Hugh Nations believes that
"religious" vows should not be enforceable
by government. But that, in effect, means that the vows will be
enforced by civil law --but stripped of their core meaning.
Therefore people married and divorced under civil law have their cases
disposed of according to their expectations, values, and beliefs,
people married under religious law and divorced (perhaps unwillingly)
under civil law, have their cases disposed of by a legal system
hostile to their religion, their values, and their vows.
It may be well to say that religious authorities *should* handle the
case, but in point of fact they do not have civil authority to do so.
So if "religious" marriages are *forced* into civil court then the
government is interfering with the practice of that religion.
Consequently there are two classes of citizens: those whom the
government supports in their beliefs, and those whom the government
interferes with in their beliefs.
Note also, the hubris implicit in calling some beliefs "religious" for
the purpose of invalidating them--as though to say "merely religious."
One can make an excellent argument, which I will not rehearse here,
that "secular humanism," atheism, nihilism, are religious beliefs in
themselves. One believes, fervently, for instance, that there is no
God, and life ends at the grave.
So the state now supports the religion of nihilsm and undermines the
religion of Christianity upon which it was founded.
The real fact that no one has found a legal way to bind a religious
marriage that--should it become necessary to disolve it--would be
disolved according to the terms specified at its inception is a clear
demonstration that we have fallen into a state religion that now holds
itself superior to God.
Therefore its authority on these points is illegitimate. Citizens have
the duty to resist it and bring it under submission.
Email the Fathers'
Become a Signatory to the FATHERS' MANIFESTOsm