NationStates Jolt Archive

alright, clearly there cant be a State religion according the Constitution. Yet government practice swearing oaths with "So help me God" etc.
so why do we do this? what if we said "So help me Allah" or "So help me Atman" or "So help me Gods?"

I think us Muslims would be allowed to say that....

It is perfectly acceptable to do so. For example the tradition of laying one hand on a bible in court when you do the "do you swear to tell the truth" bit if you are a non-christian you can use your holy book or an athiest goes on my honour.

I wished I lived in one of your countries where religion has too much control of the government.

Instead of here, where the government is killing religion at the same time it preaches religious freedom

I wished I lived in one of your countries where religion has too much control of the government.

Instead of here, where the government is killing religion at the same time it preaches religious freedom
and what religion is being "killed?"

If he's actually from Canada, I think he means the free right to express your religion. ie. My home town banned Christian themed banners ("Jesus is the Reason for the Season) being displayed in public places due to a few complaints.

Marric']If he's actually from Canada, I think he means the free right to express your religion. ie. My home town banned Christian themed banners ("Jesus is the Reason for the Season) being displayed in public places due to a few complaints.
did they "ban" them, or take them down.

Har, the government is not "killing religion". How absurd. I agree the political correctness thing is getting completely out of hand, and having to call Christmas "the winter holiday" is ridiculous. We should be able to wish each other a Merry Christmas, a Happy Chanukkah, or any other religious-themed greeting. But I hardly think a government guideline is going to "kill religion".

...If it's a government thing, there should be no religious attatchment to it.

Stores can call it Christmas all they want.

Though, frankly, calling it a "holi-day" is its own problem...

Ban, enforced with $2500 fines.

alright, clearly there cant be a State religion according the Constitution. Yet government practice swearing oaths with "So help me God" etc.
so why do we do this? what if we said "So help me Allah" or "So help me Atman" or "So help me Gods?"
Perhaps because what government employees do in their people hats has nothing to do with what they do with their government hats?

I wished I lived in one of your countries where religion has too much control of the government.

Instead of here, where the government is killing religion at the same time it preaches religious freedom
*smiles*

Marric']If he's actually from Canada, I think he means the free right to express your religion. ie. My home town banned Christian themed banners ("Jesus is the Reason for the Season) being displayed in public places due to a few complaints.
What a town or city municipality may enact has no bearing on what Canada believes, and may, in fact, be easily over-ruled if it's deemed to be contrary to the Constitution.

It doesn't matter because placing your right hand on the Bible while raising your left hand makes you physically unable to lie.

Har, the government is not "killing religion". How absurd. I agree the political correctness thing is getting completely out of hand, and having to call Christmas "the winter holiday" is ridiculous. We should be able to wish each other a Merry Christmas, a Happy Chanukkah, or any other religious-themed greeting. But I hardly think a government guideline is going to "kill religion".

Happy Non-Denominational Winter Season!

alright, clearly there cant be a State religion according the Constitution. Yet government practice swearing oaths with "So help me God" etc.
so why do we do this? what if we said "So help me Allah" or "So help me Atman" or "So help me Gods?"
"Government" have two hats.

One hat is their job hat, that affords them representation for the people.

The other hat is their people hat, in which they are one of the people.

It's weird, being paid by your own taxes.

I wished I lived in one of your countries where religion has too much control of the government.

Instead of here, where the government is killing religion at the same time it preaches religious freedom
Like how?

Marric']If he's actually from Canada, I think he means the free right to express your religion. ie. My home town banned Christian themed banners ("Jesus is the Reason for the Season) being displayed in public places due to a few complaints.
Municipal government has every right to do such a thing, based on public opinion.

I'm a roman catholic, i belive in god and all his staff, but now the point is if religion can have a role in the goverment, i say religion should be allowed to play a minor role, the only issue here is not let religion get to powerful.

When you try to ban religion in order to cow the population out of it, they'll be more than willing to join that religion (some exceptions) if the goverment controlled their publicity it would be able to use it for its own benefit, religion can be a powerful weapon when properly used, for example i'd like to see a country attack the Vatican not even the Wehrmacht dared to attack it.

I'm a roman catholic, i belive in god and all his staff, but now the point is if religion can have a role in the goverment, i say religion should be allowed to play a minor role, the only issue here is not let religion get to powerful.

