Religious People with Political Views

[Dr.Who]

He said they do not have the right to exist and should be "eliminated".

Oh, your right.

Well it does add something to the thread - it shows the degree of anti- theism that is out there and who some of these people really are.

 

[Apathy]

Such laws impose your worldview on others. The aggressors for one as well as anyone who welcomes aggression.

Nonaggression is not an ideology, nonaggression is the natural state of things. On the flip side aggression is not an ideology it is a means to impose an ideology.

 

[Apathy]

Translation: I cannot refute anything GenSeneca said in his last post.

Ad hominem is not worth refuting.
Plain English: I b1tch slapped your argument and all you have left is name calling.

What irrelevant topic have I brought up to divert attention away from the main topic?

The original argument I responded to from page 4... Where you took one statement out of context in order to distract from the main topic.

Would you prefer Theophobic? Since you're not trying to claim that I think ideology should dictate laws, clearly it was the mention of religion that ruffled your feathers.

I love religion I think it could be a great guide to one's personal life, however when the line between God and country blurs the results are less than ideal. ie The Spanish Inquisition

 

[Dr.Who]

Nonaggression is not an ideology, nonaggression is the natural state of things. On the flip side aggression is not an ideology it is a means to impose an ideology.

"Non aggression is the natural state of things"

I would like it if you were to start a thread on that, and expand on your views.

 

[GenSeneca]

I b1tch slapped your argument and all you have left is name calling.

My "argument" has always been that laws must be logically justifiable. Did you, at some point, refute that argument? Or are you referring to slapping around the strawmen you constructed? I never argued for religion to dictate law, that was your strawman. I never argued that people should accept faulty logic, that was another of your strawmen.

The original argument I responded to from page 4... Where you took one statement out of context in order to distract from the main topic.

I ask again, what irrelevent topic did I bring up? Pointing out your use of strawmen is not a red herring, however, your use of strawmen is an attempt to avoid addressing my actual statement on the topic: Laws must have logical justification.

Care to address that statement?

I love religion I think it could be a great guide to one's personal life, however when the line between God and country blurs the results are less than ideal.

Should religious people be permitted to participate in government and if so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on them to prevent "less than ideal" outcomes?

My answer is very simple; I don't care if people use religion as a guide but laws must have logical justifications.

Now please read the following statement:

I love ideology I think it could be a great guide to one's personal life, however when the line between ideology and country blurs the results are less than ideal.​

Should ideological people be permitted to participate in government and if so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on them to prevent "less than ideal" outcomes?

Once again I have the same simple answer; I don't care if people use ideology as a guide but laws must have logical justifications.

 

[GenSeneca]

"Non aggression is the natural state of things"

I would like it if you were to start a thread on that, and expand on your views.

I too could use a good laugh.

 

[nobull]

Seperation of Church and State..The idea of where to "draw the line" deserves considerable attention. There is indeed a line a nation crosses in violating the free exercise of religion, as well as the freedom of conscience.

In America, this “line” has shifted over the years. In other words, as the definition of a "religious establishment" has changed, the concept of America as a Christian nation has also changed. In America, it has become politically incorrect to refer to the U.S. in religious terms according to the religion of the majority.

Such was not always the case. Historically, throughout the world, America has always been considered a Christian nation. Why? Because Christianity was the dominant religion of the land. Christianity shaped the thinking of America's forefathers and informed the making of public policy and law. Christianity was a part of the common law; it was woven throughout the fabric of American life.


When the framers of the federal constitution came to this subject they decided against any type of formal establishment. There would be no official religious test for elected officials. The test was placed directly in the hands of the voters. Concerning formal religious establishments, this was a State matter. The national government was powerless over religious matters, except in assuring there was no national establishment and in guaranteeing the free exercise of religion.


So, where do we "cross the line" when dealing with religion? We cross the line when we try to re-establish the formal relationship that once existed in America. Nobody desires to have either a State or a federal establishment of religion. This is not apart of the Christian political agenda. However, there are those who have this fear.


Non Christians seem to believe that, for example, halting the spread of pornography establishes religion. Or that protecting the life of the unborn is a doctrinal statement. They seem to think that standing against the teaching of deviant sexual behavior in public education is a religious issue. Or that allowing prayers at graduation ceremonies violates another's rights of conscience. Indeed, they have accepted the rhetoric of the mass media and the social secularists.

