Jun. 20, 20113:22 am

Thin Line Between Church And State
By Laura Nahmias

The fate of same-sex marriage in New York hinges on the fate of negotiations between Senate Republicans and Gov. Andrew Cuomo over protections for religious institutions – after similar changes were able to win three “yes” votes from former opponents in the Assembly.

Assemblyman Nelson Castro was one of three religious Democrats who changed their position last week as the Assembly passed a gay marriage bill 80-63 and sent it to the Senate, where it remains one vote shy of approval.

“I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I don’t have the right to prohibit others to have the right to get married,” said Castro, 39.

Negotiations on the marriage bill continued through the weekend, as opponents talked with the Cuomo administration about what religious exemptions would make them not feel compelled to assist marriages they cannot support. Advocates indicated they would not oppose those changes, and several wavering Senate Republicans have said religious concerns are their main objection to the bill.

Castro, who represents a western Bronx district, is the only Seventh-Day Adventist in the state’s legislature. Raised Catholic in the Dominican Republic, Castro voted “no” on a same-sex marriage bill in 2009 for religious reasons, but talks with gay activists, constituents and his pastor changed his mind this year, he said.

With his pastor, Castro “spoke about the fact that I thought it was the right thing to do. But religiously I was definitely torn. He said to me, ‘Look, civically, you have a responsibility to represent your community. That has nothing to do with God.’”

The bill’s language makes some exemptions for religious institutions – they aren’t required to officiate the vows of same-sex couples. Those exemptions allowed two other former Assembly “no” votes, Karim Camara and Nick Perry, to vote for the bill, Castro said.

Camara is a senior pastor at Abundant Life Church in Brooklyn, and Perry, who was born in Jamaica, is a Catholic. Neither could be reached for comment.

“They’re not asking religious institutions to marry them,” Castro said. “That made a big difference.”

Another big difference, Castro said, is that marriage-equality activists were more organized this year. In 2009, “the LGBT community never showed up to lobby me,” he said.

Late Friday Cuomo said he was open to changing the language in the bill passed by the Assembly to include more religious protections, similar to a bill that narrowly passed the New Hampshire state legislature in 2009.

“The issue here is literally of religious freedom,” Cuomo said to reporters Friday afternoon. “This is not about marriage in a religious term. This is a civil law issue, and we want to make sure we keep it separate.”

He added, “I happen to be a Catholic, and that’s my business. That’s my religion. This is about marriage as defined by government not by religion.”

Changes to the bill would probably come in the form of a chapter amendment, Cuomo said.

New Yorkers United for Marriage organizer and Empire State Pride Agenda executive director Ross Levi said his advocates had no problem with strengthening the religious carve-outs, if it would help the Republicans agree to pass the bill.

“I remain confident,” Levi said, “that an appropriate balance can be struck.”
http://nycapitolnews.com/2011/06/thin-line-between-church-and-state/

Funny how they seem to always hone in on the SDA. Probably everyone who either voted or had similarly changed their mind had some major religious/denominational affiliation, but as usual, ‘the SDA is to be singled out.’

It is quite telling that, as news reports transparently have stated/admitted (including surprisingly, “left teetering” ones - e.g, The Rachel Maddow Show): Republicans this time around voted for the passing of this Bill mainly because of the projected revenue that this would bring to the NY economy. As usual, Capitalists are easily and/or ultimately swayed and controlled by greed, money (1 Tim 6:10; Luke 16:13). And also short-sighted selfishness as this revenue won’t be new money, but simply transferred money from other States for people coming to the State of New York to be “married” and probably also there have the celebration. So it won’t be a National economic boost, but only a NY State one, indeed causing various job losses in the States where this money will be coming from. (So, as a domino effect, expect other States, especially in these slow/low economic times, now to similarly legalize gay marriages to avoid this local economic suctioning loss.)

Similarly in the Church, it is money that ultimately decides what is right or wrong, and thus why, actually quite mission-detrimental and hampering sin and waywardness is both permit to exist and remain entrenched in it.

Having said all of this, I don’t see that any religious element should be involved in the sphere of public civil office. So a “civil” decision here should duly be on that reflects the views of the people one is representing. (By the way, as discussed elsewhere, this still would not make abortion a religious issue, as some left-leaning people argue as a viable human life is outrightly an independent, life-entitled entity.

The separation of church and state creates moral dilemmas like laws regulating marriage. The Bible is the only basis for marriage. Some people cite animals as proof marriages involve male and females; however, this example only proves procreation requires male sperm and female eggs. But a marriage involves so much more than mere procreation. Indeed, some couples cannot procreate because one or both is infertile.