When you try to ban religion in order to cow the population out of it, they'll be more than willing to join that religion (some exceptions) if the goverment controlled their publicity it would be able to use it for its own benefit, religion can be a powerful weapon when properly used, for example i'd like to see a country attack the Vatican not even the Wehrmacht dared to attack it.
Thats fine that you are RC but the reason we do not allow religion in the government even a little bit (supposedly) is to not have that influence at all ... using it as a “weapon” is not an option

So help me Batman?

Thats fine that you are RC but the reason we do not allow religion in the government even a little bit (supposedly) is to not have that influence at all ... using it as a “weapon” is not an option


correct! You get a brownie! ;)

I imagine if there was a law preventing you from swearing to allah or ahura mazda or something it would be thrown out immediately as being unconstitutional.

As a point of interest though, swearing to G*d does offend some Christians. Usually if swearing to some diety(ies) offends you (and in many courts as standard practice, however is usualy up to individual jusges in the US) , you may merely affirm that you will be telling the truth (mention to the baliff beforehand if in doubt). SOmetimes the oath is given under pain and penalty of perjury instead also. But neither makes as good a television sound bite as "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you G*d".

I believe Collidge was the first US president not to be sworn into office (he affirmed that he would do the job, but didn't swear to it) but I could be mistaken about that, none the less, presidents of the US are not required to be sworn into office. Further, the only oath of office given a text in the US constitution, is the oath for the president, which makes no reference to G*d, that ought to make you think (Congresspeople, Supreme court justices, the VP and many others have "so help me G*d" in them by statute). If you do believe in some diety, it is generally assumed that your oath in the name of that diety carries a bit of weight.

looks like I put this here. Its an interesting comparison of the US with Europe when it comes to religious freedom. It says that despite claiming promotion of religious freedom European nations actually put heavy restrictions on the right of people to express their beliefs in public places.
Something I predicted (due to what I read about their policies in past news articles) but that has now been confirmed by a major polling agency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/

Municipal government has every right to do such a thing, based on public opinion.
In what country are they allowed to do that? Certainly not in the United States. The US Constitution's religious freedom clause overrules public opinion.

Thats fine that you are RC but the reason we do not allow religion in the government even a little bit (supposedly) is to not have that influence at all ... using it as a “weapon” is not an option
In the US you are not going to be able to totally eliminate religion from government. It's part of our tradition and heritage. It's our culture.
Attempting to remove all religion from public life would be considered unamerican.

Politics should keep it's nose out of people's religion and people's religion should keep it's ugly nose out of politics.

As a point of interest though, swearing to G*d does offend some Christians. Usually if swearing to some diety(ies) offends you (and in many courts as standard practice, however is usualy up to individual jusges in the US) , you may merely affirm that you will be telling the truth (mention to the baliff beforehand if in doubt). SOmetimes the oath is given under pain and penalty of perjury instead also. But neither makes as good a television sound bite as "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you G*d".

I believe Collidge was the first US president not to be sworn into office (he affirmed that he would do the job, but didn't swear to it) but I could be mistaken about that, none the less, presidents of the US are not required to be sworn into office. Further, the only oath of office given a text in the US constitution, is the oath for the president, which makes no reference to G*d, that ought to make you think (Congresspeople, Supreme court justices, the VP and many others have "so help me G*d" in them by statute). If you do believe in some diety, it is generally assumed that your oath in the name of that diety carries a bit of weight.

Article II Section 1 Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The reason that people swear an oath to god is to associate with other people that they share in the same general ideology. Not that that means the same religious ideas, but that they also believe that thier actions have the possibility of invoking disdain from a higher power. If all parties feel that there is less chance of someone going willy-nilly and making irrational decisions, they sleep better at night. For some reason the same shared fear of eternal retribution is comforting.

This is the primary reason that athiests (I'm not an athiest btw) are looked down upon by the general populace in any culture. Religion is at its core is simply a group of people sharing trust and making rules. Anyone that dosent agree to the specific rules is looked down upon, but is looked upon better that one that doesnt feel that thier actions will be held accountable on the ultimate scale.

As for seperation of religion and politics, its kind of silly as they are two words for roughly the same thing. Government or "the state" is merely a group of people sharing trust and making rules, but the fear of retribution is from other humans and not from a diety.

