Vlad's laws of antitheism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So? Are you suggesting that whatever Jesus (allegedly) said should therefore be the model now for state/church separation?

If both parties are separating without consideration of what Christ said then in what way can it thus be described as a church/state separation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What, making it easier for most religious organisations to be able to conduct valid marriages as part of a religious ceremony within their religious settings. I mean FFS - in what way is that somehow an attack on religion.

... however they do mask operators like certain MPs and humanist UK personnel who want to flip this into state intervention into the consciences and theology of certain parts of the church church.
News for you chum, the state already 'intervenes' in marriages - because a valid marriage has to be conducted in accordance with the relevant laws, which are defined by the state. What I am proposing is a mechanism to make it easier for most religions to conduct valid marriages, not least because I have concerns that there are too many illegal marriages being conducted that are not legally valid and that impacts both those going through such ceremonies, but also the organisations conducting them. Now I'm not suggesting that there is somehow deliberate law breaking here, but clearly there is an issue if couples are going through a 'marriage' ceremony which is not legally valid.

In my Christian life I firstly backed disestablishment, then on contact with new atheists, internet atheism and the influence of celebrity new atheism in Humanist UK backed there being Lords spiritual and establishment.

[jeremyp]

That's up to you though.
Did you just wanted to send me back to the drawing board because you just love to task someone with something?

They are your laws, Vlad, it's not up to us how to interpret them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are your laws, Vlad, it's not up to us how to interpret them.

I'm not sure that's true.

[Outrider]

I think you are trying hard here to make it look as though antitheism is not a factor here and that there is no weaponising This issue for the real goal of the elimination of religion.

Welby is in the press telling MPs and the like that they shouldn't be involving themselves in the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS of the CofE on this - are you suggesting that there's a fifth column of anti-theists buried deep in the CofE establishment? Which side of the debate are they on?

Toksvig says this is causing LGTBQ people mental issues but same sex holy matrimony wasn't a thing until it was adopted by atheists and so one must question who is responsible for any anguish.

I think it's more likely that it wasn't a thing while same sex relationships were some combination of socially taboo and literally illegal. Now that neither of those is the case people are asking the questions that couldn't be asked before.

I can foresee many LGBT Christians disturbed at having been played by antitheists.

Ironically, many of us can see pretty much all Christians having played by the churches, but there you go.

Let us not forget that Toksvig is patron of Humanist UK.

Let us not forget that you're playing the man, and not the argument...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it's more likely that it wasn't a thing while same sex relationships were some combination of socially taboo and literally illegal.

or it wasn't a thing. That's not to say same sex couples didn't carry out the occasional  ceremony that they referred to as a marriage and since religion doesn't have a monopoly on what a wedding is...or the state, whose to say it isn't. What religions do have is there own idea of what a wedding or marriage is. And so, according to some, if Christians were found having such church marriages under a disestablished church subject to private members rules, they would now be investigated to see whether the celebrant had refused to perform a same sex ceremony with whatever church at risk of losing it's private members licence. Although successfully reducing religion, perhaps the greatest social force for humanity to a private members club is probably a wank fantasy.

Ironically, many of us can see pretty much all Christians having played by the churches, but there you go.

What are you insinuating and could you better insinuate it on another thread?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your paranoia is showing again. The argument isn't for the "elimination" of religion; it's for just the removal of the various special rights and privileges (some) religions arrogate to themselves and the state indulges. If religions became private members' clubs subject to the same laws that apply to any other private members' clubs (as I think they should) no-one would have an issue about that.

Apart from those who did.
Wouldn't you have to coerce the Church into becoming a private members club?
Why would it accede to that? Sounds like an antitheist' wank fantasy to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If both parties are separating without consideration of what Christ said then in what way can it thus be described as a church/state separation?

Er, because if the state said “you shall no longer be authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service” then there would be church/state separation. Whether the church(es) concerned liked it or agreed with it would be neither here nor there – there would still be separation.

Apart from those who did.

Those who did what – object to a private members’ club carrying on its activities as a private members’ club? Why would they?

Wouldn't you have to coerce the Church into becoming a private members club?

