|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion in Government | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Also statings post 9/11 that he was 'chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.' Well, he sure as hell wasn't chosen by the people of the USA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This type of thing seems to bolster the argument our govt was established in the name of Christianity as well as freedom. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I submit that all of these laws are a result of the interpretation of biblical morality. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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 think you would find it difficult to argue that the bible was not the single greatest influence for our country's morals. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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: from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion&x=9&y=10 You 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
Barton shows the beliefs of the majority of this nations founders to be devout Christians. 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.
Any attempt to deny the very strong Chrisitan beginnigs of this nation is an attempt to rewrite history. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Given that California is in financial crisis and we are cutting vital social services like fire departments, police, and educational assistance, one would think that those in Sacramento would be chomping at the bit to pass same-sex marriage so that they could free up some money. Unfortunately for California, Governor Schwarzenegger believes that gay marriage is only for a man and a woman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because the union of the three groups is necessarily larger than any single group, and thus will cost more. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Rrhain was talking about pension rights (and other associated benefits that are passed to a married partner at death), I was responding specifically on that point. I guess I didn't understand the context then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You don't think plenty of heterosexual women haven't forced themselves to perform oral sex on a man when they would rather skipped it altogether? 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.
There are lots of people who perform all sorts of sexual acts they would never have considered nor ever desired to perform until exposed to the influences I listed above. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
True, except you are assuming that gay sex is unlike other sexual activities, and it is something you cannot learn to like. 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.
Of course if people condone gay behavior young men are more likely to be exposed to and ultimately participate in it. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Last time I checked, they were all the same God. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Our country was founded by Christians to get away from a State run church. Well, starting up a church-run state doesn't seem to be a good way to honor that tradition.
Then came along libs......and here we are. All screwed up. 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.
If people want a new USA without God then they can go somewhere and start a new one. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024