If a human really wanted to be closer to thier higher power, however they wanna percieve it, they would exert more effort into saying thanks, and less time using resources that thier diety gave to them to destroy other people or build silly monuments to the diety. Think about it... if your personal choice in God is all knowing, and all powerful, then God would already know how great he/she/it is and as any good "parent" would like to see his/her/it's children stop playing so rough makin so much noise and be a lil happier.

Sagir, Emperor of Successoria
__________________________
Think bigger, except if it's your waistline.

In the US you are not going to be able to totally eliminate religion from government. It's part of our tradition and heritage. It's our culture.
Attempting to remove all religion from public life would be considered unamerican.
But it is a good goal to work towards … and I am not saying remove people in power’s right to believe or anything like that but idelisticaly it should not have an effect on the government. The government should NOT be supporting one religion over any of the others (or lack of religion) simple

alright, clearly there cant be a State religion according the Constitution. Yet government practice swearing oaths with "So help me God" etc. so why do we do this? what if we said "So help me Allah" or "So help me Atman" or "So help me Gods?"

Here's what Jesus had to say about it:

Matthew 5:33-37: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I would think that would settle the matter for Christians anyway. Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical that they would be the ones insisting on continuing this tradition?

alright, clearly there cant be a State religion according the Constitution. Yet government practice swearing oaths with "So help me God" etc.
so why do we do this? what if we said "So help me Allah" or "So help me Atman" or "So help me Gods?"
I was once required to testify in court and declined to swear on the Bible. I simply gave my oath to be truthful, without any "so help me God." Personally, I don't trust anybody who needs to be sworn in God's name, nor do I trust anybody who needs to put their hand on a specific prop in order to have given a binding oath.

Marric']If he's actually from Canada, I think he means the free right to express your religion. ie. My home town banned Christian themed banners ("Jesus is the Reason for the Season) being displayed in public places due to a few complaints.


A few years back there was a case of a high-up in the Church of Satan (LaVey's little plageristic cash cow) having trouble getting some magazines and medallions over the Canadian border because border patrol found them "hateful" against Christians. *shrugs* Guess my point is that even fools should get religious protection.

A few years back there was a case of a high-up in the Church of Satan (LaVey's little plageristic cash cow) having trouble getting some magazines and medallions over the Canadian border because border patrol found them "hateful" against Christians. *shrugs* Guess my point is that even fools should get religious protection.

Interesting that something's being found hateful against Christian believers for once. The vast majority of the time, the gov't and its minions say that Christians are the ones causing the hate. Remember the time a judge in Saskatchewan ruled, in effect, that the Bible could be classified as hate literature?

Interesting that something's being found hateful against Christian believers for once. The vast majority of the time, the gov't and its minions say that Christians are the ones causing the hate. Remember the time a judge in Saskatchewan ruled, in effect, that the Bible could be classified as hate literature?
Well, based on the definition of the law they had, the Bible IS hate literature. It's got plenty of hate in it...most religious texts do, some place. That doesn't mean it doesn't also have good stuff in it. You just have to accept that the Bible isn't a perfect manual of goodness :).

What city or town is that in canada where they ban religious banners?

Well, based on the definition of the law they had, the Bible IS hate literature. It's got plenty of hate in it...most religious texts do, some place. That doesn't mean it doesn't also have good stuff in it. You just have to accept that the Bible isn't a perfect manual of goodness :).

I agree that you have to take the bad with the good, but ruling that a book is hate literature means that people can be arrested for preaching its merits, or that it could be banned. Needless to say, such a classification for the Bible is ridiculous on its face. If the Bible is hate literature, does that mean that Christians can be brought up on criminal charges for following their religion?

I agree that you have to take the bad with the good, but ruling that a book is hate literature means that people can be arrested for preaching its merits, or that it could be banned. Needless to say, such a classification for the Bible is ridiculous on its face. If the Bible is hate literature, does that mean that Christians can be brought up on criminal charges for following their religion?
Oh and where can you be arrested based on literature?
Or preaching your view

Oh and where can you be arrested based on literature?
Or preaching your view

Have you heard of Ernst Zundel? He's a German-Canadian who has lived here for several decades. He's printed up leaflets denying the Jewish holocaust and defending Hitler. He's been brought up on hate-crime charges and the Canadian gummit is trying to have him deported to Germany.

