Religion in Government

Yeah, all those sneaky Canadians must have voted him in.Interesting question JC. Religion is so dominant shaping rules about morality and social norms upon which so many of our laws are based, that it seems almost impossible to extricate one from the other.Part of being in a democracy is that you have to suffer the will of the majority. If the will of the majority creates laws based on religious beliefs - abortion restriction, controlled substances, tax exemptions for religious institutions, then I don't see how one can avoid the influence of religion.As a side note, it isn't like governments that were professed athiests were any more liberal, e.g. Soviet Russia, China.

OK, ok technically we're a republic, but look at states were referendum has become the norm: Oregon for example. That's about as close to democracy as it gets.In any case, citizens of Republics are subject to a similar 'will of the majority' that democracies are. That's why some states still have morality laws (can't buy alcohol, cigarettes, panty hose on Sundays, etc.) and some don't.You state doesn't approve of legalized marijuana? Move to California. Legalized suicide? Move to Oregon. No way these measures pass in Utah.I agree that governments should be secular, it's certainly in anyone's best interest who is not a member of the religion that is in the majority, but the fact of the matter is, most of the laws and morals in the US are derived from the bible.

Thought you all might find this interesting. This purportedly comes from the Tennessee state constitution. I trust the source as it is dedicated to truth and it corrects any misrepresented facts promptly.From JREF - Home: So you can't be an active minister of the Gospel (wonder if that precludes rabbis? Oh wait, this is Tennessee... never mind), but you also can't be an athiest or someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife.This type of thing seems to bolster the argument our govt was established in the name of Christianity as well as freedom.

Hmm... I agree that many of what might be termed 'common sense' laws/morals (murder, steal, rape) might have originated elsewhere and wound up in US law via the bible; but there are notable exceptions.For example:Anti-sodomy laws, prohibition, Sabbath/sin laws (mentioned above in previous post), religious requirements for holders of public office (example above), public indecency laws, monogamy, abortion - I submit that all of these laws are a result of the interpretation of biblical morality.Have we repealed, or are we in the process of repealing, some of these laws? Certainly, but they were laws because our country was founded by a bunch of bible thumping puritans.This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 04:54 AM

Ha ha. Very well put. The thing that a lot of religious people don't seem to understand is that it isn't that I hate god or dislike the fact that other people believe in god, it's that I find the concept of god essentially irrelevant to my life.I had an interesting conversation with a teacher once during which I asked him if he were an athiest. He responded that he didn't even know what I meant by that question. At first I was confused until I realized that, in a sense, 'athiest' is a label ascribed to individuals who just think of themselves as people, not 'athiests.'I think about God about as often and as seriously as I do about Wotan, Apollo, or Xenu.This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 06:44 AM

Not when none of the founding fathers were Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Pagan (well who knows about Ben Franklin). I think it is a fairly simple inference that their concepts of morality sprang directly from the bible.Do you really want to argue that someone cracked open Cicero at some point and said "hey, the ancient Romans had a law against sodomy, we should too!"Even if you do want to argue that many of the morals spelled out in the bible originated somewhere else, good luck tranlating those clay tablets - hope your cuneiform hasn't gotten rusty, I think you would find it difficult to argue that the bible was not the single greatest influence for our country's morals. Whether these laws existed in some form before they found their way into the bible is irrelevant. They are still coming from the bible.This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 07:40 AM

Probably. Or I wasn't as clear as I could have been.Let me try stating it this way. My premise is that our country's lawmakers used, and continue to use, the bible as a source of inspiration for many of our laws - particularly morality laws.

Yes, my statement is erroneous. Keep reading my posts though, I think you'll see what I was trying to say: This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 09:11 PM

Dude, need to hit the history book a bit harder, or simply go back and read the links you posted. Sailing to, and writing about 'the Americas;' and discovering the West Indies are not germaine to this the influence of religion in US govt.This message has been edited by custard, 05-31-2004 04:18 AM

Sorry, that wasn't clear.

I agree that the founding fathers were specific about creating a secular government; but that isn't the entire topic. One of the questions JC raised was:

quote:

---

Although I do not believe in God, I can understand what role he plays in society among believers. However, when a nation is involved in Governmental actions, should God be apart of it? Should we as a Society, involve God in the political actions carried out?

---

Ok, so the founding fathers, as a group, established a secular government; but look what has happened since then. God and the bible has been used time and time again to justify many, if not most, of the laws of the US and the states therein.Examples: Abolition of slavery, righteous cause of the civil war (Union's perspective - look at any of Lincoln's speeches, it is not uncommon for him to invoke God, as GWB does today, to justify his actions), anti-sodomy laws, prohibition, monogamy laws, etc. etc.God has been added to our money (although in the US I think it would have been better to add "in capitalism we trust" to the bible), our oaths of office, our pledge of allegiance, our oaths in court, everywhere.JC asked

quote:

---

Is this right? Should we allow a man {GWB} of his stature or of any status among the Governmental/Political process to base his action on religious beliefs?

---

My reply is that not only has the US done so throughout its history, it continues to do so today. What is the pro-life lobby but a religious movement? What is the overreaction by the FCC to the flood of letters over a single, naked (forty-year old) breast but a response to religious (mostly biblical) morality?I don't think we 'should' allow religion to direct our laws and influence our public servants to such a degree, but I'm not religious. We live in a democracy (Republic), and as such, if the majority agree with the morals spelled out in the bible, or any other religious text, then that's what we end up dealing with.

I absolutely agree (and great quote btw). I was merely trying to point out that he invoked divine righteousness, as both sides in the civil war did, to justify the war. I'll try to dig up some quotes.

Gravity.

Then they would pass a new ammendment, wouldn't they? Or they would go ahead and do it anyway and get the supreme court to agree with their interpretation that the law does not contradict the constitution. This is not unheard of. This is a good point. That this happens quite frequently is evidenced by the number of laws we have repealed over the last century.

In general, if it's a breast it's probably sexy. It's really the degree of sexiness to which I was referring. I'm glad JJ finally decided to flash us, I just wish she'd made that decision about twenty years ago.