What The Bible Really Says About God

Is God all-seeing, everywhere and all at once all-being, all-capable, and infallible?

The religious answer is yes. But how do we know that? By reading the Bible? And can we trust what the Bible says, given that the Bible has some major contradictions in it?

Here are just two of the Bible's contradictions:

In Genesis 1:26 and other places, God is many because he says "us" and "our"; but in Exodus 3:6 and other places, God is one because he says "I".

In Genesis 1, God creates beasts and then man and woman. In Genesis 2, God places man in Eden and then creates the beasts and then creates woman from one of man's ribs - beasts after man instead of before him.

I wonder if someone has already published a longer list?

So the Bible has some contradictions in it.  Do the contradictions, and also the presence of several distinct writing styles, mean that people wrote the Bible as we know it?  If God really did give us the Bible as it is, and if God is infallible, then God must have meant to include the contradictions for some reason. Otherwise he is either fallible or he did not give us the Bible as it is.

Regarding the contradictions I have two broad views: if they are intentional, the Bible either intends to confuse man's mind and therefore control him with irrationality, or they are intended to help us grasp something deep, or it's a sort of time-lock so that the Bible can guide men's actions until such a time when they are wise enough to understand why they should live a certain way and then discard the Bible because of its flaws. Or, if the contradictions are not intentional, they are evidence that God is fallible (if he wrote it), or that the entire thing was written by men and God never existed at all, or that God exists and doesn't care that we are messing things up.

Since I can't outwardly observe God and ask him what is the truth, all I can do is review Exhibit A and draw my own conclusions...

Exhibit A: The Bible

The Bible offers us three distinct kinds of information about God:  what God says, what God does, and what people believe about God. Also, what God says can be divided into two sub-categories: waking stories and dreaming stories.

Going back to the contradictions, in Exodus 3:6, God tells Moses: I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. He then continues speaking and uses the word "I" to refer to himself. So this implies God is one. But in Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Also in Genesis 3:5 the serpent tells Eve to eat the fruit so she can "be as gods" - who later, in Genesis 3:22 say, "behold the man is become as one of us". And in Genesis 11:7, God says "let us go down and confound [man's] language". So this implies God is many. These are supposedly direct quotations from God. It's plausible that anything God told man was passed down through generations as a great story. But who was there to hear God say "let us make man in our image", or to know anything about creation for that matter? 

In Genesis 25:23, God answer's Rebekah questions about her unborn children, but does not use any noun or pronoun for himself, so it does not imply either God is one or God is many. It cannot be assumed either way from such verses.

In Genesis 3:9 God is walking in the Garden of Eden and calls to Adam "where are you?". If he is all-knowing, he would already know where Adam is and he would already know that it was the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the fruit and that it was Eve who then gave the fruit to Adam. But God asks anyway. Why? Did the honest answer change the consequence? We cannot know. When in Genesis 2:27 God told man not to eat the fruit, if that was important then God could have made two separate gardens or he could have put the guardian angel next to the tree from the start instead of letting man eat the fruit then kicking man out and then putting the guardian angel at the entrance to the garden to keep man from coming back... after it's already too late because man already ate the fruit.  

In Genesis 3:22-23, God kicks man out of the Garden of Eden so he won't eat from the tree of life and become immortal. And in Genesis 6:3, God says that man is mortal and his life is limited to 120 years. Yet in Genesis 9:5 Adam dies at 930 years, in Genesis 9:29 Noah dies at 950 years old, in Genesis 11:32 Terah dies at 205 years old, in Genesis 25:7 Abraham dies at 175 years old. In Deuteronomy 34:7, Moses dies at 120 years old - in the last book of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. The only person born after Moses who lived beyond 120 is Jehoiada the priest, who dies at 130 years old in 2 Chronicles  24:15, but this is a book not part of the Torah. So are all the lifespans greater than 120 from Adam to Moses a contradiction of God's decree? Or are they evidence that through a deliberate process the maximum human lifespan was being reduced to 120 years?  And by deliberate I mean, The longest-living person in modern history was Jeanne Calment, a French woman who was born in 1875 and died 122 years old, but after her the second longest-living person was Sarah Knauss, an American woman who was born in 1880 and lived to be 119 years old. Do we chalk up Jehoiada and Jeanne Calment as outliers to God's general rule? Why did it take 27 generations (if you believe the Bible story) for man's maximum lifespan to be reduced to 120 years? If God is the one who imposed the lifespan limit in some way does this mean his method has limits? Or is God did not impose the limit himself and was merely remarking on it how did God know what would happen to man's lifespan in the future? Or has man's maximum lifespan always been 120 years and the ages in the Bible are incorrect? It wouldn't be the last time that someone "fudged" the data to support a desired conclusion.

