Is polygamy a protected religious right?

[u3b3rg33k]

The only benefit I see in getting married is not having to testify against my spouse.

It's not polygamy if you're not married.

[ldsbeaker]

I am only asking if religious laws have a precedent over civil laws (whatever the religion, and whatever the country). We are discussing the principle, using polygamy as an exemple.

Okay, let's go the other way.
I'm forbidden from partaking of alcohol and tobacco.
IF it was "Civil Law" to partake of these substances, then yes, I would be breaking the law.

I guess the short answer is, IT DEPENDS.

[Wiglaf]

This is just another great reason to keep church and state separated. Marriage and law should not be connected at all.

[Massive Lee]

This is just another great reason to keep church and state separated. Marriage and law should not be connected at all.

Isn't marriage part of the law, just as divorce? Because our legal system was founded on religious foundations, the separation is not always clear.

[ck_taft325is]

Isn't marriage part of the law, just as divorce? Because our legal system was founded on religious foundations, the separation is not always clear.

Don't you live in Canada?

Doesn't he live in Canada?

[Ryann]

Conflicts between religion and law arise simply because the two are and always have been intermingled. Prime example, marriage. A religious institution, yet governed by laws. Laws that give way to things like the gay marriage issue. You gotta ask yourself, "why do I have to obtain a license to get married in a church?" It's constitutional rights vs. religious rights, and they often contradict themselves. True separation of Church and State does not exist.

[ldsbeaker]

Great point.

[Massive Lee]

Don't you live in Canada?

Doesn't he live in Canada?

What's your point? Keep quiet in your corner if you have nothing to say.

Back to topic now. The legal systems in countries that are historically Christian follow the same structure, based on Christian principles. The civil laws that people are following are the world, are all influenced by religion. Until only a few decades ago in the Western world, the Church was clearly part of any goverment. Non-religious governments are a "new" thing.

The US constitution's separation of church and state probably only meant that you didn't need to be of a specific religion to have access to the governement. Reality is that elected people have to demonstrate they are religious, otherwise it freaks people out. At least in the US.

[Anthrax]

It looks like those without any religion lack some rights as well.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c67_1290559859

[joshh]

Marriage and law should not be connected at all.

And there we agree.

[VasFinest]

People always mistake the true meaning of separation of church and state, and this thread is a prime example... Like I said above, the law is the law, no exceptions for those whose "religion" dictates them in a manner that goes against said law.

[briansjacobs]

People always mistake the true meaning of separation of church and state, and this thread is a prime example... Like I said above, the law is the law, no exceptions for those whose "religion" dictates them in a manner that goes against said law.

I think the question is what is the basis for the law? Is the law based on some religous belief and therefore unconstitutional?

[Ryann]

People always mistake the true meaning of separation of church and state, and this thread is a prime example... Like I said above, the law is the law, no exceptions for those whose "religion" dictates them in a manner that goes against said law.

The "true meaning" of separation of Church and State constitutionally is far removed from our current reality. This country's founders wanted to protect Protestant Christians who believed that they had a right to read an English bible at home, without the manipulation and prosecution of the all powerful and political Church.

[Massive Lee]

Currently, people use the terms "separation of Church and State", introduced in he 1950s, which might be misleading in its interpretations. The original terms were "wall of separation between church and state" and are perhaps more precise in its meaning: the state will not interfere with the practice of your religion. And your religion will not interfere with the state.

Reality is that such wall leaks a lot...

[joshh]

Currently, people use the terms "separation of Church and State", introduced in he 1950s, which might be misleading in its interpretations. The original terms were "wall of separation between church and state" and are perhaps more precise in its meaning: the state will not interfere with the practice of your religion. And your religion will not interfere with the state.

Reality is that such wall leaks a lot...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It says nothing about a wall and it says nothing about "separation" of church and state.
You may practice your religion as long as you do not break the law. And no laws will be made "respecting" (concerning) a religion.

The Utah highway crosses are Constitutional, the law in Oklahoma vs Islam is unconstitutional, the putting up religious plaques in Government buildings is Constitutional (unfortunately).

I would love it if it said a separation or wall but it doesn't.