Political question

[BigMac]

From your own sense of what is right and wrong. It's all in your own head.

Do you think that atheists are inherently unloving and evil? It's hard to pinpoint a time and a group of people without religion throughout history, because most ancient governments rely on religion and nearly (if not every) every civilization throughout recorded history has exercised religion in some form or another.

We've got the morals. We know what's right and what is wrong. Why should something that doesn't affect anyone but the individual who makes the decision (like a gay couple deciding to get married, or me deciding to put it in a girls butt - because sodomy is illegal) be illegal? There are several arguments that you could make against that, but are there any that don't involve christian morals? I don't give a damn what your background is. Apes and Penguins have been known to be homosexual. Why should you hold your weak and very thinly-spread understanding of the religion you blindly follow against something who has done you no wrong at all? Why don't they deserve an equal shot at what the stereotypical "good christian" does? Are they less human? Do they have the same rights as apes and penguins? If you don't let them get married, then on some level the answer is yes.

[Behrens]

From your own sense of what is right and wrong. It's all in your own head.

Do you think that atheists are inherantly unloving and evil? It's hard to pinpoint a time and a group of people without religion throughout history, because most ancient governments rely on religion and nearly (if not every) every civilization throughout recorded history has exercised religion in some form or another.

We've got the morals. We know what's right and what is wrong. Why should something that doesn't affect anyone but the individual who makes the decision (like a gay couple deciding to get married, or me deciding to put it in a girls butt - because sodomy is illegal) be illegal? There are several arguments that you could make against that, but are there any that don't involve christian morals? I don't give a damn what your background is. Apes and Penguins have been known to be homosexual. Why should you hold your weak and very thinly-spread understanding of the religion you blindly follow against something who has done you no wrong at all? Why don't they deserve an equal shot at what the stereotypical "good christian" does? Are they less human? Do they have the same rights as apes and penguins? If you don't let them get married, then on some level the answer is yes.

What if my own sense of right and wrong tells me to kill people? I'm sorry, an internal barometer is not worthwhile. Relativism is not acceptable because then the only possible crime is hypocrisy, which has been inflated to a mortal sin in our present society. If Charles Manson wants to rape and murder girls, it is wrong, etc.

I can in fact argue for homosexuality being wrong on a number of non-Christian moral systems. It is against Darwinian survivalist morality because it does not produce viable offspring, and is a waste of valuable and limited resources to support homosexual offspring unless they provide large measurable benefit to heterosexual children. It is against Islamic morality because it is against the will of Allah. It was against the Germanic pagan system (although allowed in the Greek), because they believed that you were insulting the goddess of women by sleeping with men. That's 3 non-Christian systems. Would a woman aborting a homosexual baby be a crime in the moral system of "whatever your sense says"?

Again, you make the argument of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else". But this argument is not valid in the US system of law. Prostitution, drug use, and bigamy are also personal choices, and also illegal. We can and do outlaw things that "don't hurt others".

I also take offense that you believe that my belief is "weak and very thin-spread". I have studied Scripture extensively, read both Irenaeus and Augustine, even Teilhard de Chardin and many other original thinkers on Scripture. You may believe differently than I, but that does not make my belief unstudied or ignorant. Keep that kind of thinking out of this thread, please.

[J.Twendrist]

The thing about the gospel of judas is it wasn't written when christ died, and it wasn't written by judas. It wasn't even written by someone there, let alone an appostal. Less than a hundred years after Jesus died, there were many many stories flooding around about what was right and wrong, and what to believe. Some said real truths, some said half truths, and some told whole lies.

[BigMac]

What if my own sense of right and wrong tells me to kill people? I'm sorry' date=' an internal barometer is not worthwhile. Relativism is not acceptable because then the only possible crime is hypocrisy, which has been inflated to a mortal sin in our present society. If Charles Manson wants to rape and murder girls, it is wrong, etc.[/quote']

You're comparing gay marriage to murder. Regardless of the roots of our sense of right and wrong, you can't hold anyone to a specific set of religious beliefs and claim that you're making a true separation of church and state without being 100% wrong, entirely hypocritical, and lying.

