Political question

[Behrens]

This one came up in the DK/religion thread, and I wanted to get a discussion about it going, because I was curious, without the side discussions spawned by that thread.

A lot of people say "you can't impose your morality on other people", which I think we all agree is not true. All laws are statements of morality, from "Thou shalt not murder" to pot laws, all of them impose some morality on the people.

Some laws I disagree with the morality of (I think it is immoral for a government to take more than 10% of any person's income, or allow abortion), some I agree with the morality of (I am an opponent of gay marriage laws). Those that I disagree with, I vote against, and try to get people elected that agree with my morality.

However, there seems to be a movement afoot that says that Christians need to "leave religion out of government". I am curious what you all think about this idea. Should religion be left out of government? Why? What other sources of morality should we use?

I see a lot of people refer to Christians needing to be "tolerant", but tolerance is not a required virtue for a Christian. Is it wrong for Christians to try to get other Christians elected who will get their laws in place?

(Note: I am talking about an actual majority. Obviously, cheating, stealing elections and such are right out).

If there is a Christian majority in your state that enacted Christian laws, we have 50 states, would you move to another one, or try to enact Federal laws against those Christian laws?

[The Lemming]

Government will never be free from religion no matter how hard people try to make is so. The 10 commandments are rooted too deep in our law making process. Thy shall not kill, steel, commit adultry. Respect thy mother and father, last I checked they still had power over kids.

Even our founding fathers had religion. They all worked together to make this nation a place where everyone can worship freely. God was given credit by them as being a major player in the way things worked. Even the ones that didnt believe in god tollerated the Idea. Today it seems that this nation that was forged (for a good bit of the reason anyway) on freedom of religion is trying to tear that religion that gave birth to its values down.

[a-guitarist]

As against it as I am, I'm going to have to make a generalization. Most religions have a set of moral codes that say do not kill, steal, etc. These are also what most atheists/whatevers follow aswell. I like to look at them as the constant rules of self guidence throughout life. These, in my opinion, are not just morals, but basic rights people have.

So, you have the basic right not to be killed. You have the basic right not to have your stuff stolen from you. And so on. But when it comes to things that are specific to certain religions, or maybe they are parrallel in all mainstream religions, that regulate things past the basic, constant rules of self guidence, aka morals, then that is where you must draw the line.

As you have said before, Behrens, you vote those who share your morals into office in hopes of having the community/state/country that you would wish to live in. There is nothing wrong with this, and I doubt that anyone would say there was.

I firmly believe that religion should be left out of government, and allow only what I called the basic, constant rules of self guidence as law. Now, I know that some people will not agree with what I consider all the basic, constant rules, and that's okay. But some sort of balance between all people under the umbrella of the rules must be maintained, and all people must have their beliefs taken into consideration. This does cause a lot of problems; abortion, gay marriages, etc.

What to do in these cases? If it doesn't involve you, don't try and get involved in it. Gay marriages don't hurt anyone. No one loses money, health, or any rights they have aloted to them if two homosexuals marry. However, this is easier said than done, as we, humans, as a people, are nosey.

As for your hypothetical(or maybe it isn't) situation of christians laws being enforced. If the people elected those enacting and enforceing the laws into government legally, then I would have no choice but to leave the state/area. However, if the government was steadfast against religion in its domain, I would try and get federal action. But the fact remains that the government is run by christians, as they make up the majority of those in this country, so there is really little that can be done about it.

a-g

[Goomf]

One can also say that there are those who want to further impose religion onto the government. I agree that religion is a fundamental basis behind our laws. However, that basis is time sensitive - people today interpret different aspects of religion more distinctly as time passes. I imagine those same people want to change the government based on those beliefs rather than through a fiscal/monetary/international basis.

I'm a very practical person. Our main concerns should be our economic and social welfare rather than trying to impose some minute point to an already established basis of the government.

The question is how much MORE religious beliefs will be imposed? Those already established are pretty much here to stay (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.) If there ever, g-d forbid, a completely religious state in America where the beliefs of a religion is imposed on those who do not believe in that religion, you can pretty much kiss much of your ideology and beliefs goodbye. The main problem with religion is the zealotry of those who have faith in that religion. It follows through that people trying to change an entire state into their personal beliefs will be zealots.