No – you’d just legislate away the special rights and privileges re the civil part they currently enjoy for no good reason.

Why would it accede to that? Sounds like an antitheist' wank fantasy to me.

Because it would be the law. “Acceding” to it is irrelevant – the civil part of the religious marriage ceremony would have no legal standing. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Er, because if the state said “you shall no longer be authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service” then there would be church/state separation. Whether the church(es) concerned liked it or agreed with it would be neither here nor there – there would still be separation.
 

But as a private members club the church would have to change God's rules. So there would be state interference and the church would be a state licenced church. It would be a case of renderring unto caesar that which is God's Which is why I ask, why should the church accede to that? I would be OK with the church not authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service but it doesn't constitute a separation since the state would have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement and the state would have to change the meaning of discriminating against religion as found in equality acts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But as a private members club the church would have to change God's rules. So there would be state interference and the church would be a state licenced church. It would be a case of renderring unto caesar that which is God's...

You’re still not getting it. Whether or not the church holds these things to be true as articles of its faith is neither here nor there – they can believe whatever they like, but that doesn’t give them an inalienable right to arrogate to themselves various civil responsibilities. With the civil part removed the church can still perform whatever services it likes (and call them “holy” too if it wants to), but the legal recognition part would be a matter for the state, just as legal recognition is in most other areas of life.       

Which is why I ask, why should the church accede to that?

Who cares? They could carry on just as they are, but the state would no longer give their marriage-related activities legal standing whether or not the church acceded to that change.   

I would be OK with the church not authorised to carry out the civil part of the marriage service but it doesn't constitute a separation since the state would have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement and the state would have to change the meaning of discriminating against religion as found in equality acts.

The state wouldn’t have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement at all. The state would just pass a law that said something like, “Only marriage services conducted under the legal auspices of the state by a licenced registrar or celebrant shall be recognised in law as marriages”. Simple. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Welby is in the press telling MPs and the like that they shouldn't be involving themselves in the INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS of the CofE

Are these the same MP's who think the church should not be involved in politics?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re still not getting it. Whether or not the church holds these things to be true as articles of its faith is neither here nor there – they can believe whatever they like, but that doesn’t give them an inalienable right to arrogate to themselves various civil responsibilities. With the civil part removed the church can still perform whatever services it likes (and call them “holy” too if it wants to), but the legal recognition part would be a matter for the state, just as legal recognition is in most other areas of life.       

Who cares? They could carry on just as they are, but the state would no longer give their marriage-related activities legal standing whether or not the church acceded to that change.   

The state wouldn’t have to coerce or negotiate a new settlement at all. The state would just pass a law that said something like, “Only marriage services conducted under the legal auspices of the state by a licenced registrar or celebrant shall be recognised in law as marriages”. Simple.

Well, yes, it is up to the state on what and how much coercion it puts on religion or how that coercion turns out to be peculiar toward the church.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well, yes, it is up to the state on what and how much coercion it puts on religion or how that coercion turns out to be peculiar toward the church.

Still no – there'd be no coercion of any sort. The church would still be free to do whatever it liked in this respect. The only difference would be that the state would no longer afford church marriage services any legal standing. Simple.   

[Outrider]

or it wasn't a thing.

You'd have to ask some people who it affected at the time, I can only surmise from what I'd imagine I might have wanted in that situation.

That's not to say same sex couples didn't carry out the occasional  ceremony that they referred to as a marriage and since religion doesn't have a monopoly on what a wedding is...or the state, whose to say it isn't.

The state. The state gets to define what a marriage is within the law - outside of the law, you can call whatever you'd like whatever you'd like, but it has no functional effect. It's about the legal status, about being afforded equal treatment in things like access to hospital, next of kin rights, inheritance when the time sadly comes.

What religions do have is there own idea of what a wedding or marriage is. And so, according to some, if Christians were found having such church marriages under a disestablished church subject to private members rules, they would now be investigated to see whether the celebrant had refused to perform a same sex ceremony with whatever church at risk of losing it's private members licence.

