• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Non-separation of church and State.

All of those things were considered moral by various people across history. In some cases, they felt it moral to kill those not themselves, but not moral to kill among themselves. We can certainly measure how common any given moral is or how many variations exist of a given moral, but they are still subjective. Legal or illegal also makes no difference. That are some people who feel taxes are immoral, regardless of them being legal. Same sex marriage has been considered moral by many despite being illegal until relatively recently. Any reference to law, especially civil law, as a comparison to morals, is a red herring. The law can reflect the morals of some people, maybe even a majority of people, but that doesn't mean that morals are not subjective. It only means, at best, that more people hold to one moral, or a bunch of close enough morals, than subscribe to other moral of the same topic.

That appears to be the case for marriage (civil partnership?) contract law even after removing the opposite sex partner mandate - the state imposed limit is still one marriage partner while a business partnership contract can have multiple partners.
 
That appears to be the case for marriage (civil partnership?) contract law even after removing the opposite sex partner mandate - the state imposed limit is still one marriage partner while a business partnership contract can have multiple partners.
Same could have been said of interracial marriage back in the day. However, logistics could be claimed instead of morals when it comes to the marriage issue, especially when children have been considered within that context. And right now logistics is the major factor in not getting the marriage limit laws changed. We have to both figure out how to word such laws as to be fair to all parties, and we have to change other existing laws to account for potential multiple partners. While one set of morals was the most likely origin of the law, it is not necessarily the basis for it remaining.
 
Same could have been said of interracial marriage back in the day. However, logistics could be claimed instead of morals when it comes to the marriage issue, especially when children have been considered within that context. And right now logistics is the major factor in not getting the marriage limit laws changed. We have to both figure out how to word such laws as to be fair to all parties, and we have to change other existing laws to account for potential multiple partners. While one set of morals was the most likely origin of the law, it is not necessarily the basis for it remaining.

Adoption and wills allow for those children considerations (issues?) to be handled. Interestingly, Social Security allows for multiple surviving spouses to be handled, providing benefits for (all of) them if they had not remarried.
 
I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.
The fact that there are so many different religions is why that is wrong.
 
I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Religion never unites. It spins off new sects with new interpretations of the old beliefs. There are 47,000 different denominations of Protestantism. Each one believes is the keeper of the real truth.
 
I agree with the OP, just so long as I get to choose the religion.
 
I agree with the OP, just so long as I get to choose the religion.
I already choose long ago. We're using Wicca
 
That appears to be the case for marriage (civil partnership?) contract law even after removing the opposite sex partner mandate - the state imposed limit is still one marriage partner while a business partnership contract can have multiple partners.
I have no problem with multiple partner marriages but IMO to be 'equal' under the law, that relationship should not get more benefits and tax incentives from the govt based on partners. A marriage should be "a marriage" no matter how many involved.
 
I have no problem with multiple partner marriages but IMO to be 'equal' under the law, that relationship should not get more benefits and tax incentives from the govt based on partners. A marriage should be "a marriage" no matter how many involved.
What would you consider "more" benefits? Tax incentives? It obviously cannot be the personal exemption benefit, because similar to how the number of kids increases you get to claim more exemptions for them, likewise the number of spouses can have the same increase as well. So what else would there be that there shouldn't be more of?
 
What would you consider "more" benefits? Tax incentives? It obviously cannot be the personal exemption benefit, because similar to how the number of kids increases you get to claim more exemptions for them, likewise the number of spouses can have the same increase as well. So what else would there be that there shouldn't be more of?
Can they? For each person in the marriage?

And the benefits should not be cumulative. The kids should be deducted once for the marriage, not for each person. Just like it is for a couple now, the kids are counted once.
 
I already choose long ago. We're using Wicca


*I* get to choose, or I'm not in.

And Wicca has just as much of the petty tyranny as most of the others. No, I'll be needing my choice.
 
Can they? For each person in the marriage?

And the benefits should not be cumulative. The kids should be deducted once for the marriage, not for each person. Just like it is for a couple now, the kids are counted once.
I think you are not understanding. Each year that I have a dependent, I get to deduct a given amount for each one. If in year one I have 4 children, I get a total (assuming a two adult marriage) of 6 deductions. If the next year I've added a child then I get 7 deductions that year. So how would it be different to add another spouse and get 8 deductions, as opposed to another child to get 8 deductions?

Unless you are thinking that the children would be counted for each of, say three spouses. But currently, if the spouses do not file joint, then any other dependent can only be a deduction for one or the other. So I don't see where adding a third spouse would change that. Of the three spouses, assuming not filing joint, any dependent would go on only one's return.
 