In Genesis 18:21, God says that he will go to Sodom to see how bad things really are. Needing to go there means that God has a limited perception that must be focused. Therefore his knowledge is limited.

In Genesis 6:11-17, God says the earth is corrupt and full of violence and for that he will destroy everything, and he instructs Noah to make an ark so that he can escape the destruction. Causing a world-ending flood is very powerful - but it's not all-powerful. God has tools and methods and although they are very powerful, they have limits and he has to work within them.  If God is all-powerful, could he not have simply caused all the violent men and beasts to die? Could he not have created a world without the violence he hates? He obviously didn't get it right on the first try. And does he even have more than one try? There are plenty of references in the Bible to God knowing or predicting the future, but none of him going back into the past to change anything. I also have some ability to predict the future. My children will grow (I know this because I studied biology) and they will graduate high school (I know this because I intend to be a good parent) and they are going to face challenges (I know this because I have experienced life) and they are going to overcome them and fall in love and have children (I know this because I understand human nature and statistics). So it makes sense that, if God knows the nature of man, he can predict many things. And since there is rarely a time limit on his predictions, they all eventually come true because they are all consequences of man's nature. 

In Exodus 12:7, God tells Moses to tell all his people to put lamb's blood on their doorposts so that later in Exodus 12:23, when God moves to kill all the Egyptian first born, he will recognize the houses of Israel by the blood on the door posts and skip or "pass over" them. Does this show that God is not all-knowing? If he were all-seeing or all-knowing he would know which houses belong to his people. 

If God is not all-seeing and all-knowing, then God cannot be all-powerful. In the Exodus example, an all-powerful God would be able to strike down Egyptian first-borns without needing his people to mark their own houses for him first. Since he needed the marks, he has limits. Having limits means he is not all-powerful - not to the extreme that religious people make him out to be. The story certainly shows that he cannot be everywhere at once throughout all time because if he could then he would already know which house is which because he would know who lives there and where they came from. 

There are stories in the Bible of God having much knowledge and power, but not of being all-seeing, all-knowing or all-powerful. There are verses in the Bible that say he is these things - but these verses are found later, many in Psalms and in the New Testament, and all the ones that I have reviewed have been men speaking their opinion about God. I can see how, given the things God did do, he may have appeared to man to be very powerful, and given man's propensity to make connections and exaggerate, it was only natural for man to declare that God is all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful... but that in essence is a fact about man, not about God. It is man who needed God to be all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. 

So if God is not all-seeing, everywhere and all at once all-being, all-capable or all-powerful, and infallible, WHAT IS HE? 

Genesis tells us that God is someone who is part of a group. God has identity but wants to keep it secret: [3:14]. There may be one God, but he is not alone - in the same way that there is just one me, but I am not alone. God is someone who created humanity to be like his group [Genesis 1:26]. God is someone who has children [Genesis 6:2] who are sexually compatible with humans [Genesis 6:4]. God is someone who wants mankind to grow and to control his environment [Genesis 1:28]. God is someone who makes mistakes [Genesis 2:17 and 3:24]. God is someone who repeatedly makes covenants with man [Genesis 9:11 and others]. God prefers meat over fruit or vegetables [Genesis 4:4-5]. God asks rhetorical questions [Genesis 4:9]. God wants man to be mortal [Genesis 3:22 and 6:3]. God wanted man to be conquerable [Genesis 11:6-7] but changed his mind - since he didn't stop us from building nuclear weapons or space stations. God walks with humans - Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Moses. God changes his mind [Genesis 8:21 and Genesis 18:26-32]. God uses tools to do his work [Genesis 19:24]. God uses reason [Genesis 11:6-7]. 

God seems very much like us, which makes sense, since either he created us to be like him [Genesis 1:26] or we invented him and because God is our invention he naturally has a very human twist even when we try to make him something more. 