I can in fact argue for homosexuality being wrong on a number of non-Christian moral systems. It is against Darwinian survivalist morality because it does not produce viable offspring' date=' and is a waste of valuable and limited resources to support homosexual offspring unless they provide large measurable benefit to heterosexual children. It is against Islamic morality because it is against the will of Allah. It was against the Germanic pagan system (although allowed in the Greek), because they believed that you were insulting the goddess of women by sleeping with men. That's 3 non-Christian systems. Would a woman aborting a homosexual baby be a crime in the moral system of "whatever your sense says"?[/quote']

I should've said "religious morals." Your only valid answer is the Darwinian one in my book. Most die-hard conservatives are far too ignorant to even mention the name Darwin. By the same token, though, not bearing children is against the Darwinian survivalist nature (I wouldn't call it morality) because it essentially denies your existance of any viable meaning. Should those who don't plan on having children not be allowed to marry? Even better: should those who are unable to have children be unable to marry? You're still forcing religion on somebody because you think that their social group is morally wrong. You're denying a person a financial status because you disagree with a social (decision/predisposition/destiny) choose-your-word they're part of. Why? Because of what your religion teaches you. Not because it has anything to do with finance.

Again' date=' you make the argument of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else". But this argument is not valid in the US system of law. Prostitution, drug use, and bigamy are also personal choices, and also illegal. We can and do outlaw things that "don't hurt others".[/quote']

Those do hurt other people. Prostitution, drug use, and bigamy are all ways for people to fall into disease/death. And spare me the "LOL GAY AIDS" talk. I honestly have no problem with prostitution if it's done like it's done in controlled enviornments, with all the licensing and health inspections and whatnot. I've always been against drug-use, because I've seen lives destroyed by it. I've seen lives destroyed (and people die) from STDs and drug use. I don't really have much to say about bigamy except that it was probably the only other thing you could think of to tack on to the list. What in the world could a gay couple getting married do to destroy a person's life in the way drugs and disease could?

I also take offense that you believe that my belief is "weak and very thin-spread". I have studied Scripture extensively' date=' read both Irenaeus and Augustine, even Teilhard de Chardin and many other original thinkers on Scripture. You may believe differently than I, but that does not make my belief unstudied or ignorant. Keep that kind of thinking out of this thread, please.[/quote']

When I said "you," I was targeting the average knowledge of a christian law-maker. I'm glad you know more than most. Maybe we can have a good discussion about this some day. That wasn't a personal attack. I just had pizza delivered and I was typing that up between the time it got delivered and the time I ate. Delicious papa johns.

The thing about the gospel of judas is it wasn't written when christ died' date=' and it wasn't written by judas. It wasn't even written by someone there, let alone an appostal. Less than a hundred years after Jesus died, there were many many stories flooding around about what was right and wrong, and what to believe. Some said real truths, some said half truths, and some told whole lies.[/quote']

And who knows? The Gospel of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew. Do you want to discredit it? There were lots of his gospels floating around too. Because something was powerful or meaningful enough to outlaw should be a cause for alarm or atleast curiosity. How do you know that the Gospel of Luke wasn't completely made up by some drunken scribe with a lot of free time? You don't. Just because somebody has said something over and over for two thousand years doesn't mean it's true. How long did they say that Earth was flat? The only person you're hurting by not opening your ears and your mind to new (ancient) ideas is yourself.

[Behrens]

You're comparing gay marriage to murder. Regardless of the roots of our sense of right and wrong' date=' you can't hold anyone to a specific set of religious beliefs and claim that you're making a true separation of church and state without being 100% wrong, entirely hypocritical, and lying. [/quote']

Homosexuality is called "abomination" in Scripture. It seems that according to my beliefs, I have as much reason to fight it as any other sin. Again, a belief argument, which either side must rally the votes behind. So far, mine is winning in the US.

I should've said "religious morals." Your only valid answer is the Darwinian one in my book. Most die-hard conservatives are far too ignorant to even mention the name Darwin. By the same token' date=' though, not bearing children is against the Darwinian survivalist nature (I wouldn't call it morality) because it essentially denies your existance of any viable meaning. Should those who don't plan on having children not be allowed to marry? Even better: should those who are unable to have children be unable to marry? You're still forcing religion on somebody because you think that their social group is morally wrong. You're denying a person a financial status because you disagree with a social (decision/predisposition/destiny) choose-your-word they're part of. Why? Because of what your religion teaches you. Not because it has anything to do with finance. [/quote']

I am not using the Darwinian argument. I happen to think Darwinian survivalist ethics repulsive. You merely asked for arguments beyond Christian, and I gave them to you, and you're correct, I AM arguing from my religion. That's the point of this post.

