Religion and politics.

Remove all ads!

Damn, I saw this article last week and I can't find it again. There was a state - one of the 11 that Gnarff mentioned - I believe Kansas if I had to guess - that stuck down the state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage as unconstitutional. Like I said, it was a while ago and I don't have the link, so I forget what the judge used as the basis for his ruling. However, if very red Kansas can strike down such an amendment, I imagine it can happen anywhere.

 

I have never looked at the Kansas State Constitution. But there may be something in it that does indeed allow for gay marriage. That is the function of judges to make that determination. If the people living there don't want gay marriage, then they will have to go back and change it through whichever process Kansas uses.

I know all this is basic, but I mention it because George II wanted to change the national Constitution to ban gay marriage in all states, regardless of their respective Constitutions. He made a big issue of it during the election, and afterwards, there has been no mention of it, at least that I've heard. Surprise.

 

Found it! It wasn't Kansas - it was Nebraska - so right ballpark, wrong seat. I found an article on it from the Free Republic, but it's only in the form of a short press release, so hopefully people won't bash the source too badly.

Read about it here.

EDIT: Here's a more complete report from CNN.

 

In this case, the majority may be offended by granting something to the minority. Magpie said it better than I can:

It would be the same as me making up characters in a story by taking your screen names and making them total buffoons and behaving in ways objectionable to you (like having a devoted democrat wearing a Bush Rules t-shirt). That is our biggest problem (aside from telling people that it's now okay to sin).

Chretian was Prime Minister fo Canada for a 10 year period. He was Prime Minister when rumblings about gay Marriage first started to gain mainstream press. He is a practicing (claims to be Devout) Catholic, but also spouted off on a belief in the separation of Church and State (using it as a reason to vote against the Church). I am a Mormon, and if Church Authorities read my posts, and found something seriously wrong (intentional or otherwise) they would hall me in front of the Priesthood to explain myself. I could face Excommunication on those grounds (if it's something I'm mistaken on however, they might let me off with a crash course in correct doctrine and make sure I posted a correction).

The statement from the Pope implied that Chretian KNEW the church's stance on the issue, but to vote against it was Heresy, and worthy of Excommunication (he may have been held to a higher expectation because he was Prime Minister at the time).

Actually, Simply auditing the books would uncover fraud at the congregation level. Organization wide may be trickier, but I don't think that a major religion would have trouble with a government asking questions about their books if they are honest in their dealings...

The Courts gave them that right, but the politicians haven't made the law yet. I am not convinced that we've heard the last of that...

Actually, if Religion is independent of politics, then they are free to state these consequences on politicians that vote against church policy. They have a moral duty to make their voice heard on this matter. Chretian was told that if he voted against his faith, then he was no longer welcome in that faith. In this case his chioces in the service of one master offended the other master. The issue dragged on to the point where no law has yet been passed. As long as there are minority governments in Canada, they probably won't push that agenda any time soon...

Actually, they're trying to do Parliament's job by trying to make the laws, not adjudicating them...

So basically, a judge overruled the people. That is not Democracy, that's Dictatorship. The people opposed something, and the Judge said that they had to accept it anyway...

I think if there was a stronger Republican representation in both Houses, then this might not have been pushed aside so quickly. If the Republicans can get a wider base in both houses in 2006, then look for that in 2007, barring other major international events...

 

This is what it would take:

As you can see, you may as well give up the idea of an exclusive club based solely on "how many Republicans" there are in congress, as it would realistically require something like a BIPARTISAN approach. I suspect there would be some Republicans, as well as some Democrats, who would cross over to one side or the other.

But IMO, George II had no intention of changing anything. He just wanted the gullible to vote for him, which they did.

 

Perhaps you are unaware that one of the duties of the judiciary branch is to determine the constitutionality of a law. There have been numerous instances where judges have struck down laws because they were unconstitutional. Granted, you typically don't hear much about this if it takes place on a state level, but the Supreme Court rulings always make the news. The will of the people is irrelevant in the case where the legislature enacts a law against the constitution. In effect, that law is deemed to be in itself, illegal. The checks and balance system used in the US is one of the basic principle of democracy, so I don't understand the dictatorship reference.

