the state wants to run the church

[libby]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Catholic-Church-Bill-Takes-a-Break.html

 

[Bavarian]

If this attack at the First Amendment suceeds, then the State will start controlling all activities of not only the Church but the numerous Eclesastical Communities. They will dictate prayers, tell us we have to have women "priests", married priests, etc.

 

[itsbob]

If this attack at the First Amendment suceeds, then the State will start controlling all activities of not only the Church but the numerous Eclesastical Communities. They will dictate prayers, tell us we have to have women "priests", married priests, etc.

You're right, because as past history shows, they are GREAT at policing themselves, and the lay-people of the world shouldn't be allowed to interfere in the machinations of THE church..

 

[libby]

You're right, because as past history shows, they are GREAT at policing themselves, and the lay-people of the world shouldn't be allowed to interfere in the machinations of THE church..

What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? The point is that the state has no business telling the Catholic Church, or any other church, how to run itself.
Politicians abuse their power and positions far more than any denomination of church, so how about the churches overseeing the government?

 

[puggymom]

What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? The point is that the state has no business telling the Catholic Church, or any other church, how to run itself.
Politicians abuse their power and positions far more than any denomination of church, so how about the churches overseeing the government?

Isn't that what the church wants to do? I am being completely serious here.
I actually agree that in most cases (there are always exceptions with extreme illegal behavior but this tends to be from the radical cult like churches) the state should not be telling churches what to do and the church should stay out of state laws (for example abortion and gay marriage).

 

[Radiant1]

What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? The point is that the state has no business telling the Catholic Church, or any other church, how to run itself.
Politicians abuse their power and positions far more than any denomination of church, so how about the churches overseeing the government?

Libby, Bob doesn't care about the point. He just likes to flake the chips off of his shoulder.

 

[kom526]

Isn't that what the church wants to do? I am being completely serious here.
I actually agree that in most cases (there are always exceptions with extreme illegal behavior but this tends to be from the radical cult like churches) the state should not be telling churches what to do and the church should stay out of state laws (for example abortion and gay marriage).

No the churches do NOT want to oversee the states;

So the gov't should stay out of church business and in exchange you want the churches to surrender their CONSTITUTIONAL right to assembly (protest)?

 

[puggymom]

No the churches do NOT want to oversee the states;

So the gov't should stay out of church business and in exchange you want the churches to surrender their CONSTITUTIONAL right to assembly (protest)?

Of course not...what I want is for politicians to stop using the bible to make laws. Like the ban on gay marriage in CA and elsewhere. It should never existed or been allowed to a vote. It is a blatant violation of the rights of a minority all in the name of protecting a religious version of the sanctity of marriage.
And do not say they have the same rights as that is being proven wrong more and more. Like the case of the famous photographer Annie Leibovitz

'Gay Tax' Imposed on Photographer Annie Leibovitz  | News | Advocate.com

Since the death of her partner, Susan Sontag, in 2004, Annie Leibovitz has been suffering the consequences of not having had the legal protections of a marriage. Much of Sontag’s property was left to the renowned portrait photographer who is now paying a large inheritance tax...
According to federal law, when one partner in a married couple passes away, the widowed partner does not have to pay taxes on the property they inherit. Leibovitz does not benefit from those protections since her partnership was not legally recognized.

 

[itsbob]

the state should not be telling churches what to do and the church should stay out of state laws (for example abortion and gay marriage).

So if NAMBLA was a religion it would be ok.. and if you go to church you shouldn't be allowed to vote..

Got it, thanks for your input..

 

[ImnoMensa]

You might find this interesting.

This Prayer Approved by the White House?| Christianpost.com

 

[itsbob]

What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? The point is that the state has no business telling the Catholic Church, or any other church, how to run itself.
Politicians abuse their power and positions far more than any denomination of church, so how about the churches overseeing the government?

Churches have overseen government for ages.. England and France had Kings that were led by their respective churches.. The Middle East..

Even OUR country is led by and from Christianity.

The gov't even holds SOME leaders of churches to the same status as a world leader..

AND if the government can tell GM or Chrysler how to run their business.. why, if there IS true seperation of church and state, should the church be treated any differently?? Seperation also means no special treatment..

Religion is, after all, a business.. a tax free, don't have to sell a product business.. Convince a few million people they want what you are selling.. and they'll line up on Sunday to buy it.

 

[puggymom]

So if NAMBLA was a religion it would be ok.. and if you go to church you shouldn't be allowed to vote..

Got it, thanks for your input..

That would be breaking the law...I said for the most part. There are always exception especially when laws are being broken. And just because someone goes to church does not mean they can not vote. It is just that when you have an issue that is deeply rooted in religion, religion needs to be set aside. This is best explained with an example...like gay marriage. There are protections from majority opinion infringing on the rights of minorities. And it seems the majority (religious) opinion IS infringing on the rights of others.
I disagree with the whole tax free status churches get while butting into politics in the pulpit but that is another issue.

