What is a liberal?

[jb_1430]

I'll try to clear that up as I go...Ok this is the similarity & difference. Yes both Christianity & Freemasons doctrine believed in a creator. However absolutely & undeniably the Framers which I cited and more that were Freemasons did not want any religious "control" on the new government that they were creating.

Must be some kind of stupid pretend debate going on in your own head. USMC said

Originally Posted by USMC the Almighty
I believe, as did our Framers, that our inalienable rights come from the Creator, not from the government.

He didnt say anything about "control". Ive certainly said nothing about "control". Freemasonry in no way conflicts with USMC original statement And NOTHING youve said refutes my claim that most freemasons in colonial America were christians. It is not USMC who is "not understanding the true situation of the time", it is you not understanding what he said.
MARK

 

[vyo476]

And I'm saying that the point of view Freemasons believe in is in many ways contradictory of the beliefs of Christianity. This is a viewpoint that the founding fathers had and it is important to understand that when people today get up on their soap box and start proclaiming religion was always intended to be part of this government and that there was never a specific effort to create a separation of church & state.

It wasn't based on religion!
And it was to be separated!

That's just the fact of things.

I am getting SO INCREDIBLY SICK OF REPEATING THIS. For the love of God (or Karl Marx, whichever you prefer), "Separation of Church and State" refers to separating the government, an organization, and the church, another organization. It is NOT meant to separate the government, an organization, and religion/spirituality, a belief. If you start discriminating what belief systems can and cannot be used in government, how are you any better than the people who set up theocratic governments?

 

[PLC1]

I am getting SO INCREDIBLY SICK OF REPEATING THIS. For the love of God (or Karl Marx, whichever you prefer), "Separation of Church and State" refers to separating the government, an organization, and the church, another organization. It is NOT meant to separate the government, an organization, and religion/spirituality, a belief. If you start discriminating what belief systems can and cannot be used in government, how are you any better than the people who set up theocratic governments?

No belief systems should be used in government at all. The government is secular, and must remain secular. We'd be better off if government decisions were made on sound science, but making them on the basis of politics is still better than making them based on a belief system of any kind.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I am getting SO INCREDIBLY SICK OF REPEATING THIS. For the love of God (or Karl Marx, whichever you prefer), "Separation of Church and State" refers to separating the government, an organization, and the church, another organization. It is NOT meant to separate the government, an organization, and religion/spirituality, a belief. If you start discriminating what belief systems can and cannot be used in government, how are you any better than the people who set up theocratic governments?

Nowhere does the constitution or Bill of Rights does it say "separation of church and state"
What is implicit is that there shall be no government sanctioned/imposed/declared religion (church). You are right, you just used the wrong term.
It just bothers me when that term is used, because it implies so much more than what the founding fathers actually wrote.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[top gun]

I am getting SO INCREDIBLY SICK OF REPEATING THIS. For the love of God (or Karl Marx, whichever you prefer), "Separation of Church and State" refers to separating the government, an organization, and the church, another organization. It is NOT meant to separate the government, an organization, and religion/spirituality, a belief. If you start discriminating what belief systems can and cannot be used in government, how are you any better than the people who set up theocratic governments?

I would not disagree on this:

"Separation of Church and State" refers to separating the government, an organization, and the church, another organization.

Below is the undefinable slippery slope that the religious right desires to exploit to lead to a "chosen" or "preferred" government religion:

It is NOT meant to separate the government, an organization, and religion/spirituality, a belief. If you start discriminating what belief systems can and cannot be used in government, how are you any better than the people who set up theocratic governments?

We are in agreement that government can be spiritual but it cannot endorse Christian beliefs because by doing so it automatically discriminates against every other religion in the United States. The Framers knew this and were very clear as to their intent to limit any particular groups religious influence.

 

[top gun]

Nowhere does the constitution or Bill of Rights does it say "separation of church and state"
What is implicit is that there shall be no government sanctioned/imposed/declared religion (church). You are right, you just used the wrong term.
It just bothers me when that term is used, because it implies so much more than what the founding fathers actually wrote.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Bill of Rights in the National ArchivesThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You and I are in agreement. This is freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. It is protection against a theocratic state. Not an argument against a leader that believes in his faith. Just law against him enforcing his faith on others.

