And This Pope Rocks On

[Alan]

I went to a funeral today at a Catholic church, part of the services was a mass.  They said only Catholics could take the mass, that if we were not Catholic, we could still come up for a blessing, and to just let them know by crossing our arms over our chest when we approached.  I'm not sure if all churches do this?  It was a beautiful service, lovely music etc. etc. though. 

 

The Church of England offer the sacrament to all who would normally take communion in their own church. However, you can come up for a blessing as an alternative.

[CV75]

None of those is a religious rite. Marriage by definition is a religious rite, one that the state has control of. Get the government out of religious rites.

It is both. Pure religion and undefiled by definition is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to "impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants." Are you proposing that be taken out of government too?

I like how the Book of Mormon shows teh interdependency between the "regulations of government" (I see marriage as one such regulation) and the regulations of the church. There are appropriately many things of comon interest. Not that the voice of the people always upholds that.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually it's both . Its a holdover from the days when religion was just another arm of the State, for much of human history there was no such thing as separation of Church and State, that was a relatively recent concept which we Americans actually helped get rolling with our Federal Constitution and we some Americans seem to want to repeal.

 

True enough. 230+/- years is but a drop in the bucket compared to the total of mans history. I'm only 62 almost 63 so to me that is ancient history.

[thesometimesaint]

It is both. Pure religion and undefiled by definition is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to "impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants." Are you proposing that be taken out of government too?

I like how the Book of Mormon shows teh interdependency between the "regulations of government" (I see marriage as one such regulation) and the regulations of the church. There are appropriately many things of comon interest. Not that the voice of the people always upholds that.

No one is required by law to get married.

 

Actually I'm in favor of not having laws that compel anyone to do those things. I much prefer us doing them of our own free will and volition. If every person on earth took care of just one other person think what a different world this would be. Moreover we pay taxes to fund the government not to fund any one individual. That would be Bill of Attainder.

[CV75]

No one is required by law to get married.

 

Actually I'm in favor of not having laws that compel anyone to do those things. I much prefer us doing them of our own free will and volition. If every person on earth took care of just one other person think what a different world this would be. Moreover we pay taxes to fund the government not to fund any one individual. That would be Bill of Attainder.

It depends on how you use the word "require" -- I used the word "regulate". As things stand in many places, we are required to marry (or license the mariage) to be eligible for certain government-regulated benefits. And certain regulated benefits require marriage.

 

Of course we prefer to do thinsg the "Zion" way -- but as long as we have our government and a sense that it is instituted of God, and can see the regulation of the payment of taxes to do those charitable things I mentioned, we are most certainly benefitting individuals.

 

In these ways, marriage does not differ from any other government involvement that churches also do. And neither prevents indivdiuals from being Good Samaritans.

[thesometimesaint]

It depends on how you use the word "require" -- I used the word "regulate". As things stand in many places, we are required to marry (or license the mariage) to be eligible for certain government-regulated benefits. And certain regulated benefits require marriage.

 

Of course we prefer to do thinsg the "Zion" way -- but as long as we have our government and a sense that it is instituted of God, and can see the regulation of the payment of taxes to do those charitable things I mentioned, we are most certainly benefitting individuals.

 

In these ways, marriage does not differ from any other government involvement that churches also do. And neither prevents indivdiuals from being Good Samaritans.

 

To regulate something is to require it to do something. So it essentially the same idea just using different words. No; you are not required to marry. You can be single for your entire life and neither the state nor the church requires you to do so. Sure; I never said there weren't requirements of the state it you want the benefits from the state. That includes marriage. IE;  If I want the benefits of driving on the public roads and highways. I am required to follow the regulations governing it.

 

I fund the government through my taxes. As long as I live in a representative democracy, like ours. I want a say in how those taxes are spent. The good and/or bad thing about living in our form of government is that I don't have the only say in it.

 

With the church I have virtually no say in how my tithing and other donations are spent, other than voting with my feet. However I kinda like how they are spent so that pretty well settles that issue for me.

