quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

From a pure social policy standpoint, I'd have to say that fighting for something usually results in better outcomes overall than fighting against something, which typically leads only to grief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto


Is it possible to have both freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion at the same time in the same country?

Yes...and no.

Within a limited definition, it is possible. Looking strictly at the practice of religion, it is possible. You can attend or not attend whatever services you wish, subject to the rules of a given institution. If you wish to be a (insert name of church here) you may need to do certain things. Those remain your choice. You may also believe, as you apparently do, that "religious values" don't require "membership." I think that's a more common situation than many people acknowledge. I know many who "grew up in a church" and carry some of the "values" with them even if they don't actively attend services now. So, you can have total freedom...to believe or not, to attend or not, and to allow others the same.

However, it is unrealistic to expect that those same values, whatever they may be, won't affect other things that you do. You may feel that killing is "inappropriate." You may feel that way because of the Ten Commandments, or simply because you feel that way for other reasons. Whether your motivation is based upon religion or not, were the matter to come to a vote, you'd likely base your decision upon your sense of values. It is unreasonable to expect you to set those aside. You might be "simply in favor" or quite determined. The same would be true of most others.

In short, our "religious" background will impact our actions, and it's unrealistic to think it won't, or it could be put aside. In the western legal systems, there is an historic religious background to many of our laws, based mostly upon the Christian and Jewish traditions. In other systems, such as Sharia, the same is true simply based upon other faiths. It is up to you to decide if the overall legal system represents an intrusion of religion in your daily life. For most people, it probably isn't much of an intrusion since they don't do something "illegal."

There are, however, obvious exceptions. In the US, marriage between whites and Negros was illegal in many states. That's pretty intrusive, but not necessarily base upon religion. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does seem to have a strongly religious background.

In any case, the answer to your question depends upon how you view that "freedom."

At the time it was a political issue, marriage between white and black citizens was considered a religious issue. "God had separated the races for a reason," and therefore interracial marriage was a violation of gods (implied) law.
Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religious objections to the marriage, but rather to homosexuality itself. It is the anger/fear of allowing homosexuality to be "allowed," and treated as acceptable that causes the opposition.
Of course, when you ask these people if they eat pork, they don't even realize why you are asking...

quote:


Is it possible to have both freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion at the same time in the same country?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dharkling

If you think about it though, according to the separation of church and state, marriage should not be a legal matter at all. Marriage is a religious institution that has been quietly accepted as a legal one. Frankly, I think marriage as a legal institution should be done away with and EVERYONE if they so desire to legally bind themselves to another individual (or individuals, as the case may be) can do so. Legally. In a court.

quote:

. Marriage is a religious institution

quote:


If THAT were the case and gay unions were still "unacceptable", then I think your argument would be more justifiable. As it is though, there are still too many people who are able to use religion as the basis of their objection. A person's faith is one thing you really won't win against in any debate. Its so personal and so deep that people will go to war over it, will kill over it, will torture over it. As we have already witnessed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dharkling


If you think about it though, according to the separation of church and state, marriage should not be a legal matter at all. Marriage is a religious institution that has been quietly accepted as a legal one. Frankly, I think marriage as a legal institution should be done away with and EVERYONE if they so desire to legally bind themselves to another individual (or individuals, as the case may be) can do so. Legally. In a court.

And if you still want to be "married" you can do that. In whatever church you happen to attend.

If THAT were the case and gay unions were still "unacceptable", then I think your argument would be more justifiable. As it is though, there are still too many people who are able to use religion as the basis of their objection. A person's faith is one thing you really won't win against in any debate. Its so personal and so deep that people will go to war over it, will kill over it, will torture over it. As we have already witnessed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
True, you're right back to square one: an atheist marriage is called a civil union, that's all - i.e., the SCOTUS has defined atheism as tantamount to a religious belief for the purposes of the establishment clause.