Is this why there are so many different denominations of Christianity, not to mention all the denominations of judaism (I apologize if my spelling is off), or the different versions of Islam, etc.  If there is supposed to be only one correct interpretation then who has it right?  Obviously you will say that you do, but members of the other denominations would say that they do or possibly that there are many interpretations.  All of this is why religion should have no impact on government and why government should have no impact on religion.

Well said.

Precisely. Or, what people (even of good will) interpreted as that.

You misunderstand the "denominations" of Judaism. They do not actually believe different things. They vary in traditions, not belief. They are also not "different" Judaisms, there is only one Jewish people.

Religious Jews keep kosher and observe the Shabbas in the most strict way. Non-religious Jews do not. Traditional Jews are somewhere in the middle. But they believe the same things. They do not have different ideas of the nature of G-d (like the Christian denominations do).

I think there might be differences of opinion among people not affiliated with any formal religion too. I don't see why certain opinions should be barred for influencing the government just because they are organised in religions of which there are more than one. That's ridiculous.

If I and a Christian disagree on something because of our different religions we disagree just as much as two atheists might because of their non-organised personal opinions. What gives them the right to influence government but not us?

Yes I mean the elected government.  And our government has a freedom of religion as well as a freedom from religion so that anyones religious beliefs are not forced on others.  Hence civil unions should be definied simply as between consenting adults and nothing more.  If people want to get married they should have to do so through a religious institution which would then have to approve of their relationship, etc.  But as far as the law is concerned people in a civil union should be treated the same as those who are married.

My main point of contention with Lula's comment was that homosexuals are inherently promiscuous.

And my point was simply that there were lots of things listed as abominations that many christians choose to ignore, so why harp on the whole man who lays with man as he does a woman abomination.

But who gets to define which opinion constitutes a "religious belief"? What if a Unitarian Church member campaigns for homosexual marriage because his religion tells him that there should be such a thing? Would a law allowing homosexual marriage supported by him constitute religion forced on others?

I think they are just like heterosexuals are. Hence humanity invented the concept of marriage and often prohibited promiscuity, especially for girls who are usually more likely to take away a disease or pregnancy from that behaviour.

But are those abominations that Christians don't ignore specific Jewish law (which is not binding for non-Jews) or general abominations that apply to everyone? Some Christians make that distinction.

I personally do not believe that it is wrong for a non-Jew to eat pork. (In fact I don't care if a Jew other than myself does, but let's assume I was religious about this.)

My mistake then in regards to the members of the Jewish faith.

It's not that the people should be barred from government, they shouldn't, but religious beliefs should NOT become laws of the government (ie homosexuals cannot join in civil unions and enjoy the same benefits as marriage from a legal standpoint).  Especially in the case of gay marriage or civil unions (whichever you prefer to call it) many feel that when government says that unions can only be between a man and a woman that is forcing some religious doctrine down their throats which is supposedly not allowed in our country.

The difference is that gay marriage, or civil unions, isn't being forced on anyone.  No one is trying to state that the only allowed unions are between two members of the same sex.  Rather they are arguing that the definition be expanded so that in the eyes of the government it doesn't matter whether the union is between two members of the same or opposite sex.  By the government limiting the definition to between one man and one woman that is a religious definition of marriage being forced on everyone in that it limits it too much.

And that's my main question, why were some "abominations" picked over?  If god decreed things to be an abomination shouldn't that apply to all of "his" children?

Many laws are based on religious definitions. But if those laws have existed before the creation of the establishment clause (I believe that's what it's called), they might not fall under it.

The law that murder is wrong is based on a religious definition too. Does that mean that not legalising murder means forcing someone's religion on everyone?

No. Why would Eskimos have to follow the same law as a desert people?

Don't forget that the Bible means different things to Jews and Christians. For Jews it's a Jewish book of law. For Christians it's explanation of the world. I find nothing odd with the idea that G-d would tell a desert people not to eat, say, whale, while recommending the same thing for Eskimos.

Yes.

But the law regarding sexual immorality is one of the Noahide laws, not the "ten" commandments.

Noahide laws are meant to apply to everyone. But how to interpret them is another question still.

No it's not.  You don't need religion to know that killing people is wrong.    You need to outlaw murder to have order in society, you don't need to bar homosexuals from getting married to have order in society.

Than why decree something as an abomination if it's ok for some people but not all.  That just doesn't make sense.

But the word abomination is a very strong word and can't be implied as a recomendation.  If it was then why didn't god specify that eating shellfish was an abomination for people living in the desert but it was ok for people who lived in colder climates or lived on the sea?  If that's what god intended then why didn't "he" say it?

It is when it is a rule invented by the elders of desert tribes who are basing it on observations of health on their people. And have no clue about the health needs of eskimoes.

Yes, it is. That's what religion is: law. (In Hebrew there is only one word for "law" and "religion": "dath"). That's what the Bible was, originally, a law book. And it just happened to outlaw murder.

But societies have existed, very stable societies, for thousands of years that allowed murder. In fact even European countries in the middle ages had legalised murder and those societies were still stable and orderly. Heck, the most orderly societies I know were Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and murder was one of the fundamentals of their cuultures.

It's the English translation (and the Latin translation) that use the word "abomination" and it is only because that word is used in the Bible that it is considered so very grave. Just substitute "forbidden" if you find the usual translation too grave. But remember if everybody remembers the word "forbidden" as a Biblical term it will become very grave and big in a few generations too.

The word abomination is only strong because it's in the Bible. The Latin word it derives from is a normal word, same for the Hebrew word (actually several words) it translates.

G-d did specificy that eating shellfish was an abomination for people living in the desert. According to the Bible G-d called a desert people to wait next to a mountain while He told their leader about the shellfish thing. Why on earth should He have mentioned specifically that this law (and the laws regarding pigs and camels) is not for Eskimos (who knew neither camel nor pig at the time)?

"Dudes, here's the law for you. It's the law for you. It's for you, not for Eskimos, get it? Not a law for Eskimos."

Is that what you expected? Do you likewise assume that Eskimo legends (I believe they originally had some sort of Shamanist system) would specifically mention that hunting whales is the thing to do to survive, unless you are a tribe of shepherds living in the middle east?

What more can G-d do than appear in person before a people's leader and tell him that this (hands him a bunch of tablets) is the law for his people?

Exactly.

In fact they might have had a clue about the health needs of Eskimoes. But it certainly wouldn't have affected their decision regarding desert tribes needs.

But just because it was in the bible and it happens to be outlawed in the United States (and other countries) doesn't mean that the law was based on religion.

Forbidden is a strong word too.  If it's a recommendation for a desert people then use a word like recommendation or qualify the word abomination (or forebidden) so that it only applies to certain people.  Such language isn't there in the bibles that I've seen.

Then how is one supposed to be able to determine what laws apply to what people?  And that's my major hold up, it appears that Christians have chosen to ignore lots of the "abominations" but they choose to keep the one related to homosexuality.  I just want to know why some were thrown out and others were kept.  And then why people who aren't Christian should be held to the same rules as Christians.