Comments on: Separation of Church and State in the USA http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/ Random things that interest me. Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:54:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mackenzie http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-17136 Mackenzie Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:30:34 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-17136 @Sveinung: Uh, the Bible doesn't say polygamy is immoral. It actually seems to be pretty in favor of it. Oh, and um, as a recovered Catholic, I have read quite a lot of the Bible. Kind of confused by putting "couples" in quotes. Are you suggesting that there are threesomes or people marrying themselves? Of course we're talking about couples here! @Sveinung:
Uh, the Bible doesn’t say polygamy is immoral. It actually seems to be pretty in favor of it. Oh, and um, as a recovered Catholic, I have read quite a lot of the Bible.

Kind of confused by putting “couples” in quotes. Are you suggesting that there are threesomes or people marrying themselves? Of course we’re talking about couples here!

]]> By: Bible Verse of The Day http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-15837 Bible Verse of The Day Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:32:50 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-15837 Excellent post.Keep up the smashing work,You should definitely have to keep updating your site Excellent post.Keep up the smashing work,You should definitely have to keep updating your site

]]> By: He Can Read Minds « bbechdol’s information corner http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-15644 He Can Read Minds « bbechdol’s information corner Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:52:53 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-15644 [...] that I was very intrigued by. One of the topics on this blog had to do with a touchy subject, the separation of church and state. As I read this I was more and more in awe because this person has wrote EXACTLY how I feel about [...] [...] that I was very intrigued by. One of the topics on this blog had to do with a touchy subject, the separation of church and state. As I read this I was more and more in awe because this person has wrote EXACTLY how I feel about [...]

]]> By: Sveinung http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-15013 Sveinung Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:50:20 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-15013 Mackenzie: Thank you for pointing out that the marriage law is forced on employers: they have to give the same benefits to the partner as real married couples. The same for hospitals. I never said I would support the insemination of a single woman. If you want a law that forces doctors to help inseminate lesbians then you place them under your alien laws. Thanks you again for all these great examples! (I hope you are still reading Mike) Ministers are at the moment permitted to opt out of "marrying" same sex "couples", but strong forces, among them a party in the current ruling coalition, want to change the law to force them. There are however no law that forces me to give a "wedding" present to them, so at that point you are correct. (But there are also no social norm to give wedding presents to anyone except family in my country) While I personally don't agree with Sharia I believe in Muslim couples right to create a marriage contract that conforms to Sharia when it comes to divorce. How is it our business to prevent a Muslim woman from signing that contract? If you don't know what God's wrath can do with a country I suggest you read the Bible. Btw, my definition of marriage is from it. While the Bible don't give the state the right to ban polygyni it is still immoral. Just like divorce. Please read Malachi 2:13-16, 1 Cor 7:2, etc. Also: Husband and wife are made one in marriage. How can you be one with many? Mackenzie: Thank you for pointing out that the marriage law is forced on employers: they have to give the same benefits to the partner as real married couples. The same for hospitals. I never said I would support the insemination of a single woman. If you want a law that forces doctors to help inseminate lesbians then you place them under your alien laws. Thanks you again for all these great examples! (I hope you are still reading Mike)

Ministers are at the moment permitted to opt out of “marrying” same sex “couples”, but strong forces, among them a party in the current ruling coalition, want to change the law to force them. There are however no law that forces me to give a “wedding” present to them, so at that point you are correct. (But there are also no social norm to give wedding presents to anyone except family in my country)

While I personally don’t agree with Sharia I believe in Muslim couples right to create a marriage contract that conforms to Sharia when it comes to divorce. How is it our business to prevent a Muslim woman from signing that contract?

If you don’t know what God’s wrath can do with a country I suggest you read the Bible. Btw, my definition of marriage is from it. While the Bible don’t give the state the right to ban polygyni it is still immoral. Just like divorce. Please read Malachi 2:13-16, 1 Cor 7:2, etc. Also: Husband and wife are made one in marriage. How can you be one with many?

