Gay Rights- Illinois, USA

[GreyICE]

I meant the teaching of religious doctrine in the public school--you know, the only way of interpreting my statement that has something to do with the topic of church and state separation and entanglement.

The fact that you can execute a marriage license by a secular ceremony isn't the source of church/state entanglement. The fact that a religious ceremony is recognized as the execution of a civil/legal marriage license IS a problem.

Your approach would be like saying the fact that you ALSO teach biology in a public school biology class makes it OK to teach creationism in a public school biology class.

Nonsense. You are missing the point entirely. The reason we teach evolution has nothing to do with religion. The reason we do not teach creationism has nothing to do with religion. It is quite stupid to think that religion plays any part in this.

All the evidence points towards evolution. If there was a religion that held Darwin's Origin of the Species as a sacred text, we would not stop teaching evolution. It is ASININE to think that the only reason we teach evolution is because no religion holds it sacred. If a religion held it sacred, would anything change? No? Good. You're done.

You are just trying to equate two things that do not equate. There is no 'right way' to have a marriage ceremony. There is a 'right way' to do a scientific theory.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You said you thought marriage as a religious thing was a recent invention. You were proven wrong.

Yep you proved that marriage like all parts of culture is fundamentaly religious.

Wait, no marriage is the only part of culture that is fundamentaly and universaly religious.

 

[ponderingturtle]

At the very least, the culture of Western Europe and America (since the latter inherited the former) was religious about it.

How religious was marriage in say the 9th century? How religious was it for all classes in soceity?

As for the Pilgrims, they're not some kind of platinum standard for the whole America either way. They're _one_ batch of immigrants. I'm affraid that America has had to accomodate a lot more groups than that, and for a heck of a lot of those marriage had indeed been traditionally a religious thing.

Sure but they clearly could not have believed what the believed. Religious marriage is a cultural universal after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, you can cherry-pick _one_ law which happens not to touch that, and proclaim that nothing else existed about marriage in ancient Rome? That's... strange.

You do realize that that reform didn't completely abolish all existing marriage customs and end up being the 100% complete guide to marriage, right? It just added stuff to what already existed.

It shows the effect of secular authorities.

This just seems so insane when you get people arguing that for example Islam is not about female circumcision, that is just a cultural practice. Ignoring what the proponents of the practice say.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The reason we do not teach creationism has nothing to do with religion. It is quite stupid to think that religion plays any part in this.

The supreme court does not agree with you.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

It shows the effect of secular authorities.

1. I very much doubt that people anywhere went "oh, well, then it's secular now if the givernment says so."

You can see what happened in the USSR and Eastern Europe when the government made marriage a purely official formality. People started having essentially two marriages. They'd go to the government officials and get their certifficate, _and_ to the church where a priest would do his own ceremony about it.

2. Octavian Augustus wasn't 100% a secular authority, and by the Roman culture he couldn't be. (And claim the power, anyway.) Even to claim to be a consul, he had certain religious duties to ensure that Rome continues to enjoy the favour of the Gods, and the auctoritas that comes with that. (And although he did give up the actual office of consul at times, he still retained the full imperium of a consul, i.e., could do everything a consul could do.) But he also had the office of Pontifex Maximus, i.e., high priest, until his death in 14 AD. And a bunch of other offices concentrated in one hand, and, again, all of them had some religious component in Rome.

So, yes, Augustus did have and could put enough religious authority behind any of his edicts too.

 

[GreyICE]

The supreme court does not agree with you.

*sigh* Once again, do you really think that if Evolution was held sacred by any religion we could magically no longer teach it? Argument over.

No, creationism represented an establishment BECAUSE there was no scientific basis to teach it. If it was merely a non-religious incorrect theory, such as astrology or homeopathy, guess what? You STILL couldn't teach it.

The key that you missed is that creationism has NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. That's the key thing that makes it not a good scientific theory.

Needless to say this couldn't apply less to marriage, marriage isn't a scientific theory, and using it thus is and remains a pitiful argument.

 

[ponderingturtle]

*sigh* Once again, do you really think that if Evolution was held sacred by any religion we could magically no longer teach it? Argument over.

The reason creationism is not taught is that it is religious, that is why the supreme court banned teaching it in school. Never let historical facts get in the way though.

No, creationism represented an establishment BECAUSE there was no scientific basis to teach it. If it was merely a non-religious incorrect theory, such as astrology or homeopathy, guess what? You STILL couldn't teach it.

Evidence? Please show that the courts would ban them.

 

[GreyICE]

The reason creationism is not taught is that it is religious, that is why the supreme court banned teaching it in school. Never let historical facts get in the way though.

Pondering, if evolution was sacred to some religion, would it be banned?

The answer to this negates your entire argument, which is why you've studiously avoided it. Care to respond in full this time instead of running away?

Evidence? Please show that the courts would ban them.

The evidence is in every single judges decision ever - they all say that ID has no scientific evidence behind it. The key criteria is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE not 'religion.' Because it has no scientific evidence behind it, it constitutes established religion.

Marriage is not something that falls under the aegis of science, it is utterly disingenuous to suggest that we can apply the same standards to it that we can to a science, and please don't try to staple gun your failing movement to ban marriages that don't fit your philosophy to evolution, thank you very much.

Evolution is a fact. Marriage is... anything but.

 

[linusrichard]

I think you're both right.

If Creationism were scientific fact, it would not violate the First Amendment to teach it, despite its religious character. In other words, GreyICE is right.

