When I say God is fact-based I’m talking about the ability of human physiology to perceive God — who is not dogma; not a religion; not a scripture; not an old, white-bearded man in white robes — at all times when it has been sufficiently cultured to do so. And I’m talking about a state with specific physiological correlates. It’s going to be awhile before I can write an essay explaining this in detail. In the meantime, look in my Blogroll for TruthAboutTM.com, which is maintained by Dr. David Orme-Johnson, the foremost researcher alive on the technology and research in this field.

What you are going to find is that the answers are based in both experience AND theory — looking within and without — but both very fact-based. Since I am obviously directing you to a site about the Transcendental Meditation technique, which I have practiced for over 35 years, I will add that this is why doing this technique does not require any faith or belief and therefore is NOT a religion and does not conflict with any religion. Dr. Orme-Johnson has letters from practictioners of various religions at his site that explain this more.

I always appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Best regards,

Cynthia

I’ve no argument that your assertion is fact-based. But it is a religious proposition, in contrast to one of physics, math or history, because it has to do with what mankind does about deity. Our disagreement at this point is semantic, but it defines the terrain of discussion.

I agree that religion is not God; religion is what one does about God. Theology is the study of that being that is God. This distinction is without a difference if God doesn’t disclose himself beyond human agency.

Though I am a fan of religion, I have every confidence that my religion errs at some point. A bit of self-distrust is a Good Thing in any context, particularly, religion. The 2nd commandment forbids idol making, which I think we do by conflating our opinion of deity with the God that Is.

You buttressed your assertion with citations of psychological states that are measured in various ways. I endorse this practice. I think the only way humans avoid breaking that 2nd commandment is to look outside ourselves, to science or scripture, and seek confirmation/refutation of our opinions about deity.

Cordially,

steve

My statement that “Marriage is about enlightenment and God consciousness” is fact-based. It has nothing to do with any religion. When I use the terms “enlightenment” and “God consciousness,” in both cases I mean a physiological state that can be measured in various ways and which has correlated emotional and psychological experiences.

I am not a fan of religion or dogma. Religion and dogma are not God. However, when people conflate their religion or dogma with God, I always make the effort to see and honor their spiritual aspirations and spiritual development.

Cynthia

Conversely, religious freedom means you can’t edit the commandments of my church that you don’t like. If my church starts sanctioning gay marriages, I think it’s essential character would change into something other than what it is now. You have to give people the right to their convictions and consciences.

You made an overtly religious assertion: “Marriage is about enlightenment and God consciousness.” You’ve every right to that opinion. I do not happen to agree, but you don’t have to satisfy me, but the deity to which your assertion refers.

I had hoped that civil unions would suffice. The missing component must be religious. I think that’s the rub. You need a gay-marriage-sponsoring religion. Starting a religion to meet market demand isn’t the business of government activism. There are things we can change, and there are things we accommodate ourselves to. I don’t think either of us will change deity.

Point three is compelling. Points one and two, not so much.
If a person believes in spiritual marriage, that marriage is sacred, as you apparently do, then giving gov’t any power over marriage degrades it.

People act as if the purpose of “no law respecting religion” is to protect gov’t from those eeevil churchgoers. The real purpose is, and always was, to protect religion from the gov’t, to keep the sacred out of bureaucratic purview.

If you believe in sacred marriage, then it’s a matter between you, your partner, and your God, and it shouldn’t matter one whit what the county clerk has to say.

Point three is still compelling though. Render unto Caesar, et cetera.

First, a purely technical detail: the link back to Protein Wisdom has apparently been set up with a uri instead of url, which Firefox 3 isn’t happy with.

Second, what Dan says.

Now. Marriage as it stands is not a right. It’s licensed. The state has taken for itself the power to dictate who can hitch with whom, and while it rarely enforces that power, politicians have jumped on gay marriage to score cheap points with people (in Jersey at least) who have no connection to the issue but feel important when asked about it.
Solution? End licensing requirements. Get the state out of your bedroom and into your wallet where it belongs.