You mentioned that tolerance is not a required virtue of Christians. By stating this fact, and if you actually do FOCUS on this fact and make it the basis of a statement or argument, that pretty much tells me what type of belief in your religion you have. Tolerance is a social norm based on accepting people. If it isn't a required virtue of Christians, thereby giving people justification to do whatever the hell they want, I'd be truly scared.

If a state became completely religious, I would use whatever powers I have to try to change it. If a state became completely aetheist or agnostic, I would use whatever powers I have to try to change it. Chances are that unless I have a lot of influence, I would move to a different place.

[Behrens]

As against it as I am, I'm going to have to make a generalization. Most religions have a set of moral codes that say do not kill, steal, etc. These are also what most atheists/whatevers follow aswell. I like to look at them as the constant rules of self guidence throughout life. These, in my opinion, are not just morals, but basic rights people have.

So, you have the basic right not to be killed. You have the basic right not to have your stuff stolen from you. And so on. But when it comes to things that are specific to certain religions, or maybe they are parrallel in all mainstream religions, that regulate things past the basic, constant rules of self guidence, aka morals, then that is where you must draw the line.

As you have said before, Behrens, you vote those who share your morals into office in hopes of having the community/state/country that you would wish to live in. There is nothing wrong with this, and I doubt that anyone would say there was.

I firmly believe that religion should be left out of government, and allow only what I called the basic, constant rules of self guidence as law. Now, I know that some people will not agree with what I consider all the basic, constant rules, and that's okay. But some sort of balance between all people under the umbrella of the rules must be maintained, and all people must have their beliefs taken into consideration. This does cause a lot of problems; abortion, gay marriages, etc.

What to do in these cases? If it doesn't involve you, don't try and get involved in it. Gay marriages don't hurt anyone. No one loses money, health, or any rights they have aloted to them if two homosexuals marry. However, this is easier said than done, as we, humans, as a people, are nosey.

As for your hypothetical(or maybe it isn't) situation of christians laws being enforced. If the people elected those enacting and enforceing the laws into government legally, then I would have no choice but to leave the state/area. However, if the government was steadfast against religion in its domain, I would try and get federal action. But the fact remains that the government is run by christians, as they make up the majority of those in this country, so there is really little that can be done about it.

a-g

You've said a couple things that I'm unsure of. What if we disagree about injury? Many people say that marijuana causes no hurt, and it certainly does none to me (I wouldn't smoke it, legal or not). However, it is currently illegal in our current code.

What about abortion? I am a man, so abortion laws don't apply to me, but I think it is harm done to a living child still in the womb, whereas most pro-choice feminists think that the harm is the loss of freedom of the woman over her own body. Or, to go even further, euthanasia? That is the deliberate killing of one human by another. Should I look the other way because it does not affect me? The murder of an inner city Detroit man does not affect me directly either, but I will do what I can to prevent it.

I believe, as do most "right wing Evangelicals", (I do not consider myself one of them, but am often lumped with them), that harm done to weaker members of society reflects on society. That is why I support pro-life causes.

Goomf, when I say tolerance isn't a required virtue, what I mean is that it is not required to accept everyone's actions as "valid in their moral system". That kind of tolerance is different from letting people practice their religion in peace as they wish (which I note is established in our Constitution)

Gay marriage is a great example of this. Why should I have to give married benefits to two men who are engaged in a commited sexual relationship? It is against my beliefs. Why does the government have the right to impose on me the requirement of treating them as if they are married? I don't want the word marriage to be applied to two homosexuals. Why should I be legally required to?

Every law cuts both ways. Sometimes we decide those cut against are acceptable to cut, other times not.

Goomf, you say that "zealotry" is a problem. But there are zealots on both sides. Why should religious zealots be penalized merely because their zealotry comes from something religious rather than philosophical? I've known many zealous feminists. Is their zealotry right? If so, why is mine wrong?