Those do hurt other people. Prostitution' date=' drug use, and bigamy are all ways for people to fall into disease/death. And spare me the "LOL GAY AIDS" talk. I honestly have no problem with prostitution if it's done like it's done in controlled enviornments, with all the licensing and health inspections and whatnot. I've always been against drug-use, because I've seen lives destroyed by it. I've seen lives destroyed (and people die) from STDs and drug use. I don't really have much to say about bigamy except that it was probably the only other thing you could think of to tack on to the list. What in the world could a gay couple getting married do to destroy a person's life in the way drugs and disease could?[/quote']

I know you want to be spared the "LOL GAY AIDS" talk, but as you know, the majority of those infected with AIDS outside Africa are male homosexuals and bisexuals. (There is some argument as to infection rates in Africa and bisexuality due to tribal taboos, so let's set those aside.) In addition, homosexuals make up 1-3% of the population, but 25-30% of child molestation cases. This, of course, does not mean that all homosexuals are infected with AIDS or are child molesters. I know many decent gay men who I am close friends with, so please do not assume that I am stating they are. But the fact is that homosexuality is more dangerous than marijuana at least, and probably some heavier drugs as well. The fact is that homosexuality IS a more dangerous lifestyle, just like drugs, prostitution and polygamy/polyamory. Thus, the government has the right and responsiblity to outlaw it.

When I said "you' date='" I was targeting the average knowledge of a christian law-maker. I'm glad you know more than most. Maybe we can have a good discussion about this some day. That wasn't a personal attack. I just had pizza delivered and I was typing that up between the time it got delivered and the time I ate. Delicious papa johns. [/quote']

I will still take offense, because I've known many Christian lawmakers (I move in political circles, as you might have guessed), and they are neither ignorant nor shallow in their faith. They simply have different views than you. Do not mistake difference of opinion for ignorance.

And who knows? The Gospel of Matthew wasn't written by Matthew. Do you want to discredit it? There were lots of his gospels floating around too. Because something was powerful or meaningful enough to outlaw should be a cause for alarm or atleast curiosity. How do you know that the Gospel of Luke wasn't completely made up by some drunken scribe with a lot of free time? You don't. Just because somebody has said something over and over for two thousand years doesn't mean it's true. How long did they say that Earth was flat? The only person you're hurting by not opening your ears and your mind to new (ancient) ideas is yourself.

There are two ways to view Scripture. Either it is the Divine Word of the Almighty, which He caused to come to our ears, and guarded through the Ages, or it is the doctrinal statement of the early church. Either way, "Lost Gospels" are meaningless words.

If you believe the first way to view Scripture, then you are saying "Almighty G-d dictated these to us, and intended them preserved, but screwed up and didn't preserve these." Quite a silly statement on its face, especially with the Christian belief of G-d's goodness and omnipotence.

If you believe the second way, you are saying "These gospels were suppressed by the early church as not meeting their doctrinal beliefs, when in fact they did meet their doctrinal beliefs." Also a useless statement.

I have read the "Lost Gospels", but they are no more Scripture to me than the writings of Josephus.

[elfdude]

One could argue that homosexuality isn't a choice. What would you say about a person who needs opiates to acutally have a sustainable lifestyle (people with severe damage to their bodies that don't allow them to live an actual life without heavy pain killers, like veterans).

[inscribed]

I don't think that you can say that the law, in itself, is based on morality. Voters base their decisions regarding what becomes law on their own moral standings, and that reflects in what we have as law, so in that sense, our current law is based on morality, but it really is more of a situational thing than something innate to 'the law'.

It is my personal opinion that the law should never be about religion or morality, and has no place deciding how people live their lives as long as their actions do not affect the ability of others to lead their lives as they choose, whether those actions involve drugs, abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, etc. Really, the only things that should be illegal are things that involve infliction of damage (physical/psychological) on others, taking the property of others, prohibiting others from peacefully pursuing their own lives, etc. I don't see that as a morally based law system, as anyone is free to pursue whatever moral or immoral actions they deem wanted so long as they don't interfere with others.

With regards to the government, I believe the government only exists to provide enforcement of the law (the law as I described above), to maintain the infrastructure of society (roads/utilities/communication/etc), to handle relations (defense) with other governments (whether that be other local, state, or national governments), to research new technologies to better enable its ability to perform its functions, and to collect enough taxes to maintain only those functions. Government should not be involved with education, "the arts", social security, health care, welfare, charity, wealth distribution, or any other social program. Private industries and the free market are much, much more capable at handling those functions. Its really only when the government becomes involved with those social programs that morality becomes a factor, something that just shouldn't happen.