]]> By: Mackenzie http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-15003 Mackenzie Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:41:47 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-15003 "Doctors are compelled to assist lesbians wanting insemination." What difference do the woman's attractions make to her choice to be artificially inseminated? Single women are not prevented from it on the basis that they need a man in the house or some such nonsense, so why should lesbians be prevented from it? Oh, and yes, I think doctors do have to be non-discriminatory in this regard. There was recently a lawsuit when a doctor discriminated against a woman in this way. However, that has nothing at all to do with equal marriage. Whether a lesbian has a partner or not, and whether she is married to that partner or not is irrelevant. She's still simply a woman who would like to be pregnant without a man's help. OK yes, that might go against Sharia law for the woman to be able to request a divorce. Such a terrible thing for us women to have rights though. And it most certainly does give GLBTQ-identified persons more equality. Think of all of the benefits your partner and children (and step-children if your partner had a previous marriage) receive from your workplace because you're married, not just a live-in couple. Think of your right to see your spouse when he or she is in the hospital. They don't have that right without marriage. It isn't forced on you, because you're not forced to get married to someone of the same sex, and you're not forced to perform same-sex marriages (ministers are certainly permitted to opt-out of this). The most it forces on you is that if you choose to conform to the social norm of giving a wedding present after a marriage, you may have to buy a wedding gift for the lesbian couple next door. I don't know what your god's wrath has to do with the country. I also don't know where you found the one true definition of marriage. Biblically, polygamy (well, specifically polygyny--polyandry is still banned) is perfectly fine, but I think most Christians would have an issue with it. “Doctors are compelled to assist lesbians wanting insemination.”

What difference do the woman’s attractions make to her choice to be artificially inseminated? Single women are not prevented from it on the basis that they need a man in the house or some such nonsense, so why should lesbians be prevented from it? Oh, and yes, I think doctors do have to be non-discriminatory in this regard. There was recently a lawsuit when a doctor discriminated against a woman in this way. However, that has nothing at all to do with equal marriage. Whether a lesbian has a partner or not, and whether she is married to that partner or not is irrelevant. She’s still simply a woman who would like to be pregnant without a man’s help.

OK yes, that might go against Sharia law for the woman to be able to request a divorce. Such a terrible thing for us women to have rights though.

And it most certainly does give GLBTQ-identified persons more equality. Think of all of the benefits your partner and children (and step-children if your partner had a previous marriage) receive from your workplace because you’re married, not just a live-in couple. Think of your right to see your spouse when he or she is in the hospital. They don’t have that right without marriage.

It isn’t forced on you, because you’re not forced to get married to someone of the same sex, and you’re not forced to perform same-sex marriages (ministers are certainly permitted to opt-out of this). The most it forces on you is that if you choose to conform to the social norm of giving a wedding present after a marriage, you may have to buy a wedding gift for the lesbian couple next door.

I don’t know what your god’s wrath has to do with the country. I also don’t know where you found the one true definition of marriage. Biblically, polygamy (well, specifically polygyny–polyandry is still banned) is perfectly fine, but I think most Christians would have an issue with it.

]]> By: Sveinung http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-14983 Sveinung Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:57:12 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-14983 Paul: The law do compel people to recognize those "marriages" by actions. Doctors are compelled to assist lesbians wanting insemination. Even if they can refuse to do the procedure itself they are obliged by law to help them prepare. The effect is the same in other areas as well. (I don't live in USA. USA may be freer) The same law also has portions that makes divorce easy. (That is not new, but still alien) That prevents me from setting up a marriage contract that makes divorce hard. It also prevent Muslims from setting up a marriage contract according to the rules of Sharia. (Hard for the wife and easy for the husband to get a divorce I think) It doesn't give the homosexuals more freedom. They were already able to live in the same house, share their property, etc before this law. What has changed is that the government now encourages it and force it on the rest of us, including those who oppose it. Even if I avoided those areas where this law have an effect I will still be living in a nation (even more) under Gods wrath: Not only do the politicians believe they have the right to define marriage, they even "defines" is wrong. Paul: The law do compel people to recognize those “marriages” by actions. Doctors are compelled to assist lesbians wanting insemination. Even if they can refuse to do the procedure itself they are obliged by law to help them prepare. The effect is the same in other areas as well. (I don’t live in USA. USA may be freer)
The same law also has portions that makes divorce easy. (That is not new, but still alien) That prevents me from setting up a marriage contract that makes divorce hard. It also prevent Muslims from setting up a marriage contract according to the rules of Sharia. (Hard for the wife and easy for the husband to get a divorce I think)
It doesn’t give the homosexuals more freedom. They were already able to live in the same house, share their property, etc before this law. What has changed is that the government now encourages it and force it on the rest of us, including those who oppose it.
Even if I avoided those areas where this law have an effect I will still be living in a nation (even more) under Gods wrath: Not only do the politicians believe they have the right to define marriage, they even “defines” is wrong.