I think you are not understanding. Each year that I have a dependent, I get to deduct a given amount for each one. If in year one I have 4 children, I get a total (assuming a two adult marriage) of 6 deductions. If the next year I've added a child then I get 7 deductions that year. So how would it be different to add another spouse and get 8 deductions, as opposed to another child to get 8 deductions?

Unless you are thinking that the children would be counted for each of, say three spouses. But currently, if the spouses do not file joint, then any other dependent can only be a deduction for one or the other. So I don't see where adding a third spouse would change that. Of the three spouses, assuming not filing joint, any dependent would go on only one's return.
Like I said, as long as there are no additional, cumulative benefits, incentives, etc provided, I dont care. But for example, the joint filing could be based on the number partners. If so, it should still not get anything additional.

I'm not talking about kids but as you wrote, of course they shouldnt be counted as deductions for other adults not their parents but what do you do if they are adopted? Would they allow parents within a marriage to adopt the other kids and then ALL the parents are claiming those deductions? For example, bio mother and then also the secondary adoptive mother?
 
Like I said, as long as there are no additional, cumulative benefits, incentives, etc provided, I dont care. But for example, the joint filing could be based on the number partners. If so, it should still not get anything additional.

I'm not talking about kids but as you wrote, of course they shouldnt be counted as deductions for other adults not their parents but what do you do if they are adopted? Would they allow parents within a marriage to adopt the other kids and then ALL the parents are claiming those deductions? For example, bio mother and then also the secondary adoptive mother?
It won't matter. Each child can only be claimed on one return. So either both mothers are getting the child along with the dads on a joint return, or only one of say 4 parents are getting the child on a single return. That is how it is currently with the limit of marriage at two, so why should it be any different at 3+?

I don't think there needs to be a different rate for different numbers of people in the marriage. We have a single rate, a married rate, and a head of household rate. Is there a married filing separate rate vs married joint rate? Personally that distinction should go, if so, even with only two in a marriage. I don't even see the need for the HoH rate for that matter.
 
It won't matter. Each child can only be claimed on one return. So either both mothers are getting the child along with the dads on a joint return, or only one of say 4 parents are getting the child on a single return. That is how it is currently with the limit of marriage at two, so why should it be any different at 3+?

I don't think there needs to be a different rate for different numbers of people in the marriage. We have a single rate, a married rate, and a head of household rate. Is there a married filing separate rate vs married joint rate? Personally that distinction should go, if so, even with only two in a marriage. I don't even see the need for the HoH rate for that matter.
That's the way it is now. I'm commenting that things like that shouldnt be changed due to multiple partners in a marriage.
 
I think Matthew 6:5 sums it up perfectly about praying in public.

“When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward.
 
That's the way it is now. I'm commenting that things like that shouldnt be changed due to multiple partners in a marriage.
Ok. It seemed like you felt that something would have been increased over a monogamous marriage, and I was wondering what it was.
 
When people say this, 9/10 times what they really mean is you think there should be no separation.......as long as it is a religion YOU support. I doubt you would want laws based on Islam or Satanism. And freedom of speech goes out the window with blasphemy laws. No thank you.

The problem with your argument is that America does, in fact, have a Christian heritage as documented here, by me.

No reasonable person would dare suggest that Islam or Satanism should play any role of influence in our society. There is simply no historical precedence for it.

Christianity, by contradistinction, does play a major role in our history.

If you want a theocracy, there are plenty of countries like Iran for you to choose from that have religion as the state.

This is simply a straw-man argument--and a poor one. Our freedom of religion prevents such a thing. In addition, none of our Founders ever called for a theocracy (far from it!) nor has anyone of our political figures ever called for a theocracy (certainly no one of any influence).
 
The problem with your argument is that America does, in fact, have a Christian heritage as documented here, by me.

No reasonable person would dare suggest that Islam or Satanism should play any role of influence in our society. There is simply no historical precedence for it.

Christianity, by contradistinction, does play a major role in our history.

Yeah, a role that the founding fathers of this country were eager to get rid of.

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory..., more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800
 
The problem with your argument is that America does, in fact, have a Christian heritage as documented here, by me.

No reasonable person would dare suggest that Islam or Satanism should play any role of influence in our society. There is simply no historical precedence for it.

Christianity, by contradistinction, does play a major role in our history.

More importantly, distancing ourselves from imposed forms of Christianity is the most basic foundation of our country's history. Freedom to worship and live as we want and not how another religion or denomination wants was the very reason why the first settlers came here, and more importantly why the founding fathers didn't even allow for Christianity in general to be a part of our civil system. The wording is clear that this was to be a country for Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists as well.

