But when you remove God from the equation, everything becomes a matter of opinion. There will be no right or wrong in an absolute sense. Ultimately, you will fail to defend any type of right in the long-term. You may succeed in a very short period of time, but sooner or later, those who do not remove God from the equation will win again. Because their view of reality is a lot more realistic to average human beings, rightly so... because God is real and it takes a lot of effort to deny the obvious. The problem though from this kind of divide and conquer tactic that I see is being used by the elites is that ultimately a false religion or a false sense of spirituality will take over the power again, just like in the past. Because even if the religious people are part of a false religion or cult per se, and believe in a false god, they will still be able to make a better case for rights, wrongs and justice, and will therefore win the power back. Whereas those who completely remove God from the equation, won't even be able to defend the basic rights of humans, as everything will become a matter of opinion and morality will become subjective.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks for contributing. I see your point and value your opinion. This post has definitely generated some interesting discussion.
Right and wrong as defined by religion is variable. Most religions have a strong belief in (a) God but depending on what religion you are may influence whether it is right to for 'an eye for an eye' or 'turn the other cheek', how liberally a woman should be ruled by her husband, and whether polygmy is acceptable. It is THE right (as opposed to simply 'right, not wrong') for people to worship (or not) as their conscious dictates, but the state shouldn't have the right to determine what is right or wrong on the basis of religion. The state does have the responsibility to determine right and wrong based on ethics (what is good or bad for the individual, community, and country).
The state shouldn't be involved in ANYONE getting married. The state should concern itself with a ceremony which isn't primarily religious. In France civil ceremonies, which are recognized by the state, are available to everyone. If someone wants a religious ceremony to make them 'one under the sight of God' they can also have a church marriage. My own opinion says that is the way to go for heterosexual and gay couples.
But you're not removing a god or religion from the state. You're giving the state a type of authority that only belongs to God. In other words, you're turning the state into a god/religion. That's a very dangerous thing to do and unfortunately you probably don't see why and how yet; one day you will see why and how, but it will probably be too little too late...
The state recognized marriage certificate is a way to keep track of people/citizens and what they owe to the state in taxes. In England it was the king's business as he was the head of the church and state. A required civil ceremony just allows the state to create a legal contract which it uses to determine it's responsibilities in family benefits from the state and what it is owed in taxes (filing taxes as a family has different rules than filing singly).
An official ceremony where two people formally declare their intention to comply with state rules regulating married couples and sign the paper doesn't replace a church ceremony. If the couple wishes to have a marriage which is recognized by God they will have the ability to do so in the church of their choice.
The state requires legal documents for many life experiences - birth and death are required to be recognized by most religions and governments. For a birth the church usually requires things like a blessing or christening and for a death a church often requires either a church or grave-side service and blessings. Is it your argument that birth and death certificates are an attempt to unseat the place of God in these life bench-marks?
I have no idea where you got that from my previous comment. But it appears that you're trying to reduce what I said to absurdity, which is fine because as I said above, you probably do not see why and how what you're doing is exactly the opposite of separating the church from state until it's too little too late. Separation of church and state was never supposed to become the separation of God(core Christian values that have never been debatable) from the state, as that would turn the state into a completely new god who would oppose core Christian values, and would eventually lead us into tyranny.