No, they wouldn't be investigated, because as religious establishments they have an explicit exemption written into the Equalities Act. There are, I don't doubt, some people (both within the church and outside) who'd like to see that changed as well, but I'm not sure that anyone here is advocating that, and I'm certainly not.

Although successfully reducing religion, perhaps the greatest social force for humanity to a private members club is probably a wank fantasy.

The only 'wank-fantasy' I can see here is you spaffing all over the board about anti-theist secular conspiracies to eradicate religion.

What are you insinuating and could you better insinuate it on another thread?

I'm not sure I've been insinuating anything, I think I've been fairly straightforward in my points. I think that the Church of England and the state currently have an issue because, as an established church, it is an organ of the state which is at the same time permitted to discriminate against otherwise protected classes. There is no (so far as I'm aware) explicit presumption of secularist reasoning behind the laws, but there is an increasingly vocal questioning of the justification for this state of affairs, to the point where some MPs have started asking why it's happening in the media.

The church therefore faces the potential of being forced to, by law, to accept marrying gay people, at a time when that very debate is the focus of what seems from the outside to be a deeply entrenched internal division; a legal prerogative disrupting what balance there currently is could pose a threat to the broader anglican community and so the church is now entertaining the possibility that disestablishment would serve to remove that threat of legal constraint.

I, and many others, have been in favour of disestablishment for some time for the broader reason that the CofE appears to be given special priveleges above and beyond other organisations which does not appear to be justifiable in the modern world, and of which this is just one example - the Lord Spiritual situation was, if I recall, the other specific example I gave.

I'm not sure what else you're inferring from that, but it's on you if you're finding much more than that, not on me.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The state. The state gets to define what a marriage is within the law

Yes, within the law but no, it still has no monopoly on it

- outside of the law, you can call whatever you'd like whatever you'd like, but it has no functional effect

It has a functional effect on the two people who are in it aside from a legal arrangement and the signing thereof.

It's about the legal status, about being afforded equal treatment in things like access to hospital, next of kin rights, inheritance when the time sadly comes.

But not all about the legal status.

No, they wouldn't be investigated, because as religious establishments they have an explicit exemption written into the Equalities Act. There are, I don't doubt, some people (both within the church and outside) who'd like to see that changed as well, but I'm not sure that anyone here is advocating that, and I'm certainly not.

Well I think there would be a whole tsunami of unintended consequences for everyone were anybody to try it , with the perpetrators wondering whether it was all worth it just for an afternoon at one's favourite church.

The only 'wank-fantasy' I can see here is you spaffing all over the board about anti-theist secular conspiracies to eradicate religion.

Unfortunately antitheists are going to have their motives questioned on something like this, that goes with the territory i'm afraid. And rather than getting the church off the states books from the Humanist point of view and disestablishing to avoid coercion. The Humanist aim is to make the church change scripture and enforce clergy whatever happens regarding disestablishment.

I'm not sure I've been insinuating anything, I think I've been fairly straightforward in my points.

  You left a piece of dangling innuendo about christians having been played by the church. What do you mean, How have they been played?

[ProfessorDavey]

The state. The state gets to define what a marriage is within the law - outside of the law, you can call whatever you'd like whatever you'd like, but it has no functional effect. It's about the legal status, about being afforded equal treatment in things like access to hospital, next of kin rights, inheritance when the time sadly comes.

That is correct - for all intents and purposes a couple who are not legally married, regardless of what ceremony they might have been through, are not married. They aren't kind of married but in a non legal sense - they are not married. They would not be recognised as being married by the state of course, and I suspect that religions would also not accept they were married either.

So if someone had a islamic 'marriage' ceremony but didn't do the legal bit and then later converted to christianity and decided to get married in a CofE church would the CofE say 'you can't, you are already married' - nope they would accept that this person is unmarried and able to get married.

[Outrider]

Yes, within the law but no, it still has no monopoly on it

But it's the only one that matters to everyone.

But not all about the legal status.

Pretty much it is, yeah. It's about the fact that the state says marriage is open to all sexualities, but the church operating on behalf of the state doesn't comply with that. It's about the state saying that all religions are equal, but then affording the Church of England the right to conduct legally binding weddings but not other religions.