One way God could be present everywhere at once, including the past, present, and future, is if he exists outside our existence. Not necessarily another dimension or another universe, but just outside of our existence. Ideas about our universe being an artificial reality such as portrayed in "The Thirteenth Floor" or "The Matrix" concretely show how a God outside our reality would be able to see everything and be everywhere at once. Interestingly enough, in those two stories the men (or machines) running the simulations still have a limited capacity to see and to do things within the simulation although, compared to the men living inside the simulation their power is still very great. With enough computing power, the scientists in "The Thirteenth Floor" could have paused the simulation at any moment, rewound it to some past state, and replay it from the past and interfere and change things. To see how the future unfolds they could simply let the simulation run. If they are not satisfied they can then return it to a past state, warn people about the future, or make changes to alter the future. 

We can never have any evidence that God exists outside of existence, because if it were true then by definition the evidence wouldn't exist here. God could even appear himself and tell us all about it and we still wouldn't have any evidence - because we would be seeing and hearing him in this existence. Any evidence God brings into existence to show us that he is also outside of it will necessarily become part of our existence and therefore fail as proof that there is something beyond. We may choose to believe but we can never have proof.  Also, if God exists outside of our existence there are absolutely no consequences for us. Nothing changes - that we know of. Life continues as it has been, as he has allowed it to be. We make choices as we have been. The meaning and purpose of our life does not change. If God wants to do something, he only has to appear and say it. I think if he appears with a show of force most people would be afraid enough or inspired enough to obey immediately. 

Whether God is limited or unlimited, existing only in this world or also outside of it, we have our lives to live and our choices to make. 

I think most people want to have a good life whether God exists or not. And I know that there are people who, regardless of whether they believe in God or not, say the hell with it and they are going to have a lot of fun and do anything they want regardless of the consequences to them in this life or beyond it. They don't care what happens to them and they place their whims before any other cause. Are these people a problem? If they act irrationally but they hurt only themselves they should be free to do that. But if they act to hurt other people, we have each other for defense. 

Maybe the promise of fruitfulness in the covenant is fulfilled when we follow God's teachings. His commandments tell us about authority, government, society, the good merit of study, how we should work for ourselves and together, how we should relate to each other. 

Whether or not other people believe in God, my own actions will be consistent with my values. And whether or not I believe in God, something I do value is my life and my actions will be consistent with that. 

The weird stuff happens when people believe in God and they do evil. Does that mean God is a bad idea? I think given all the good people in the world who believe in God we cannot say that God is a bad idea. I think that people who believe in God and do evil should be judged for what they do, not for what they believe, the same as with any other idea such as capitalism, human rights, communism, fascism, environmentalism. Some ideas more than others may facilitate warped values that encourage evil action and this should be evidence for us that those ideas are not good for us. But it's not as simple as saying belief in God is good or bad. It's what you believe about God that can warp your values. Even if we could identify every person whose beliefs and values will lead to evil, we cannot convince them all of this. We just have to deal with it with it happens. 

I think the best way to deal with is to talk in terms of what they have done and our need to defend ourselves from them. Just be objective. 

In Numbers 35:15-28 God says we should have places for people who are accused to hang out until their guilt is determined, and that if they are guilty they should be punished, and that if they don't want the protection of the sanctuary they are on their own. In Numbers 35:30-32 God says we should not testify falsely and we should not take any pleasure in punishments - do what you have to, get it over with, and move on.

The Bible says that God values human rights, including our right to life and liberty and property, and that he advocates self-defense and punishment (which he does not reserve) in order to enforce those rights. So go and live a great life and do great things and respect other people's human rights. You have permission!

Burkas in France

Last year France passed a law that bans the public wearing of full head & body coverings. The law provided for 6 months of announcements of the new law before it takes effect (next month).

Approximately 80% of French citizens support the law.

Amnesty International claims it violates the right to freedom of religion of Muslims in France.

Compared with places like Saudi Arabia, which doesn't even allow Jews to enter the country (actually they backtracked on this after some pressure from the USA but they still don't allow anyone with an Israeli stamp on their passport), and has no tolerance AT ALL for any public appearance or practice that is not Muslim, France is still very, very free.

The burka is just a style of dress, and there are dress codes in every place in the world. I think French citizens have a right to say that in THEIR country they don't want to see people wearing burkas. Maybe it's painful for them because of everything that burkas are associated with. Maybe it's a first step in forcing Arab immigrants to assimilate to French culture instead of living in their own enclaves isolated from society.

And forcing assimilation is not a bad thing - if the immigrants want to live just as they did at home, well, then they should go back home. There's a REASON they immigrated to France. Whatever that reason is (and let's assume it's not to execute a peaceful takeover by simply outpacing the French birthrate) it will be best leveraged by assimilating to the French culture.

