Obstacles

[StrawberryJam]

Why do christians care if homosexuals are granted the ability to marry in a courthouse? How does it affect them? I don’t understand why so many are against them getting legal secular marriages. How does it matter at all?
Also, why do christians care if In God we Trust is taken off currency? What real difference would it truly make?

Thanks for any insight on this

 

[JonNC]

Why do christians care if homosexuals are granted the ability to marry in a courthouse? How does it affect them? I don’t understand why so many are against them getting legal secular marriages. How does it matter at all?
Also, why do christians care if In God we Trust is taken off currency? What real difference would it truly make?

Thanks for any insight on this

I object to the state sanctioning marriage at all. We are told constantly (and wrongly) by secularists that there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution. But if this is how they want it, then marriage, an undeniably religious event, should not be in any way interfered in or sanctioned by the state. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

OTOH, the state is quite within its bounds to sanction domestic partnerships in any way they choose, to allow equal access to the secular society, such as income tax breaks. To call it a marriage, however, violates the definition of the term marriage, and undermines its nature, and God’s intent for His (not government’s) institution.

Jon

 

[Eucharisted]

The Holy See wrote about this topic here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[StrawberryJam]

I object to the state sanctioning marriage at all. We are told constantly (and wrongly) by secularists that there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution. But if this is how they want it, then marriage, an undeniably religious event, should not be in any way interfered in or sanctioned by the state. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

OTOH, the state is quite within its bounds to sanction domestic partnerships in any way they choose, to allow equal access to the secular society, such as income tax breaks. To call it a marriage, however, violates the definition of the term marriage, and undermines its nature, and God’s intent for His (not government’s) institution.

Jon

That is a good argument I have to say.

Would you have any insight on the currency question? I don’t understand that at all.

 

[Eucharisted]

I object to the state sanctioning marriage at all. We are told constantly (and wrongly) by secularists that there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution. But if this is how they want it, then marriage, an undeniably religious event, should not be in any way interfered in or sanctioned by the state. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

OTOH, the state is quite within its bounds to sanction domestic partnerships in any way they choose, to allow equal access to the secular society, such as income tax breaks. To call it a marriage, however, violates the definition of the term marriage, and undermines its nature, and God’s intent for His (not government’s) institution.

Jon

Firstly, the Constitution dose call for seperation of church and state.

Secondly, separation of church and state is a concept which the Catholic Church introduced long ago. It basically means religion cannot marry politics or political power. We all know how such a disasterous marriage turned out during the Middle Ages. When the Church learned from this error, though, it introduced seperation of church and state.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The Holy See wrote about this topic here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Okay I’ll give it a look. Those documents are so long. I’ve tried to get through some of them and I have to admit it sometimes makes me feel like I’d be better off if I decided to be a catholic to just accept the rule without reading the documents and just go with summaries of them.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Firstly, the Constitution dose call for seperation of church and state.

Secondly, separation of church and state is a concept which the Catholic Church introduced long ago. It basically means religion cannot marry politics or political power. We all know how such a disasterous marriage turned out during the Middle Ages. When the Church learned from this error, though, it introduced seperation of church and state.

Okay, if that is the case then why do some catholics object to “In God we Trust” taken off money? Is there a reason for that?

 

[Eucharisted]

Okay I’ll give it a look. Those documents are so long. I’ve tried to get through some of them and I have to admit it sometimes makes me feel like I’d be better off if I decided to be a catholic to just accept the rule without reading the documents and just go with summaries of them.

You don’t have to read the whole thing. I certainly didn’t.

 

[JonNC]

That is a good argument I have to say.

Would you have any insight on the currency question? I don’t understand that at all.

If you are speaking of “In God We Trust”, it once again goes back to the 1st amendment. Does the motto establish a state church, which is what the Constitution prohibits? The answer is, of course not. Undeniable is the Judeo-Christian foundations of American culture and governance. This fact need not be denied in order for people of other beliefs to live in freedom.

Jon

 

[StrawberryJam]

You don’t have to read the whole thing. I certainly didn’t.

 

[Eucharisted]

Okay, if that is the case then why do some catholics object to “In God we Trust” taken off money? Is there a reason for that?

Probably because they believe it evangelizes people, which isn’t why the words are on money in the first place. Said evanlization reason is also why some atheists are trying to get the words taken off. But the Supreme Court has always ruled that the words don’t specify any one religion, nor are they intended to preach. The words are actually used as a defense against Communism and as a reminder of all the blessings America enjoys.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If you are speaking of “In God We Trust”, it once again goes back to the 1st amendment. Does the motto establish a state church, which is what the Constitution prohibits? The answer is, of course not. Undeniable is the Judeo-Christian foundations of American culture and governance. This fact need not be denied in order for people of other beliefs to live in freedom.

