You say that as if the "to me" doesn't carry meaning with regards to moral culpability. As in the examples I gave, the individual can bear moral culpability even if legally the signature only signified legal compliance.

Not at all. I was only saying that, as far as I could recall, it had been specified that her signature is only verifying legal compliance. As silly and disengenuous as I might find her position on the signature, if I'm the judge in gong to accept her claim and find a workaround.

That trap didn't work but ive been thinking more, most dont seem too. But if she (or any of the other clerks) follow the strict view on Jesus on divorce, only for infidelity. Then their name would be on many sinful marriages. Sure none of them have that issue and thought about it.

The supreme court verdicts you like to allude to extend non-religion equal protection to religion under the first amendment. You'd know this if you actually bothered to learn them instead of browsing for support for your conclusions. There is this thing called "equality" that the supreme court tends to take very seriously when interpreting law. Go figure.

But I guess it is easier to just ignore such things and accuse other of misunderstanding, ignorance and not using their brains properly. If there is one thing this thread has established with full certainty, it is that law is not a good subject for you.

I'm fairly certain none of them have this issue because it's not an issue. Manufacturing issues does not make them into actual issues.

You first need to look at/develop a theology of what marriage is, and not jump into the middle of the conversation and try to declare what makes a "sinful marriage" and at least make sure what you mean by it when you say it.

Nope. But thanks for playing. Here's a can of turtle wax as your consolation prize.

Oh. You shouldn't have said that. Just hang your head in shame. This thing called "equality" is only structured under pre-defined classes. And "religious/non-religious" is not one of those pre-defined classes. Otherwise, one might argue that "equality" meant that adults and children were identical under the law, which simply isn't true. Why do you think it's such a big deal that people are trying to add sexual orientation as a special protected class? If bland "equality" was already written into the law, there would be no need for special protected classes.

And have you not noticed the conversations going on in this thread about the asymmetry of religious argumentation and secular argumentation? You know, the contraception thing where I've been arguing (and nobody has really been disagreeing) that religion is favored in such an argument, and that it's far from clear that a secular argument against contraception would be successful in the exact same way that a religious one is?

I'm taking back your turtle wax. You didn't even earn that.

When the other person is wrong and ignorantly wrong, their accusations don't really carry any weight. I'll make it simple for you. Cite the case law and then provide your analysis.

Until then, I'll just laugh to myself about how embarrassingly bad your argumentation is. I'll remind you that you're the one who made the jump in this thread from "atheism is not a religion" in back-to-back posts (#80-#81) which is explicitly a denial of case law. So I have plenty of reason to be confident that I understand the law better than you do.

I didint manufacturer anything and dont appreciate you saying i did. Many Christians feel the only legitimate divorce is in the case of infidelity. Does she or any of the other clerks? idk.

I know what i mean by it.

Many Christians feel that the only legitimate REASON for divorce is in the case of infidelity.

I won't say that no Christians think that a divorce and remarriage somehow "doesn't count" in some practical way, but it's actually an extreme minority at this point. The theology of marriage and divorce comes in many flavors, and the distinction between the normative theological claims about marriage (how you should think about the appropriate behaviors of marriage) and the ontology of marriage (classifications of marriage, such as "sinful" or "Christian" or "legal" or whatever, if such distinctions even exist within the theological perspective) are very different questions.

Simply put, for the person who is already divorced and remarried, the urging from the church is virtually never* to leave the second marriage and seek reconciliation in the first one. That is, the instruction is usually to honor the marriage that you're in. The only way that such an instruction can even be sensible is that the marriage is sufficiently legitimate to stay in.

(* I'm not going to say never never because I know that there are some out there that hold the view that you should leave the current marriage and return to the first. But they really are quite rare.)

Okay. But why should what you mean be treated as meaningful?

Yeah...ok. I need to go tell the Church they can now marry divorcees and there should be np. They dont need to play the annulment game they have been pushing.

Look i quote since no one seems to be reading my posts. "That trap didn't work but ive been thinking more, most dont seem too."