 

Marriage is a religious rite under our system of government albeit one enjoyed by the religious and nonreligious alike. What I am recommending is that the state get out of marriage business, and make them all Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships, a legally binding contract.

 

I know of no law that prevents anyone from acting like the good Samaritan(Though in some locals you can be sued if you do the wrong thing). OTOH there are laws in some locals that require that certain state licensed professions do act like the good Samaritan in some situations. IE; Preventing further physical harm.

[CV75]

What I am recommending is that the state get out of marriage business, and make them all Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships, a legally binding contract.

That would discriminte against those who want a church wedding only, since their protections and benefits would be denied unless they were in a civil union or domestic partnership as well. And tehse structuers would have to be redefined as well so as to capture all the legal protections curently granted under marriage. If the government were to recognize religious unions, it would need to regulate licensing and so forth and still be in the marriage business.

[thesometimesaint]

That would discriminte against those who want a church wedding only, since their protections and benefits would be denied unless they were in a civil union or domestic partnership as well. And tehse structuers would have to be redefined as well so as to capture all the legal protections curently granted under marriage. If the government were to recognize religious unions, it would need to regulate licensing and so forth and still be in the marriage business.

 

So. Most of the rest of world is perfectly fine with having the government with civil magistrate do the simple contract first, and let the couple perform any religious ceremony they want afterwards. IE; England. The Saints in England don't seem particularly concerned about that.

 

Any legally enforceable contract by definition is subject to government regulation. I'm not advocating that governments can't regulate contracts, just that marriage is a religious rite. Take religion out of it and it is but a legally enforceable contract. I see no overriding need for the state to dictate the religious rite of marriage.

[CV75]

So. Most of the rest of world is perfectly fine with having the government with civil magistrate do the simple contract first, and let the couple perform any religious ceremony they want afterwards. IE; England. The Saints in England don't seem particularly concerned about that.

 

Any legally enforceable contract by definition is subject to government regulation. I'm not advocating that governments can't regulate contracts, just that marriage is a religious rite. Take religion out of it and it is but a legally enforceable contract. I see no overriding need for the state to dictate the religious rite of marriage.

My point is that government is still in the business of marriage, and even marriage rites where it recognizes them as legal, thereby extending certain protections and benefits to the couple. We have state-issued birth and death certificates as well, which support legal protection and benefits to children, parents, survivors, etc. ("the fatherless and widows"). Many religions have rites associated with birth and death, which, like marriage, are performed with or without goverment regulation, yet the government is in the business of birth and death in many ways. Look at all the ways it prevents and assists births, and ends lives, extends life support (and in some places euthanasia support) and also prevents deaths. Most of these activities have full acceptance by the governed, and I see marriage as no exception. Mutual accountability for birth, death and marriage and other facets of our society that government helps ensure are earmarks of civilization.

[thesometimesaint]

My point is that government is still in the business of marriage, and even marriage rites where it recognizes them as legal, thereby extending certain protections and benefits to the couple. We have state-issued birth and death certificates as well, which support legal protection and benefits to children, parents, survivors, etc. ("the fatherless and widows"). Many religions have rites associated with birth and death, which, like marriage, are performed with or without goverment regulation, yet the government is in the business of birth and death in many ways. Look at all the ways it prevents and assists births, and ends lives, extends life support (and in some places euthanasia support) and also prevents deaths. Most of these activities have full acceptance by the governed, and I see marriage as no exception. Mutual accountability for birth, death and marriage and other facets of our society that government helps ensure are earmarks of civilization.

 

You just reenforced my point. The state doesn't care if I baptize my children at 8 days. eight years, 80 years, or never. The certificate of live birth just establishes that they were born at such and such time/day/year/ location, to such and such person(s). My mother never had a birth certificate. I think it is pretty well established that she was born. The state doesn't care if I have a religious funeral or a non religious funeral or no funeral at all. The sate only cares that my dead body is properly disposed of to prevent disease, and to make sure that my surviving depends, if any, are taken care of financially. All my kids are grown and left our home. I no longer have any legal financial responsibility to them. However as a good parent I help out whenever I can. Plus my wife and I unofficially adopted our Grandnephew because our niece couldn't emotionally and financially raise him. There is no legal requirement us to do that.