[WarriorCleric]

However' date=' there seems to be a movement afoot that says that Christians need to "leave religion out of government". I am curious what you all think about this idea. Should religion be left out of government? Why? What other sources of morality should we use?[/quote'] Religion should be left out, but not the good intent. And one good reason would be it's in the first amendment. Either way why do the moral laws we live by have to be from a religion? It's a good idea to outlaw murder, it's a good idea to outlaw stealing, everyone agrees on this. But where do you draw the line? I'm pretty sure the ten comandments tells my friend he shouldn't pray to Shiva, but his tells me I shouldn't believe in you're version of god? I mean, we don't even have on unified understand of what it is to be christian, if so many different sects of chrisitianity exists, which one will we use? Who's specific of morality is more better than the others? I wasn't raised going to church every day, I don't consider myself religious in much of any sense, but I don't go out and kill people, I don't steal, I don't rape, pillage, etc. What moral code do I live by? No idea, whatever one my parents taught me amended with life's lessons I learned on the way. I wouldn't want someone to kill me or my friends, so I'm not going to kill someone else. I wouldn't want people to take my things, so I'll not take other peoples things. And the list goes on.

There are a few people who actually have a job thinking these things out, their called Supreme Court Justices. We have the Consititution of the United States which contains the Bill of Rights, and our country is founded on these articles, and as we live now we are living by an interpitation of this.

I see a lot of people refer to Christians needing to be "tolerant"' date=' but tolerance is not a required virtue for a Christian. Is it wrong for Christians to try to get other Christians elected who will get their laws in place?[/quote'] Not at all, unless those Crhisitian laws tread on the consititution. This isn't something that is just a christian only complaint, it's pretty ignorant for anyone aiming to get someone elected just because they share a common background. The vocal minority that feel just they may not like bob, but bobs better because he's atleast the same race/religion as themselves.

I've lost myself in these posts somewhere. Why should religion be left out of the state? Because it says so in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court says so. You want to live in a country governed by it's religion? Go ahead, I believe it's called Iran. These topics are just ****ing stupid and I'm just going to keep myself out of them for now because I don't think I can contribute without being hurtful. Religious morality isn't the only morality, it's just your morality.

WC

[Goomf]

Why should you have the authority to take away married benefits for two men who are engaged in a commited sexual relationship? It is against YOUR beliefs. Are you saying that you should have such a tremendous impact on their lives as to take away from their legal rights? Will it affect YOU economically? Possibly some sort of tax increase. Will it affect YOU socially?

You're thinking about the welfare of the entire society. Let's reverse the situation. If this country was full of buddhists or muslims and they run the government, would it be within their rights and abilities to prevent you from practicing religion? After all, that would impose on the spiritual cohesiveness of society.

What right do YOU have to prevent something that would not affect you in any radical way? And the key word here, besides YOU, is radical. Many propositions were passed and declined yesterday, most of which INDIVIDUALS voted based on THEIR needs, THEIR requirements, THEIR wants. Issues such as gay marriage is based on INDIVIDUAL desires, and as a society, unless we deem it would threaten the welfare of society in some economical and socialf actors, we should not have the ability to mandate such outcomes. Each person is basically in control of their own lives, wouldn't you say? Preventing gay marriage gives you a tight control of theirs.

Zealots are fine as long as they don't have a huge control of issues and are the deciding factor. Look at the Iraqi war and the outcome. The problems we have their, besides Bush's obvious incompetence, is that we're fighting zealots.

The difference between religious and philosophical zealots, in my opinion, is that religious zealots are more extreme. Religion has a greater influence and imposes beliefs in a grander scheme. There is no inherent difference besides the factors that their zealotry are based on. And we all know through World History how religious zealotry brought about situations after situations of bloody conflicts.

[Behrens]

Religion should be left out, but not the good intent. And one good reason would be it's in the first amendment. Either way why do the moral laws we live by have to be from a religion? It's a good idea to outlaw murder, it's a good idea to outlaw stealing, everyone agrees on this. But where do you draw the line? I'm pretty sure the ten comandments tells my friend he shouldn't pray to Shiva, but his tells me I shouldn't believe in you're version of god? I mean, we don't even have on unified understand of what it is to be christian, if so many different sects of chrisitianity exists, which one will we use? Who's specific of morality is more better than the others? I wasn't raised going to church every day, I don't consider myself religious in much of any sense, but I don't go out and kill people, I don't steal, I don't rape, pillage, etc. What moral code do I live by? No idea, whatever one my parents taught me amended with life's lessons I learned on the way. I wouldn't want someone to kill me or my friends, so I'm not going to kill someone else. I wouldn't want people to take my things, so I'll not take other peoples things. And the list goes on.