I believe Jesus designed and created men and women to marry and have families. He did not plan on gay marriages. Gay feelings and tendencies, whether inherited at birth or fostered over time, is one of the many results of sin. People who have gay feelings and tendencies are in a similar position as people who are born with other sinful predispositions (i.e. drug and alcohol addictions, selfishness, anger, lust, etc). Nevertheless, being born defective is no excuse for sinning. The power of God is available to enable people to resist their sinful inclinations and to grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit.


The question is, however, should Government dictate laws regarding marriage based solely on the Bible?

Daniel would not compromise his integrity or rationalize to permit wrong doing. It was his privileged to represent God in all his dealings. But not so with other captives from Israel who were in Babylon at the time.

They found a way to compromise that appeared to be right in their own eyes and were never heard of again on Babylon's political scene. And when the golden idol was the test, they did not stand for God because they had not made the preparations to stand in the earlier trials. There were Jews that bowed to the image of gold, but not all.

This SDA lawmaker erred in that he consulted his pastor rather than his God and the word of God.

I see that the situation in our present democratic context vs. Daniel case is quite different. Indeed where was Daniel in the Golden image incident??? It was indeed going directly against what he had just related to the king about God’s will on this matter. The fact is that the Babylonian king did not have to consult with Daniel in making this decision and knowing that he was going directly against what Daniel had said, he probably did not. And Daniel obviously did not put up a tangible objection nor resign from his post. He silently went along with this public policy decision. Daniel was actually only tangibly opposing to the king’s policies as it affected his own private relationship with God.

As mountain man said, there is rightly to be a separation of Church and State in civil matters or else SDA’s will instantly be doomed and God’s redemptive purposes will come to an actually premature end with this religious freedom removal which allows for the free preaching of truth. That SDA was not voted into office by only SDA’s (if any), and has the duty to faithfully represent his constituents and not, effectively “hijack” a secular, political office to impose the “will of God/Bible” on the public.

That is why I personally see that an SDA engaging in public office in these times is quite futile and conflicting and the only justification is to help preserve freedom when it counts. And that comes with the price of also granting this secular freedom, which involves the right to not be a believer in God or the Bible. God actually also grants this freedom per se, as people who engage in gay relations which is just as unbiblical as a marriage, are not instantly zapped with lightning. There is however a penalty to pay for this in the end. And it is only through the continuance of freedom of conscience that this evil will ever be rightly and fully exposed, and as God knows, not through any force or any (legislative) imposition of His will. The Sodom and Gomorrah judgement was enough of a concrete warning that God will indeed judge this practice.

So if I believe sacrificing children to Molech should be allowed because it is a religious practice and we have "freedom of religion," should I vote to allow child sacrifices?

At some point, a line must be drawn.

Mrs. White said we should vote in favor of the prohibition. Lots of people drink today. Freedom of religion?

I think Adventist leaders, and, in fact, all leaders, should vote their conscience. It is the people's duty to vote into office a man of high standards and good morals. It is that man's duty to vote his conscience. Voting any other way, even on account of "representing one's constituency," amounts to "playing politics."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Couldn't agree with you more!

Nothing hyperbolic here with “Molech” - Abortion is the carbon copy modern day equivalent (‘gotta keep that godlike economy happy’) and it is not done for religious reason yet still approvingly voted upon by most.



That’s a straw man argument. It does not alway have to be a “freedom of religion” issue. Just if religion is involved. Here it could simply be an issue of the mere, and popular “live and let live” tenet of the ‘freedom to do as one pleases when limited to detrimentally affecting oneself’. And since freedom of religion also involves ‘not adhering to any religion’ it is basically inherently present in issues that are addressed by religion, such as drinking alcohol.



And that’s how the liberty of the public’s conscience will be violated!

It is quite telling that people running for office rarely are forthcoming about either their religion or religious views. Clearly, where the Separation of Church and State is to exist, this is not to be the basis for them holding representative public office.

In my view, an “Adventist leader” cease to enforcedly be “Adventist” when they assume public office. They are to do what their constituents want.



So are you implying that this makes it that , e.g., a person who practices homosexuality or believes in abortion should not be voted into office. How much more for the evil that is Capitalism, which virtually everyone thinks is Godly and Biblical. Seems far from the accepted reality to me. You need at best a truly Christian Nation (which America is not and far from) for this “high standards and good morals” criteria to be the case.



How is that “playing politics”??... That is (democratic) politics. The people did not elect a monarch. I pertinently personally recall the increasingly unpopular George W. Bush era. The people elected someone who will faithfully represent. This monarchial notion in democracies is an aberration of democracy. (Personally I think that, especially now in this computer and internet age, direct representation should be the norm, indeed as it will defaultly be fully available in the NJK, with the option of being “represented” being an “opt-in” choice.