 

But with such narrow support for anything the President wants, I think he has to play his cards close to the vest anyway. He has to be careful with mundane stuff, let alone major stuff like constitutional ammendments...

The People elect the Legislature in Canada. They don't elect the Judges. The Judges have the power to tell the elected officials what to do and what they can't do, that's dictatorship--someone that wasn't elected overruling the people. I don't think those Judges could make that ruling in Canada because of one sentence in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our Constitution) that recognizes the Supremacy of God. As long as Religion can argue that God opposes an issue (using recognized religious cannon as representation fo God's will on the subject), then this should theoretically scuttle any such law...

 

No. Separation of Powers is a cornerstone of democracy. Dictatorship would be legislature, judiciary, and executive all in one hand.

Politicians are not free to enact any law they could possibly think of - even if this would reflect the current majority of votes. There are boundaries and limitations - especially those given by a constitution. The judges don't overall anything or anyone. They merely check whether a new law is consistent with the constitution or not.

So instead of blaming judges of ruling arbitrarily you should blame the constitution and work towards changing it. What you probably do anyway...

Do you have a link to Canada's constitution? I just want to check where it says: The God of the Bible is the supreme ruler of Canada. Honestly.

 

Just to clarify a major point of contention: Churches do not get tax breaks because they are charity organisations, they get tax breaks because they are not-for-profit organisations. ANY business putting all it's profit back into the business (or into charity) will get the same tax breaks as churches. If you say that churches should not 'interfere' with politics on the grounds that they pay no tax then you should say that no business should be able to fund a political party, as they come under exactly the same tax laws.

All not-for-profit organisations are required to undergo detailed auditing once per financial year. Taxed organisations do not undergo the same scrutiny.

I have had people I've never met before refuse to talk to me merely because I'm Christian. I notice no-one has brought up Jewish or Muslim views on homosexuality...

 

Actually I have not been saying that. I don't find taxing Churches if they interfere with politics to be such a good idea. I find it a good idea to tax Churches regardless if they interfere in politics or not. And yes I don't think businesses should be able to fund political parties. To me that smells of legal corruption. In Finland we have a limit to how much fundings from businesses the political parties are allowed to gather and it's something like 20% of campaign costs. And by the way, the businesses that fund political parties have to pay tax for their donations, the same should apply for Churches.

True enough, but the government usually has no intrest in checking out religious organisations to check if their auditing is correct since they don't pay taxes.

It's not really discriminative slander if someone refuses to talk to you. People have the right to speak to who they want.

 

Do you wear a big, bright badge proclaiming that you are 'christian'? If not, how would someone know if you are even religious at all, just by looking at you?

Of course if this is true, then you know how it must feel for minorities that have suffered thoughout the years.

 

I'll agree that they have a right not to speak to me, but it doesn't make it any less discrimination.

@Cesard, if conversations swing round to moral/political topics, it becomes fairly apparent where my views originate.

 

They aren't overruling the people. They are overruling the legislature for over-stepping their authority. I will not insult your intelligence by getting out my wife's 5th grade social studies book and copying from it to explain to you how separation of powers works in the U.S. The system in place in the U.S. is similar to that used in Canada, so I must presume that you learned about this when you were about 10 years old just like I did. Suffice it to say that the Legislature drafts the Constitution, laying the ground rules for the country. The Judiciary has the power to review any law that the Legislature passes to makes sure it is in accordance with the ground rules (i.e., the Constitution). To me, having the Legislature having full control to enact whatever law they wanted without any type of oversight is the ultimate form of dictatorship and tyranny.

 

I just HAVE to jump in to this one, being religious like I am.

