The Church State

You do not live in a secular state. People in the western world that believe they are living a secular state are kidding themselves, and only really see this as fact in comparison to Iran.

The truth is, the way the government is run, "secular" does not mean not connected to religion, rather it means the lowest common denominator of religion.

The state is run as a majority-rules religion. Take, for instance, the issue of religion. In the gay marriage debate, I proposed that a terminology change (ex. "civil union") would appease the churches of the nation as well as homosexuals. This is false.

To see why the idea would not work, one has to ask what a marriage is. A marriage is basically just an announcement to the government that the couple is indeed fucking. The idea of civil unions merely relabels the issue of "who is allowed to hump?". Previous to 1967, gays were not allowed to even hump. Since 1967, they have been allowed yet making it known in the form of marriage was not allowed.

So, who is allowed to hump? This question brings in a lot of factors: age, gender, number, and commitment. The government and churches both deal in such questions very seriously. In this it is foolish to say religion has no place in the state, and that the state does not reflect aspects of the church.

I'm not a advocate of the "slippery slope" argument that gay marriage leads to polygamy and pedophilia. Nor am I against gay marriage at all. I have no problem with it.

But it is interesting to see where we draw the line : why are gays viewed as a opressed minority while polygamists are viewed as breaking society and pedophiles as disgusting criminals? It is not because history has held these views as big truths. Our opinions are changing, as are our laws.

Mohammed would not be allowed to marry Aisha today, nor would he be allowed as many wives as he had. Back in the day everyone around him was probably cool with that. Hell, there are countries that are probably still cool with that.

So for all practical purposes the government is making rules as to who is allowed to screw. Churches will bitch and complain, as they should, as they are only criticizing the big church that runs the country.

If we were to make a state more secular, it would not be by changing terminologies, but taking a more hands-off approach. Why is the state involved with marriage at all? Marriage did not start as a state run institution. Why didn't we leave the meaningless marriage hullabuloo to the churches? Your tax-dollars at work.

The True Secular State

  1. Scrap Marriage as far as the government is concerned
    Marriage is nothing more than contract about fucking. Why should the government care about what a bunch of consenting adults are doing? Let the churches marry whoever they want.

  2. Bring in a binding contract in cases of procreation
    If a couple has a kid, they are the equivalent of married by default. Not in the sense that they owe each other anything, but that they both owe equal parts to the kid they just pumped out. Obligations of one of the two may be renounced or accepted with signatures by both partners.

  3. Enforce laws about fucking that are already in place
    Laws against rape, exploitation, etc, will still make bogus marriages illegal. Nobody will be allowed to marry their dog due to other laws not directly related to marriage.

And you're done. Marriage becomes a census question we are barely concerned with. Things that do matter, like who the hell is going to pay for a child's wellbeing, is taken care automatically.

All the churches in the nation from that point on, will not only be practically silent but mostly unconcerned with matters of government. They will keep bickering with each other of what is immoral, as they should.

That would be a secular state.

Comments...

Leo - Grammar nazi

"Things that do matter (...) is taken care automatically"

Sh ould be "are taken care of automatically" if I didn't completely misread it.

"They will keep bickering with each other of what is immoral"

Should be "over what is immoral".

Leo - Comprehension Nazi

In one sentence or less, what was the central point of this article? Seriously, I'm not sure what you're saying.

1. Marriage isn't about fucking at all as far as the government is concerned. Marriage is about a change in tax status. It's only called marriage for historical reasons. If you abolish it, you still have the tax issue to deal with, so really all you're doing is renaming it. Might not be a bad idea to avoid confusion, but the problem with this is if you relax the laws around marriage, it opens the system up to abuse. If polygamy is allowed, and gay marriage is allowed, then how about I marry all my friends and enjoy the tax break?

2. How is this different from what we have now? Ever heard of child support?

3. Same as 2, what's your point here?

leo - The Final Solution

To make sure gay marriages are legit, we should just have them do a quickie in front of the bureaucrat that completes the civil union. Anyone willing to get buggered is probably actually gay, and not just in it for the tax break.

Kinda like the honour system.. The Anal System.

sheldong - marriage and tax

>> "If you abolish it, you still have the tax issue to deal with, so really all you're doing is renaming it."

