Jump to content

God's Law or Government Law?


Voice of Reason

Recommended Posts

The marriage license controversy is what has prompted me to start this discussion. I am doing this in its own thread because I want personalities removed from the debate. The question is in some ways simple - which law takes precedent in our society? God's law or government law?

 

For me the deciding point in this comes down to one clear point. If God's law takes precedent, whose God's laws take precedent? There are numerous faiths followed by millions in the United States. There are various interpretations and beliefs that make each these faiths their own. The followers of these faiths believe strongly that their faith is the one. Who gets to apply their faith's beliefs? If a Muslim is elected to an office, does he/she get to apply their beliefs? Can a Muslim declare that no female is allowed to be in his/her office unless she is properly covered? Can a Catholic refuse to issue a marriage license to a divorced person because they are not divorced in the eyes of the church? Whose beliefs take precedent? Why can't a community invoke Sharia law if that is what the majority want?

 

So which law should take precedent? Your religion's law? My religion's law? Government law? Tell me which law a society should follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Doing the right thing, and to be fair and equal, treating people with respect and dignity. All of that can be found in the Bible on how to treat each other.

 

But, if people want laws other than man's, then which religion is going to be chosen? We all have our beliefs, even within a certain faith there is division. Who's religion will become law, as the others will be thrown to the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you follow mans law until it requires you to sin against God. I don't believe the Rowan County Clerk signing a marriage license is a sin against God. If you belive same sex marriage is a sin the only way the law forces you to commit sin is if it forces you to marry someone of the same sex.

 

Jesus stated to follow the rules of Ceaser.

 

For that same reason is why I'm against taxpayer funded abortions. I do think abortion is a sin and I don't want my tax dollars supporting a sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*** Sorry for long post, It just flowed this morning. ****

 

The marriage interest of government seems to have only started in the 20th century. It seems this country went over 100 and then some before worrying about what was 'legally' married and what was not 'legally' married.

 

The main legal function of being married prior to the early 1900s was for the purpose of inheritance. What passed to whom when they diead. If you parents were never married and your biological father disavowed you, you were a bastard and worst part of being that was the inability to inherent you fathers wealth. For those less fortunate - whose fathers were not people of wealth - neither the government nor yourself really cared about inheritance.

 

Only in the 20th century did almost every have wealth, or entitlements to wealth via the new social security system. Since the government is now handing out money to 'families' based on formulas based assumption of 'family' makeup it probably now cares what constitute marriage and family in a codified manner.

 

Fast forward to late in the 20th century and early 21st century and we now not only have government programs depended on marriage status but also company provided benefits - that are now, as of 2009, MANDATED to be provided by the government and you now have companies and the government and wealth (benefits) they supply in the mix.

 

Also there was a change on inheritance at some point that came with the women's movement. A 'couples' wealth (and benefits and insurance, and....) transfer to the surviving spouse in most cases. This is different from the 19th century and before when it would transfer to the eldest son.

 

So it seems government - other than for purposes of knowing who what land after a person died - did not really seem to care who was married, who was not, who was in sister-wives relation who was living in a commune, etc.

 

In the early 20th century there were a number of social policies that relied on the 'traditional' definition of marriage and family in order to know what the cost would be. If a man had 3 wives - who gets the social security check when he dies is the type of issue faced with 'non-traditional' 'marriages'.

 

As more and more government and government-mandated company benefits (like insurance) are dependent on marriage status the significant segment of the population who is gay was being left behind due to tradition.

 

As I have said before. What is marriage - legally? Laws are supposed to apply to people or entities legally created to be treated as people. Is a marriage couple different than a non-married couple legally? Is it a legal partnership not unlike if Jim and Jake for a 'business' as a partnership? Or are legal partnerships just for 'businesses'. Does a marriage create some sort of LLC entity? Can I sue the 'marriage' and not just the individuals that are supposedly in that marriage in court?

 

It seems a lot of the modern 20th century social policies assumed that traditional marriage was 'the fabric of society' and would always be the same. It may this assumption that is driving the current issues. If you threw out the definition of marriage from all government laws, rules, policies, etc. - which some, including me, say is the ulimate correct thing to do you would have chaos.

 

But do we want government policy tied to human emotional connectiveness? Having to have my emotions, caring, loving for another person defined or part of a government policy feels very wrong. We are who we are - regardless what religion says we should be or what government says we should be allowed to be or not. The gay community has had their issues with the 'traditiona religions' and that is understandable but avoiding church on Sunday and living your life is diffent than having your actions, benefits, rights, etc. defined by a government entity that should not care who or how or how many you want to consider your family.

