Secular Authority

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403454' date='Oct 16 2007, 01:49 AM']are the collars in question edible?[/quote]
no. Like if you buy a polo shirt and instead of having the collar edges down, you roll them up so that they cover your neck.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1403584' date='Oct 16 2007, 11:21 AM']no. Like if you buy a polo shirt and instead of having the collar edges down, you roll them up so that they cover your neck.[/quote]

What, then, shall protect my neck?

[rkwright]

I think you're looking at it backwards. The government only has power which we the people give it. We have given the power to regulate food to the government (through congress). Most American's I think have it mixed up; the constitution does not start with the government's powers, but rather with the people's rights. We submit some of those rights to the government, and thats where it gets its power.

Secondly, we're not giving them power to regulate our food, but rather protect our food. I'm pretty sure the FDA comes out a time when food was not held to the highest standards, and the only group that could provide safe food for everyone and enforcement against the large producers is the government.

If the government wasn't able to regulate food, the only way to ensure our own safety would be to grow our own food.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403451' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:46 PM']Autumn I'm actually talking about something larger than the FDA--the powers that the government exercises in general, over where we can school our children, who we can "marry," etc.[/quote]
The government controls who we can marry??

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1403567' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:43 AM']wait where are the hardcore republican conservative christians. to outlaw fatty foods, or at least people from eating unhealthy generally. hardcore republicans, not true libertarians, outlaw anything sinful, after all.

i could see liberals outlawing fatty foods too. depends on how you look at it i guess. but from hardcore con point of view, they'd ban it cause it's sinful.[/quote]
Most Christians (hardcore conservative or otherwise) would not regard eating fatty foods as sinful (unless done in gluttonous excess maybe).

And Dairy, I'd challenge you to name five Republican politicians who are actually for banning "anything sinful." Heck, it's hard enough to find a Republican (or Dem for that matter) who's really for banning [i]anything[/i] sinful (even abortion)!

Dairy, your view of Republicans and conservatives is out of a comic book, and has little relation to reality.

[hyperdulia again]

It attempts to control who you can marry (it makes decisions about what marriages it will recognize).
It forbids you your first cousin (in about half of the country) even with a dispensation.
The Church has of late even encouraged this interference (gay marriage opposition--the Catholic position always struck me as "it's inconsequential what the state recognizes it can marry no one").

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1403996' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:00 PM']It attempts to control who you can marry (it makes decisions about what marriages it will recognize).
It forbids you your first cousin (in about half of the country) even with a dispensation.
The Church has of late even encouraged this interference (gay marriage opposition--the Catholic position always struck me as "it's inconsequential what the state recognizes it can marry no one").[/quote]
"Gay marriages" are not and never can be marriages in any sense, so I really fail to see how the state not recognizing such abominations is some kind of affront to the Church.
This is not a case of the state "interfering" in marriage, but simply not recognizing as marriage something which is not a marriage. Real marriages are not affected in the least.
The Pope himself last year spoke out against the state making homosexual "civil unions" and such equal to marriage between man and woman. (And I trust his words much more than your opinion.)

Marriages have always been legally recognized as only between a man and a woman. (And I certainly can't imagine any of your beloved Catholic monarchies giving any recognition whatever for "gay marriages"!)
Acting like not allowing homosexual "marriages" to be legally recognized is some horrific new modern tyranny is fallacious and absurd.

And there is no good reason why anyone should marry his/her first cousin. What's next, are you going to complain about that awful repressive state not allowing guys to marry their mother?

I hardly think recognizing homosexual "marriages" and incestuous marriages will improve our society in any way.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Socrates

[hyperdulia again]

you would run with the gay marriage thing.

The Church's opposition to Civil Marriage as such was weakened by making common cause with the amendmentists. Undoubtedly other things were strengthened this was weakened.

[hyperdulia again]

Socrates's last post is edited to the point of not being the post I responded to.

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[hyperdulia again]

And first cousin marriages are not incestuous marriages. And who advocated gay marriage?

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[hyperdulia again]

And I really think some time in prayer or therapy regarding your unhealthy fixation on homosexuality would be a good idea.

Edited October 17, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[S][N]

You guys banned vegemite! WTH! For shame!

[rkwright]

About the Church and State recognizing marriage.

Under older English common law, marriage (domestic issues) were covered by eccelesastical courts. In the United States, due to the seperation of Church and state, marriages (and other domestic issues) have been thrown to the state courts.

On the issues at hand, the government gets it power from the people, and the people have said they will not recognize marriage of first cousins, and in same states they will not recognize gay marriage.

The government is not excersing any power over you that you did not give to it.

Even in the case of gay marriage, we gave the government those powers through our votes.

I agree with socrates; the state's defination of marriage has no bearing at all on the Church's defination or scramental marriages. Even if the government banned marriages outright, that doesn't change anything on the Church marrying people.

Edited October 17, 2007 by rkwright

[hyperdulia again]

interesting rkwright.

But the Government does exercise plenty of powers over me as an individual I haven't given it permission to exercise. It gives my money to abortionists and to bombing campaigns that kill children, etc.

[rkwright]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404326' date='Oct 17 2007, 02:31 PM']interesting rkwright.

But the Government does exercise plenty of powers over me as an individual I haven't given it permission to exercise. It gives my money to abortionists and to bombing campaigns that kill children, etc.[/quote]

You have given the power in all those things through your vote. Its just in our country its winner takes all, and you lost the vote. If you wish to change it, you can; if you can get the vote.

You can say you don't like those rules, but after all you gave the government the power to do that in the constitution.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1404061' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:57 PM']Socrates's last post is edited to the point of not being the post I responded to.[/quote]
That's a lie.

It was edited to correct some typos I caught later. (For anyone who's curious, I added a "g" I had left out in the word "recognized," and in the sentence "Acting like not allowing homosexual "marriages" to be legally recognized [b]is[/b] some horrific new modern tyranny is fallacious and absurd." I had at first accidentily typed "as" instead of "is." I'm a terrible typist, but at least I can practice honesty in a debate.)