And since French people don't wear burkas, the immigrants shouldn't be either - yet they do, and they're isolated, and they're teaching their kids to behave in ways that are contrary to French law, and it's caused a lot of friction with the rest of French society - hence the new law against burkas.

Arabs have countries where they can force all people to behave like Arabs and refuse to allow certain kinds of people to even visit... so they shouldn't complain that the French want people in France to behave like the French.

Amnesty International should respect that.

The biggest lie of modern history is that religion can be completely separate from state and politics.  Religion teaches politics!  Every religion teaches how to behave towards other people. Every religion is based on some ideas of what is best.  And all the religions that I've studied define what is a crime and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. And what do states do? States define crimes and prescribe some reactions to people who commit crimes. Many modern states have values that stem from the dominant religion of the people within the state. Some states acknowledge their values stem from religion, and other states pretend that their "secular" values stand apart from any religion.  Notice that in states that claim to allow freedom of religion, they still prosecute people whose religious practices happen to be a crime in the state. For example: animal sacrifices, honor killings, polygamy, sodomy, child molestation. How is that freedom of religion? It's not - it's tolerance of religion as long as its practice stays within the bounds of the state law.

In France, by the way, young Muslim men have caused quite a lot of trouble. It seems that their religion, as practiced by them, is not very compatible with French law. I remember stories I read a few years ago about young Muslim men in France raping girls who they thought didn't dress conservatively enough. Now, other men in France have raped too, and France has a law against this, and rapists who are caught get punishment. But it's interesting to note that only the young Muslim men actually cited their religion and conservative cultural practices as reasons to rape a girl.  This is what I mean when I say their religion is incompatible with French law.

And that's why it's a good thing that France is passing laws to force Arab immigrants to assimilate. By mixing into society more they are more likely to learn French values and trim their religious practices to the subset that is compatible with French law.

When in France, do as the French do.

I think it's strange that Amnesty International, a group devoted to the defense of freedom of religion and opinion, should choose to defend people adhering to a religion that, when fully adopted by a state, is the source of the most oppressive regimes in world history.

Honesty about Separation of Church and State

I believe that our government favors certain religions. It has values and ideas embedded in it that come from Christianity. Some of these values and ideas were in turn derived from Judaism and that, I believe, is the reason that Jews and Christians get along so well in the United States, along with Hindus and many others. I also believe that, while we claim that we tolerate all religions here, in reality we only tolerate compatible religions. There may be some of us who truly tolerate every religion even if it's to the detriment of our society as a whole, but I believe that most of us do draw a line, even if we aren't aware of it. I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the values and ideas of the United States. However, I also acknowledge that millions of Muslims do live here and the vast majority of them seem to do alright - and in my opinion they only way they are able to conform to American culture is by deviating from their religion.

I believe that to create a government that truly allows freedom of religion, we would have to remove from it some of our core values and beliefs because they are uniquely Jewish and Christian.  I believe that we wouldn't want to have such a government if we were able to attain it. I also believe that we are better off being honest with ourselves about what we do tolerate and announcing to the world that anyone who can conform is welcome, all others beware.

The religious values embedded in our government are exposed by our laws. Murder is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Theft is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Adultery is not allowed, and government prescribes a punishment. Buying alcohol on Sunday is not allowed in some states, and they prescribe punishments. At one time we even had a national prohibition on alcohol with prescribed punishments. These are distinctly religious rules and they favor the values of some people while discriminating against others.  The special and holy day of the week for Jews is Saturday. A Jew should be able to buy alcohol on Sunday, but this is not the case in Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, and more. In some places we have laws prohibiting other kinds of business on Sunday and we pretend that it's for a non-religious purpose. I believe that a comparison of our laws to Christian religious beliefs and practices would show a very strong correlation.  I believe the state of the union is not consistent with our claim to separation between church and state.

If our government truly allowed people of different religions to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, then it would have to allow for completely different sets of laws as well as for laws governing interactions between members of different religions. I think that in order to get this right, it needs an abstract treatment with as few distinctions as possible. I propose the following distinctions: crimes against a person of the same religion, crimes against a person of a different religion, crimes against society or against the environment, violent crimes in each of these categories, non-violent crimes in each of these categories, and victim-less crimes. When I say religion I also mean to include in the discussion people who are atheists or who otherwise wish to set themselves apart from people of any known religion.

When a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, should their religion and its institutions be solely responsible for administering punishment according to its own values and sense of justice? Do we all want that kind of autonomy for our own religion? Do we sincerely believe that each religion is a system of government and that they should all be allowed to function as designed in order to bring about some greater good?

