Fatherlessness and Crime (Page 4)

The problem is that darn other body involved.

It doesn't take faith one way or the other, just the common sense of a fourth grader with a science project.

I use to be ardently pro-choice, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

You're positing that it IS another body, which is a false assumption. At what point does something because a human? A body? More than a clump of cells?

I'm not arguing against the inherent premise that you're making, but the fact of the matter is that until medical science as a whole can get together and say, "Alright, we've figured it out...this is when life starts and that's a body", the argument can't be made.

Well it can, it's just not valid.

Fourth graders don't have common sense. The have ideals. Fourth graders also think that there mommy's and daddy's should stay together forever, not die, they would watch cartoons and eat candy all day if given the chance and can flip back and forth on an issue so quick it would make John Kerry's head spin.

Here is my question about the definition of marriage in our society.

First, we hold that there should be separation between church and state. The government should not try to control the isues of faith that belong to the church. Likewise, no church should be favored by the state abova any other, or above any other secular organization simply by virtue of the church being a church. Faith is a private matter, and not public policy.

So, the government may not write dogma, and the church may not write public policy.

Marriage is a unique melange of the civil and the non-secular, and stands, in my mind, as an anomaly in a country where we practice a "wall of separation".

Churches are free to marry or not marry whomsoever they choose, but the state is not required to recognize those marriages performed without license issued by the state. Churches, likewise, are not required to recognize "justice of the peace" marriages.
The wall, theoretically stands.

The tricky bit comes in when the state begins to withhold civil rights.

The churches have no business trying to dictate to the government who may or may not have tax breaks, or inheritance rights, or access to medical records.

Gaarryy - 2009-11-24 9:46 AM

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-11-24 9:28 AM

Here is my question about the definition of marriage in our society.

First, we hold that there should be separation between church and state. The government should not try to control the isues of faith that belong to the church. Likewise, no church should be favored by the state abova any other, or above any other secular organization simply by virtue of the church being a church. Faith is a private matter, and not public policy.

So, the government may not write dogma, and the church may not write public policy.

Marriage is a unique melange of the civil and the non-secular, and stands, in my mind, as an anomaly in a country where we practice a "wall of separation".

Churches are free to marry or not marry whomsoever they choose, but the state is not required to recognize those marriages performed without license issued by the state. Churches, likewise, are not required to recognize "justice of the peace" marriages.
The wall, theoretically stands.

The tricky bit comes in when the state begins to withhold civil rights.

The churches have no business trying to dictate to the government who may or may not have tax breaks, or inheritance rights, or access to medical records.

 

 

 I understand you point but I think  you are stretching it.  I doubt that churchs are choosing not to marry someone so they can't have a tax break, inheritance, etc.  It's the states/federal government that made those laws, not the church, petition the states/govt to change them.  I doubt the churchs won't care if tax rate for married/singles, inheritance rights change.

and wasn't it the oringinal intent of the whole seperation of church so the Government could not impliment or maybe designate that there is only one religion, a sort of national religion?

eta,, the bolded,, you even wrote that it's the states witholding the "civil rights" 

Right, the churches don't care about the civil side of the issue. That's exactly the point. If they are already garunteed the right to marry/not marry whoever they want, what business is it of theirs to whom the state grants the rights under government pervue?

I am saying that the religious and the civil side of the issue of marriage are incorrectly intertwined.

Right, the states do have final say, but states do not have a good track record when it comes to protecting the civil rights of minority populations, particularly when the members of state government are beholding to organized groups who are adamant about keeping the minority group from achieving equal civil standing.

The state should not care who marries whom. The striking down of anti-miscegenation should be the guide for how marriage in a civil-sense should be handled by the state.

Hmm... That's worth unpacking...

I think it's all actually traveling with the front end aligned.

The premise of the original thread that got pulled was the notion that crime may be the result of political philosophies.

I believe rather, that Fatherlessness and all of it's bitter fruits is the result of the attack on the family and on the misunderstood anthropology of human sexuality. 

All of this this goes back centuries, but gained particular traction some forty or fifty years ago.

Drive on.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

I think the problem I'm speaking about started well before the gay rights movement.

Also, it's important to say that in no way is the answer to "go back" to a time when indeed there were some true injustices taking place.  Rather, it is worth looking at whether in throwing out the bathwater, the baby went as well.

{hijack} This regards the term "recovering Catholic". I know what you mean by this. In fact, I seem to have traveled the same path as your wife. I am a cradle Catholic. I left the Church at a young age and eventually became an atheist.  It was through continued searching that I eventually came back to the Church and now assent to all if her teachings. 

I believe that your wife has every right to reject the faith of her youth and become an atheist. However, I know from personal experience that there is nothing to recover from in being raised as a Catholic.  Certainly there may be scars along the way of various degree, do to the fact that no member of the Church is perfect.  However, I've discovered and believe that the teachings of the Catholic Church are the way to recovery and healing from the very real wounds of just being human. {/hijack}

Worth breaking out into:

harm done by members of the Church who were not following the teachings, or not following them well

harm done by the teachings themselves

I agree.

I'd say though that divorce puts great pressure on fathering.  I know this from experience as well. It's not impossible, but just much harder.

And as has been pointed out, marriage does not guarantee good fathering.

My concern comes into clearer focus with the lens pulled out and surveying the entire landscape.  Up close the mileage may vary. 

I do think though, that the dots eventually connect to make up the full pointillist painting.