What "tax issue" ? If there exists benefits to a couple that are childless, they should be destroyed.

It may make things easier to see who gets what when you die, but I don't see the purpose in getting married to fill inbetween the lines of your poorly written will.

As for the final solution, I don't need proof that the married couple is actually screwing, because I don't care if they're married or not. Most marriages are marriages of convenience anyways.

I'll correct the spelling issues sooner or later :D

leo - taxation sensation

>> What "tax issue" ? If there exists benefits to a couple that are childless, they should be destroyed.

Good question. I don't know if there are any tax benefits to being married. There are certainly changes in the way you are taxed (they do ask about spouses and such on the tax returns). Whether these tax changes are beneficial or detrimental to married couples, I don't know, but they probably exist for a reason. Without knowing this reason, it is hard to argue that they be abolished.

>> Most marriages are marriages of convenience anyways.

And most statistics are made up on the spot. ;)

Brian - tax smax

taxation differences for couples should most definately exist in my opinion. I don't know many roomates that combine their earnings into one pot. The idea is that married couples become in some respects combined into one person. While still remaining individuals... if that makes sense at all. So if joe and jane are each make 50k a year. Together they're making 100k... Should they be taxed as though they are making independant incomes or as a lump sum. Because taxation on a 100k is going to be significantly more than on both the individual sums. However since they are in effect still two people, they still have the needs of two people they shouldn't necessarily be taxed as though they were one person.

I really don't think its as cut and dry as you make it seem. The idea of marriage is very ancient and is not strictly related to the church (although I think certain people might take issue). True our idea of marraige has changed alot from 3000 years ago but whatever. I still think it has its place. I think it cements in the friends of the couples minds the fact that they have a commitment to each other and that those friends can then keep the couple from screwing things up. Especially when kids are involved.

I don't think you can reduce child rearing to simply who pays for what. I've met some really screwed up kids and when I meet the parents I can sure see why. So I think its a given that the quality of care given to children being raised is important in how they turn out. When it is reduced to who pays for what, where is the commitment to doing a good job? Throwing money at things does not bring about good results without input into the situation. As can be seen with our gov'ts in the past.

But whatever... In true west coast fashion, I really couldn't care less.

sheldong - agreed

I would agree that married couples could be taxed differently.

But if anything, they should be taxed more. Should a disproportionate amount of tax burden rest on young single people?

Child rearing in practice should not be reduced to who pays the bills, sure. But as far as the government should be concerned, it comes down to dollars and cents. Its job is to make sure that the kid is paid for in some respects, even if the people in question don't have and don't want anything to do with the kid.

In this sense I'm not advocating a system that raises kids for you if you throw money at it, I'm advocating a system that includes a by-default payment system if the shit does indeed hit the fan.

I like your idea about marriage being about the couple's friends and etc. This is a good point, but it doesn't mean the government has to be involved in any of that. Why couldn't the state just ignore weddings?

Leo - .

>> I would agree that married couples could be taxed differently.

>>Wh y couldn't the state just ignore weddings?

And now, ladies and gentlemen, with the flick of my wand, you will see that I can tax couples differently, without knowing they are a couple in the first place..

Merriman - Tax Issues?

I'm a little bit confused about what you guys are saying? If you're saying that couples already get taxed as a single entity, then you're confused - that's how they do it in the US, but not in Canada. If you're saying that couples SHOULD get taxed as a single entity, then I say - why bother?

You only tally the two partners' earnings together to determine if they qualify for GST or child-dependent benefits. Neither of those are worth a whole hell of a lot. And for a quick comparison: I myself made too much money last year to qualify for GST rebate cheques. If anything these rules disadvatage couples.

Other tax benefits are a non-issue. If your spouse is unemployed you get $7,000 credit that is refundable at base percentage (somewhere in the range of 21.55%). This nets you a "whopping" $1,505.80 return. If your spouse is employed but makes low income (less than $7,000), then you get your 21.55% rebate on the difference.

So, essentially you're arguing over benefits worth $2,000 or less? Big effing deal. Nothing worth arguing over here, people, move along.