Jon

Well, to tell you right up front I am not one who cares either way. I am not one of those that want it off the money. I just see it as money. So, what would the need for it to be on money to begin with? Isn’t that in poor taste considering money is the root of evil? Paraphrasing here.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Probably because they believe it evangelizes people, which isn’t why the words are on money in the first place. Said evanlization reason is also why some atheists are trying to get the words taken off. But the Supreme Court has always ruled that the words don’t specify any one religion, nor are they intended to preach. The words are actually used as a defense against Communism and as a reminder of all the blessings America enjoys.

Ok. That seems fair enough. Just trying to get the other point of view on these things. I try to be open minded and fair about that.

 

[Eucharisted]

Well, to tell you right up front I am not one who cares either way. I am not one of those that want it off the money. I just see it as money. So, what would the need for it to be on money to begin with? Isn’t that in poor taste considering money is the root of evil? Paraphrasing here.

The correct verse is “love of money is the root of all evil.” Basically, greed is the cause of evil.

 

[JonNC]

Firstly, the Constitution dose call for seperation of church and state.

Secondly, separation of church and state is a concept which the Catholic Church introduced long ago. It basically means religion cannot marry politics or political power. We all know how such a disasterous marriage turned out during the Middle Ages. When the Church learned from this error, though, it introduced seperation of church and state.

The 1st amendment prohibits 2 things: 1) it says Congress can make no lawregarding the establishment of religion. Thatmeans it cannot set up a state church, as in Europe at the time of the writing. 2) it cannot restrict free exercise.

If that is what one means by separation of church and state, fine. Secularists mean a lot more than that.

Jon

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hmm. Are you a fairly regular poster on this forum Jon? I decided to go to a Lutheran church after I figure out more about the Mass. I just want to see the differences, but I am not ready yet. I am still grasping the parts of the Mass right now. I know that will be another thread, but I dont feel right PM’ing now, because I am trying to save the ones I have there now.

 

[JonNC]

Well, to tell you right up front I am not one who cares either way. I am not one of those that want it off the money. I just see it as money. So, what would the need for it to be on money to begin with? Isn’t that in poor taste considering money is the root of evil? Paraphrasing here.

I think Eucharisted answered your question about the root of evil, but I see no conflict in the motto being on the currency of a country where we state emphatically that the rights of people come directly from our creator, and not from government. It is a good reminder to our people - and to the government.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hmm. Are you a fairly regular poster on this forum Jon? I decided to go to a Lutheran church after I figure out more about the Mass. I just want to see the differences, but I am not ready yet. I am still grasping the parts of the Mass right now. I know that will be another thread, but I dont feel right PM’ing now, because I am trying to save the ones I have there now.

I hope you are, in addition to going to mass, taking RCIA, in order to fully understand what the Catholic Church teaches. If, after that, you choose to look into Lutheranism, do the same - attend adult classes to fully understand.

Yes, I am a regular here, and you may PM anytime, as I am sure Eucharisted would offer as well. It is always best to ask Catholic about Catholicism, and Lutherans about Lutheranism, etc.

Jon

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I object to the state sanctioning marriage at all. We are told constantly (and wrongly) by secularists that there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution. But if this is how they want it, then marriage, an undeniably religious event, should not be in any way interfered in or sanctioned by the state. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

OTOH, the state is quite within its bounds to sanction domestic partnerships in any way they choose, to allow equal access to the secular society, such as income tax breaks. To call it a marriage, however, violates the definition of the term marriage, and undermines its nature, and God’s intent for His (not government’s) institution.

Jon

I’m confused where you get the idea that marriage is a religious institution? My understanding is that historically, marriage was a civil act, and that the RCC for a very long time refused to get involved, finally agreeing to bless such unions outside the church proper on the steps. It then evolved from there.

I’d prefer that all marriage be civil and then churches could bless them as they chose.

And while the technical words are not “separation of church and state” that was the clear idea especially to Monroe and Jefferson, Washington and others. They saw first hand how the states which did not separate the two, discriminated so horribly against anyone who was not Puritan or Anglican. For a good many years the “establishment clause” did not apply to the states and they continued to discriminate against other faiths in their respective states. Only when the 14th amendment was applied to the states were they required to not favor one religion over another.

Since then there has been a steady movement to separate religion and secular activities of a public nature, so that no one is required to respond to the religious beliefs of others.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Firstly, the Constitution dose call for seperation of church and state.

Secondly, separation of church and state is a concept which the Catholic Church introduced long ago. It basically means religion cannot marry politics or political power. We all know how such a disasterous marriage turned out during the Middle Ages. When the Church learned from this error, though, it introduced seperation of church and state.

First the tying of the state to the Church started with Constantine and continued fairly unabated until well into the 19th century. Rather than promote it, the CC was rather frightened of the concept of democracy, feeling it would lose its power. I don’t deny that it feels differently today, but it surely did not lead the movement away from church/state connection.