If the religious punishment for said crime is murder, can we accept that?  After all, if a person doesn't want to be held accountable to those laws they could convert to another religion. What if the religion has a punishment for converting away from it?

Does geography matter? If a person from one religion commits a crime against another person of the same religion, but this happens in an area dominated by a second religion, should the authorities there apply their own laws? Or the laws of the religion of the criminal and victim? Can we trust people from one religion to apply laws from another religion? I think not, mostly because the legitimization of justice requires people to believe that the administrators are experts in the law. So should the authorities send the criminal to his own people to be tried? There may be several nearby communities of that religion, so how would the local authorities choose to which community they will send the criminal to be tried? Should the local authorities contact the closest religious community of the criminal? Is it possible that community will refuse to accept the criminal for trial? Should the local authorities then try the next possible religious community or should they then try the criminal by their own laws? Should they keep the criminal imprisoned until they find a suitable court?

If a person commits two or more crimes before being caught, and one of them is against another person of the same religion but another is against a person of a different religion, should they be processed in the order they occurred? Or should they be processed in the order of their seriousness? Do we compare the seriousness of the crime or the seriousness of the punishment? Is it possible this order might differ for different religions?

If a person commits a crime against a person of a different religion, which law applies? Should the criminal be tried according his or her own religion or according to the religion of the victim?  Allowing the religion of the victim to handle the crime could be a deterrent against people of a lax religion committing crimes with impunity against people of other religions. In such a system, ignorance of the law cannot ever be an excuse for a crime. People must know the laws of their own religion and, at a minimum, the laws of other religions that could have serious consequences, or else they must tread very carefully. Such a system might encourage a religion to develop very severe punishments in order to deter crimes against its members. Also, it is possible that some religions may have hypocritical laws, where they themselves distinguish between committing a crime against a member of the religion or against a non-member, and between a member of the religion committing a crime and a non-member of the religion committing the crime. If the religion of the victim has hypocritical laws, should the government demand application of the laws as if the criminal was a member of the victim's religion? Or would such hypocritical laws be abandoned in a system of government that already handles inter-religion issues?

What should happen to govern two people of no religion? Should the law should be applied as if they were from two different religions? So if the victim is a member of an atheist organization that is equipped to handle crimes, should the criminal be handed over to them?

Having multiple religious organizations, each with their own infrastructure for handling criminals, may result in a significant waste of resources. It may also allow a sort of denial-of-service attack against minority religions by committing many crimes in a short period of time against members of that religion and then turning over the actor-criminals for handling, overwhelming the judiciary capacity of the minority religion. Having multiple religious organizations handle their own criminal justice systems also means that some religions may be at a significant disadvantage when handling certain kinds of crimes. How would a religion that forbids certain technology or practice handle a crime committed using that technology or practice? They probably wouldn't have the forensic experts to discuss the evidence.

Should the government provide a complete criminal justice system and a national police force that handles temporary imprisonment and allows different religions to supply judges for their own cases?

If we were to change our government to allow such a large degree of autonomy to different religions, would we place limits on what can be considered a religion? If a group of people organize together and declare that they are following the teachings of some person, alive or dead, and create rituals and codes of conduct, and call it by some name, shall they be recognized as a religion and allowed the same autonomy as other religions?

If any of the religions have practices that are barbaric, discriminatory, or inhumane, can we live with that? And by asking this question I'm of course identifying myself as a person who thinks that his own religion is not one of these. It's convenient to say that a person in such a religion living in a free country could just convert or relocate but the reality is that abusive communities tend to have systems in place to keep people in place. And even if the systems themselves didn't force people to stay, as our founding fathers said over 200 years ago, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed".  If I can't stand idly by, knowing that some people in my own country are being abused in a way prescribed by their own religion, then I cannot support a system of government that allows true freedom of religion.

I think that when we talk about religious freedom we mean freedom within some bounds that are shared by most of us and by the founding fathers (and mothers). And I think that when we talk about religious tolerance we mean tolerance for anything that conforms to our basic values. Anything outside of these bounds might receive lip service when it's at a distance but I think we would not really tolerate it here at home.

I think we should be honest with ourselves and say, our religious beliefs are part of the state and we like it. We think it's good. We prefer our religion to other religions, we prefer our culture to other cultures. We want to keep it the way it is or make it better, in accordance with our beliefs of what better might be. Our beliefs, not others' beliefs.

