|
Author
|
Topic: separation of church and state - a christian perspective please.
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
Message 31 of 64 (222338)
07-07-2005 11:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
07-07-2005 8:13 AM
|
|
It is true that either political ideology wants judges to interpret the law as THEY see it. aclj.org writes: The appointment of judges who will interpret the law, rather than legislate policy, is certainly one of the most important responsibilities given to the President under our Constitution. President Bush is committed to nominating men and women who "clearly understand the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. To paraphrase James Madison, the courts exist to exercise not the will of men, but the judgment of the law. My judicial nominees will know the difference." Many of the ills that plague our society have resulted from judicial rulings that reflect the personal political agenda of liberal judges, instead of honest, careful interpretations of the Constitution. There are currently over 90 vacancies in the federal judiciary. In some circuits, such as the Sixth Circuit, the situation is especially critical. There are simply not enough judges to handle the court's workload. In his Annual Report to Congress, Chief Justice Rehnquist urged the Senate to confirm more of President Bush's nominees: Senators "ought to act with reasonable promptness to vote each nominee up or down." Yet, Democratic leaders in the Senate, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have announced their intent to stonewall confirmation of Bush's judicial nominees if those nominees do not adhere to left-wing pro-abortion ideology. Legislating from the bench is an attempt to redefine established standards based on "modern" relativistic concepts. Spme of us think that humanity is incapable of actually determining morality for itself...since humanity is flawed in nature. Of course, the other side disagrees! (BTW Schraff, I am playing devils advocate, here. Personally, I believe that what will be is mean't to be, whichever way that it goes.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by nator, posted 07-07-2005 8:13 AM | | nator has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by Silent H, posted 07-07-2005 12:11 PM | | Phat has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 32 of 64 (222350)
07-07-2005 12:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
07-07-2005 11:31 AM
|
|
Legislating from the bench is an attempt to redefine established standards based on "modern" relativistic concepts. That would be moralizing from the bench. Legislating from the bench is passing decisions which work to create law, rather than simply rendering a verdict and letting the legislature formulate laws in light of the verdict. I realize fundies want to confuse this issue, but those are the facts.
Spme of us think that humanity is incapable of actually determining morality for itself...since humanity is flawed in nature. The founding fathers thought that govt, being as it is inherently members of humanity making decisions, is actually unable to determine morality for others. That's why they don't get to choose which religion/morality is right for the salvation of this nation.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Phat, posted 07-07-2005 11:31 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Phat, posted 07-07-2005 12:22 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
|
Message 33 of 64 (222354)
07-07-2005 12:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
07-07-2005 12:11 PM
|
|
...That's why they don't get to choose which religion/morality is right for the salvation of this nation. And that is the crux of the issue. For the conservative, not to decide is to decide. That is why conservativism claims an absolute truth. To not agree on this truth means that everyone agtrees on relative morality and relative truth, which is equal to "ye shall be as gods"....ye shall make your own truth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Silent H, posted 07-07-2005 12:11 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by jar, posted 07-07-2005 12:36 PM | | Phat has replied | | | Message 35 by Silent H, posted 07-07-2005 12:40 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 34 of 64 (222358)
07-07-2005 12:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
07-07-2005 12:22 PM
|
|
but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
You mentioned the Two Great Commandments earlier but if you look at them they are both relative laws. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ..." "Love others as ..." These are both qualified laws, they point to internal states and conditions. Where or what is the absolute truth many folk seem to want?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Phat, posted 07-07-2005 12:22 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by Phat, posted 07-16-2005 4:49 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 35 of 64 (222359)
07-07-2005 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
07-07-2005 12:22 PM
|
|
For the conservative, not to decide is to decide. Then it appears that the crux of the issue is that conservatives are discovering that they are not really american citizens and actually fundamentalist militants ala the Taliban. The role of the govt is to NOT deal in these types of issues at all, specifically not to make choices for how its citizens must conduct their lives. That is throughout all of the founders' writings. The govt is only supposed to focus on temporal secular issues that all share together. Otherwise it becomes divisive and dictatorial.