Political action on these issues—abortion, school prayer, the traditional family, etc.—is not an establishment of religion. American is fully capable of taking political positions on moral matters without establishing a religion. America is fully capable of instituting public policies that reflect the thinking and attitudes of most Christians, indeed most Americans, without establishing Christianity. America is fully capable of being a Christian nation without violating the rights of conscience or the free exercise of religion. Anything less is "crossing the line."

just sayin
doug

 

[Apathy]

Seperation of Church and State..The idea of where to "draw the line" deserves considerable attention. There is indeed a line a nation crosses in violating the free exercise of religion, as well as the freedom of conscience.

Sure

In America, this “line” has shifted over the years. In other words, as the definition of a "religious establishment" has changed, the concept of America as a Christian nation has also changed. In America, it has become politically incorrect to refer to the U.S. in religious terms according to the religion of the majority.

The very concept of a Christian nation in reference to America is flawed as it implies a state established religion. America is a secular state.

Such was not always the case. Historically, throughout the world, America has always been considered a Christian nation. Why? Because Christianity was the dominant religion of the land. Christianity shaped the thinking of America's forefathers and informed the making of public policy and law. Christianity was a part of the common law; it was woven throughout the fabric of American life.

Their was more deist influence than Christian influence all of the big thinkers Jefferson, Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Gouvernuer Morris, Washington himself.

When the framers of the federal constitution came to this subject they decided against any type of formal establishment. There would be no official religious test for elected officials. The test was placed directly in the hands of the voters. Concerning formal religious establishments, this was a State matter. The national government was powerless over religious matters, except in assuring there was no national establishment and in guaranteeing the free exercise of religion.

Yes the unwillingness to officially establish an organized religion had nothing to do with deist influence. You are entitled to your own thoughts not your own history.

So, where do we "cross the line" when dealing with religion? We cross the line when we try to re-establish the formal relationship that once existed in America. Nobody desires to have either a State or a federal establishment of religion. This is not apart of the Christian political agenda. However, there are those who have this fear.

They just simply wish to force their morality on others by legislating against things like gay marriage.

Non Christians seem to believe that, for example, halting the spread of pornography establishes religion.

An example of legislating morality.

Or that protecting the life of the unborn is a doctrinal statement.

Complex issue no comment.

They seem to think that standing against the teaching of deviant sexual behavior in public education is a religious issue.

Not the place of the state that is something that should be left to the parents.

Or that allowing prayers at graduation ceremonies violates another's rights of conscience.

As long as all are not forced to take part in aforementioned prayer.

Indeed, they have accepted the rhetoric of the mass media and the social secularists.

It's not rhetoric it's a serious concern.

Political action on these issues—abortion, school prayer, the traditional family, etc.—is not an establishment of religion.

It is the establishment of a Christian morality and you would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.[/quote]

American is fully capable of taking political positions on moral matters without establishing a religion. America is fully capable of instituting public policies that reflect the thinking and attitudes of most Christians, indeed most Americans, without establishing Christianity. America is fully capable of being a Christian nation without violating the rights of conscience or the free exercise of religion. Anything less is "crossing the line."

Absolute rubbish others may not share these morals and the imposition of these morals is an impositions on others right to conscience. It is not the place of the Christian community to decide what the entire society should or should not value.

Just sayin...

 

[Apathy]

I too could use a good laugh.

Then read your half-assed argument.

 

[Apathy]

My "argument" has always been that laws must be logically justifiable. Did you, at some point, refute that argument? Or are you referring to slapping around the strawmen you constructed? I never argued for religion to dictate law, that was your strawman. I never argued that people should accept faulty logic, that was another of your strawmen.

That is exactly what you said... When you cited the "argument from fallacy" fallacy.

Should religious people be permitted to participate in government and if so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on them to prevent "less than ideal" outcomes?

Sure but they must realize it is not their job to legislate morality, it never works.

My answer is very simple; I don't care if people use religion as a guide but laws must have logical justifications.

Fair enough.

Now please read the following statement:

I love ideology I think it could be a great guide to one's personal life, however when the line between ideology and country blurs the results are less than ideal.​

Should ideological people be permitted to participate in government and if so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on them to prevent "less than ideal" outcomes?

Once again I have the same simple answer; I don't care if people use ideology as a guide but laws must have logical justifications.

Same restrictions you must respect the natural rights of others.

 

[numinus]

I am wondering what everyone thinks about religious people with political views. In Australia, it seems to me that the media, particularly, tends to discard anyone who has political views and has a strong faith. I also get the feeling that it is believed that Christians should not give their views on political issues, because they are Christians and biased. Surely, everyone is biased in this sense because we all have an idea of what is morally right. Also, why is it that movie stars can give their opinions on the issues of the day because they are famous and yet some media people believe Christians should just stay out of the discussion because they have no right to comment.

