Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion in Government
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 77 of 303 (112023)
06-01-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by custard
05-29-2004 5:52 AM


Hi,
I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state but I think that there is one thing about it in the US that hasn't been brought up in this thread yet. It relates to what Custard has said here:
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.
I believe that most of these laws are state laws (abortion and monogamy are federal) and there is nothing in the constitution which says that states can’t have an official religion. If memory serves Alabama even has in their state constitution that it is a Christian state (or words to that effect). So when Roy Moore put the ten commandments in the courthouse I was torn between states rights and my strong disdain for religion in government.
Anyway, I think it is important to make a distinction between the first amendment, which dictates what that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and the tenth amendment
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
which says that the states have sovereign rights as well.
What I think is reprehensible (and un-American) is when the bible is quoted in congress as a justification for laws. If you can’t justify it without a 3000 year old book then it isn’t worth much. The only thing I can think to ask these leaders is, Why do you hate America so much?
Just my $.02

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:52 AM custard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2004 12:52 AM bob_gray has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 93 of 303 (113308)
06-07-2004 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Rrhain
06-07-2004 12:52 AM


I stand corrected
I guess I had been misinformed on the subject. I remembered from my government class in high school (a long time ago) that the founders had left issues of religion to the states. I had thought that some states had even established official state religions. I had even looked at the Alabama Constitution preamble which says:
We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity [sic], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God , do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama: (emphasis mine)
It had originally seemed to me that this was an establishment of religion but I think that you are right in what you said here:
quote:
It is therefore unconstitutional for a State to establish religion. After all, what is the point of having a federal right to practice religion freely if the State can take it away?
  —Rrhain
This message has been edited by bob_gray98, 06-07-2004 11:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2004 12:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-07-2004 12:27 PM bob_gray has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 95 of 303 (113313)
06-07-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dan Carroll
06-07-2004 12:27 PM


Re: I stand corrected
Indeed. I realized that it wasn't a very good question and I just edited out that last part. I think that Ediacaran also addressed the issue in post #92 with this reference:
Ediacaran writes:
It's not "God on the heart" of politicians that's the problem - it's oppressive laws and religious bigotry in government that is the problem. For example, Madelyn Murray O'Hair won a court case (O'Hair v. Hill) against Texas on its requirement that officeholders acknowledge a "Supreme Being", as that violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Texas Constitution
Article 1, Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
However, Texas has dragged its heels on eliminating the violation, and it may require another legal action to enforce the law.
What I still don't understand is how Texas will change this. It isn't a law that they have it is actually written into their constitution. Do they have to pass a constitutional amendment to fix this or will a simple law take care of it? Or is simply considered null and void because the ruling is against it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-07-2004 12:27 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rrhain, posted 06-12-2004 8:04 PM bob_gray has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 120 of 303 (115047)
06-14-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by riVeRraT
06-14-2004 11:05 AM


I think you have hit on something here
This statement of yours is very interesting. I was wondering if you could be a little more specific here. I have been searching desperately for a "secular" reason to prohibit gay marriage and it seems like you may have stumbled on it.
riVeRrat writes:
quote:
by Rrhain
What you don't understand and what you have been told repeatedly is that nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. Nobody is saying you have to like gays, get married to someone of the same sex, or have sex with someone of the same sex.
I am being asked to give tax dollars to support such an issue.
Please clarify how the tax code makes us pay more taxes if same sex marriage were formally legalized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by riVeRraT, posted 06-14-2004 11:05 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 06-14-2004 1:30 PM bob_gray has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 161 of 303 (115545)
06-15-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by riVeRraT
06-15-2004 6:20 PM


Sodomy is not illegal
Does anyone know if sodomy is illegal?
Yes, I do know. It is not illegal. Here is the recent SCOTUS decision for you:
quote:
From November 2003:
The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.
Error
Fortunately the government is now out of the bedroom where they never should have been to begin with. Once again an example of religion in government being unconstitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by riVeRraT, posted 06-15-2004 6:20 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Chiroptera, posted 06-15-2004 9:32 PM bob_gray has not replied
 Message 173 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2004 7:26 AM bob_gray has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 162 of 303 (115546)
06-15-2004 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by riVeRraT
06-15-2004 6:29 PM


Re: You are certainly right about Webster's Dictionary.
riVerRat writes:
I see God and religion as being 2 different things.
I would agree that God and religion are two different things but can you have God without religion?
If the answer to that question is "no" then it begs the following question: If you can't have god without religion how can a government that is not supposed to espouse religion endorse any god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 06-15-2004 6:29 PM riVeRraT has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 190 of 303 (115764)
06-16-2004 1:35 PM