This is simply a straw-man argument--and a poor one. Our freedom of religion prevents such a thing. In addition, none of our Founders ever called for a theocracy (far from it!) nor has anyone of our political figures ever called for a theocracy (certainly no one of any influence).
Anytime that a law is proposed or opposed that is based upon the argument that to do otherwise is against God, it is a call for a theocracy. Every politician who opposed SSM because it is against God and nature, called for a theocracy.
 
More importantly, distancing ourselves from imposed forms of Christianity is the most basic foundation of our country's history. Freedom to worship and live as we want and not how another religion or denomination wants was the very reason why the first settlers came here, and more importantly why the founding fathers didn't even allow for Christianity in general to be a part of our civil system. The wording is clear that this was to be a country for Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists as well.


...

The first settlers would have been the paleo Native Peoples, who I think were chasing game. The Vikings were exploring & settling new lands. The Spanish didn't settle that far north in N. America, TMK. The French didn't bring lots of colonists, not sure why. The Dutch did - but I don't know to what extent the search for religious freedom figured in French & Dutch colonization. The UK colonists - some of them, @ least - were looking precisely for freedom from UK religious strictures.
 
The first settlers would have been the paleo Native Peoples, who I think were chasing game. The Vikings were exploring & settling new lands. The Spanish didn't settle that far north in N. America, TMK. The French didn't bring lots of colonists, not sure why. The Dutch did - but I don't know to what extent the search for religious freedom figured in French & Dutch colonization. The UK colonists - some of them, @ least - were looking precisely for freedom from UK religious strictures.
You are referencing the continent's and the general land's history. I was referencing the country's history. In doing so, I am not dismissing nor excusing any wrong doing by the early settlers. But those who were natives by the time of European settlement were not doing anything in the way of forming a country, and specifically not that of the current country.
 
Yeah, a role that the founding fathers of this country were eager to get rid of.

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

This comes from the Treaty of Tripoli during a time when American sailors were being taken as slaves by Muslim nations. Fresh after the Revolutionary War and before America had a Navy we were in a very weakened state. It is a true but regrettable quote

And your position completely ignores the fact that the reason Muslims were waging war against America is because even they recognized us as a Christian nation.

Let’s not ignore the fact that it was John Adams who also said that “The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity” and that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and ...”
-James Madison

Well, he’s certainly not wrong. The history of the Catholic church (which--in all honesty--is what I’ve always thought he was referring to here (if you know something different, please say so). But, once again, let us not forget that it is Madison--the “Father of the Constitution”--who also said, “The future and success of the America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.”

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America...All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Payne

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory..., more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason....”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

While he believed in God, he despised religion. Just like you would find in a room of any number of people, opinions about God vary. This is true with our Founding Fathers, as well. And while Paine hated religion it does not change the fact that America does, in fact, have a Christian heritage.

“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816.

I’ve already addressed Adams, above.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

I see no problem with this statement but I think you may be confusing common law for natural law.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

I see no problem with this statement nor does this statement in any way suggest that American does not have a Christian heritage.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

I wish today’s politicians--like Cuomo--believed as much. Also, this does nothing to suggest that America does not have a Christian heritage.

I’m not entirely sure what you hoped to prove here but I don’t think you’ve accomplished it.
 
More importantly, distancing ourselves from imposed forms of Christianity is the most basic foundation of our country's history. Freedom to worship and live as we want and not how another religion or denomination wants was the very reason why the first settlers came here, and more importantly why the founding fathers didn't even allow for Christianity in general to be a part of our civil system. The wording is clear that this was to be a country for Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists as well.

I’ve no problem with this statement but it does nothing to prove that America is not a nation with a Christian heritage.

Anytime that a law is proposed or opposed that is based upon the argument that to do otherwise is against God, it is a call for a theocracy. Every politician who opposed SSM because it is against God and nature, called for a theocracy.

Saying that we are a nation with a Christian heritage is a far cry from calling for a theocracy. Once again, this is simply a straw-man argument…and a poor one.
 
I’ve no problem with this statement but it does nothing to prove that America is not a nation with a Christian heritage.

Saying that we are a nation with a Christian heritage is a far cry from calling for a theocracy. Once again, this is simply a straw-man argument…and a poor one.

Given that the argument is usually that the country was founded on Christian principles, I would say that the argument of a Christian heritage is moving the goal post. These would not be the same things.
 
Back
Top Bottom