There are a few people who actually have a job thinking these things out, their called Supreme Court Justices. We have the Consititution of the United States which contains the Bill of Rights, and our country is founded on these articles, and as we live now we are living by an interpitation of this.

Not at all, unless those Crhisitian laws tread on the consititution. This isn't something that is just a christian only complaint, it's pretty ignorant for anyone aiming to get someone elected just because they share a common background. The vocal minority that feel just they may not like bob, but bobs better because he's atleast the same race/religion as themselves.

I've lost myself in these posts somewhere. Why should religion be left out of the state? Because it says so in the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court says so. You want to live in a country governed by it's religion? Go ahead, I believe it's called Iran. These topics are just ****ing stupid and I'm just going to keep myself out of them for now because I don't think I can contribute without being hurtful. Religious morality isn't the only morality, it's just your morality.

WC

WC, I hope you'll continue to contribute, because I like animated discussions, as long as we don't get insulting. However, if you can't, I guess I'll just keep going.

I don't see these discussions as stupid, because I honestly don't get much contact, except in this board, with people who believe a lot differently than me, and I genuinely want to know what set of assumptions people have that leads them to these views. I have my moral system, but never learning about others' reasons for their beliefs is silly, which is why I ask these questions.

I like the Bill of Rights, and I think they're the reason we have a great government. I don't want a theocracy, and never have. I believe that everyone should have the legal right to whatever religion they want. However, the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It says that Congress shall not make any law establishing a state religion, and I'd be pretty upset even if my personal beliefs EXACTLY were made a state religion, because what I believe demands that you come to G-d voluntarily, not by force.

What I am upset about is other people with different moralities saying that I cannot ask for laws that do not circumvent the Bill of Rights but that I believe are morally right. All of you seem to be espousing a version, to varying degrees of firmness, of libertarianism. That is to say, leave everyone to themselves, as long as they don't interfere with other people's rights.

I don't find libertarianism to be terribly objectionable (better than our current form of government, but not as good as my ideal, IMHO), but I'd like to know why you feel that I need to keep religion out, but other moralities are acceptable. I believe that you have a better society if homosexuals are not allowed to marry than one where they are. I will vote for laws like this, which are conservative, not libertarian, and definitely covered not in the Bill of Rights.

Also, I'd like to know (and this is honest, not a flame) where morals come from if you are ignoring religious morals.

I guess the point of this is that I really don't know many true libertarians and liberals and I really do want to know where you come from. This isn't for fighting, just for me to learn your POV, and give you mine. No need to stop in if you aren't interested, of course.

[elfdude]

Everbody posts are bigger than mine

I think that things that don't impose upon other peoples freedoms shouldn't be disallowed, aka rights for gay couples*, drug laws, stem cell research and stuff like that.

*note that im not saying gay marriage, as thats a religious institution, more like gay civil unions.

[Goomf]

The problem with these types of questions is that there can never be a consensus on them. You believe that you should be able to enact laws based on your moralities that you learned through religious faith. If I were a Buddhists, or for that matter a scientologist, I would have exactly the same beliefs. Since this country is found on christianity, you have better chances than I do. If this country were found on Buddhism or Scientology, I would have better chances than you do.

What is the more prevalent religion? I could take your stance and argue the SAME EXACT thing except I would be arguing for . What would be your response to that?

[Behrens]

Why should you have the authority to take away married benefits for two men who are engaged in a commited sexual relationship? It is against YOUR beliefs. Are you saying that you should have such a tremendous impact on their lives as to take away from their legal rights? Will it affect YOU economically? Possibly some sort of tax increase. Will it affect YOU socially?

You're thinking about the welfare of the entire society. Let's reverse the situation. If this country was full of buddhists or muslims and they run the government, would it be within their rights and abilities to prevent you from practicing religion? After all, that would impose on the spiritual cohesiveness of society.