Post a Comment

Your Name:
Your Comment: (required)


Previous Episodes...

105. A Reasonable Doubt

Nothing is wrong with Thomas. (24 Comments)

104. Critique of Christianity

Does it live up to its marketing? (19 Comments)

103. Church Crawl Conclusions

Churches compared. (3 Comments)

102. Church Crawl - Part 8: Christian Science

God can heal your cancer. If he wants. (0 Comments)

101. Church Crawl - Part 7: The Christadelphians

Taking the Bible very seriously. (2 Comments)

100. Church Crawl - Part 6: The Quakers

Not just about oatmeal. (3 Comments)

99. Don't Marry

Please just get a pet. (12 Comments)

98. The Church State

The government may be the most popular church. (9 Comments)

97. Gun Registry Retardation

License to burn money. (9 Comments)

96. War and Pretend Peace

Dogs playing poker with Chamberlain. (7 Comments)

95. The Rules of Sex

Extremely easy to follow instructions. (5 Comments)

94. Church Crawl - Part 5: The United Church

Everybody likes projectors! (15 Comments)

93. Kyoto Krap and Peak Oil Poppycock

Change is coming, but it won't be doomsday. (20 Comments)

92. How to Communicate

Or how not to communicate. (5 Comments)

91. Don't Hate Microsoft

In defense of Windows. (4 Comments)

90. Church Crawl - Part 4: The Presbyterian Church

Church in the House of Commons. (3 Comments)

89. The Failures of Instant Messaging

When we could do without IM. (20 Comments)

88. Wonderful Wikipedia

All hail our wiki god. (12 Comments)

87. Church Crawl - Part 3: The Lutheran Church

Intense. (2 Comments)

86. Church Crawl - Part 2: The Anglican Church

Like the Catholics, but not. (17 Comments)

85. Church Crawl - Part 1: Seventh Day Adventist

Let's go to church on a Saturday! (6 Comments)

84. Mundane Multiculturalism

It will be the end of us. (7 Comments)

83. Firefox's Secret Feature

Well, not so secret. But very cool, use it already. (3 Comments)

82. Stuporheroes

Let's face it. Superman sucks. (13 Comments)

81. The Culture Club!

Back in town. (4 Comments)

80. The Case for the Conservatives

End of the Reds, for the time being? (32 Comments)

79. Much Ado About IT

I like my red stapler. (15 Comments)

78. I think, therefore I am an idiot

How to offend people and make enemies. (11 Comments)

77. The End of the Line

Evolution stops here. (6 Comments)

76. The Insanity Plea

Just who is sane, anyways? (12 Comments)

75. Life Crash

The world exploded. (7 Comments)

74. How HP ruined my day

Hewlett can go screw himself. (7 Comments)

73. The Dumbest Thing I've done ...this week

Shame! Shame! (1 Comments)

72. The Best Sci-Fi Shows of All Time

There is such a thing as a bad sci-fi show, unfortunately. (8 Comments)

71. Drinking for the Less Fortunate

Boozing for a good cause! (10 Comments)

70. Outsourcing

Why you shouldn't worry so much. (15 Comments)

69. Handkerchiefs

Your nose's best friend. (4 Comments)

68. The Quality of Information

Where the internet fails us. (11 Comments)

67. anonymous would-be-parent asks "Guru, where do babies come from?"

The jury is still out. (17 Comments)

66. The Osama Factory

Do we manufacture nutbars? (12 Comments)

65. The Greatest Video Games of All Time

Well, at least to date. (3 Comments)

64. Life in the Asylum

The epic journey back to prison. (6 Comments)

63. Our Beloved Belinda and Racial Profiling

Politics and allegations of racism. (5 Comments)

62. Rights and Freedoms

Do they exist? (18 Comments)

61. Relationships

Don't have to be difficult. (17 Comments)

60. PowerPoint Evangelism and Written Evaluations

The evils of presentations. (11 Comments)

59. Greatest Canadians

How awesome are Canucks? (9 Comments)

58. What to do with all these 486's?

The most useless computers on earth. (4 Comments)

57. anonymous asks "guru, if you could pick, which one would you take: doris day, grace kelly, marilyn monroe?"