]]> By: Lester http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-14971 Lester Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:46:02 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-14971 You've been dugg. You’ve been dugg.

]]> By: Paul http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-14909 Paul Tue, 14 Oct 2008 06:12:06 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-14909 Sveinung, it seems strange to read you being "under" or "facing" a law which neither compels you to do something nor prevents you from doing something. All it does is give some people the freedom to do something the previously couldn't. It's difficult to see how it could be considered an imposition on anyone (other than those who feel they themselves have the right to impose restrictions on others). Sveinung, it seems strange to read you being “under” or “facing” a law which neither compels you to do something nor prevents you from doing something.

All it does is give some people the freedom to do something the previously couldn’t.

It’s difficult to see how it could be considered an imposition on anyone (other than those who feel they themselves have the right to impose restrictions on others).

]]> By: Sveinung http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-14878 Sveinung Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:13:34 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-14878 Mike: If you mean "tightened the links between their particular church and the government" literally, as in the church as an institution and the government as an institution, that would be unbiblical so I would oppose it no matter what church tried to do it. Based on my prejudices* when it comes to atheists I assume you meant "based the laws on the morals of their particular church". In that case we don't have to imagine. We already live under laws based on alien belief systems. My country, while still formally Christian, base their laws on humanism and socialism. People does propose laws based on belief systems other than mine all the time. Often those laws pass. They did for example change the marriage law to include gay "marriage". So yes, we know how you feel when we dare to propose laws based on our beliefs instead of yours. Can you imagine having those alien laws pass? Because that is what we face. One last thing: I don't suffer from arrogance. I enjoy it were much. ;) (In case you were serious you deserve a real answer: Truth doesn't depend on how many people believe something. If it did, I could have proved that you are wrong based on that you atheists are the minority, while we who believe in a god are the majority) * I know exceptions myself, and I know that you could be one. By having low expectations to people, even people that seems to oppose the unbiblical nanny state, I get pleasantly surprised instead of disappointed. Mike: If you mean “tightened the links between their particular church and the government” literally, as in the church as an institution and the government as an institution, that would be unbiblical so I would oppose it no matter what church tried to do it. Based on my prejudices* when it comes to atheists I assume you meant “based the laws on the morals of their particular church”. In that case we don’t have to imagine. We already live under laws based on alien belief systems. My country, while still formally Christian, base their laws on humanism and socialism. People does propose laws based on belief systems other than mine all the time. Often those laws pass. They did for example change the marriage law to include gay “marriage”. So yes, we know how you feel when we dare to propose laws based on our beliefs instead of yours. Can you imagine having those alien laws pass? Because that is what we face.

One last thing: I don’t suffer from arrogance. I enjoy it were much. ;) (In case you were serious you deserve a real answer: Truth doesn’t depend on how many people believe something. If it did, I could have proved that you are wrong based on that you atheists are the minority, while we who believe in a god are the majority)

* I know exceptions myself, and I know that you could be one. By having low expectations to people, even people that seems to oppose the unbiblical nanny state, I get pleasantly surprised instead of disappointed.

]]> By: matthew http://matthewhelmke.net/2008/10/12/separation-of-church-and-state-in-the-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-14872 matthew Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:16:19 +0000 http://matthewhelmke.net/wordpress/?p=173#comment-14872 Oh, I thought of a something else that could be having an impact. Stress. The lifestyle of the urban industrial or post-industrial age person is far more busy than the lifestyle of that of the traditional farmer. Life used to run in cycles of work and rest. Before electricity and television, people got more sleep. These changes make a person tired, stressed, and tend toward more grumpy and anti-social behavior. It also leads us to short, staccato bursts of communication instead of well-thought-out sessions of clarity and listening, followed by thought before response. Oh, I thought of a something else that could be having an impact.

Stress. The lifestyle of the urban industrial or post-industrial age person is far more busy than the lifestyle of that of the traditional farmer. Life used to run in cycles of work and rest. Before electricity and television, people got more sleep. These changes make a person tired, stressed, and tend toward more grumpy and anti-social behavior. It also leads us to short, staccato bursts of communication instead of well-thought-out sessions of clarity and listening, followed by thought before response.

]]>