Separation of Church and State.

[Q]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:22am

OK - so . . .

Reading comments from around the country on various news and/or blog sites, it's obvious that we continue down a path with this particular dividing line. I'm on a search for groups or organizations that are addressing this distinct issue directly. Are there such things?

The ACLU comes to mind. What about organized Secular Humanists? Atheists? ANYTHING that is doing work to specifically address the issue of governance through religious ideology. Of course, it's a bit of an uphill slog considering our current president has said things like 'You can't take God out of the mix.'

I'm looking for different avenues to channel my energy, and this topic is the one that seems to be at the root of the problem in so many arenas.

[romantico]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:25am

Last year after Prop 8 passed in California I asked how a Church like the Mormons could get involved with politics and still be tax exempt. I never got an answer. I thought the Church was suppose to help people,not hurt them.

[Q]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:34am

The tax exempt status is one of my BIGGEST issues. Is there anything or anyone out there doing work to try and change that?

[romantico]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:37am

If there is, PLEASE let me know so I can get involved.Over the summer didn't the Mormon's arrest a gay couple for kissing in front of their Church? What floors me is after Prop 8 passed last year the Mormons were actually crying about people giving them a hard time and were worried about their image. I want to know if the Mormons had anything to do with what happened in Maine. Gay marriage opponents have now successfully killed equality two years in a row,so what ever they are doing they will keep doing.They need to be stopped.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:41am

One good place to start for you might be the Harvard University Humanist Chaplaincy. My presumption is the name was chosen for its irony. Its director, Greg Epstein has released a book called Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, upending the notion that without rules handed down directly from a deity or two there would be murderous anarchy as far as the eye can see, no matter how counter to the human drive for species survival that image would be.

Frankly, I'd avoid the dreaded libertarian road and see if the Humanist Chaplaincy has links to other organizations that might be of interest.
Good Without God

[Q]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:46am

Thanks, Namo.

The Libertarians have turned out not to be for liberty - that's been what I've experienced.

I'm just about finished re-reading "The God Delusion" (so I can dive into his current release,) so I'll definitely look up this other one.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:47am

God Delusion is Richard Dawkins. Epstein is somebody different.

[Q]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:51am

Oh, I know - sorry that came out muddled (what's new, right?)

I meant I was re-reading Delusion before I read Dawkins' latest - and I now am going to look for the other, as well.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 10:59am

Namo, thanks so much for that link! I passed it on to my friend, who is a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, and would definitely be interested in that book and website.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:03am

Instead of taking on God, I think people who care, should take on civil marriage. There should be no civil marriages, only civil unions. Marriages should be relegated to religious ceremonies, only. Take the word marriage out of the equation, and the ridiculous sanctity argument is gone.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:06am

Taking on religion is not taking on God.

Corrupt-to-the-core organizations like the Catholic Church couldn't be farther away from God.

And these problems go a lot deeper than gay marriage. Take a look at what sort of nonsense goes on in textbook content discussions on a state level and what sort of stuff the fanatics want to include and exclude. Updated On: 11/4/09 at 11:06 AM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:16am

Well, call it what you like, but it's completely misguided. Taking on the Catholic Church?! Good luck with that. I think the goal is getting lost.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:20am

Well, the trends are not on their side.
Link

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:23am

Marriages should be relegated to religious ceremonies, only. Take the word marriage out of the equation, and the ridiculous sanctity argument is gone.

No. To create this phony line between nomenclature is to deny that language evolves and that people have a right to name their rituals whatever they want. It's absolute BS to imagine that religious denomination have a copyright on the word "marriage" for all perpetuity.

Keep the word marriage in the equation because nobody has the right to take it away. People so heavily invested in the religious aspect are free to call their ritual "religious marriages" so they have something they can feel better than. Which is, ultimately, their whole point.

Updated On: 11/4/09 at 11:23 AM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:25am

Having no affiliation with an organized religion, and having no religious beliefs are two completely different things.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:42am

That's not the point. People get to call their rituals whatever the hell they want.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 11:55am

Having no affiliation with an organized religion, and having no religious beliefs are two completely different things.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but doesn't having "religious" beliefs mean you have some kind of affiliation with an "organized" religion?

I mean, if one considers himself a flat out deist without any of the trappings of Christianity, I get it. But if you have religious beliefs that are based in Judeo-Christian mythology, doesn't that kind of automatically affiliate you, at least on a grand scale?

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:02pm

Besides, the unaffiliated spiritualists, or whatever you want to call them, aren't exactly the ones pouring millions of dollars and effort into banning gay marriage, getting textbooks to say the earth is 5,000 years old and whatnot.

[Q]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:21pm

I have no problem with organized religions dictating to their own members what is or is not appropriate. I don't necessarily understand it, but that's their choice, and may they find what they're looking for. HOWEVER, I do have a serious problem with those individual rules and requirements being foisted onto society as a whole. And that process - which seems to be the accepted norm up til now - is what I think is VERY valid to address and attempt to change.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:22pm

The only ones poring money into these efforts are the Catholics and the Mormons.

I just posted this statistic in the election thread: thre University of Maine students voted 81% for gay marriage, 19% against.

So all we have to do is wait for the parents of the 19% to die.

I wish them godspeed.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:23pm

19% of college educated voters. I understand the impulse to find the silver lining, but I'm not sure that it's really all that silvery.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:30pm

I used to say that I would never see gay marriage in my lifetime.

Then Gavin Creel got involved and I got excited.

Now I'm back to thinking that you'll all see it in your lifetimes, but I won't.

I have to content myself with having changed the minds of a few bigots and hoping their changed minds change a few others.

We need a constitutional amendment. We need a Loving v State of Virginia. And if that ruling turns gay marriage into another endless, divisive debate about judges legislating from the bench, like Roe v Wade did, I really don't mind.

Bring it on.

Updated On: 11/4/09 at 12:30 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:30pm

Nice little words about the future, but I'm more concerned with the present and the folks right now who are being actively discriminated against by significant segments of the population with the full participation and approval of our President.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 12:32pm

I agree with both of you.

I'm disheartened, not surprised and kind of just fed up and over the whole shebang.

I'm reminded of Lisa Kudrow's line in The Opposite of Sex -

"Hello, this is America. We don't like sodomy so much here.:
Updated On: 11/4/09 at 12:32 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/4/09 at 1:32pm

I asked how a Church like the Mormons could get involved with politics and still be tax exempt. I never got an answer. I thought the Church was suppose to help people,not hurt them.

The issue is that even if the government revoked tax exemption from churches, most churches would qualify as non-profit charity organizations and gain exemption anyway. Churches donating money to fund political campaigns like Prop 8 wouldn't qualify for exemption, but not all churches would be effected; it would just be a different form to fill out.

Phyllis, it means that in 25 years, the generation that grew up with gay-straight alliances in every high school will be the ones making the laws.