Evangelical extremist?

[Hope]

Some may disagree on a personal basis but their preferences may be deemed to be less relevant than addressing the inequality on a society-wide basis, hence SSM is now legal where we both live, and especially where objections are based on fallacious arguments from authority where, ironically, what opponents regard as being authoritative (in this case 'scripture') isn't binding on the rest of us and, moreover, where entering into a SSM is easily avoided by those who do object to it. 

What about those for whom 'authority' has absolutely nothing to do religion?  I suppose you prefer to ignore them.

[floo]

What about those for whom 'authority' has absolutely nothing to do religion?  I suppose you prefer to ignore them.

What does that statement mean? 

[Gordon]

What about those for whom 'authority' has absolutely nothing to do religion?  I suppose you prefer to ignore them.

Nope - there are non-religious authorities I must comply with: legislation being the obvious example. 'Scripture' isn't binding unless it is legislative and affects society in general, such as in a theocracy, so here in the UK it isn't authoritative and is easily ignored on a personal basis.

[Hope]

Nope - there are non-religious authorities I must comply with: legislation being the obvious example. 'Scripture' isn't binding unless it is legislative and affects society in general, such as in a theocracy, so here in the UK it isn't authoritative and is easily ignored on a personal basis.

You are so funny, Gordon.  You have chosen to misrepresent the use of 'authority' - as if legislative authority is the only one that exists - despite the fact that you regularly refer to scientific and religious 'authority' in your various posts.

[Hope]

What does that statement mean?

Science is often referred to as an 'authority' by many on this board.

[Shaker]

Science is often referred to as an 'authority' by many on this board.

What does the authority of science (which really only means entirely justified confidence in its methods, its practitioners and its track record of results) have to do with marriage equality?

[floo]

Science is often referred to as an 'authority' by many on this board.

Well it has a lot more authority than religion that is for sure. It can be tested to see if it has evidence to support it, which you can't do with religion.

[Shaker]

Nope - there are non-religious authorities I must comply with: legislation being the obvious example. 'Scripture' isn't binding unless it is legislative and affects society in general, such as in a theocracy, so here in the UK it isn't authoritative and is easily ignored on a personal basis.

Easily ignored most of the time, but it can be a close-run thing even in secular England. It was only three, four years ago that the votaries of the established church - who have their fingers in the pie of governance by right, not by merit - were trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, even though the proposed legislation was purely and entirely about civil and therefore wholly secular marriage and thus had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them.

[Gordon]

You are so funny, Gordon.  You have chosen to misrepresent the use of 'authority' - as if legislative authority is the only one that exists - despite the fact that you regularly refer to scientific and religious 'authority' in your various posts.

Then you are easily amused.

I never claimed legislative authority was the only form of authority, so your comment is a straw man, and I even didn't mention science.   

[Hope]

Easily ignored most of the time, but it can be a close-run thing even in secular England. It was only three, four years ago that the votaries of the established church were trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, even though the proposed legislation was purely and entirely about civil and therefore wholly secular marriage and thus had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them.

Sorry, Shakes, but as far back as 2000, the EU wanted to make it all about the church/faith-based groups.  It took 2 years of lobbying to get the Commissioner concerned to change the wording of the relevant Direction, and to do away with the blanket requirement that all posts were open to all people - such that potentially an atheist could apply for a post as a pastor/imam/priest/... .  It also meant that certain posts are now 'reserved'.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Shakes, but as far back as 2000, the EU wanted to make it all about the church/faith-based groups.  It took 2 years of lobbying to get the Commissioner concerned to change the wording of the relevant Direction, and to do away with the blanket requirement that all posts were open to all people - such that potentially an atheist could apply for a post as a pastor/imam/priest/... .  It also meant that certain posts are now 'reserved'.

I'm sure that was interesting to you when you wrote it, but what's the relevance to what I wrote in #207?

[Hope]

I'm sure that was interesting to you when you wrote it, but what's the relevance to what I wrote in #207?

in #207 you wrote:

... even though the proposed legislation was purely and entirely about civil and therefore wholly secular marriage and thus had absolutely nothing whatever to do with them.

The proposed legislation was not 'purely and entirely about civil and therefoire wholly secular marriage'; it was originally all-inclusive, and would have required ministers/priests/imams from churches, mosques, temples, etc to perform SSM.  There was a sizeable campaign that fought to have this all-inclusiveness removed - in the same way as there as a big campaign back in the early 2000s to have the blanket conditions of theproposed EU Equality Directive amended.

I'm saorry that I didn't make this link originally

[Spud]

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives."

I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this,

I'll confess to being utterly appalled at the stance of some elements within organised Christianity towards SSM, where the legal ring-fencing of the CofE to allow then to continue to discriminate against homosexual people was especially sickening.

and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me.

I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith."

The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching.

I wonder if Jim would agree or has anything to add, if he is reading this?

[floo]

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives."

I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this,

and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me.

I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith."

The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching.

I wonder if Jim would agree or has anything to add, if he is reading this?

A lot of Christians don't have a problem with gay marriage, it is the more extreme ones who do.

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives."

I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this,

and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me.

I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith."

