view on the evils of forcing people to obey God's laws. So for a Mormon to resort to government force to prevent people from sinning, then they are ascribing to the plan that was rejected. Certainly other religious groups want to force people to live by morals that churches teach, but those churches lack the understanding of why God is against such a plan.

This is such an egregious distortion that I must break my silence to correct it. Prop 8 doesn't force people to do anything. It simply prevents people from bastardizing the legal definition of marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

This is such an egregious distortion that I must break my silence to correct it. Prop 8 doesn't force people to do anything. It simply prevents people from bastardizing the legal definition of marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would agree with you except that the purpose of defining marriage was to deny rights to a certain group of individuals. It is possible to cut through this Gordian's knot and that would be by getting the government out of the marriage business altogether, and having all the rights that we currently assign to married couples attach only to civil unions and require all couples whether homosexual or heterosexual to enter into civil unions rather than marriages, and then allow the churches, fraternal organizations, covens, synagogues or whatever to marry whomsover they please, but marriage would have no legal significance and marriage covenants would only be enforceable by means of shunning, excommunication, disfellowshipment, etc. by the organization. That would eliminate the governmental action and solve the problem. Its a farce to try and claim that we are only talking about a definition when that definition carries with it legal rights, obligations and privileges. We monkey with definitions all of the time in making laws -- we have special definitions as to what does or does not constitute rape or murder. The problem with marriage is rather unique. It is one of the last residues of an age when the church and religion were considered an arm of the state -- I can think of no other contractual obligation where the obligation may be confirmed or established by a church official. It is a touchy issue because it is both a religious rite and a secular status.