There is a broader point about whether the Church of England should have a privileged position in the Lords, and whether religions should have exemptions from Equalities legislation that are linked but not directly a matter for this conversation, but again they are about the law.

Well I think there would be a whole tsunami of unintended consequences for everyone were anybody to try it , with the perpetrators wondering whether it was all worth it just for an afternoon at one's favourite church.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. There might well be unintended consequences, some of them might even be deleterious. They can be dealt with as and when they arise, that's why Parliament hasn't stopped already, the world moves on. That something might happen in the future is no reason to not do the right thing now.

Unfortunately antitheists are going to have their motives questioned on something like this, that goes with the territory i'm afraid.

Well, as soon as we find one we can ask them about their motivation.

And rather than getting the church off the states books from the Humanist point of view and disestablishing to avoid coercion.

Coercion? You mean people pointing out the inequalities and immoralities of state-sponsored discrimination? Can I just remind you that ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY JUSTIN WELBY has been raising this as a way out this particular aspect of the problem, and that the general synod that's happening right now is attempting to resolve the entirely internal CofE discussions about whether this discrimination is justified or justifiable, and whether it's worth fracturing Christianity into even more even smaller sects over it. This isn't coercion, this is the church attempting to catch up to the rest of the world.

The Humanist aim is to make the church change scripture and enforce clergy whatever happens regarding disestablishment.

Really? I looked on Humanist UK's website and I didn't see that listed in their goals... I don't doubt there are individual humanists who'd like to see the Church change it stance on any number of things; there are Christians - both inside and outside of the CofE - who'd like to see the church changes some of its stances. Indeed, I refer you again to the general synod which is happening right now where that's being considered.

I think you're perhaps misattributing the motivation here, though - they aren't ideologically opposed to the Church, or the idea of religions, but rather they are in favour of equality and don't necessarily see choices like religion (or, say, gender identity in some instances) as being on a par with traits which are not chosen like sexuality. They'd therefore like to see the exemptions afforded to reliigions downgraded - I can see their point, but rather think that where there is an opposition between religion and other protected characteristics the religions should be free to establish expectations for their own activities and those who volunteer to join them. It then becomes and internal issue for, for instance, the general synod.

You left a piece of dangling innuendo about christians having been played by the church. What do you mean, How have they been played?

I'm sure you've had the innumerable scientific, moral and practical internal discords of Christian belief expressed to you in the past, which are actively touted by the various churches in different combinations - it would be a massive derail of this thread to start listing them here.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Pretty much it is, yeah. It's about the fact that the state says marriage is open to all sexualities, but the church operating on behalf of the state doesn't comply with that. It's about the state saying that all religions are equal, but then affording the Church of England the right to conduct legally binding weddings but not other religions.

I think there is a related issue here. The law allows religious marriage and that can involve a person who is both a religious celebrant and an official registrar. And if the building is also registered all this can take place in a church, mosque, synagogue etc, so it doesn't just apply to the CoE.

However, as far as I am aware, the CofE because it is established, is obliged to marry anyone who is living within that parish unless that isn't permissible by law which is currently the case for same sex couples. So if an atheist couple pitch up, the CofE must marry them, or a muslim and a hindu etc etc.

That isn't the case for other religions which may restrict who they marry to those who can legitimately claim to be of that religion. That seems reasonable to me - I have no issue with RCC saying that its wedding ceremonies are for catholics, or at the least mixed faith marriages. But the CofE isn't allowed to do that, due to its establishment.

So on the issue of same sex marriages I can see an argument that a religious organisation will only marry those that uphold their religious beliefs, and if those religious beliefs are that gay couples cannot marry then that would be an argument not to allow gay marriage within that religious tradition. But that doesn't hold water for the CofE who have no such restrictions - they cannot turn away any opposite sex couple (unless involving a divorcee) where one lives in the parish. There is no requirement for the couple to have any involvement with the CofE, nor to be christian nor to have upheld CofE values. And that is because of establishment. Were the CofE to become disestablished then like other religions it could legitimately restrict who it conducts wedding for to members of the CofE.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is correct - for all intents and purposes a couple who are not legally married, regardless of what ceremony they might have been through, are not married. They aren't kind of married but in a non legal sense - they are not married. They would not be recognised as being married by the state of course, and I suspect that religions would also not accept they were married either.

