Religion in Government

So we agree there are many kinds of slavery?
Including being a slave to righteousness?
Or being a slave to sin?If so, why would you then limit my thoughts to one kind of slavery?

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: 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

Again, you may not have a good idea of the history of Slavery in America. Slavery in what became the United States and related to the European Settlers began in Jamestown over a century before the Revolution. None of the Founders were even born at that time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nonsense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then you are right, and I am wrong. But then so is the person who is trying to blame slavery on God completely.I personally feel as though forced slavery is against God's will.I will bow out of this subject, due to my ignorance, and lack of time to study it. I will say that, the way I relate to God's word, I would see no problem having people who feel the same way in office.

Congratulations, this is a hard statement to make. It is very polite when someone has gone to the trouble of engaging you in honest discourse to be willing to concede a point. I'm not sure that anyone is trying to blame slavery on God. What they are attempting to show is that Biblical interpretation has changed. The original authors lived in a time when slavery was acceptable. This part of the Bible (not God) may well be condoning slavery however that doesn't mean we have to today.The point is simply that one can not take every bit of the Bible as the final word even in an areas where it may be particularly strong, that is morality.In spite of the support for slavery it is very clear from the overall message of Christ and the NT that slavery has to be taken as wrong. It just took a few centuries for socities to grow up enough to be able to get the real message instead of having their noses buried in the individual words.

Thank you sir. I realy appreciate that. And I agree with your assesment of having people with religous convictions holding political office. There is a big difference between personal moral beliefs and an established religion.You are a gentleman in the truest sense and I hope you will continue your quest for knowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Amen to that brothers.I always have alot to learn.It is amazing how much ground the bible does cover though.To me God is love (among other things), love in the truest sense of the word.
Given that thought, I still don't see a reason for us not to be "One nation under God"There is nothing in there that says you have to believe in him. You are free not to, thats the important thing.

quote:

---

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?

---

What's so different about 40 year old breasts?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-03-2004 09:01 AM

Given your admiration of charlatans such as Texas creationist Don Patton, I'm not too surprised that you consider historical revisionist David Barton of Texas to be a credible source - but be aware that Barton's hokum has been exposed repeatedly. Barton's organization, Wallbuilders, is based in Aledo, Texas, and peddles "Christian Nation" historical revisionism. An earlier book of Barton's had so many bogus quotes, that he decided to publish it under a new name - "Original Intent" - and leave out some of the more egregious of the bogus quotes. It's still got plenty of out-of-context quotes and similarly deceptive material, though. Indeed, Ben Franklin is a good example of a non-Christian. As is Thomas Jefferson. And you would do well to read their writings for yourself, instead of sound-bite out-of-context quotes through Barton's revisionist filter. I doubt that Barton has much if anything in the way of "original documents" in his personal collection (at least anything relevant to the founding of the United States - perhaps you were referring to a large collection of evangelical Chick Tracts?). If Barton had thoroughly studied the subject of the founding of the United States, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself thoroughly by publishing bogus quotes. One example of a bogus quote that seems to be popular with the "Christian Nation" historical revisionists as a result of Barton's shoddy scholarship is: Hangdawg, you really need to get a B.S. Detector and use it to check the claims of those Texas charlatans you admire. Your sources seem to be best known for bearing false witness.I'll leave you with an actual quote by some of the U.S. Founders:

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

It was a response to someone who mentioned about slavery and the bible.
My comments on slavery were never pertaining to slavery in America.

---

Don't be disingenuous. The quote you were responding to was specifically about slavery in the United States: Message 11: This entire thread has been about the American system of jurisprudence and the connection between theology and legislation.For you to claim now that you weren't talking about the US, without ever making any indication that you had suddenly switched subjects, is disingenuous at best.

quote:

---

He was using the fact of slavery in America as a reason for not allowing God in the government.

---

And by your logic, then, there should still be slavery in the US because god intended for there to be slaves.

quote:

---

If God wasn't really on the hearts of our founders(like most in here are claiming), then that might explain why slavery happened?

---

Oh, please.Do you know nothing about the founding of this country? The question of slavery came up during the penning of the Declaration of Independence.While it's a dramatization, I highly recommend 1776 as a good introduction to the passions of the time and the political world that existed. The hypocracy of the North that outwardly condemned the slave trade and yet was an active participant in the entire process ("Molasses to Rum to Slaves"). It was called the Triangle Trade for a reason.

quote:

---

Either way, I don't see anything wrong with having people in our government who believe in God, or don't.

---

In and of itself, it isn't a problem.The question is whether they allow their religion to override their duty to the Constitution.Take, for example, your opposition to legal equality for gay people. That is in direct violation to the Constitutional demand for equal treatment under the law.So if you were president, would you fight for your religious values or would you fight for the Constitution?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

So we agree there are many kinds of slavery?
Including being a slave to righteousness?
Or being a slave to sin?

---

No, we don't.You are engaging in the logical error of equivocation. "Slave" meaning a person who is now an object and subject to the whims of another person is very different from "slave" meaning beholden to a concept.By this logic, football is a "religion" because people follow it fervently.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

bob_gray98 writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

Incorrect.Fourteenth Amendment: 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?

quote:

---

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.

---

But the States do not have that right. The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Gravity.

First off, I already admitted that I wasn't qualified to discuss this subject anymore.Secondly, God was not responsible for slavery in the U.S. It was started by and run by man, and it was a sin. Then man would be punished for his sins. God cannot be responsible for mans short comings, or manmade disasters. I would fight for the constitution and what the people want. Majority rules. Anything after that I would have to pray for. Don't go bringing that in here, it is off-topic. That thread was closed already. It is also wrong of you to describe what I feel, you are incorrect as you do not understand my stand point on that subject. I will not discuss it further.