Damn, tough question. (0 Comments)

56. anonymous girl asks "Guru, why do boys smell the way they do?"

The evolution of funk. (35 Comments)

55. anonymous german asks "ever wore anything other than a white shirt?"

Is it a religious thing? (1 Comments)

54. Nifty File Browsing

I like pie. (25 Comments)

53. Ann Coulter is not Right Wing

She's simply retarded. (6 Comments)

52. John Mayer is a knob

Kick him in the junk. (21 Comments)

51. Retirement is for quitters

Why a sweater-vest may be bad for your health. (11 Comments)

50. Cleansing

Getting rid of those toxins. (5 Comments)

49. Why your 'Life sucks'

Quit being so grouchy. (13 Comments)

48. Ultimate Weight Loss Solution!

Crazy about weight? Simple one step program. (29 Comments)

47. Vegetables and Euthanasia

A bullet for Terry. (17 Comments)

46. The Problem with Icons

Modern hieroglyphs for morons. (3 Comments)

45. Tabs are awesome

Whatever would we do without the tab key? (10 Comments)

44. The Abortion Circus

Where all the clowns are. (43 Comments)

43. The Most Painful Experience in my Life

A tragic tale. (3 Comments)

42. Marijuana

What to do, what to do. (11 Comments)

41. Missile Defense

Missles for MADness. (1 Comments)

40. Ranting

Rant! Rant rant rant! (1 Comments)

39. Terry Fox and the Queen

If only one could be on a coin, which would it be? (1 Comments)

38. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Martin!

Fun with image editors. (0 Comments)

37. Feminism

The good, the bad, and the ugly. (3 Comments)

36. Finding the right person

A mirror works well. (0 Comments)

35. Separatism

How annoying can the French and British be? (1 Comments)

34. Religion

Would our insanity surface elsewhere? (5 Comments)

33. The Science of Urinals

The formulae of etiquette. (0 Comments)

32. The Last Bastion of Sanity

This article is more rant than rationality. It is the result of inebriation. (1 Comments)

31. The Desktop is stupid.

A dying metaphor needs to be put out of its misery. (0 Comments)

30. Stupid Language

Blah, Blah, Blah. Gender neutral is bullshit! (0 Comments)

29. Karate Championship

Don't fuck with this! (0 Comments)

28. The Mind

We're all nuts. (1 Comments)

27. The Dvorak Keyboard and the Inconvenience of Diversity

The drag of diversity. (3 Comments)

26. Another Casual Update

Likely written in underwear. (1 Comments)

25. Time Revisited

More about clocks. (3 Comments)

24. Marriage is Gay!

Very gay. (3 Comments)

23. Pyjamas and Housecoats

The definition of awesomeness. (0 Comments)

22. Ego

Your own personal Jesus. (1 Comments)

21. The 24 Hour Clock

Why the world should switch. (3 Comments)

20. Maturity

Do people age well? (0 Comments)

19. The Ethernet Battle

Man versus technology. (0 Comments)

18. Latex, Savior of Humanity.

In honour of rubbers. (0 Comments)

17. Tolerance and Political Correctness

Tolerance is bullshit. (1 Comments)

16. iVomit

The sickness of the Apple brand. (1 Comments)

15. Homophobia

Gays are cool. (0 Comments)

14. Randomness Revisited

Still isn't real. (2 Comments)

13. Political Quiz

The exercize in stupidity. (1 Comments)

12. Relativity

The evils of celebrity worship. (1 Comments)

11. Back in the Salmon Again

Eggnog! (0 Comments)

10. The Casual Update

Not incredibly important. (2 Comments)

9. Edumacated

The ill-effects of schooling. (17 Comments)

8. Randomness

Isn't real. Really. (1 Comments)

7. Centibots Revisited

Little robots to rule the earth! (9 Comments)

6. Mars

Would we go insane trying? (0 Comments)

5. Psychic

The future is boring. (1 Comments)

4. I, Random

Random rantings. (1 Comments)

3. How's it going?

Not so good. (21 Comments)

2. Nanobots

Nanobots are cool. But where is the inbetween? (1 Comments)

1. Page up.

The madness begins... (4 Comments)