Have you heard of Ernst Zundel? He's a German-Canadian who has lived here for several decades. He's printed up leaflets denying the Jewish holocaust and defending Hitler. He's been brought up on hate-crime charges and the Canadian gummit is trying to have him deported to Germany.
Oh and here I thought we were talking about the USA’s implementation of separation of religion and government

Needless to say, such a classification for the Bible is ridiculous on its face.

Why ? Read this forum and the opinion some people claiming to be Christians have of homosexuals, using the Bible as justification.

If the Bible is hate literature, does that mean that Christians can be brought up on criminal charges for following their religion?

If the aspects they follow conflict with local law: naturally. There are some sections in the bible encouraging destruction of the religious symbols of non-christians for instance; that is destruction of someone elses property.

Here's what Jesus had to say about it:

Matthew 5:33-37: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I would think that would settle the matter for Christians anyway. Doesn't it seem rather hypocritical that they would be the ones insisting on continuing this tradition?
That passage is not about swearing on the Bible.

Matthew 5:33-37: "And don't say anything you don't mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying, 'I'll pray for you,' and never doing it, or saying, 'God be with you,' and not meaning it. You don't make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true. Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong."
~The Message

Oh and here I thought we were talking about the USA’s implementation of separation of religion and government

You asked where someone could be arrested for preaching their view, and I gave you an example.

I was once required to testify in court and declined to swear on the Bible. I simply gave my oath to be truthful, without any "so help me God." Personally, I don't trust anybody who needs to be sworn in God's name, nor do I trust anybody who needs to put their hand on a specific prop in order to have given a binding oath.

I sat on a court case as well and they didn't have us swear on a Bible......

You asked where someone could be arrested for preaching their view, and I gave you an example.
I should have been more specific as we are dealing with the separation of church and state in the USA

So as you have not provided any … the classification of the bible as hate literature by the united states would have no effect (supposedly) to those that choose to read/preach from it

yeah but thats all most freedom of speech, and getting further off topic, ...

looks like I put this here. Its an interesting comparison of the US with Europe when it comes to religious freedom. It says that despite claiming promotion of religious freedom European nations actually put heavy restrictions on the right of people to express their beliefs in public places.
Something I predicted (due to what I read about their policies in past news articles) but that has now been confirmed by a major polling agency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/
Just because Europeans are more secular, it does not mean that religion is less free here.

Europeans just feel different (know better?) than Americans because as Thomas Jefferson said, Europe's soil has been soaked in the blood of religious conflicts for centuries. We realise that religion is best kept out of politics.

Just because Europeans are more secular, it does not mean that religion is less free here.

Europeans just feel different (know better?) than Americans because as Thomas Jefferson said, Europe's soil has been soaked in the blood of religious conflicts for centuries. We realise that religion is best kept out of politics.
Its also because some of your govts are still giving money to a favorite church. So the governments ban the expression of other faiths in public. Not just that, but if you read the article, most european nations have only one or two types of churches and for millenia there was only one faith available to Europeans and that was Christianity. Along comes Islam and Europeans suddenly feel threatened cause now they have more choice of religions than they did before.

That passage is not about swearing on the Bible.

Matthew 5:33-37: "And don't say anything you don't mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying, 'I'll pray for you,' and never doing it, or saying, 'God be with you,' and not meaning it. You don't make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true. Just say 'yes' and 'no.' When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong."
~The Message

First of all, I do not agree that these are equivalent translations. (Please see Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 5:33-37. Although he excuses swearing in court if one is called on to do so, his commentary agrees with my own interpretation of this passage.)

Secondly, the translation you have quoted clearly states that you do not make your words true by embellishing them with religious lace. In fact, it goes on to say that in making your speech sound more religious, it becomes less true! So why on earth would Christians insist on keeping such outdated, non-sensical traditions as swearing on the bible and/or in the name of God?

Its also because some of your govts are still giving money to a favorite church. So the governments ban the expression of other faiths in public. Not just that, but if you read the article, most european nations have only one or two types of churches and for millenia there was only one faith available to Europeans and that was Christianity. Along comes Islam and Europeans suddenly feel threatened cause now they have more choice of religions than they did before.

I can only speak for Germany, Austria and Ireland here, as I don't know the exact legislation in the other countries.

