It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Separation of State and Religion (Civil Unions and Marriage)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I thought I'd drag the subject up as its slipped off of the media merry go 'round for a while, I'll start by saying I support keeping State and Religion separate, but for this issue it concerns the union of couples in particular.

It is my opinion that Marriage should be the province of the Church, Mosque, Synagogue or any other religious institution and not the State.

The State should provide the option of a Civil Union, where any couple of straight or gay persuasion can be brought together.

Who can get married (or equivalent) should be up to the religious group not the State, however the State should recognise Marriage as being equal to that of a Civil Union and Marriages should have to comply with standard regulations.

For example, the Catholic Church could refuse to marry a gay couple but they could be unified through a Civil Union.


[edit on 15-2-2007 by UK Wizard]




posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I am full agreement of that. The fundamental reasons for that seperation, is that it prevents the abuse of those who have religous authority from abusing the local population. Interpretations of religious texts are numerous and sometimes the punishments for a crime are far harsher than what would be considered normal under the state laws. Consider this, back in the days when the church directed the laws of the land, it was easy to get rid of someone, if not for stating they were in league with the devil, or committed some sin. Most of the religious texts no longer have a bearing in todays society as it does not deal with the social issues of this day and age. There has to be a definate seperation where religion is more for determining the moral questions of the day, and the state has to be free of its influences. I believe that Great Britan in its day put this question forward, who takes presidence, the monarch or the pope?

That is just my thoughts.

Peace



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
however the State should recognise Marriage as being equal to that of a Civil Union and Marriages should have to comply with standard regulations.


You had me up until here. If marriage is solely the busines of the church, that's fine, but the church shouldn't have the power to MAKE the state recognize one of their marriages as equal to a civil union. The couple who gets married in a church should ALSO have to go through everything other couples do (paperwork, witness signatures, etc) and have in addition to their marriage a civil union for the state to recognize it.

I'd gladly give up the name "marriage" to the church, as long as everyone had to go through the state to get a civil union (and enjoy the legal benefits of such). In other words, if a couple decided to only get married in their church and NOT to have the civil union, they would file their income tax as single people and NOT enjoy any benefits of the state-sanctioned civil union.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The couple who gets married in a church should ALSO have to go through everything other couples do (paperwork, witness signatures, etc) and have in addition to their marriage a civil union for the state to recognize it.


Sure, the State should have to recognise Marriage and not treat the Married Couples differently from those who have been joined by a Civil Union, paper work, signing stuff etc should be the same things for both "options".



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Oh, I see. I didn't get that before. Sorry, UK.

Yeah, if everyone who has a "union", whether it be civil union or marriage, has to sign the same paperwork, I don't have a problem with that. They can have the word 'marriage'. My relationship doesn't depend on what it's called.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Church and State should not be seperate.

Religion has played a huge part of our history and should not be ripped out because of some hate filled secualrists who want to turn the UK into France. Religious advice has been very helpful for the government when it comes to creatingn new laws, etc.

The reason why there are so many social problems in the UK is because of the secular laws that are being passed that have resulted in the break down of traditional marriage and morality. I am glad that the Catholicism is to become the main religion in the UK very soon (TimesOnline) because that will help to stop the growing cancer of secularism in this country.

For those who think Church and State should be apart, go and visit France. For seperation has caused so many social problems in France which resulted in riots. Want it to be like that?

[edit on 17-2-2007 by infinite]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
No, Infinite, I don't want it to be "like that", although I'm not sure I agree that it's because of secularism. Could you give an example?

I just want people to be treated equally under the law. I want anyone who wishes to be married to have that opportunity.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Secularist bang on about human rights, but they seem to forget (or ignore) freedom of religion is a human right under UN and EU law. You cannot pick and choose what human rights to support, you are either for them all or not.



I just want people to be treated equally under the law


people are, but secularism aims to legislate morality, like what Hilter and Stalin did. both of them took God out of society and tried to create their own way of thinking, which resulted in millions being killed. Would you like things that way?

How can people be treated equally when you want to remove their religious rights? As a Christian, I take it my rights are not important? cause i know that seperation is going to result in my religious freedoms being taken away.