I think most people would hold with a state of marriage that is deeper than what  is on the statute books. Then of course we live in a world where someone can have several spouses in one jurisdiction and there be a question of those marriages in another.

So if someone had a islamic 'marriage' ceremony but didn't do the legal bit and then later converted to christianity and decided to get married in a CofE church would the CofE say 'you can't, you are already married' - nope they would accept that this person is unmarried and able to get married.

I don't know.

[Outrider]

I think most people would hold with a state of marriage that is deeper than what  is on the statute books.

I think that might just speak to the idea of the range of people that you know - I'd say very few of the people i know would see the state of marriage as being very much more than the legal documentation of their relationship. I happy to accept that a large part of that is that very few of the people I know are overtly religious, and those that are appear reasonably 'moderate' about it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it's the only one that matters to everyone.

Pretty much it is, yeah.

Looking at all aspects of your marriage as a legal contract is a pretty strange way of carrying on but whatever floats your boat

It's about the fact that the state says marriage is open to all sexualities, but the church operating on behalf of the state doesn't comply with that.

Well that's flat wrong. The state says that civil marriage is open to all sexualities and what the church collectively says is that some jurisdictions extend that to Holy matrimony and some don't.

and others It's about the state saying that all religions are equal, but then affording the Church of England the right to conduct legally binding weddings but not other religions.

No it's about the state saying the established church is the only church where the Minister can act as the registrar. And how did that come about? Because many demominations withdrew from establishment. They did not demand changes in the Church of England as opposed to Humanist UK who seek to replace the Church of England as the settled world view of the realm and state.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. There might well be unintended consequences, some of them might even be deleterious. They can be dealt with as and when they arise, that's why Parliament hasn't stopped already, the world moves on. That something might happen in the future is no reason to not do the right thing now.

Not really, for example Hillslide's solution is to have Licensed Churches operating under private members club rules. Since licensing means State licensing, implementation of that immediately means conformity to state rules, inspection, raids and closing downs. As for Toskvig, she is well and truly into coercion of the church

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that might just speak to the idea of the range of people that you know - I'd say very few of the people i know would see the state of marriage as being very much more than the legal documentation of their relationship. I happy to accept that a large part of that is that very few of the people I know are overtly religious, and those that are appear reasonably 'moderate' about it.

O.

I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to say here.

[Outrider]

I haven't the foggiest of what you are trying to say here.

You suggested that you though the majority of people would think of their marriage as something more than just a legal arrangement. I pointed out that might say more about the sort of people that you know, as the majority of people that I know would see their marriage as a legal accompaniment to their relationship, and not some all-encompassing description of that relationship.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think most people would hold with a state of marriage that is deeper than what  is on the statute books.

I don't think I agree with that as we've moved way beyond the world where being in love, living together, having children etc was synonymous with marriage. So people chose to live together and have kids without being married and/or get married without having any intention of having kids and societies/individuals don't bat an eyelid. So what it left is two things - one being the loving consensual commitment (which of course doesn't need to be given in marriage) and the other being the formal, legal recognition of that relationship.

So I think people are pretty clear that when they are asked whether they are married or not, or even if they consider from an individual perspective whether they are married or not, what is meant is whether they are legally married. And of course the opposite of being legally married isn't being married in some other way - nope it is not being married.

[ProfessorDavey]

You suggested that you though the majority of people would think of their marriage as something more than just a legal arrangement. I pointed out that might say more about the sort of people that you know, as the majority of people that I know would see their marriage as a legal accompaniment to their relationship, and not some all-encompassing description of that relationship.

Absolutely - and in many cases it makes no difference to the relationship per se as in most cases, I suspect, the couple will have been living together, having sex etc prior to getting married and after getting married. The relationship doesn't change but there is a new legal status and a formal public commitment to each other.