My understanding of the US constitution is that it separates church and state so that one particular religious sect (and more particularly, Christian sect) could not hijack the government and start proscribing forms of worship (in the sense of the government saying "anyone who takes the Catholic communion will be denied the ability to get a government job" and other such nonsense) This separation did not say that religious institutions were prohibited from having political opinions or being involved in the political process. In a sense, to my mind, stopping a religious group from so doing would also entail an infringement on the members' right to peaceful assembly.

Like it or not, religion is a big part of the lives of many people. It influences the way they behave and think. Politics is all about people, behaving and thinking together in a group. Anyone trying to state that they must be two totally separate circles in a Venn diagram is seriously out to lunch.

Now, as for the Pope -- he was making a point with his threats of excommunication -- he stated his religion's position on a topic, and told his flock of the eternal consequences of going against that position. I see nothing wrong with that. He wouldn't be able to actually follow through here and now because we have a secret ballot. He warned them, though, that in the next life God will not be ignored. Again, that is the teaching of this faith and there is nothing wrong with forwarding it.

As for tax exempt status, there are a large number of politically active groups that are not taxed. Political action or opinion should not be the basis for which taxation status is decided. The whole "not-for-profit" benchmark is much better, and all such groups must undergo audits, as someone earlier mentioned.

I'd like to address the anti-Catholic crowd, and on a broader basis the anti-religion crowd. Such people are always telling the religious that they have to defend their beliefs in secular terms (admit that the Bible is purely the work of man and then go from there). What a load of crap. We have no obligation to do so. We have faith, which is OK. You don't. That's also OK. But our belief in something greater than ourselves does not make us utter morons, as is frequently insinuated.

 

Wait, it doesn't? Well hell, now I have to go back and rethink all my positions on...well...just about everything

Well, I disagree. But hey, that's what democracy's about; respectful disagreement. Either that or mob rule. I can never remember which.

Agreed. I'm 99% certain no one advocated such a thing in this thread, though.

 

Technically, the English Crown is the "Supreme Ruler of Canada", but the document that forms a foundation upon which our laws are built recognizes in the preamble the Supremacy of God (as a supreme being). This written by Christians, thus accepting the Bible as the Word of God in such matters.

In light of my recent comments, I believe that the judge didn't rule arbitrarily, but incompetently. In that ruling, the Preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was ignored.

I have stuck to the Christian stance on this issue because I have no access to the Jewish or muslim stance (although I may be able to quote one Old Testament scripture that condemns the practice of Homosexuality in strong and clear language).

I have yet to see an adequate proof that the Aetheists are right either. It's hard to have a discussion with someone that won't accept our basis for our arguements, but insists that theirs is right.

 

How ironic that YOU are the one to point that out, Gnarff.

 

Both sides work from a premise that cannot be proven and cannot be disproven. These two startpoints are mutually exclusive. Therefore, I have to be hard to debate with...

 

I disagree. But it is not even necessary to go as far as debating the assertion of premisses and such. Just ask yourself:

Is it logical?
Is it rational?
Is it useful?
Did it have any positive impact on humankind?
Is it humane?
Is love really the center of the lore?
Is it about tolerance and turning the other cheek?
Did it better the lives of the people?

Well, at least with Christianity all answers are "No!", plain and simple. I doubt that there is a single "Yes!" when in comes to other religions.

The idea of politics is to make the lives of all people better, to progress towards a perfect society. The idea of religion is (on a large scale, feel free to feel personally good about having a purpose in life and stuff) to conserve structures and hierarchies and to hinder progression where possible. All with a set of old morals that are non-loving and non-giving. That the moral code of e.g. the Catholic Church has shifted over time is due to external influences; it had certainly nothing to do with former misunderstandings of the Bible that have been corrected by scholars over time.

 

??? Are you joking ??? Are you sure you are talking about Christianity ???
First is arguable, second, oh well, you can have it your way, but not obvious, third to eight - yes, absolutely. Take it or leave it, but I'm afraid you don't know enough about Christianity to judge that.