People are entitled to pratice their religion and the law should protect them. If you want to seperate Church and State in the UK, you will have to remove the Monarchy and that is not going to go down well.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
If you want to seperate Church and State in the UK, you will have to remove the Monarchy and that is not going to go down well.


Speak for yourself matey, as far as I'm concerned there'll be dancing in the streets.




[edit on 17-2-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Secularist bang on about human rights, but they seem to forget (or ignore) freedom of religion is a human right under UN and EU law. You cannot pick and choose what human rights to support, you are either for them all or not.


Exactly. I'm for them all. I totally support freedom of religion. I'm not sure why you'd assume anything else.



people are, [treated equally under the law]


I didn't notice when I posted here that it's in the "UK Politics" Forum, so I really can't speak to that. But in the US, we are not all treated equally under the law. Gay people aren't allowed to get married. Marriage is a state's right that is not extended to gay people. And that's what I'm talking about.



but secularism aims to legislate morality,


It's just the opposite here. Religion aims to legislate morality. And it sometimes succeeds. As in the case of marriage.



Would you like things that way?


Why would you even ask that?




How can people be treated equally when you want to remove their religious rights?


I don't.



cause i know that seperation is going to result in my religious freedoms being taken away.


As I said, I'm ignorant about UK Law, but now I'm curious. What religious rights would be taken away?



People are entitled to pratice their religion and the law should protect them.


Here in the USA, it does.


[edit on 17-2-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I pretty much agree with the concept of a civil union, but I know that many gay activists are not happy with that, they want full marriage even if they are both the same except in name.

In the U.S., I think it should be left up to states, but under no circumstances should a state be required to recognize a marriage performed in another state that doesn't fit its own definititon of marriage.

[edit on 2/17/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Church and State should not be seperate.

Religion has played a huge part of our history and should not be ripped out because of some hate filled secualrists who want to turn the UK into France. Religious advice has been very helpful for the government when it comes to creatingn new laws, etc.

The reason why there are so many social problems in the UK is because of the secular laws that are being passed that have resulted in the break down of traditional marriage and morality. I am glad that the Catholicism is to become the main religion in the UK very soon (TimesOnline) because that will help to stop the growing cancer of secularism in this country.

For those who think Church and State should be apart, go and visit France. For seperation has caused so many social problems in France which resulted in riots. Want it to be like that?

[edit on 17-2-2007 by infinite]


Just so I understand where you are coming from. If you want to get married it must in a church?



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
A democracy can only trully exist if it is secular. Democratic and theocratic principles are fundamentally different and completely incompatible.

Democratic laws are forged through the process of debate, and leaders appointed through the electoral process.

A religion's laws are set in its holy books. When a nation is governed by religion, religious dogma is the law. There is no room to debate, because how do you debate with God? His word is perfect, and final, right? Whether it is perfect or not will not be up for debate either, because the government will have made it law that God's word is irrefutable. Opposition is an act of heresy, and elections are done away with.

Nations that adopt theocratic pricniples are thrown back into the dark ages, just look at some of the Islamic states in the Middle east for an example.

Though I agree that this country has suffered from an increase in social problems, I think it would be unwise to assume that the cause is as simple as a decline in Christian practice. People don't need a Bible to tell how to be decent human beings. There are many other factors contributing the errosion of our social fibre; lets not discount the rise of the other major religion... no, not Islam, I'm talking about a much more popular religion: Celebrityism and the gospel of the Television. This is a force of atomisation of individuals, and disintegration of communities. People get into the habbit of sitting in front of the box rather than having a conversation with a family member or fellow member of the community. Neighbours become strangers, and parents lose the ability to communicate with - and ultimately raise - their children properly. Social connections and community spirit are broken down. Children grow up to be antisocial becasue they don't know any better, and te victims of their antisocial behaviour live in fear, because the social network of protection and solidarity is long gone. People no longer share in each others day to day lives, dramas, and events, so celebrities fill that void for them. This is more of a root cause of our social problems than a decline in religious practice.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Paul]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join