The way I know that I live in a Christian country is that some states and counties forbid selling alcohol on Sundays, which is a special day for Christians but not for Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or many others. Yet I don't know of any state or county that allows selling only Kosher foods. In our constitution, Article I, Section 7, it is written: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...".  Sundays excepted - but not Saturdays! Since every 7-day week has a Sunday, any span of 10 days will include at least one Sunday and some spans will include two Sundays. Therefore, could not the founding fathers have simply said that the President has 12 days to sign a bill? They could have, but they were Christian, so it didn't occur to them. I do acknowledge some religious freedom, such as not being forced to go to church, and a very religiously permissive and accommodating environment in many schools across the country. So I am happy to say that I live in a free country, with our own special definition of free, and a tolerant country, so long as as I live within the bounds of the dominant culture.

I may prefer increased separation of church and state, and I may prefer more honesty about what we really do here, but I think I would not like for any religious group to have complete autonomy here. It's better for the world to be divided up for that sort of thing. Each land should have only one set of laws. I  believe that these laws should be the minimum required for people to get along. In a country that claims separation of church and state, that minimum must be carefully considered.

We have our own set of values, American values. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Equal opportunity and treatment before the law based on merits, evidence, and without shallow discrimination on race, gender, religion, or age. Due process for justice. Safety. Privacy. Our sense of liberty has evolved since the writing of the Constitution - it used to mean just white people, now it means everyone. Our sense of equal opportunity has evolved - it used to mean just men, now it applies to men and women.

I think that we should have courage and say that anyone who shares our values and abides by our laws is welcome, and all others must find a home elsewhere in the world or face the consequences of breaking our laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. And I hope that our sense of separation of church and state will evolve - from limited separation to greater separation, to mean that we will secularize or abolish national laws that are specific to Christianity, keeping our American values and system of government separate from Christianity's specific beliefs and practices.

Separation of Church and State

We claim to separate church and state but we really don't.

Many parts of our state, beyond having their foundations in religious beliefs, have direct religious references. Our currency states "In God We Trust". Our state governments require citizens to get a marriage license. Our pledge of allegiance mentions God. The entire country operates around Christian holidays.

We did specifically forbid the government from promoting or favoring one religion over another, with the exception of the de-facto endorsement of Christianity, but that's more like a limitation rather than a separation.

If we wanted to construct a government that was truly separate from religion, how would we do it?

The main issue that comes to my mind is crime.  Governments create laws and people who break the laws must be punished. But is there a difference between committing a crime and breaking a law? Or between committing a crime and sinning? Is there such a thing as a victim-less crime? Are some acts crimes in one religion but not another? Is it fair for the government to pass laws that essentially echo the laws of a specific favored religion?

I think that because religions regulate behavior, it's not possible to construct a state that is completely separate from religion - the state needs to either adopt a specific religion (or atheism) and align its laws with it, or it needs to maintain a minimal set of laws to set a basic standard of behavior and then regulate the religions that can operate within this minimal framework.

Should religious institutions have the authority to punish their members for acts that violate the laws of their religion? What maximum punishment will the state allow?

What should happen if a member of one religion commits an act that hurts a member of another religion in some way, and the two religions have different positions on the act? What if the perpetrator's religion declares it allowed and the victim's religion declares it is not allowed? What if the opposite happens - the perpetrator's religion allows the action but the victim's religion forbids it? Should the state handle these cases or should there be a regulation on how they are handled and how disagreements will be resolved?

Proposition to ban divorce in California

Judaism and Islam both allow for divorce so this law means Christianity would be the only religion that can really be practiced in California. 


I'm angry about this proposition because it hurts freedom of religion. If Christians don't want divorce, then don't get divorced, but keep hands off my precious American freedoms. 


This proposition is only possible because of another misguided set of laws that did pass, a long time ago -- the ones that give marriage a secular legal status and allow "civil marriage" to be performed by a judge. In a state with freedom of religion, marriage is none the state's business. That's where we went wrong, that's why Proposition 8 was ridiculous, and that's why this proposition is ridiculous. 


If the state wants to give tax advantages to people who are living together, or to people who are raising kids, that's fine -- those people don't have to be married, and they don't have to be heterosexual, and they don't have to be religious, to do what they do.


And what are abused spouses going to do?  It's hard enough to get away from an abuser WITHOUT the state getting in your way. Are abusive husbands going to get the benefit of law enforcement in tracking down their wives who run away, because separation will be a criminal matter???