To not agree on this truth means that everyone agtrees on relative morality and relative truth, which is equal to "ye shall be as gods"....ye shall make your own truth. But to agree on it is something much much much worse. Ye shall pretend at being gods, making your own truths, and in fact be devils creating your own hell.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Phat, posted 07-07-2005 12:22 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
|
Message 36 of 64 (224122)
07-16-2005 4:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
07-07-2005 12:36 PM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
Jar writes: You mentioned the Two Great Commandments earlier but if you look at them they are both relative laws. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ..." "Love others as ..." These are both qualified laws, they point to internal states and conditions. Where or what is the absolute truth many folk seem to want? The internal state that you speak of is the very Spirit of God. I know that you seem to believe that God is "in" everyone, whereas I rather believe that He (and/or His Spirit) is "with" everyone. He only comes "in" when your internal state allows His presence and His soverignty to exist. The internal state that treats God as a philosophical concept of ones own mind is not the internal environment where the Spirit can thrive,IMHO. It takes a faith that this Spirit is real--even over what a "logical" mind can grasp.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by jar, posted 07-07-2005 12:36 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by jar, posted 07-16-2005 4:55 PM | | Phat has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 37 of 64 (224125)
07-16-2005 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
07-16-2005 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
That's all well and good. But the issue relates to defining "Absolutes". Where, in what you've posted, is the absolute that all can see? I'm not trying to give you a hard time but I am asking you to examine what you've said. This message has been edited by jar, 07-16-2005 03:56 PM
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Phat, posted 07-16-2005 4:49 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by Phat, posted 07-16-2005 6:04 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
|
Message 38 of 64 (224133)
07-16-2005 6:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
07-16-2005 4:55 PM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
I guess that I am having a hard time with the two commandments being relative. Love God (an absolute) with all (an absolute) your heart, strength, mind, etc... We all love God relative to our inability to die to our own idols and interests. He commands absolute love and we give Him relative love. Perhaps the absolute is in our will within our intentions. One can believe and love absolutely, can't they?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by jar, posted 07-16-2005 4:55 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by jar, posted 07-16-2005 6:14 PM | | Phat has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 39 of 64 (224135)
07-16-2005 6:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
07-16-2005 6:04 PM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
Well, let's look at them. Love God with all you heart. Does that not imply that there are individual limits? Will everyone react the same? Is it relative to individual capabilities? And the second, "Love others as you love yourself." How much more relative could you get? This message has been edited by jar, 07-16-2005 05:31 PM
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by Phat, posted 07-16-2005 6:04 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-17-2005 5:57 AM | | jar has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
|
Message 40 of 64 (224174)
07-17-2005 5:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
07-16-2005 6:14 PM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
Jar writes: Well, let's look at them. OK. Love God with all your heart. Does that not imply that there are individual limits? No. If I have a glass of water and a pitcher of water, there are obvious limits regarding the amount of water from each vessel. If I say to pour out all of the water from each one, both have emptied the contents absolutely. It matters not if I have less "heart" than Mother Theresa or..as it were..Lance Armstrong! If all of us are loving with our whole heart, the relativity matters not. It cannot really be measured if the command is "all." Will everyone react the same? No, as I explained. Is it relative to individual capabilities? I would have to think about this for a bit!  And the second, "Love others as you love yourself." How much more relative could you get? How so? Which "others" are we talking about? Does this not break down to Love as you love? Is this relative to the perfect love of Jesus Christ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by jar, posted 07-16-2005 6:14 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by CK, posted 07-17-2005 7:54 AM | | Phat has replied | | | Message 44 by jar, posted 07-17-2005 11:36 AM | | Phat has replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4380 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 41 of 64 (224184)
07-17-2005 7:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
07-17-2005 5:57 AM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
What if I hate myself? in that situation the love I express would be hate (if you follow me).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-17-2005 5:57 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by Phat, posted 07-17-2005 9:54 AM | | CK has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
|
Message 42 of 64 (224194)
07-17-2005 9:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by CK
07-17-2005 7:54 AM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
Good point, Charles. Let me ask you this: Do animals commit suicide? It is my understanding that in general, no. If you hated yourself, your "love" would be a relative construct within your own hurt mind, but it would still obviously stray off the absolute command. Surely, God knows each of us uniquely...in weakness, strength, arrogance, and humility. So if the question is whether everyones relative standards clash with Gods absolute command, the answer in Christian parlance is that God provided His Son to live an absolute standard in our place. We need only to accept this action as best as we can understand and embrace it. Were you to hate yourself, many culprits could do you in. 1) Medications. I personally know several people who cannot love temselves largely because they have lost the ability to feel pain and thus face problems. 2) Bad luck. Yes, there is not really luck involved, but some people have more challenges that hinder the open heart needed to trust anyone...much less God. One thing in our favor, I believe, is God Himself. He understands. Even those who have committed suicide which is a grevious "sin" against God and self will be offered forgiveness before any sort of judgement.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by CK, posted 07-17-2005 7:54 AM | | CK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 43 by GDR, posted 07-17-2005 10:23 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 3.9
|
|
|
Message 43 of 64 (224195)
07-17-2005 10:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
07-17-2005 9:54 AM
|
|
Re: but you still haven't given us examples of absolute laws.
The Bible tells us that to whom much is given much is expected and so obviously the converse is true as well. We don't all start out from the same place. I think that the parable of the talents gives essentially the same message. I suppose we love by the measure of love given to us. In the end only God knows our heart.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Phat, posted 07-17-2005 9:54 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 44 of 64 (224201)
07-17-2005 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
07-17-2005 5:57 AM
|
|
can some thing be absolutely relative.
jar writes: And the second, "Love others as you love yourself." How much more relative could you get? How so? Which "others" are we talking about? Does this not break down to Love as you love? Is this relative to the perfect love of Jesus Christ? Love others as you love yourself. Here Jesus is saying that your love for others, all others, should be in relation to your love of self. PB, both of these are completely relative and the real beauty of GOD's love for us is that it IS based on relativity. That was Jesus' message, that salvation is based one relativity and not absolutes. God does not say you must run a three minute mile or jump 25 feet or lift 2000 pounds. God just says "try to do your best". But we stray far afield. Trying to move back towards the topic, the difference between things like the two Great Commandments and laws can be shown by an example. If we applied the standards found in the Great Commandments to traffic laws we'd see laws that said "Drive no faster than you safely can" and "Drive as you wish others drove". As you can see neither of these would be enforceable. In each case the issue reduces to individual capabilities.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Phat, posted 07-17-2005 5:57 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by Phat, posted 07-20-2005 2:41 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18638 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 4.3
|
|
|
Message 45 of 64 (224812)
07-20-2005 2:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
07-17-2005 11:36 AM
|
|
Re: can some thing be absolutely relative.
Jar writes: If we applied the standards found in the Great Commandments to traffic laws we'd see laws that said "Drive no faster than you safely can" and "Drive as you wish others drove". I don't know about that, but I DO know that the infamous bumper sticker, "God is my Co-pilot" SHOULD read this way: "I am God's Co-Pilot". The standards are not about trying to do your best only. The standard is Jesus Christ who Did the best that nobody else could or ever can do. Thus, it is not so much a matter of "trying". It is a matter of trust.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by jar, posted 07-17-2005 11:36 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2