Religion in Government

There is a lot of fallacy in this post of your. You are obviously new to this forum. Try reading this thread in it's entirity for starters and search through other threads to see how your most of your propositions are rebuked.

---

As a Christian, I agree with Eugene Peterson. All religion is evil.
Of course I am not classifying Christianity as a religion in that statement. Many have tried to make it one, but in doing so have rejected its very foundational principles.

---

Christianity, in all it's guises, is religion. See posts immediatly above. Check a dictionary. This fundie disctinction is meaningless.

---

More specifically to your question, "Should religion be allowed/tolerated in the Governmental and Political process?", yes and no. The majority of founders of this nation were Christians and intended for this nation's people and government to be guided by Christian moral principles

---

This generalisation has largely been rebutted above in this thread. Try reading outside Christian apologetics.

---

Moral principles, however, can never be divorced from God's authority. Without the authority of God's word, our principles are subject to our own subjective determination. Anarchy quickly followed by tyranny is the inevitable result (as proven by history).

---

Bollocks. All morality is a combination of subjective morality (that is why morality varies greatly from culture to culture, person to person), and an underlying evolution compulsion to protect one's family/offspring.

---

Although there's certainly nothing wrong or unconstitutional about Christian men seeking God's guidance in our government, or including references to God or his ten commandments in our government or public schools

---

It's very wrong and very unconstitutional to include references to God and his ten commandments in public schools. It contravenes the first amendment.

Sorry, that wasn't clear.

WHAT? you amaze me, how you got that from what I said. lmao
What does that have to do with the topic?

You think slavery is limited to Africans, then your the one who doesn't know what salvery is, or the history of it.Any clue how slavery started in America?

Yes, I've read the dictionary definition of religion. I only place Christianity in its own separte category from all of the other religions because it is entirely different from all of the other religions. When human viewpoint and false-truths get mixed into it (like in 4th century A.D.) it becomes as useless and misguided as any other world religion. I cannot expect you to understand any of my reasons that I could give for saying this because you do not believe in it, so no matter what I say it will be foolishness to you.Original Intent by ---- (forgot the firstname) Barton shows the beliefs of the majority of this nations founders to be devout Christians. I'm not saying their beliefs didn't vary (Ben Frankiln is a good example), but even the ones who were not strictly Christian ascribed to the principles of Chrisitan morality as it pervaded English society. Barton has the largest collection of original documents in the nation. He has studied this subject thoroughly. Any attempt to deny the very strong Chrisitan beginnigs of this nation is an attempt to rewrite history.

quote:

---

I only place Christianity in its own separte category from all of the other religions because it is entirely different from all of the other religions.

---

Is this an example of the fallacy of Special Pleading?But more to the point:

quote:

---

...Even the ones who were not strictly Christian ascribed to the principles of Chrisitan morality as it pervaded English society.

---

What morality did the founders have that were unique to Christianity? At any rate, I think what is argued is not that the morality and ethics of the founders happened to coincide with the ethics of 18th century Christians (a notion that can be disputed, anyway), but that the founders were Christians and intended the U.S. to be a Christian-based nation. To argue that the secular founders had a Christian-inspired ethic is beside the point.

is that regardless of the beliefs of the founding fathers, the body of work that they produced clearly shows that they were all of one mind when it came to religion in government. Religion, of any kind, must be kept out of Government. There is no place for Christianity or any other religion in Laws or Governing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Actually, Lincoln argument against slavery was far more profound than a religious based one. It's really worth reading some of his work just to see a very great mind at work.His argument was that as soon as you place one people as superior to another, you remove any chance of argument should the situation be reversed.For example, from an 1854 speech