What right do YOU have to prevent something that would not affect you in any radical way? And the key word here, besides YOU, is radical. Many propositions were passed and declined yesterday, most of which INDIVIDUALS voted based on THEIR needs, THEIR requirements, THEIR wants. Issues such as gay marriage is based on INDIVIDUAL desires, and as a society, unless we deem it would threaten the welfare of society in some economical and socialf actors, we should not have the ability to mandate such outcomes. Each person is basically in control of their own lives, wouldn't you say? Preventing gay marriage gives you a tight control of theirs.

Zealots are fine as long as they don't have a huge control of issues and are the deciding factor. Look at the Iraqi war and the outcome. The problems we have their, besides Bush's obvious incompetence, is that we're fighting zealots.

The difference between religious and philosophical zealots, in my opinion, is that religious zealots are more extreme. Religion has a greater influence and imposes beliefs in a grander scheme. There is no inherent difference besides the factors that their zealotry are based on. And we all know through World History how religious zealotry brought about situations after situations of bloody conflicts.

Dangit, Goomf, you posted while I was writing. I'll be caught up replying for a bit.

As I said in my previous post, I believe in freedom of religion. I always have, and always will. I am talking about which moral system is used to determine laws, Christian, secular, Hindu, etc.

If I lived in a majority Hindu country, I would expect most laws would follow Hindu morality, Islamic to Islamic, just as when I lived in Korea, the laws were Confuscian and Christian in origin, which gives a different feel than Judeo-Christian here in the US. If I lived in Israel, I would expect more Jewish influence on laws. As long as there is freedom to move, I don't mind any morality at all in other countries. I would even be happy to allow Communist dictatorships as long as their people could leave at will, meaning that only people who, for whatever reason, wanted to live there, would live there.

If I believe that marriage is a mystical bond between a man and a woman, given as a gift from G-d, why should I have the state tell me that I have to treat two men engaging in acts that I believe are abomination as if they're married? What if I do believe that treating it as marriage damages society? As I've said, I think libertarianism is a decent choice for government, and would take it over many alternatives, but I don't see why you guys are so adamant that I be required to be libertarian in my beliefs.

[Goomf]

I'm not adamant about you being libertarian in your beliefs. I do, however, think you should have a more open mind.

How about this. We go back to the early 19th century through a magic time portal and ask the same question. Instead of gay marriages, let's address the issue of african americans.

[Behrens]

I'm not adamant about you being libertarian in your beliefs. I do, however, think you should have a more open mind.

How about this. We go back to the early 19th century through a magic time portal and ask the same question. Instead of gay marriages, let's address the issue of african americans.

We did. We voted to give them freedom (Lincoln's main campaign platform, and the reason the Republican party destroyed the Whig party, the previous conservative party), and then fought a war to enforce that vote.

I hope whatever the result of the gay marriage vote that both sides will accept it and avoid a war.

I have an open mind, which is why I ask these questions.

[Goomf]

I'll retract the statement about having an open mind. It's this little habit of mine...some people just put too much faith into their religion that all they have to say is 'This is g-d's will, and it must be abided' despite any logical interpretation I give. It's like saying 'ok' or 'why?' Not saying you do that, but I get somewhat peeved when talking about religious stubbornness

[elfdude]

I just want to restate my opinion on gay unions, not on gay marriage. Its understandable that the catholic/christian peeps don't want their sacrament SULLIED BY DEM HOMOS but I mean, jesus, they are people too they deserve legal rights even though their personal feelings are contradictive to the very vocal minority. And I do think that the religious right is a minority, people just need to get out and vote damnit.

[Goomf]

What kind of dog is that?

[Behrens]

I just want to restate my opinion on gay unions' date=' not on gay marriage. Its understandable that the catholic/christian peeps don't want their sacrament SULLIED BY DEM HOMOS but I mean, jesus, they are people too they deserve legal rights even though their personal feelings are contradictive to the very vocal minority. And I do think that the religious right is a minority, people just need to get out and vote damnit.[/quote']

Gay unions (specifically not marriage) were on the ballot here in Colorado and lost.

I'd say that answers the question. It's not a minority, it's a majority. (we had very large voter turnout in Colorado this year)

[elfdude]

What is your opinion on the states that have allowed it, I believe New Jersey and Massachusis (sp?). I think there might be a few more states too.