Germany & Austria: Doesn't give a cent to any church. Churches finance themselves through donations and through a tax that the government collects for them. If you are member of any church, you pay this tax, if you're not, you don't. The churches recieve those taxes through the government on a percentage basis (calculated according to their registered members)

Ireland : Doesn't give a cent to any church. Not even through taxes. Churches need to finance themselves

Europeans are a lot more private about religion than Americans are, actually they sometimes tend to find the way Americans make their religion public on every occasion rather embarrasing (I know I had a few moments...) Also, Europeans try to avoid conflict between religions and one way of doing that is keeping them out of politics and out of public places that have no religious context. Strictly.

I would say that this is a very fair way to treat religions, as you can ensure that they won't clash unnecessarily.

Article II Section 1 Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."I was too lazy to look it up, thanks for doing so for me. Like I say, interesting that this is the only oath given an actual text in the US Constitution, and it makes no mention of any divinity. I thought I might as well look things up, and until about 1860 the oath of office for the US Congress also ommited any mention of a divinity, consisting of a simple ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States", hmmm.

I can only speak for Germany, Austria and Ireland here, as I don't know the exact legislation in the other countries.

Germany & Austria: Doesn't give a cent to any church. Churches finance themselves through donations and through a tax that the government collects for them. If you are member of any church, you pay this tax, if you're not, you don't. The churches recieve those taxes through the government on a percentage basis (calculated according to their registered members)

Ireland : Doesn't give a cent to any church. Not even through taxes. Churches need to finance themselves

Europeans are a lot more private about religion than Americans are, actually they sometimes tend to find the way Americans make their religion public on every occasion rather embarrasing (I know I had a few moments...) Also, Europeans try to avoid conflict between religions and one way of doing that is keeping them out of politics and out of public places that have no religious context. Strictly.

I would say that this is a very fair way to treat religions, as you can ensure that they won't clash unnecessarily.

Europeans got it all twisted. You can't have real seperation of church and state if the state is collecting money from people on behalf of the church. That is illegal in the US as it violates the church state seperation. But individual people are perfectly free to express their faith any where any time.

Europeans got it all twisted. You can't have real seperation of church and state if the state is collecting money from people on behalf of the church. That is illegal in the US as it violates the church state seperation. But individual people are perfectly free to express their faith any where any time.

The state is not collecting money on behalf of THE church, but of all religious group according to their registered members.
Say, your Catholic, the State will levy a tax on you and rout it to the Catholic church. Same if you're a Jehova's Witness, a Mormon, a Muslim... the state functions as intermediary, it won't interfere on how much you pay (depends on your church) or anything else.
You are free to stand on a soapbox anywhere you want and instruct you followers that god and satan are one and the same person. You won't get much more than bemused look from people passing by, but you're free to do it.
You are not free to do that in any government building or while acting on behalf of the government.

To be honest, many Europeans will mistrust a politician who keeps making references to god... they would feel that he doesn't have the backbone to speak for himself and tries to hide behind a cheap emotional concept...

What gets me is that the government is trying to control religion (the same sex marriage debate is one example of this). The government shouldn't make rulings based on any one particular faith over any other.

my friends brother "a hardcore muslim kinda guy" refused to say so help me god when he went to a trial. I thought that anyone should be able to say what they want as long as they tell the truth.

What gets me is that the government is trying to control religion (the same sex marriage debate is one example of this). The government shouldn't make rulings based on any one particular faith over any other.

Which government, now? The German government legalised gay marriage (as civil union, the only union recognised by the government, religous marriage is not recognised) a few months back...

my friends brother "a hardcore muslim kinda guy" refused to say so help me god when he went to a trial. I thought that anyone should be able to say what they want as long as they tell the truth.
That is no longer a requirement … it haven’t been for awhile

The state is not collecting money on behalf of THE church, but of all religious group according to their registered members.
Say, your Catholic, the State will levy a tax on you and rout it to the Catholic church. Same if you're a Jehova's Witness, a Mormon, a Muslim... the state functions as intermediary

That system seems strange, oh hell I'll just come right out and say it, dangerously entangled. Why does the government need to collect money for a church at all? Why can't a church collect it's own money? How much taxpayer moiney is wasted funding the overhead that comes from government involvement?
More importantly, isn't this system just begging for an abuse from a totalitarian regieme? Having people register their religion (and thats whats happening, even if this is supposed to be for "tax purposes") with the government is never a good idea. Should the wrong government come to power it becomes very easy to descriminate against (or round up) the scapegoat of the month.
No, thank you, should anyone even vaguely offical ask me what my religion is they'll get a big ol' one finger salute. Or, if they push the issue after I've let them know that they're #1, a twelve guage safety-slug.