I think Jim is agreeing here that SSM should not be legally proscribed on a society-wide basis due to religious objections.

The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching.

If religious organisations, by dint of their clerics being registrars, seek to maintain active discrimination in respect of a legal entitlement then I say that is unacceptable, as is whatever ancient 'scripture' they cite as being their authority. 

If religious organisations are in the marriage business, where it's clerics act as registrars, then they should provide the registrar aspect of the services on an equitable basis to all who request it and are legally entitled to marry. If they can't do that, or they are ring-fenced to keep progress out (such as the C of E under England and Wales legal arrangements), then in my view they are acting shamefully and they should disqualify themselves as registrars.

[Spud]

If religious organisations are in the marriage business, where it's clerics act as registrars, then they should provide the registrar aspect of the services on an equitable basis to all who request it and are legally entitled to marry. If they can't do that, or they are ring-fenced to keep progress out (such as the C of E under England and Wales legal arrangements), then in my view they are acting shamefully and they should disqualify themselves as registrars.

Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?

[Gordon]

Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?

Yep.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that if people are legally allowed to marry then those empowered to conduct the legal requirements of marriage should do so equitably. If organisations, via their suitably qualified staff, can't do so then they, as they say, should consider their position and either get out of the legal marriage business or stop discriminating.

[floo]

Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?

There is nothing wrong with getting a divorce if your marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is stupid to stay together if that is the case. So why shouldn't people be able to remarry in a church?

[Hope]

Presumably you would say the same about clergy who do not allow divorcees to marry in their church?

Not sure that there are any clergy who wouldn't 'allow divorcees to marry in their church', Spud.  That ban, which held for many years, fell by the way side years ago.  In fact, our last two pastors were both divorced, though not as a result of anything they had done.

[Spud]

Hi Hope, I am sure what you say is true, in that many churches permit divorcees to marry. But I am in the South East, where I know several churches which do not allow it, including mine. That doesn't mean these churches are better, but they believe that since the new testament teaches that remarriage can cause one party to become an adulterer, it is better to avoid being responsible for that happening. They will sometimes allow a service of blessing if they know that the divorced partner is the one who was wronged.
Also I think the Catholic church will not allow it?

[Spud]

The point is it is legal for a minister to refuse to conduct remarriages, so there is discrimination which is based on scriptural teaching, which, as shown above, is about how to do the wisest thing in not being responsible for someone doing something that is against God's will.

[Hope]

You seem to be struggling with the idea that if people are legally allowed to marry then those empowered to conduct the legal requirements of marriage should do so equitably. If organisations, via their suitably qualified staff, can't do so then they, as they say, should consider their position and either get out of the legal marriage business or stop discriminating.

Whilst you seem to be struggling with the idea that some services that existed before they became legal/government services could be seen as something over and above just a legal event.  Incidentally, Anglican clergy are trained as registrars as part of their ordination training and aren't beholden to the state in the same way that other registrars are - since they provide a service that goes beyond just the civil.

[Hope]

The point is it is legal for a minister to refuse to conduct remarriages, so there is discrimination which is based on scriptural teaching, which, as shown above, is about how to do the wisest thing in not being responsible for someone doing something that is against God's will.

As far as I'm aware, the ruling that used to apply no longer does as the scriptural teaching that was used as the basis for said discrimination was shown to have been interpreted incorrectly, and by a theologian, not some secular expert.

Remember that divorce was actually a Biblical provision created to protect the woman. 

[Anchorman]

Hi Gordon, Thanks for your post in #199. I accept your view that (from page 1) "that social policy should [not] reflect the position of any one group by default, be it religious or political, without that group having a democratic mandate to determine and enforce policy imperatives." I was reading back on page one where Anchorman agreed with you that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on non Christians. You said this, and I can't see any response from Jim to your view that "these churches should also resign from acting as legal registrars", as you said in a post to me. I see he wrote, "The mainstream Christian view - that, for the Christian, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, is one I support - there is no evidence in Scripture to gainsay it, and much to affirm it. However, whilst maintaining this stance, the Church should not be imposing it on those who do not share its' faith." The Church could, in theory, maintain its stance on marriage if its ministers were not permitted to act as legal registrars. But the problem with not permitting them to act as legal registrars might be that so many people would object that we would find that actually, there is a democratic mandate to allow them to do so, while adhering to scriptural teaching. I wonder if Jim would agree or has anything to add, if he is reading this?

From a CofS POV, ministers are registrars 'with restriction'. The Kirk insists that any marriage they perform must be a Christian one - should it be found that they conduct a secular, non-Christian marriage, whether same sex or otherwise, they can be removed from ministry. The registrar role is one of convenience and economy: it simply means that the cost of a marriage may be lessened - ministers do not charge for the service (Though they may be given a gratuity at the whim of those paying for it), wheras the registrar's fee, like that of a marriage celebrant, is usually set.

[Anchorman]

The point is it is legal for a minister to refuse to conduct remarriages, so there is discrimination which is based on scriptural teaching, which, as shown above, is about how to do the wisest thing in not being responsible for someone doing something that is against God's will.

Yep. A minister/pastor cannot be forced into conducting a marriage against his conscience.