Catholic church wailing about human rights

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by niuniu, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. niuniu, Mar 4, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012

    niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #1
    [tl'dr non-Brits: government plans to legalise gay marriage, various religious groups kicking and screaming in recent weeks]

    [​IMG]

    Cardinal Keith O'Brien, one of God's top spokesmen in the UK is making waves this morning with his views on gay marriage.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17249099
    Interesting that the Catholic version of universal, excludes gays. 'Grotesque subversion' is a term I would personally reserve for acts such as paedophilia, not increasing acceptability of gay rights.


    Society knows the definition of marriage very well. It's that sacred, for better, for worse, til death do us part thing you do -before you get divorced.

    We'll see more kicking and screaming in the run up no doubt. Another death knoll for the religious right. Brings joy on a Sunday to my black little heart :D
     
  2. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
    As if the Catholic church should be QQing over human rights.
     
  3. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #3
    The Catholic Church is going to lag behind the Protestant Church(es) in its implementation of public policy. They have a "freedom" not to want to adhere to public policy.

    The Protestant Church, being the State Church, must adhere to public policy once a policy is enacted.

    The government had to use The Queen to tell the Church that it would have women bishops and it would have gay priests because certain concepts regarding equality were now public policy, and since the Church was taking Crown monies, it was going to implement Crown policies.

    At some point, we will twist the arm of the Catholic Church by reconsidering the policies of Inland Revenues, of course.

    :)
     
  4. niuniu thread starter macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #4
    I very much look forward to that day :D
     
  5. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #5
    Civil marriage and religious marriage need to be made into two completely separate things. The state should only recognize and concern itself with civil marriage.

    And having an official state church makes a mockery of the idea of religious freedom. The UK needs to join the modern world :p
     
  6. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #6
    Marriage should not be a function of the state. It leads to people being in a position to get to define what marriage constitutes. It's silly.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    It's a legal contract, of course the state needs to be involved. There's no way it could not be.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Any quasi-spiritual organisation may of course choose whether or not to solemnise the contract, but the contract is at heart a civil matter.
     
  9. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #9
    What I mean is that the state shouldn't be handing out certificates, or licenses, or taking into account marriage in regard to taxes or anything.

    Such a contract should just be a contract between two people, and if things go wrong than a third party intermediary should be present.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    It has to, it's a legal contract. Do you not understand the law and where it comes from? Seriously?
     
  11. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #11
    Being a legal contract =/= having to go to a court house and get a license to be together.

    I can have a contract with somebody without having to get the approval of the state. Though the state settles disputes.
     
  12. niuniu thread starter macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #12
    I think the approval from the State would be implied anyway in your example above eric/ (if it's legal that is).

    Much of this boils down to definition and the Church wanting to keep marriage as something they are free to define.
     
  13. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Why should the state approve of who you marry?

    Well, so long as different groups/people get to have a say in the state, and the state defines marriages, we're going to have different factions attempting to influence what marriage is, thus leading to our current problem.

    If we remove marriage from the state, than those groups will have no ability to influence the lives of others who don't want that influence.
     
  14. niuniu thread starter macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #14
    You could go the other way and leave marriage as a cultish thing that weird couples do, like Pagan rituals etc - with no legal entitlements. Let the Church have it, and choke on it.

    Then for the rest of us - we only have State approved civil partnerships (legal rights).

    I don't think anyone would support that though (except me :D)
     
  15. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #15
    Most people would like to see the Protestant Church dis-established.

    The next coronation is planned as a multi-faith event, you might be interested to know.

    But...there is a constitutional issue with dis-establishing the state Church: the Coronation Oath. The Oath that we used to make the sovereign take in order to protect the people from the Catholic Church and the pretended temporal suzerainty of the Pope has become a problem with regard to religious freedom and general modernity.

    The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

    Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

    And the Queen answering,

    I am willing.

    The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

    Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

    Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

    Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

    Queen. I will.

    Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

    Queen. All this I promise to do.

    Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

    The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

    Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

    The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.


    The Queen takes all of this very seriously, as did her father and her grandfather. Under this sovereign's reign, that of George VI and that of George V, cabinets tried to consider a way to dis-establish the Church and it never happened.

    Most of us would say that it is time. But it's hard to do. The sovereign cannot be asked to violate the law or violate the Oath. It would even be a violation to introduce legislation to change that part of the Oath that refers to maintaining the reformed church...they've thought about it.

    It's ironic that a settlement and its subsequent acts that were determined as necessary to save the people from religious conflict have now come to represent a repression of freedom when their intent was the exact opposite.

     
  16. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #16

    I don't have a problem with that. But I would prefer to eliminate the state's involvement all together, to remove the potential for abuse.

    As long as it's a government function, everybody gets a say, that includes people that we both disagree with, religious people.

    So as long as we live in a democracy, large voting blocks are going to get their say.
     
  17. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #17
    Oh, for God's sake, not this again. Lee is right, marriage is a contract between the couple and the state. In many countries that means lower tax rates, insurance coverage for both parties and the fusion of property - unless there's a prenup. You don't get that by kneeling down praying to your God.

    Most straight newlyweds I've known have had to get a marriage license at the local court house way before they could even set a date for a church wedding. It's all interconnected, but what is keeping us back from making it a universal right for both straight and gay couples are belief and the terminology coming with it.

    Just get over with and join us in the next century...
     
  18. George Knighton macrumors 6502a

    George Knighton

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #18
    Perhaps that is the problem. In the twenty-first century, should the State recognize any such contract? Is it any use any longer?

    The downfall of conventional "marriage" is going to be the concept of equal protection in the law (this applies to the UK, the US, Canada, and other states based on our ancient tradition).

    Sooner or later, the right person is going to get to the right Supreme Court with a correct equal protection argument, and the entire concept of marriage is going to crumble.

    If we want to preserve any idea of what "marriage" might mean to some people, then we need to be looking forward to this and enact changes proactively.
     
  19. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #19
    Marriage should be a contract between consenting adults. It's not a contract with the state.

    Which is unfair to single people. If anything, they should be taxed more based on the joint income.
     
  20. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #20
    It is a contract between two consenting adults but the state gives the outline, not the church.

    Hence why it is often abused by people trying save money or becoming wealthy through marriage.

    Also, what about couples with only one income? That's still a standard for many these days.
     
  21. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #21
    Well, as long as the state is involved, groups like the church and religious people are going to get to have a say.


    So if tax benefits, and the state are removed, you eliminate the abuse.

    What about them?
     
  22. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #22
    The church and religious people may have a say in state affairs but it's still the state's decision to say what laws are to be voted on.

    Since you'd like more religious people to get involved with the state, would you welcome Sharia law?
     
  23. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #23
    And those individuals are voted into office, and can change the law.

    Strawman
     
  24. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #24
  25. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #25
    you'll just have to tell the Queen that you citizens have changed the oath.....the idea that HER oath is more important than the various freedoms of the citizens is absurd
     

Share This Page