[CV75]

You just reenforced my point. The state doesn't care if I baptize my children at 8 days. eight years, 80 years, or never. The certificate of live birth just establishes that they were born at such and such time/day/year/ location, to such and such person(s). My mother never had a birth certificate. I think it is pretty well established that she was born. The state doesn't care if I have a religious funeral or a non religious funeral or no funeral at all. The sate only cares that my dead body is properly disposed of to prevent disease, and to make sure that my surviving depends, if any, are taken care of financially. All my kids are grown and left our home. I no longer have any legal financial responsibility to them. However as a good parent I help out whenever I can. Plus my wife and I unofficially adopted our Grandnephew because our niece couldn't emotionally and financially raise him. There is no legal requirement us to do that.

[thesometimesaint]

But we are talking about what falls rightly within the role of government regulation, not a lack of enforcement (as in the example of not having a birth certifiacte). Accounting for and tracking individuals arriving into and departing from our society is part of how we realize our sense of community and mutual welfare. It helps us carry out the dictates of our community conscience, whether one is religiously inclined or not, or whether one is inclined to accept the resulting protection and benefit or not (as in the eaxmple of an unofficial adoption).

So I see the marriage regulations as being there to acknowledge, validate and sustain our individual and collective needs and wants within our society, which include religious freedom. Religious marriage rites would still need to be registered for protection and benefit, as would civil marriage / unions / partnerships also, so I think government still needs to have a role. I think the government accepting religious rites as valid for protection and benefit is an example of how government serves the people and not vice-versa.

So I'm thinking getting people the protections and benefits they seek to sustain their lifestyle (and libertystyle and happinessstyle) would be better served by the people recognizing their justifications as legimate and incorporating that into their government, not dismantling regulations that are of great value to so many.

Edited March 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

My mother was born before birth certificates were common in her area.

 

Those examples are primarily for a secular function. Which I have always supported. I see no such function in keep a religious rite as a function of the state.

 

Why should the state have a role in a religious rite?

Obviously the State doesn't perform the marriage rite, but it does perform marriages (Justice of the Peace for example), which I think is very approrpriate and accommodates those who haven't a vested interest in a religious rite. I think it is great that the State accepts a religious rite, with licensing, as a valid marriage--there are many ways government, religions and churches can work together for everyone's benefit.

I also see many of our secular functions as a practical way of expressing our conscience as members of a community. Even without a church wedding, marriage is a very fundamental aspect of a cilvilzation and merits as much government involvement as any other support to the members of our society.

[thesometimesaint]

Obviously the State doesn't perform the marriage rite, but it does perform marriages (Justice of the Peace for example), which I think is very approrpriate and accommodates those who haven't a vested interest in a religious rite. I think it is great that the State accepts a religious rite, with licensing, as a valid marriage--there are many ways government, religions and churches can work together for everyone's benefit.

I also see many of our secular functions as a practical way of expressing our conscience as members of a community. Even without a church wedding, marriage is a very fundamental aspect of a cilvilzation and merits as much government involvement as any other support to the members of our society.

 

That is just semantics.

 

No doubt that they can and sometimes do play well together. But neither is dependent on the other. The Church should be especially concerned because of what happened when governments forced its definition of marriage onto the LDS.

 

I'm not disputing the social benefits of legal marriage. Marriage within the state is at its heart a legally enforceable contract between two people. What I am disputing the need for the state to recognize a religious ceremony.

[CV75]

What I am disputing the need for the state to recognize a religious ceremony.

What more convenient way is there to track the couple's status and carry out the role of protecting their associated rights?

[thesometimesaint]

What more convenient way is there to track the couple's status and carry out the role of protecting their associated rights?

 

Make them all legally enforceable contracts.

[CV75]

Make them all legally enforceable contracts.

I don't see how that is more convenient than our current system. It just substitutes one mechanism with another, the government is still involved, and couples seem to have an added layer of administration to work through (instead of license-marriage, we have marriage-registration).