Most dont follow once married let no man split apart. They dont follow that once you are married you are still married to you first spouse unless infidelity occurred and that all if you do its adulterous.

Some do.

If any of them were the clerks then they should have issues. Chance are they dont. It a small point no need for knitting. It probably doesn't hit home. ffs.

Annulment is a concept that applies to (Catholic) sacramental marriages. But people are still married even if it's not a sacramental marriage.

And the Catholic Church (the largest christian organization on earth) wont marry you if you have been divorced because they believe it goes against Gods wishes. Its not far fetched to think one of the clerks might have the same issues.

I mean forget sinful and legitimize. This is what it comes to. Pretending im manufacturing it...

If the Catholic Church was the clerk it wouldn't marry divorced people.

But this theology really isn't that accurate, which is why I tried to point you to look at and understand the theology first, before trying to draw conclusions. Your view is kind of a hodge-podge of statements that are half-way right, but don't quite accurately reflect the full understanding.

Yes, it's true that the Catholic church won't marry you if you have been divorced unless you obtain an annulment. But that's not the same thing as saying that the second marriage "goes against God's wishes" nor does it mean that the Catholic church is against the second marriage.

But the Catholic Church *DOES* marry divorced people!

If you are straight up divorced, no annulment. Which is what im saying. You cant get married in the Church because God.

If you need to change my argument to make yours work it doesn't work.

I'm not saying you can't make your argument "work." What I'm saying is that your argument doesn't accurately reflect the theology. You're basically pulling the Mightybooshian argument where you ignore the reality and just frame things how you think they should work if the religious people think like you think they should.

But that's just not how it works!

No.



Lets take a hypothetical Catholic clerk. They bring in their Churches religious moral values on marriage when it comes to homosexuality and say no go. They should also bring in their Churches religious moral values on divorce. And only marry people who have not been divorced (or knittery obtain a proper annulment).

I think you are pulling the bush. but ymmv

Yes.

http://www.dmdiocese.org/divorced-and-catholic-faqs.cfm

Stop playing the half-truth game.

This is literally the Mightybooshian argument. Why do you get to say what the Catholic clerk *should* do? Because you say so, it must be how things *should* work?

Its you who is and im just about done.

Yeah im done you win. Other things better to do.

And just to be clear i could explain why i think she should. But im also done with being condescend to.

Like many Christians all across the USA, I'm fairly sure she hasn't thought about it much, if at all, and holds that there is only her own religion's type. But ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse.

As I have understood the arguments, legally her signature is to indicate the couple meet legal requirements etc, and if so then legally it does follow. That she thinks that there is something more, is based on the same ignorance of the first point, that there is only her kind of marriage. Should objections be honoured if they are erroneous?

In practice, what theologically significant changes occur after the license is signed? Could she even point out any scripture that prohibits same sex marriage?

As an aside, do you think someone should need to show a source, or is it sufficient to just hold a particular belief that is, in some way, considered as religious?

This isn't a discussion. You are simply wrong. Non-religion is protected just like religion per the supreme verdicts you allude to in this thread.

That you'll just keep on trolling and insulting is rather sad.

Aaron's vintage over the top condescension aside, he is mainly right here. Or you are both correct, perhaps, but talking at cross purposes.

You are correct in that atheism and nonreligion are both recognized by the SCOTUS as "religions" with the various protections and restrictions that come from that. The government can't fire you for being an atheist. And the government can't impose atheism either (although this is less tested for obvious reasons) by, say, requiring a pledge of atheism or something as a condition of having a job. Aaron agrees with this, I believe.

However, Aaron's larger theme is basically that the domain of questions to which "nonreligious belief" is fairly constrained. For instance, a religious person can claim to be against birth control because of their religious beliefs, hobby lobby is obviously the big rfra case here. But an atheist doesn't really oppose birth control because of religious reasons. They might have various nonreligious reasons here, but we aren't protected for ANY belief (say some humanitarian view), only the religious ones. there is a difference between opposing pork because you are religious, and because you think killing animals is morally wrong. it is for this reason that religions have an "advantage" (and possibly "disadvantage" in the limits on what governments can do)