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

goodness me, where to start. you'll just have to bear with me while i try to wade in here.i know this might be a little irelevant to you, but i want to put what i say into context.
i'm from london, UK, i'm a geology student, and the very idea of religion in government wracks me with terror.i have looked at some of the other threads on this board, (particularly relating to the age of the earth and isotope dating etc) and i have to say that some of what has been said makes me want to scream. no, seriously.
i really dont want to offend anyone (iv'e honestly got better things to do with my time) but some of the arguments that are put forward in support of creationism and in contradiction to scientific 'proof' just make me want to grip their ears, look deep into their eyes and search for signs of intelligent life. ignorance is no excuse in this day and age in the western world.some of the posts which tried to counter evolutionism etc, were nothing more than the product of institutionalised ignorance on a international scale.but back to the matter of religion in government:for starters i believe that religion should be wholey and completely and irrevocably and forever-set-in-stone separated from government.i am not against religion per se. in fact i think that if religion was just about giving your life structure, and a moral code and comfort in times of need then it could be a force for good.
but it's not.
it's just another form of control.
religion came about because people were scared of what they didn't understand. they needed something to explain the lightening and the sun so they made up gods and spirits to get them thtough the day. fair enough but...i honestly think the human race should have outgrown it's need for religion by now.
you can be a good moral, decent person without all the mumbo-jumbo that goes with it.and the very idea that the government, an institution designed for and charged with our safety, education, ammenities and nuclear missiles!! ahould be governed by people who have their eyes fixed on the heavens and thier noses in a book writen (and re-writen and re-writen) by falible humans thousands of years ago...is terrifying.
truly truly terifying.and government is charged with the wellbeing of all the people in its borders, whatver their race or religion. surely those who are not of the same religion as their ministers and leaders will feel that their interests are not being fully looked after.
you cannot have a secular government with one overriding religious agenda.i'm not going to go into the many problems with president bush (i haven't got enough time to type all night), but the fact that he is clearly a very strong christian and that he's beliefs clearly influence the choices he makes in power, is a major problem. for some reason the States looks to be getting more and more mired in christianity and it looks to be working it's way insidiously into government and the rule of law.it's just not like that in britain. we are very much a secular nation. there is no mention of god on our money and he isn't evoked to support wars. steps are being taken to remove the 'so help me god' form the oath in the justice courts which i think is fantastic.
religion has been relegated to a minor role in this country.
people are free to belive what they want, and know that they wont be penalised by the law of the land for their beliefs.i do have quite a few christain friends and as you can imagine we have quite lively debates! but i respect their right to believe what they like as long as they don't force it upon me."I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltairethat is what democracy is all about. freedom.religion and government are like oil and water and anyone who attempts to mix the two is a dangerous fool.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

you amaze me, how you got that from what I said

---

Well, you did say this: While there were other groups of people who were slaves, slavery in the US was primarily visited upon those of African descent.As I asked you in the exact same message, which you so conveniently ignored, you aren't trying to comare indentured servitude to slavery, are you?Help us out here. Say what you actually mean. You know, all that effort into eloquent prose you so disdain.

quote:

---

What does that have to do with the topic?

---

Oh, it's simply responding to comments you made. After all, you were the one who claimed that slavery was somehow benign in Message 24: So if you didn't think it was relevant, why did you bring it up?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

You think slavery is limited to Africans

---

No.Didn't you read my post? You know, the one where I asked if you were comparing indentured servitude to slavery? What do you think that might mean?

quote:

---

Any clue how slavery started in America?

---

I was the one who mentioned indentured servitude. What do you think?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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

This is where you got my thoughts mixed up.
It was a response to someone who mentioned about slavery and the bible.
My comments on slavery were never pertaining to slavery in America.
For which I stand totally against, and I believe the bible would support that also.message 11 He was using the fact of slavery in America as a reason for not allowing God in the government.
God allowed slavery to happen for a reason. I don't know what that reason is.
Many people suffer from God's wrath, justification, from following him, and many more reasons. I cannot give you the answers to why this happens, I can only speak for my own pain from God. For which I feel was justified.Therefor I cannot go on to say that because of slavery, it is not a good idea to have people in our government who believe in God.One possiblity is that slavery in America came from man, but God allowed it to happen for awhile. Why I am not sure, but it did start with man.Edited to add a thought. If God wasn't really on the hearts of our founders(like most in here are claiming), then that might explain why slavery happened?
I don't know.Either way, I don't see anything wrong with having people in our government who believe in God, or don't. There enough checks and balances for the time being that our freedom to believe in God is safe. Once it is not safe, then its just prophecy being fulfilled.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 06-01-2004 08:11 AM