Just a few thoughts of mine after reading through this thread.

[Iyorvin]

I came up with three long winded responses to this post. Deleted them all because all I really have to say is to Behrens:

You have every right to vote based upon your beliefs, and your morals. That is part of being a democracy. With the consideration of religion being interwoven into the government, it doesn't have to be. The constitution of a "state" will govern the government, so to speak. And the morals and judgements of the majority will dictate that, depending on the society.

I was going to respond, but this thread is wavering. It seems like the real issue here was gay/lesbian marriage, and that is what was really bothering you. I could be wrong, as you did bring up other topics, such as abortion, but it really all comes down to perspective of the individual. And to my death I'll maintain that it isn't my place to make that judgement.

On a side note though: Maybe homosexuality is a part of the evolution of the planet to induce a population control by mother nature! hehehe RAR!

[Behrens]

Amusingly enough, my bigger issue is abortion. I'd give homosexuals marriage in a heartbeat if I honestly thought it would outlaw abortion forever. Gay marriage has just been in the news a lot more recently, so it made a better example.

No, this thread was started because I got really annoyed at people saying "don't bring your religion to politics", especially in the DK and religion thread, and I wanted to hear other people's perspectives.

As I said, I don't live in an area with many liberals, so I enjoy hearing your points of view, since you come from a perspective I don't share.

[Iyorvin]

Well it's good, my biggest problem with social issues right now is abortion too. Most abortion cases are not related to rape victems, and as you have been able to tell from a lot of my posts, I believe in owning up to responsibility. Sex is better unwrapped, we all know that, but that chance you take you need to own up to.

A good example of this, and I'm thankful for, is my own mother. She lost her virginity at 13, was pregnant at 17, with no money, place to stay, or any way to care for me. Yet she never once thought of abortion, knowing that adoption would at least give me a chance to live my life. I'm thankful every day, and think about it every day, knowing how many hundreds of children are not given the chance.

A huge retort I get is, "Why is it fair to allow those children to suffer?" Suffer? I don't understand. My life hasn't been easy, but it has made me try harder, and work harder for things I want in life. It has given me a perspective not many can share, and I am very greatful for it. Giving life a chance isn't every the wrong choice.

Man, I hate abortion.

[Pali]

Re: Iyorvin

I was reading a blog recently by a woman who was with her partner and the condom broke. Neither noticed. She's allergic to birth control pills, so she can't take them. She attempted to obtain the morning-after pill, but due to bias on the part of the doctors and other medical personnel she talked to, wasn't able to until too late. Should she have been forced to have the kid, when she did everything right attempting to prevent it?

[Lexi]

Religion is a profound part of many people's lives, both for politicians and for voters. My problem is when a religious intitution, a church or something similar, attempts to sway politics in one way or the other, just as I believe a priest would be annoyed if a politician tried to decide when and where people should be allowed to pray.

For example, a church should not fund a campaign for a political party. Instead, use the money to build chapels, or convert people or repair churches or whatnot. Religion is somthing spiritual, meant to help us understand our existance. Politics is about deciding how a nation is supposed to be. This does not, and should not, prevent that a senator from being religious, or winning that office because he is religious.

[One Way Up]

I agree with all of the basic understandings here, that everyone here believes that, despite how much one may be against it, Religious views will ultimately play a part in Society. Even if there is a movement to try to remove any and every form of infulence of religion in politics, people will still find parallels. To do away with religion completely would involve doing away with the foundations of religion in the system, IE any sort of law that would protect against any natural rights. Some people may think, "Well there is nothing spiritual about the natural rights, etc... Those are just givens." There are those out there, however, who will link the two(religion and politics) together regardless.

My own personal belief is that, even though I would love to see the Ten Commandments be allowed back into the school, and to do away with all this stuff about taking "In God we Trust" off our currency, as well as the Pledge, I believe that Ultimately God will have his way regardless of how much we try to take him out of the equation. Personally, I see society beginning to slope in a downhill fashion. I was speaking with a gentleman, and he told me that, at one time in the movie industry(which really isn't THAT old), if a man was in bed(clothed), and a woman was going to get into bad, he had to get out as she was getting in. A man and a woman were not allowed into bed at the same time together. That may sound strange to some, but look at what's allowed on network TV? I've only heard rumors of the things allowed on TV in Europe, but I hear it's worse. How big is the abortion issue becoming now? Stem-cell research? Gay leaders in Churches? I know I'm not the only one who has noticed, and I know that there are countless people in this world who disagree with me, as well as the rest of us Christians, but with the absense of anything concerning God, the society has started to deteriorate.