 

Now off to good football this weekend....take care all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care what the government says. St. Augustine wrote that there are two types of law. God's law and societal law. If a societal law is not in line with God's law, then its not a law at all. And we are called to fight unjust laws (Gay marriage, abortion, etc.)

 

Look at it this way. Is it morally wrong/against God's law for me to drink a beer in the privacy of my own home even though I'm under 21? Is it morally wrong/against God's law for me to drive 71 MPH on the highway? I say no to both of these, so God's law (morality) trumps societal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree.

 

Then which parts are kept? Does NYC have a roundtable of the hundreds of religions within its densely populated borders to come up with a local plan?

 

Does the Louisville area's heavy Catholic influence take precedence, or does a Southeastern Baptist and the Seminary take the lead? What of Louisville's sizable Jewish population? And what of the many other immigrants from Africa and the Middle East who have found their way there over the decades? Do they get to inject their religion into it, too?

 

Too many of you people need to get outside of your county's borders more often and realize that, in many other places, everybody's not just like you when it comes to religion and what should be emphasized. Your religion is not a one-size-fits-all solution for all the world's problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then which parts are kept? Does NYC have a roundtable of the hundreds of religions within its densely populated borders to come up with a local plan?

 

Does the Louisville area's heavy Catholic influence take precedence, or does a Southeastern Baptist and the Seminary take the lead? What of Louisville's sizable Jewish population? And what of the many other immigrants from Africa and the Middle East who have found their way there over the decades? Do they get to inject their religion into it, too?

 

Too many of you people need to get outside of your county's borders more often and realize that, in many other places, everybody's not just like you when it comes to religion and what should be emphasized. Your religion is not a one-size-fits-all solution for all the world's problems.

 

First off, where do you get off calling me out about anything? You have no idea who I am chief. I simply disagreed with his post saying God's Law should be seen nowhere ever. Man's law was created from God's Law. Not murdering people, not stealing from people, etc. I never claimed anyone should be like me, so take your preaching somewhere else because I don't want to hear it. I am sure I have been to just as many different cultures and have seen a lot of different things as you have.

 

I try to live my life to both laws and am not perfect at it. I follow man's laws because I do not want to go to jail. I follow God's Law because I BELIEVE it is the right thing to do and makes me a better person for it. If you can find in my 3 word post where I claimed any of the crap you tried to post before, then let me know.

 

I won't apologize for strongly disagreeing that God's Law shouldn't be seen. I never said it should be the universal law, you just assume because you didn't take the time to ask my opinion, and in turn criticized me for basically nothing. I'll pray for you :lol2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I could go both ways. But the law of the land is supposed to be influenced by the people who live on the land. I would not be nearly as upset over the Same Sex Marriage issue if it were the will of the people. How do you know if it is the will of the people? Vote. If there was a referendum or amendment for the state to vote on and the voters approved of marriage equality for homosexuals, then I would have no leg to stand on because I love how my country is organized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I could go both ways. But the law of the land is supposed to be influenced by the people who live on the land. I would not be nearly as upset over the Same Sex Marriage issue if it were the will of the people. How do you know if it is the will of the people? Vote. If there was a referendum or amendment for the state to vote on and the voters approved of marriage equality for homosexuals, then I would have no leg to stand on because I love how my country is organized.

 

So is there ever a time when government should step in and grant/protect equal rights for the minority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care what the government says. St. Augustine wrote that there are two types of law. God's law and societal law. If a societal law is not in line with God's law, then its not a law at all. And we are called to fight unjust laws (Gay marriage, abortion, etc.)

 

Look at it this way. Is it morally wrong/against God's law for me to drink a beer in the privacy of my own home even though I'm under 21? Is it morally wrong/against God's law for me to drive 71 MPH on the highway? I say no to both of these, so God's law (morality) trumps societal law.

 

I have quite a few thoughts, and generally agree with you to a certain extent, but am having a difficult time putting them to words. Since same sex marriage and abortion are generally the two issues that come up whenever religion is discussed among the rule of law, I hate that they are both talked about in the same breath among Conservatives.

 

Whether religious-based or not, everyone has their own set of morality and will undoubtedly use it to shape their views. I've always felt that allowing others to do something, whether or not I would ever wish to exercise this right doesn't give me the right to complain unless its effects are relatively severe. Ignoring the difficulties of actually outlawing abortion, the law allowing this to happen has the consequence of ending life. If anything else, this is how my set of morals differentiates between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.