What gets me is that the government is trying to control religion (the same sex marriage debate is one example of this). The government shouldn't make rulings based on any one particular faith over any other.

...the government shouldn't be issuing marriage liscenses. A marriage is a contract between consenting and, if they choose, their god/church. There is no compelling reason for the government to get involved...ever. Sure, the explainations given change("public health," taxes, etc.), but the reason for government getting into marriage has always been bigotry. First it was to prevent polygamy, then miscegenation, now gay marriage. Its also a nice little cash cow, a way to help defray the costs of the county clerk office. bleh.

alright, clearly there cant be a State religion according the Constitution. Yet government practice swearing oaths with "So help me God" etc.
so why do we do this? what if we said "So help me Allah" or "So help me Atman" or "So help me Gods?"

What about saying "So help me Satan" or "So help me Dark Gods", with my hand on the Satanic Bible?

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

The state is not collecting money on behalf of THE church, but of all religious group according to their registered members.
Say, your Catholic, the State will levy a tax on you and rout it to the Catholic church. Same if you're a Jehova's Witness, a Mormon, a Muslim... the state functions as intermediary, it won't interfere on how much you pay (depends on your church) or anything else.
You are free to stand on a soapbox anywhere you want and instruct you followers that god and satan are one and the same person. You won't get much more than bemused look from people passing by, but you're free to do it.
You are not free to do that in any government building or while acting on behalf of the government.

To be honest, many Europeans will mistrust a politician who keeps making references to god... they would feel that he doesn't have the backbone to speak for himself and tries to hide behind a cheap emotional concept...

The government has no business getting between people and their churches. Nor does it have any business collecting money on behalf of any religious group.
What you have is most certainly not seperation of church and state. If it was the govt. would not even be involved in collecting finances.

...the government shouldn't be issuing marriage liscenses. A marriage is a contract between consenting and, if they choose, their god/church. There is no compelling reason for the government to get involved...ever. Sure, the explainations given change("public health," taxes, etc.), but the reason for government getting into marriage has always been bigotry. First it was to prevent polygamy, then miscegenation, now gay marriage. Its also a nice little cash cow, a way to help defray the costs of the county clerk office. bleh.
That or to provide a legal framework between two consenting adults … I’m not sure that it was put into place originally for the sol reason of discrimination

That or to provide a legal framework between two consenting adults … I’m not sure that it was put into place originally for the sol reason of discrimination

1) Why do you need a special legal framework? Contract law works fine. The government doesn't NEED to be there. If the state won't crumble without the government's aid, the government shouldn't be there.
2) The only reason for a liscense is so the state can set standards. With marriage that means discrimination. It always has. How does it hurt you if someone in Utah has 2 wives (can't understand why, but whatever)? Or a black person and a white person marry? Or two men? Or three women? It doesn't. It isn't your buisness, it isn't the buisness of society, and it DEFINATELY isn't the buisness of the government.

1) Why do you need a special legal framework? Contract law works fine. The government doesn't NEED to be there. If the state won't crumble without the government's aid, the government shouldn't be there.
2) The only reason for a liscense is so the state can set standards. With marriage that means discrimination. It always has. How does it hurt you if someone in Utah has 2 wives (can't understand why, but whatever)? Or a black person and a white person marry? Or two men? Or three women? It doesn't. It isn't your buisness, it isn't the buisness of society, and it DEFINATELY isn't the buisness of the government.
But you are assuming just because contract law covers it now that it ALWAYS did (I am not saying the government should regulate WHO can get married beyond making sure they are consenting adults)

And then assuming the creation of marriage as a legal entity was in fact just made to discriminate … all I am saying is the original creation may indeed have had control connotations but it may also have had the purpose of solidifying that contract

In today’s legal system contract law should cover a lot of what marriage is (just a contract between two adults) but back in the day they may have needed to be a bit more specific

its funny in britian , becasue we are christian we all have to swear an oath over the bible in court, even if we are muslim or hindu

its funny in britian , becasue we are christian we all have to swear an oath over the bible in court, even if we are muslim or hindu
I personally would refuse … not out of hate for the bible but because I would be essentially lying in that oath and I would not wish to do that in a court of law