Back to the original question:
In post #1 it was asked
'Should religion be allowed/tolerated in the Governmental and Political process?'
Although all of this discussion of homosexuality in general is interesting I just want to know if we have resolved anything.
This is my summary of 80+ posts on homosexuality. Having reviewed the thread the only "secular" reason for the government to get involved in homosexual marriage seems to be a monetary issue.
Claim: Homosexual marriage is counter to the interest of the state because it will cost more money. There will be more people getting married and hence more benefits being paid out.
Rebuttal: By this same reasoning the state should not be involved in marriage at all because _any_ marriage will cost the state more money.
This seems to end the discussion of religion in government as it relates to the monetary issue of homosexuality. If we wish to discuss the ramifications of state sponsored institutions which cost more to some groups (single people) than to others (married people) then that is a different topic.
I have not been able to find another compelling reason for the state to restrict the legal union of two people in this thread.
There has been some discussion of homosexuality being sin but it strikes me that this is a strictly religious convention.
There has been discussion of homosexuality being icky. Clearly this can’t be a basis for any legal decisions.
There has been some discussion about how homosexual marriage will cause my son to become a homosexual. I’m not sure that there is any evidence to support this claim.
Anyway, as best as I can tell the issue of homosexual marriage being kept illegal can only be argued from a religious stance. If that is the case then we are back to the original question. If you want to live in a Judeo/Christian theocracy then you believe that religion should be allowed in Government and hence same sex marriage could be made illegal, otherwise if you wish to be consistent and regardless of how much you dislike the idea you must admit that the government has no legal footing for restricting marriage to _any_ two people regardless of race/creed/sexual orientation/height/age etc.

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 203 of 303 (116036)
06-17-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by riVeRraT
06-16-2004 7:26 AM


Re: Sodomy is not illegal
riVeRrat writes:
What about all the silly sex laws?
Tell me that straights will have less rights than gays because of the way laws are written.
I can't speak to that one way or the other since I don't know all the laws. What I do know is that in my opinion (and apparently the SCOTUS) any law which deals with two consenting adults and private sex acts is unconstitutional. These laws are only in place because people succeeded in putting their religion in our government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2004 7:26 AM riVeRraT has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 272 of 303 (116876)
06-20-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by johnfolton
06-19-2004 12:45 AM


Be careful what you wish for
whatever writes:
...which would be a good thing, to end grid lock in the senate due to power abuses of filibuster powers by [democrats]
I put the democrats in square brackets because you can insert whatever political party you want here. Right now you (whatever) want there to be a more streamlined voting process in the Senate so that your party which is in power can push through whatever legislation it wants. One of the main points of the Senate is to slow down the political process so that we don't have hasty government action on issues which might be very transient. When the Democrats control all three branches of government you will be very thankful for the filibuster. I think it was George Washington who said something to the effect of: The Senate is the plate upon which the emotions of the nation are allowed to cool.
It is my opinion that the filibuster is never an abuse of power, it is a legal tactic used by those who are _NOT_ in power to prevent abuse by those in power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by johnfolton, posted 06-19-2004 12:45 AM johnfolton has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 273 of 303 (116883)
06-20-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by riVeRraT
06-20-2004 8:16 AM


moving on with a clear conscience
riVerRat,
Please read this post in the spirit it is intended. I am not trying to attack you or your beliefs. I understand your hesitation against allowing the marriage contract to be extended to be between any two people because of your religious convictions and I can understand your reluctance to continue the debate. I think that Rrhain did bring up a good question to address the moral qualms you may have with the whole thing which you may not have noticed (his posts can be quite long and repetitive).
Rrhain writes:
So if god can forgive you for your tribute to Caesar when Caesar doesn't find fault with divorce, why are you worried that god won't forgive you for your tribute to Caesar when Caesar doesn't find fault with homosexuality?
Perhaps it would be sufficient for your conscience to realize that you already support things with your tax dollars which your god may not approve of. Since everyone will get their reckoning when they stand before Him perhaps you would better spend your time making sure that you are ready to answer for your deeds rather that worrying about your neighbor’s actions which in no way affect you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by riVeRraT, posted 06-20-2004 8:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by riVeRraT, posted 06-21-2004 12:08 AM bob_gray has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 275 of 303 (116977)
06-21-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by riVeRraT
06-21-2004 12:08 AM


Re: moving on with a clear conscience
quote:
But should I worry about stealing if my neigbhours house gets broken into?
Should I worry about the thief, whether we catch him or not?
You absolutely should be worried about stealing, it could happen to you. Someone could break into your house and take your possessions or worse do harm to your family. It is unlikely that anyone will attempt to perform a marriage of you with another man, unless you invite them to do so.
And in this I find the difference. We have laws against theft and murder not because it is laid down in some religious text but because logic tells us that this is wrong. In fact if you go to the link you provided ( Duhaime's LawMuseum | Legal History | Law Artifacts and Historical Documents ) you will notice that Justinian's Code was "inspired by logic-based Greek legal principles" and Many legal maxims still in use today are derived from Justinian's Code.. Those things in which consenting adults are involved are not crimes in my book. Of course the fact that we have a Vice Squad shows that the government doesn't agree with me.
quote:
They were escaping religious persecution. Not religion.
And I would imagine that most people who are not opposing legalizing gay marriage see it as a form of religious persecution. The first settlers were trying to escape religious persecution but they brought it with them.
Anyway, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by riVeRraT, posted 06-21-2004 12:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024