Religion in Government

Well, he sure as hell wasn't chosen by the people of the USA.

Are they? Or are they derived from the same source the Bible derives from - a recognition that societies prosper when certain behaviors are restricted. (Obviously, not everyone agrees on what those certain behaviors are supposed to be.)I mean, it doesn't take a genius, or divine inspiration, to make killing and stealing seem like a bad thing to allow. The fact that the Bible is the most popular book in America that says that, I think, is incidental to the fact that we have laws that would seem to agree. If nobody had ever read the Bible, killing and stealing would still be illegal, because that's just sense.Also, you might notice that moralistic perscriptions that are unique to the Bible - like the prohibition against clothing of mixed fiber, or eating shellfish - always fail to make it into law. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that our laws are based on practical necessity, not the Bible.

Well, it certainly bolsters the argument that a number of people have thought that was the case. Like, the folks in Tennessee who made that law.Honestly, though, I suspect that law wouldn't survive any court in this country. It's clearly unconstitutional on the face of it. Maybe our government was established for Christians. The courts and Constitution, though, seem to have been established for everybody.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2004 04:42 AM

---

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

Since few of these laws are unique to Christian cultures, how can they be?That's kind of what I'm getting at. It's hard to argue that a certain law comes from the Bible when folks who have never read the Bible have passed the same law, you know?

Well, yeah.I guess my point is that I interpreted the statement "these morals came directly from the Bible" to mean that "the Bible is the primary source for these moral precepts."The Bible may have been the immediate source for these precepts, but it can hardly be the primary source. I'll agree that the Bible was the most immediate source, yes. But as far as "single greatest source" goes, that to me would be the source from which the Bible and other religious books drew their precepts originally.Maybe we're talking about two different things?

Ok, I'll grant that premise. To it, I'll add that I don't believe that puts the Bible in any sort of exalted position of moral authority, because the Bible is not the primary source of those moral precepts, but merely one of many collections of them. Not that I believe you were trying to do that.

Oh really?Do you, as a part of Christianity:1) Believe in supernatural entities, including god(s)?2) Attend services at a house of worship?3) Tithe or make other donations to your organization of believers?4) Pray?5) Observe significant holy days?6) Read a book of devotions, scripture, or other holy texts?If you answered "yes" to any of the above, congratulations! You're a member of a religion.Just so we're clear:

quote:

---

Re*li*gion

​

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

---

from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion&x=9&y=10You don't believe that Christianity is "the worship or service of God"? You don't believe that it's "a system of beliefs held to with ardor or faith"?Christians love to play this game, I know - my old church sure did - but it's obvious that Christianity is religion by any common definition of "religion." To try to style it as something else is a ridiculous attempt to redefine a word.Re: the rest of your post, I think it's a mistake to pretend that anyone can just speak for the Founding Fathers as though they were unanimous on any subject. Of course they weren't. Some of the framers intended for the country to be run on strictly Christian moral principles. Some framers rejected those principles even in their own personal conduct. Some framers couldn't make up their mind.The framers were a big group, with a diversity of opinion on every concievable issue. It's a mistake to say "the framers intended this" or "the framers intended that" because the framers intended a lot of things, some of them mutally contradictory. Only someone of great naiveite would suggest that the thoughts of such a diverse group could be summed up in a sentence.

Why? Just because it's worshipped by you, whereas the others are not?You'll pardon me if that's not a sufficiently significant difference to merit Christianity being in a class by itself.Oh, I know - you meant "Christianity is true and the others are not, so Christianity is different." Of course the problem there is that all the other religions say exactly the same thing, so there's no difference.If you're so sure Christianity isn't a religion, then you won't mind if we rescind the various perks that it recieves as religion? There's a lot of church property we could be taxing, and since you don't believe Christian churches constitute religious property, I assume you won't mind? We'll start with your church, of course.That also means that Christian ministers can no longer officiate marriages. Crap, I'll have to get married again. Your parents will, too. Maybe you'll have to. Regardless, we'll all have to do it at the courthouse instead of the cathedral (which we're closing, anyway.)Let's see, what else? Oh, right. No privacy of the confessional, now. We can subpoena your minister to testify about all the dirty deeds you told him you committed. Tell him to expect the process server any day now.I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the point - it's pretty foolish to say "Christianity isn't a religion" when the dictionary says it is, most Christians say it is, the government says it is, and Christian ministers and officials act like it is. Yeah, some of them. Some of them held views that, if I were to offer them as my own, you would insist I was no Christian. Jefferson edited his own Bible, you know.The prevalent religious view at the time was Deism; the position that the Creator God creates but does not meddle. He sets into motion the clockwork universe and then lets it run unaided. That's not a view consistent with Christianity as any of us are familiar with it, as far as I can tell. Well, says you, but I look at the First Amendment, and it says:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...and then I look at the First Commandment, and it says:I am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me.You'll pardon me if I have a hard time reconciling those.

---

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

Unfortunately for California, Governor Schwarzenegger believes that gay marriage is only for a man and a woman.

Are you sure about that? Don't you think one of the reasons we, as a society, encourage marriage is because it reduces public costs?

I guess I didn't understand the context then.

You don't think they've stopped performing it altogether once it's no longer a requirement?There are millions of gay people, and they practice homosexuality without coercion, because if they weren't, they'd stop doing it - much like porn actors who are "gay for pay" don't have gay sex in their free time. But if that was the source of all homosexuality, there would be no persons who would have gay sex once those influences were removed. Since gay people continue to have gay sex without those influences, obviously they must not be the sole explanation of homosexual behavior.

Well, it's not so much an assumption as a conclusion based on what I know of my own sexuality and what I've found out about others.Heterosexual sex wasn't something I learned to like - I just liked it, right away. Why would gay sex be different?When gay people talk about it, they rarely give a narrative of being coerced, pressured, or forced to perform gay acts that they didn't want to and then "learning to like it." Rather they often give a narrative of never liking or feeling entirely comfortable with straight sex, but immediately taking to gay sex, the first time. Presuming, of course, we're talking about people with well-adjusted sexuality and not victims of abuse.So, I dunno. What you're talking about doesn't seem consistent with the personal testaments of gay people I've heard. Rather, the most consistent explanation is that genetic or early development factors are responsible, not post-puberty acclimation to homosexual acts. Out of curiosity, when did homsexual suddenly come to mean "male"? Try not to conflate the male homosexual experience with the experience of all homosexuals, or confuse male sexual identity with sexual identity in general. There's every possibility that female sexuality is considerably more fluid than male, for instance.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-16-2004 08:24 AM

You checked, huh? How many beards did God have when you met him? C'mon, you must have seen. Most of them are right there on his face, right?

Well, starting up a church-run state doesn't seem to be a good way to honor that tradition. I presume you meant "liberal", and funny thing, most Americans are liberals.Do you like getting paid a fair wage? Having government services like police and firemen? Public parks and holidays? Do you enjoy your weekend? Thank a liberal.Yeah, here we are - a prosperous nation and the standardbearer of freedom for the nations of the world. People living longer, more productive lives than ever before. Conquering and eliminating disease and starvation. Yeah, we've got a ways to go. But "all screwed up"? Not from where I'm looking. Why bother when that's the way this country was started? You're the one who wants to betray American traditions - why don't you move to Italy? Hell, if you want your government and your religion to be the same, move to the Vatican.