Why? Because, as I posted in the 'Dk's and religion' post, I don't believe people like to submit themselves to the mercy of something they can't actually see or touch. Even though it may, and is(from personal experience), the smartest( and most important) choice that can be made while living on this Earth, people don't like the feeling of not only being in control, but having to "give up" all the physically and emotional benefits of stress, worry, drinking your liver away, loneliness, need I go on? So, when you get a politician who looks like they would allow their relationship with God influence their decision making for this country, people start to freak out, and are led to vote for the guy who seems to have little to no Spiritual relationship(which, the 'absense' of a relationship with God only leaves a relationship with Satan, for man can only serve one master, and cannot serve neither.) Or maybe, just the guy who won't let his 'religious' life interfere with his 'political' life. If you take the life of a truly devout Christain however, you will see that there is no difference. You're life is centered around God, and all that you do is because of your spiritualy life-there is no seperation, only relation.

As far as tolerance goes, I'm not one to condemn or judge someone who doesn't believe the same as me. It's my duty to put others before myself, and to love everyone as Christ loves me. This means that I must be tolerant of other peoples beliefs/habits. Jesus was tolerant, but you notice that Jesus was never with them WHILE they were engaging in whatever sinful act they were associated with. We see him become intolerant, however, when he returns to find his Father's temple reduced to nothing more than a mere marketplace. There is a time for war, and a time for peace. The same, I believe, applies to being tolerant of other people and speaking the Truth in a manner that may seem harsh and unswaying.

[Pali]

Why? Because, as I posted in the 'Dk's and religion' post, I don't believe people like to submit themselves to the mercy of something they can't actually see or touch. Even though it may, and is(from personal experience), the smartest( and most important) choice that can be made while living on this Earth, people don't like the feeling of not only being in control, but having to "give up" all the physically and emotional benefits of stress, worry, drinking your liver away, loneliness, need I go on? So, when you get a politician who looks like they would allow their relationship with God influence their decision making for this country, people start to freak out, and are led to vote for the guy who seems to have little to no Spiritual relationship(which, the 'absense' of a relationship with God only leaves a relationship with Satan, for man can only serve one master, and cannot serve neither.) Or maybe, just the guy who won't let his 'religious' life interfere with his 'political' life. If you take the life of a truly devout Christain however, you will see that there is no difference. You're life is centered around God, and all that you do is because of your spiritualy life-there is no seperation, only relation.

As far as tolerance goes, I'm not one to condemn or judge someone who doesn't believe the same as me. It's my duty to put others before myself, and to love everyone as Christ loves me. This means that I must be tolerant of other peoples beliefs/habits. Jesus was tolerant, but you notice that Jesus was never with them WHILE they were engaging in whatever sinful act they were associated with. We see him become intolerant, however, when he returns to find his Father's temple reduced to nothing more than a mere marketplace. There is a time for war, and a time for peace. The same, I believe, applies to being tolerant of other people and speaking the Truth in a manner that may seem harsh and unswaying.

You say that you're not one to condemn or judge someone who believes otherwise, yet in the paragraph just before you say they are either following your god or Satan. This is what I find disturbing about religious beliefs. It creates a very strong "us or them" mentality. I wouldn't say I serve either God or Satan, because I don't think either exist. Why do you say it's impossible to serve neither? Also, you say some people refuse god because they don't like being controlled... what about those who refuse god because they see no reason for his existence, and there are no other reasons beyond this?

[Zrothum]

There is a song by a band that I like (Corporate Avenger), it goes something like:

"I'm not saying that it's good...I'm not saying that it's right...but the virgin mary may have been...a hermaphrodite. Not saying that it's good, not saying that at all, but if jesus christ was god, and god created all, than jesus christ created the homosexual. He made them in his image, now listen what I say, it's a possibility that jesus christ was gay."

then it goes on to sing

"Could the virgin mary been a hermaphrodite? She was with a child, without having a man, and that's not the only thing that I don't understand."

[HBwillie]

Anti-abortion, anti gay marriage. Just my standpoint.

[Pali]

Anti-abortion' date=' anti gay marriage. Just my standpoint.[/quote']

Considering you're from Texas, that's not a surprise. ^_~