I think that is the extreme view of the interpretation of the separation of church and state in us jurisprudence.

If you remember, the principle of separation of church and state came from the modern european constitutionalists. The principle was meant to prohibit the church hierarchy from exercising the state's coercive power on individuals exercising a fundamental right of thought. This means, incarceration, torture and even death for simply being a member of a particular religion.

As you can see, the above has nothing, whatsoever, to do with, say, prayers in public school. But, the us high court ruled it violated the establishment clause.

 

[numinus]

The very concept of a Christian nation in reference to America is flawed as it implies a state established religion. America is a secular state.

No, it does not. The fact is, the us constitution is patterned after john locke's 2nd treatise of civil government. It invokes NATURAL LAW as the basis of the political association.

If you bothered to read the treatise, locke stated it explicitly. Why ought the government protect the natural rights of man? Because god imbued these natural rights in man to begin with.

Their was more deist influence than Christian influence all of the big thinkers Jefferson, Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Gouvernuer Morris, Washington himself.

Of the major religions in the world today, none is more consistent with natural law than christianity.

Just saying.

Yes the unwillingness to officially establish an organized religion had nothing to do with deist influence. You are entitled to your own thoughts not your own history.

Whether the framers were willing or unwilling to 'establish' a state religion is tangential to locke's political philosophy.

The idea comes from locke's definition of sovereign power. It is invested in the state (within the three co-equal branches of government) as a consequence of the social contract.

Clearly, if sovereign power is shared by two political entities -- the government and the church existing within the state -- it renders it defective, by definition. Shared power isn't sovereign, wouldn't you agree?

They just simply wish to force their morality on others by legislating against things like gay marriage.

An example of legislating morality.


Complex issue no comment.

Not the place of the state that is something that should be left to the parents.

Jurisprudence is, by itself, a form of philosophy (the philosophy of law). When you ask yourself, why is this or that legal or illegal, you ultimately arrive at an idea of the COMMON GOOD. That is morality.

Your constitution is full of it. Why must no man be deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Because, self-evidently, they accrue to the common good.

As long as all are not forced to take part in aforementioned prayer.

More accurately -- as long as the coercive force of the government is not used to force one to take part in aforementioned prayer.

Praying, in itself, does not violate a person's right of thought. One really cannot be forced to pray and what all this amounts to is that you watch other people pray.

Take note, the establishment clause refers to a right of thought -- which was synonymous to religion at the time. If one believed in god, would it not constitute a violation of that person's right of thought to teach otherwise in public school?

Absolute rubbish others may not share these morals and the imposition of these morals is an impositions on others right to conscience. It is not the place of the Christian community to decide what the entire society should or should not value.

Just sayin...

What exactly do you consider an imposition on your conscience, hmmm?

When one objects to a law as a matter of conscience, one usually experiences the full, punitive force of the law. Would you consider yourself a man of conscience -- at par with, say, gandhi -- for enduring a 30-second prayer in public school? Puh-leeez!

 

[Dr.Who]

I think that is the extreme view of the interpretation of the separation of church and state in us jurisprudence.

If you remember, the principle of separation of church and state came from the modern european constitutionalists. The principle was meant to prohibit the church hierarchy from exercising the state's coercive power on individuals exercising a fundamental right of thought. This means, incarceration, torture and even death for simply being a member of a particular religion.

As you can see, the above has nothing, whatsoever, to do with, say, prayers in public school. But, the us high court ruled it violated the establishment clause.

Well I know that Madison was worried about the entanglement of church and state.

But elsewhere we saw that the reason for the separation of church and state was so the state would not impose itself onto religion.

They could both be true but do you have a link for yours?

 

[Dr.Who]

The very concept of a Christian nation in reference to America is flawed as it implies a state established religion. America is a secular state.



Their was more deist influence than Christian influence all of the big thinkers Jefferson, Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Gouvernuer Morris, Washington himself.

A nation and a state are not the same.

"more"? Where do you get that from?

 

[numinus]

Nonaggression is not an ideology, nonaggression is the natural state of things. On the flip side aggression is not an ideology it is a means to impose an ideology.

This is the complete opposite of political philosophy.

The premise is that the state of nature is brutish. In nature, every man possesses the liberty to acquire what is within his power to acquire.

Naturally, one's perfect liberty would collide with another's perfect liberty -- hence chaos.

The solution is the social contract -- every man gives up his perfect liberty in favor of the political association. In return, the political association protects those liberties that are necessary for the peaceable enjoyment of an individual's life with the common force.