[Behrens]

What is your opinion on the states that have allowed it' date=' I believe New Jersey and Massachusis (sp?). I think there might be a few more states too.[/quote']

More power to them, as long as it is the will of the people. I am strongly against court mandated laws (abortion, and at least 1 gay marriage law), but if a legislature wants to vote in such a law, they're welcome to. If the people don't like it, they'll vote them out.

[elfdude]

I do believe we are at a standstill sir! I gotta say I respect the power of the peeps, even when I disagree with it.

[BigMac]

People have the misconception that if religion is separated from government, that government will have no place from which to draw morality.

This is wrong.

I am a (very different form of it than most I've ever met, but) Christian. I am a conservative. I voted for GW Bush in 2004.

I don't believe that gay marriage should ever be banned. There are two sides of marriage: the religious side and the financial side. Why should the government punish you financially because you're socially different than what a "christian" would deem acceptable? Christian marriage and Hindu marriages are different. Catholic and Jewish marriages are different. To the government, they're not. They're just a way to fiscally separate you from others. Why should gays and lesbians be excluded from that fiscal demographic when christianity's morals differ from what theirs should be? Shouldn't government be blind to that? Shouldn't there be a separation between church and state?

Don't get me started on the Bible. Hell, don't even get me started on Christians. Most Christians don't even know what it means to be a Christian. Christianity today isn't Christianity. It's what the Romans thought it should be in the 4th century AD/CE. Christians have no idea what even constitutes a Christian belief. Most Christians pay their Church (they're not churches, they're businesses) a part of their income, show up to church, and leave thinking they've obtained grace or salvation. Even people who read the Bible are ignorant. Do you know how the Bible was written? Do you know anything about how early Christianity spread? It was by word of mouth, and by the circulation of written documents they called "good news" (which is what the word gospel means). There were hundreds of different books and gospels, all giving light on Christ's message. How many books are in the New Testament? How many gospels made it into the new testament? Less than 25% of them. Most of the documents that were left out of the bible were outlawed. Anyone heard anything about the recently translated Gospel of Judas Iscariot? It was first denounced and then outlawed because of what it said. It said that Judas did a good thing by turning Jesus over; something that Jesus asked him to do. Most of the apocrypha (books left out) that has been uncovered in the last 200 years has been gnostic in nature - meaning that they stated that the key to salvation was through ones own self and ones own mind, rather than one particular nucleus.

Think of it from a logical standpoint. Say you're Iraeneus (sp? I can never get that right) or Anastasius (don't quote me on that spelling either). Those people (although they lived at different times) were the two biggest influences on what made it into the Christian (actually, catholic - catholics wrote the christian bible) bible. They were Romans. They were "Bishops" of the Catholic church and figureheads in the power stucture of the ancient world. Why would you tell someone that they can obtain divinity and grace on their own if you want to control them? Why would you tell someone something other than the guilt-instilling theory that Jesus died for your sins because he was turned in by his close friend and then executed by his own people (the Jews, a minority in Rome).

What does organized religion do? Control people. If you're a political leader and you force a religion on people, why do you do it? To control them. It's the same thing that the US Government is doing to us now. They're controling us with their "religion."

It sickens me.

Until a line is drawn, the United States and the rest of the world will be held back by the decisions that two men made 1700 years ago.

"Woe to you who lack an advocate. Woe to you who stand in need of grace. Blessed will be they who have spoken out and obtained grace for themselves."

Jesus, quoted in the Apocryphon of James.

You are your own advocate. You don't need a religious power structure or government to push you toward salvation. Be an individual and you will be rewarded.

[Goomf]

Awesome post. Nails it right on the head.

[Behrens]

People have the misconception that if religion is separated from government, that government will have no place from which to draw morality.

This is wrong.

This is an assertion. Please give statements of where you get morality from?

This really isn't the place for a discussion of Christian theology. I am merely refering to Christians who vote what they believe. We can discuss the merits of the Christian Bible, and the reformations of the Church through the Roman period in another thread.

[Goomf]

This is an assertion. Please give statements of where you get morality from?

This really isn't the place for a discussion of Christian theology. I am merely refering to Christians who vote what they believe. We can discuss the merits of the Christian Bible, and the reformations of the Church through the Roman period in another thread.

Refer to Dk's and Religion.

[Behrens]

Refer to Dk's and Religion.

I actually didn't get a satisfactory answer there either.