 

[vyo476]

No belief systems should be used in government at all. The government is secular, and must remain secular. We'd be better off if government decisions were made on sound science, but making them on the basis of politics is still better than making them based on a belief system of any kind.

No belief systems in government? Oh give me a break. You're asking the people of the United States to turn into a group of Mr. Spocks. Most belief systems are designed on a set of morals - conceptions of right and wrong. For instance - murder = bad. Bad = punishable. Science and logic dictate that occasionally populations get too big and, in those circumstances, reduction of population would benefit the majority; perhaps we should have a "homeless season" to go along with "deer season," eh?

You can't get rid of belief in government. Don't even try. Eventually everything spirals down into extreme existentialism and society stops making an attempt to define "right" and "wrong."

 

[PLC1]

No belief systems in government? Oh give me a break. You're asking the people of the United States to turn into a group of Mr. Spocks. Most belief systems are designed on a set of morals - conceptions of right and wrong. For instance - murder = bad. Bad = punishable. Science and logic dictate that occasionally populations get too big and, in those circumstances, reduction of population would benefit the majority; perhaps we should have a "homeless season" to go along with "deer season," eh?

You can't get rid of belief in government. Don't even try. Eventually everything spirals down into extreme existentialism and society stops making an attempt to define "right" and "wrong."

By the term "belief system", I meant a belief in a particular religious creed, not in right and wrong. There is a difference between the term "belief" and "belief system."

I think most people would agree that a hunting season on homeless people would be morally wrong, regardless of their belief system.

 

[vyo476]

By the term "belief system", I meant a belief in a particular religious creed, not in right and wrong. There is a difference between the term "belief" and "belief system."

I think most people would agree that a hunting season on homeless people would be morally wrong, regardless of their belief system.

So you just want to ban Christians from government, is that it?

People want morals in their government, right? They have their definition of right and wrong and they want the government to reflect that - so, they elect a representative who reflects their moral views. If their moral views are based on religion, what right do you have to deprive them of their right to vote for someone who represents their view of morality?

 

[top gun]

So you just want to ban Christians from government, is that it?

People want morals in their government, right? They have their definition of right and wrong and they want the government to reflect that - so, they elect a representative who reflects their moral views. If their moral views are based on religion, what right do you have to deprive them of their right to vote for someone who represents their view of morality?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I don't think he's saying that you can't elect anyone you want. What he's saying is that the outcome of laws cannot be skewed to the ideals of any particular religious sect.

As and example: If tomorrow the majority religion in America were Muslim the government has no right to impose any Muslim religious doctrine on Christians or any other section of the population as a whole. This also holds true when it comes to the religious right trying to force government restriction on people who do not believe as they do on abortion or any other personal matter.

 

[ArmChair General]

So you just want to ban Christians from government, is that it?

I do.

 

[vyo476]

As and example: If tomorrow the majority religion in America were Muslim the government has no right to impose any Muslim religious doctrine on Christians or any other section of the population as a whole. This also holds true when it comes to the religious right trying to force government restriction on people who do not believe as they do on abortion or any other personal matter.

Religious doctrines guide people in how they view "right and wrong." What one person views as an imposition of religious restrictions, another person views as the simple definition of restricting what is wrong.

Perhaps someone who is religious considers abortion to be wrong. Perhaps he thinks of abortion that way because his religion put that idea in his head; that doesn't change the fact that he believes abortion is wrong, much in the way he believes murder is wrong - it is, to him, immoral.

I don't like abortion restriction any more than you do, but I believe in their right to pursue its outlaw - why are their beliefs on right and wrong any less valid than mine?

 

[vyo476]

I do.

Good luck with that. You'll have about as much luck with it as the Prohibitionists did at getting rid of alcohol from America. Probably less.

 

[ArmChair General]

Good luck with that. You'll have about as much luck with it as the Prohibitionists did at getting rid of alcohol from America. Probably less.

Thtas what people used to say bout slavery too.