Marriage is a privilege?

No offense intended. Just i would think somebody who claims to be a god-believer and spouts off about it all the time would hold god's approval higher than governments. But santorum is clearly putting govt authority above that.

Statistically, you are wrong.

20111119-t1e5affuxipicak2eq55hnyj95.jpg

http://www.atheistroundtable.com/forum/index.php?topic=1442.0

It is the secular group that supports Ron Paul stronger than any other subgroup supports any other candidate. The seculars are saying they don't need the approval of any "G" - god or government.

Besides, governement and culture is the only vessel by which their god manifests itself, allegedly. This is why there is constant nonsense about ours being a "Christian" nation. They hold opinions that can't stand independant scrutiny and must be buttressed by society.

One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Those people who spread this lie are known as Christian Revisionists. They are attempting to rewrite history, in much the same way as holocaust deniers are. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their faith.


http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html


The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion

by Jim Walker
Originated: 11 Apr. 1997
Additions: 26 Dec. 2004

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.

http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
 
Don't expect Christians to care that Santorum idolizes Uncle Sam above God. The vast majority of American churches already do that via the 501(c)3 blasphemy, and therefore elevating government above God is their natural course. Don't expecte them to even be aware of why putting government above God is a bad thing, or if they recognize it intellectually, don't expect them to recognize that this is what is happening here. The 501(c)3 blasphemy is a seed that leavens the whole church with a blind spot where they can't recognize what's happening here at all.
 
The Constitution does not exist as a limitation on people, except in that it is illegal to infringe upon the natural rights of another. It does exist as a limitation on the federal government.
 
One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.

And thanks to the Protestant Reformation, we now have the State involved in marriages........


As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".[32] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage. As of 2000, the average marriage age range was 25–44 years for men and 22–39 years for women. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.[33]

As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1563 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."[34]

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage"[34] for recognition.

In England and Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage.[35] These were clandestine or irregular marriages performed at Fleet Prison, and at hundreds of other places. From the 1690s until the Marriage Act of 1753 as many as 300,000 clandestine marriages were performed at Fleet Prison alone.[36] The Act required a marriage ceremony to be officiated by an Anglican priest in the Anglican Church with two witnesses and registration.
 
The Constitution does not exist as a limitation on people, except in that it is illegal to infringe upon the natural rights of another. It does exist as a limitation on the federal government.

Try telling that to the busy bodies who are always looking to impose their moral and religious codes on others.
 
So, I wonder... if Santorum's government finds a couple unfit to be married, will it be disbanded? What happens to the kid, the dog, the house? What about Alimony?

I wonder if Santorum will offer a get out of marriage free option. No child support, no alimony, keep the things you've earned. I know a lot of men that would vote for him under such an option.
 
uhm, that doesn't refer to my comment in any way whatsoever.

That is a BS dodge. Your premise was clearly stated, "Just i would think somebody who claims to be a god-believer and spouts off about it all the time would hold god's approval higher than governments."

The evidence shows that "god-believers" hold higher the approval of the government. I am interested in supporting or counter evidence. I can't speak to a qualifier such as "spouts off", but given the examples provided by those who do spout off, I would say they are statists with few exceptions. Ron Paul tends to keep his faith personal until it is in a suitable venue (like the faith forums or church). I believe it is no coincidence that he doesn't spout off and is a libertarian.
 
That is a BS dodge. Your premise was clearly stated, "Just i would think somebody who claims to be a god-believer and spouts off about it all the time would hold god's approval higher than governments."

The evidence shows that "god-believers" hold higher the approval of the government. I am interested in supporting or counter evidence. I can't speak to a qualifier such as "spouts off", but given the examples provided by those who do spout off, I would say they are statists with few exceptions. Ron Paul tends to keep his faith personal until it is in a suitable venue (like the faith forums or church). I believe it is no coincidence that he doesn't spout off and is a libertarian.

Indeed. The true believers know.

Matthew 6:5-8 Part of the sermon on the mount.

5 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners [a]so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7 “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
8 So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. "
 
Why would anyone care what "true believers" know? It has nothing to do with other citizens.
 
That is a BS dodge. Your premise was clearly stated, "Just i would think somebody who claims to be a god-believer and spouts off about it all the time would hold god's approval higher than governments."

The evidence shows that "god-believers" hold higher the approval of the government. I am interested in supporting or counter evidence. I can't speak to a qualifier such as "spouts off", but given the examples provided by those who do spout off, I would say they are statists with few exceptions. Ron Paul tends to keep his faith personal until it is in a suitable venue (like the faith forums or church). I believe it is no coincidence that he doesn't spout off and is a libertarian.

You based on one a simple presidential preference poll? Please. I bet you'd find more atheists are liberal big govt supporters than libertarians.

And youare missing the point. You seem to have this need to make it about atheists vs. theists; that wasn't the point of my comment. I don't give a crap about that. The point was the god-believers not understanding or thinking through their own beliefs. See post #23 for clarification.
 
Last edited:
You based on one a simple presidential preference poll?

Which is why I stated, "I am interested in supporting or counter evidence." But one piece of evidence is superior to none.

Please. I bet you'd find more atheists are liberal big govt supporters than libertarians.

But that would be true of any large demographic. The once piece of evidence submitted says 59% of the secularists are Ron Paul supporters.

You seem to have this need to make it about atheists vs. theists; that wasn't the point of my comment.

You stated, "Santorum sounds like an atheist." Santorum is a vile POS. Should I say, "Santorum sounds like specsaregood" and then claim that might point is something different? Should I proceed to make unsupported statements that specsaregood are mostly "liberal big govt supporters" despite clear evidence that they are more likely Ron Paul supporters than the general population?

I don't give a crap about that. The point was the god-believers not understanding or thinking through their own beliefs. See post #23 for clarification.

You were called out on the comment regarding atheists (see #14). Whether you care about that or not is an odd issue to bring up. If you didn't care about it, you could backtrack that comment which is an attack on good people who are both atheists and not santorums. I too wish there was more data but suspect we would find stuff like MyEyesTheyBurn says in #14, "skeptic/freethinker movement (i.e. atheists) is for the most part split between liberals and libertarians (look up Michael Shermer)".
 
That is a BS dodge. Your premise was clearly stated, "Just i would think somebody who claims to be a god-believer and spouts off about it all the time would hold god's approval higher than governments."

The evidence shows that "god-believers" hold higher the approval of the government. I am interested in supporting or counter evidence. I can't speak to a qualifier such as "spouts off", but given the examples provided by those who do spout off, I would say they are statists with few exceptions. Ron Paul tends to keep his faith personal until it is in a suitable venue (like the faith forums or church). I believe it is no coincidence that he doesn't spout off and is a libertarian.

No, if someone actually believed in God as described in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, they would be awfully close to a voluntaryist, and of all the candidates most compatible with Ron Paul. If someone is merely a God-pretender because they like the power it gives them over other people, well then, they would be much more like a Huckabee or a Santorum.
 
Back
Top