If Creationism were not religious, it would not violate the First Amendment to teach it (although it would be inappropriate, because it is nonscience). In other words, ponderingturtle is right.

Thus, it violates the First Amendment to teach Creationism in public schools both because it is religious and because it is nonscience.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nonsense. You are missing the point entirely. The reason we teach evolution has nothing to do with religion. The reason we do not teach creationism has nothing to do with religion. It is quite stupid to think that religion plays any part in this.

The court cases cite the religious character of creationism (and "creation science" and "intelligent design") as the reason it is inappropriate to teach it in public school science class.

I brought this up to point out that teaching something that does NOT violate church/state separation does not excuse teaching something that does violate church state separation. So if creationism doesn't do it for you, please substitute something that works (like a full-out indoctrination in the Church of Scientology or requiring students to pray at lunch time or whatever).

I've been arguing that it's wrong for the state to recognize any religious ritual as having civil/legal status. The rebuttal was that the state recognizes secular ceremonies in a similar way. My point is that because SOME aspects of the current system do not cause church/state entanglement does not excuse those aspects that do. I was making the argument about public schools by analogy.

All the evidence points towards evolution. If there was a religion that held Darwin's Origin of the Species as a sacred text, we would not stop teaching evolution. It is ASININE to think that the only reason we teach evolution is because no religion holds it sacred. If a religion held it sacred, would anything change? No? Good. You're done.

I think you're making a lot of very little. My point is that the fact that some classes in a school don't violate church/state separation does not allow them to violate it in other classes.

FWIW, the language of the courts in these creationism cases does seem to hinge over whether creationism (or I.D.) is religious in nature. For example, some quotes from the Kitzmiller decision:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.


Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 established the "Lemon Test" for separation issues:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

And there are others.

You are just trying to equate two things that do not equate. There is no 'right way' to have a marriage ceremony. There is a 'right way' to do a scientific theory.

I'm not trying to equate marriage with education. However, I am pointing out that because something has one aspect that does not cause church/state entanglement does not excuse another aspect that does cause entanglement. As I said, it would be ludicrous to claim that because our public school's math department is strictly secular, it's OK to turn over science instruction to the local Baptist church.

The fact that the state recognizes secular marriage ceremonies does not excuse the fact that it also recognizes religious ceremonies as having legal and civil status.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How religious was marriage in say the 9th century? How religious was it for all classes in soceity?


Sure but they clearly could not have believed what the believed. Religious marriage is a cultural universal after all.

I'm not sure what your point is. You said that religious marriage was a recent invention. Hans proved that it is not. It is not necessary to prove that religious marriage was culturally universal to prove that it wasn't a recent invention.

At any rate, so what? Where are you going with this historical observation? We're surely not bound by the way things were historically (whether marriage started out as something primarily religious or not), especially wrt separation of church and state (which is a relatively recent invention).

I'm not sure, but I believe baptism records were treated as legal documents at some times and in some places in our own U.S. history. Now they are not. We use birth certificates for proof of birth and age and for conferring a legal name on a newborn. No ceremony is necessary, but you are still free to practice any religious ceremony or ritual you want. That ritual and ceremony, and the baptism documents have no legal or civil status at all. That's the model I think we should pursue with marriage.

I think the entanglement is what leads well-intentioned people to fear that their religious definition of marriage is threatened by allowing gay marriage. I'm sure people actually fear this because I just read that the key to the compromise just reached in NH was the addition of a sentence guaranteeing that religious groups won't be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. I think the issue is more cleanly resolved by removing the existing church/state entanglement. (I'm certainly not opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage in the meanwhile, but I do hope eventually the solution is more like what I propose.)

 

[GreyICE]

I'm not trying to equate marriage with education. However, I am pointing out that because something has one aspect that does not cause church/state entanglement does not excuse another aspect that does cause entanglement. As I said, it would be ludicrous to claim that because our public school's math department is strictly secular, it's OK to turn over science instruction to the local Baptist church.

The fact that the state recognizes secular marriage ceremonies does not excuse the fact that it also recognizes religious ceremonies as having legal and civil status.

Ignoring your semantic jibber-jabber (you still won't own up to the fact that the major flaw with creationism is that it has no evidence, and every single court has stated this) we hit your one problem.

And you screw up your analogies again. Obviously our education system is in the process of failing.

Math courses and science courses are different things. Secular ceremonies and religious ceremonies are, in a legal sense, the same thing.

It's like saying 'the state doesn't care whether an atheist or a christian is teaching math.' And you're all like 'no, atheists have to teach math, or the state might be all polluted with religion.'

The state sets up a basic (in some cases VERY basic, hi Nevada) set of criteria of what constitutes a ceremony. Anything that meets it qualifies, secular or religious, and is recognized.

This seems to lack any sort of excessive entanglement. In fact trying to define which ceremony in any number of ceremonies was religious and which was secular seems far more like excessive entanglement (the state does not engage in theological debate and all that).

But hey, prove me wrong. All you have to do is assert that 10 observers will be able to discern which ceremony is religious and which is secular without any disagreement and I'll be sure the state isn't becoming entangled in a theological debate about its policies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure what your point is. You said that religious marriage was a recent invention. Hans proved that it is not. It is not necessary to prove that religious marriage was culturally universal to prove that it wasn't a recent invention.

So it is not nessacary to prove that marriage is universaly religious to prove that marriage is universaly religious?