 

[kom526]

That would be breaking the law...I said for the most part. There are always exception especially when laws are being broken. And just because someone goes to church does not mean they can not vote. It is just that when you have an issue that is deeply rooted in religion, religion needs to be set aside. This is best explained with an example...like gay marriage. There are protections from majority opinion infringing on the rights of minorities. And it seems the majority (religious) opinion IS infringing on the rights of others.
I disagree with the whole tax free status churches get while butting into politics in the pulpit but that is another issue.

If the issue is deeply rooted in religion then how can religion be set aside? I'm not following you at all here. If someone were to set aside religion to make a decision then they would use what? Intelligence, foresight, morals? You would be surprised but there are MANY people oppose abortion but are not religious. What about those people?

Where are these protections? You are probably referring to California's Prop 8 which was recently approved by referendum by the voters. Previous votes on this issue were overturned by the state supreme court which flies in the face of the purpose of a referendum. There is no way that you can tell me that every person in California that voted for Prop 8 did so for religious reasons. If I am reading you correctly you agree with the court that the majority of voters (voting in a statewide referendum) should not infringe on the rights of others. Well what I would like to know is where was this court and its sense of individual liberties when San Francisco voters decide to ban guns in the city? It was a referendum also but banning of guns violates the U.S. Constitution vs. the wording of the state constitution. Does the same argument hold for both issues?

 

[kom526]

For the record I really do not understand what the fuss is all about. To me it looks like the same sex couples that want their unions recognized want them to be called marriages but the opposition doesn't want them to call it that, for whatever reasons they may have. (Not necessarily religious) Let the state recognize them as civil unions, give the couples all legal rights there unto pertaining and quit arguing over semantics.

Civil union or marriage
To mA to
To MAH to

Quote:
Since the death of her partner, Susan Sontag, in 2004, Annie Leibovitz has been suffering the consequences of not having had the legal protections of a marriage. Much of Sontag’s property was left to the renowned portrait photographer who is now paying a large inheritance tax...
According to federal law, when one partner in a married couple passes away, the widowed partner does not have to pay taxes on the property they inherit. Leibovitz does not benefit from those protections since her partnership was not legally recognized.

How would their partnership, recognized on the state level, have any bearing on federal law?

Maybe Ken King will chime in on this.

 

[puggymom]

If the issue is deeply rooted in religion then how can religion be set aside? I'm not following you at all here. If someone were to set aside religion to make a decision then they would use what? Intelligence, foresight, morals? You would be surprised but there are MANY people oppose abortion but are not religious. What about those people?

Where are these protections? You are probably referring to California's Prop 8 which was recently approved by referendum by the voters. Previous votes on this issue were overturned by the state supreme court which flies in the face of the purpose of a referendum. There is no way that you can tell me that every person in California that voted for Prop 8 did so for religious reasons. If I am reading you correctly you agree with the court that the majority of voters (voting in a statewide referendum) should not infringe on the rights of others. Well what I would like to know is where was this court and its sense of individual liberties when San Francisco voters decide to ban guns in the city? It was a referendum also but banning of guns violates the U.S. Constitution vs. the wording of the state constitution. Does the same argument hold for both issues?

Yes it most certainly does infringe on their rights as responsible gun owners and if I was such I would be having a fit about it as well. Personally I do not like guns but I generally agree with most of the NRA opinions on gun ownership--the only reason I cannot say all is because guns are not an issue which which I keep current.

 

[puggymom]

For the record I really do not understand what the fuss is all about. To me it looks like the same sex couples that want their unions recognized want them to be called marriages but the opposition doesn't want them to call it that, for whatever reasons they may have. (Not necessarily religious) Let the state recognize them as civil unions, give the couples all legal rights there unto pertaining and quit arguing over semantics.

Civil union or marriage
To mA to
To MAH to



How would their partnership, recognized on the state level, have any bearing on federal law?

Maybe Ken King will chime in on this.

I am taking in terms of gay marriage being federally protected.

I just do not get why marriage in the eyes of the state cannot be more like a DMV process. You go to the Marriage Office, apply, state consent before a Justice of the Peace or whatever and boom you are legally married.
Now if you choose to take that a step farther and have you marriage blessed by god or want the big ceremony/reception that is up to you and should have little to do with the state.

 

[Ken King]

Maybe Ken King will chime in on this.

Tax code, no way. Too much of it and way too confusing. I do know that there is a whole section dealing with estates so anyone caring to check it out is more then welcome.
US CODE: Title 26,Subchapter A—Estates of Citizens or Residents