Actually, I believe causing one's children to pass through the fire of Molech is more akin to our modern sports. We make our children go through the fiery emotions and hormones of the ball field (modern Baal worship), and many bear the scars for life. Some die.


Is there any portion of what I stated that you disagree with? What is "straw man" about it? Are you saying I'm made of straw? Do you not believe that many people drink today, or that Mrs. White told us to vote against it? Do you not appreciate the rhetorical question? It was not an argument. It was a thought-provoker.

What about the Catholics who use wine in their holy sacraments? Would this not be permissible under "freedom of religion?"


More often than not, liberty of the public's conscience is violated by men who are willing to be bought and sold, who will vote as a block along party lines, without regard to personal conscience. If they voted incorrectly on an issue, but had voted honestly according to their conscience, God would wink at their ignorance. When they do not vote according to their conscience is when God holds them liable.

Remember, leaders are not first and foremost accountable to the people--they are accountable to God.


The constituents may not want what is best. It is the leader's duty to serve them by doing what is right and best for them, not necessarily what they merely want or crave. Again, leaders are accountable to God and beholden to Him. He it is who should receive the credit for their positions. He establishes rulers, and takes them down.



Immoral people should not be voted into office. The Bible instructs the wise in saying: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."



Your "NJK" is a pet project of yours. It can never hope to succeed. It is unrealistic this side of heaven to have any form of functional utopia. We should be expending our best energies in the salvation of our neighbors. And we have little time to lose. The latter rain is soon to fall broadly everywhere. The early rain is already falling in places.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Molech practice was in hope that Molech would not require the child as a sacrifice, and thus his will was being tested here. With Abortions, which are ultimately either directly or indirectly economically related, the will of this “Molech” has been clearly expressed, a nd that is: ‘do murder your unborn child so that you can thrive economically, and thus also socially.



I did not see it as rhetorical or a thought provoker. It seemed to me as a spurious justification for why SDA’s should not only seek to run for office (which I have nothing against, per se), but pointedly for why, when in office, should be making their public decisions based upon their religious views, thus really hijack government and democracy as the Medival Church did.

-And Why would I be saying that you are made of straw, when I was clearly speaking about your argument?? That false equivalency is itself a “straw man” argument.



Depends... If there were enough Catholics in government to approve it and also disregard any opposing will of their constituents.



Political corruption is just another extreme, and not at all a justification for ‘Religious decision making in a civil office/government.’... So that too is a “straw man” argument.



As I Spiritually/Biblically see it, the non-“Israel”, secular offices filled by men in any of today’s world governments is not intrinsic authority of God, as it was the case in Ancient Israel. These rulers are just under the general, earth oversighting rule of God.



Only in God’s Israel which no country on earth actually is despite mere verbal professions. (e.g, the USA). Before a person in office can claim to be doing God’s will, they first need to know and understand God’s will. Those who will be enforcing anti-Sabbatical measures will all believe to be doing God’s mandated will in their public functions.



In a truly democratic secular society, the carrying will of the constituency is always right! Case in point, George W. Bush was effectively running a private show, when for a large part of his presidency, particularly in his second term he had dismal approval rating of in the 20's% & 30's%. Take about having a monarch! Even in God’s Theocratic Israel, the persisted will of the people, when no irreparable harm would result in the GC, was allowed to rule and overrule God’s Laws and will.



If that is what the constituents in a society wants then it should. In fact, as the SOP indicates, Sunday Laws will not be able to pass unless the people expressedly want it so. So even if a “moral” Catholic politician takes office, (as phobically feared by SDA Conspiracists) he will not be able to sustainedly have Sunday Laws passed (i.e., against the actual will of their constituents).

The Bible only speaks to God’s National Israel and not to Secular countries or governments that moreover pass many laws that complete make void the laws of God. This mixing of God’s Law with Secular/Humanistic Laws is, prophetically, “Babylonian” thinking. The same thing occurred in the Medieval Rule of the Church and with terrible results (cf. Dan 7:25). If Truth is not accepted by the masses, it is not by imposing it while in office that it should be.




That’s just your assumption. You really can only wish it does not have a deeply rooted Biblical basis. Indeed you need to get up to speed on the basic and advancing Spiritual, Biblical, Prophetic and Temporal Facts. And if (SDA) Christians cannot freely live according to this Biblical standard, as the Apostolic Church did under the (lesser) Early Rain anointing, how and why should this generation of believers be honored for living in opposition to it.



Succinctly said, this all reflects deficient Theology and Biblical Understanding. My suggestion is: read my Project-related blog posts to detailedly find out why; -indeed, only if you want to. Under the current pervasive Capitalistic methods entrenched in the Church and for conducting the work of god, there not only will not be any Latter Rain to bless this, but nothing, as “Triumphantly” expected will be accomplished.