What is a liberal?

[vyo476]

Thtas what people used to say bout slavery too.

A curious point. While the removal of slavery and the removal of alcohol were both undeniably high-minded, the latter failed completely and the former, well...think about how the transition went.

• The bloodiest war in the history of the country (up until then).
  
• The single worst federal project in the history of the country (Reconstruction).
  
• The rise of two of the worst presidents in our history (Andrew Johnson and US Grant).
  
• The near-complete destruction of the rights of newly-freed slaves (Jim Crow laws).
  
• The rise of the largest and most widely-recognized hate group in our country's history (the KKK).
  
• A one hundred year struggle by African Americans to secure free and equal status and protection under the law by the United States government

I am in no way trashing the people who did their utmost to abolish slavery, because it was the single greatest miscarriage of justice in our nation's history. I would like to point out, however, that those who attempted to stamp it out were less successful than they would have appeared; there is still a great deal of social and economic divisiveness between white and black in America.

So yes...your attempt to stamp Christianity out of the government would, at best, meet with the success of those attempting to get rid of slavery, and at worst would meet with the success of those attempting to prohibit alcohol.

 

[ArmChair General]

A curious point. While the removal of slavery and the removal of alcohol were both undeniably high-minded, the latter failed completely and the former, well...think about how the transition went.

• The bloodiest war in the history of the country (up until then).
  
• The single worst federal project in the history of the country (Reconstruction).
  
• The rise of two of the worst presidents in our history (Andrew Johnson and US Grant).
  
• The near-complete destruction of the rights of newly-freed slaves (Jim Crow laws).
  
• The rise of the largest and most widely-recognized hate group in our country's history (the KKK).
  
• A one hundred year struggle by African Americans to secure free and equal status and protection under the law by the United States government

I am in no way trashing the people who did their utmost to abolish slavery, because it was the single greatest miscarriage of justice in our nation's history. I would like to point out, however, that those who attempted to stamp it out were less successful than they would have appeared; there is still a great deal of social and economic divisiveness between white and black in America.

So yes...your attempt to stamp Christianity out of the government would, at best, meet with the success of those attempting to get rid of slavery, and at worst would meet with the success of those attempting to prohibit alcohol.

Good point, I'll respond more to this later. Right now im going to hang out with some freinds and play Dungeons and Dragons. Im a Level 14 Halfling. Shizam Mofo's.

Beat that.

 

[vyo476]

Good point, I'll respond more to this later. Right now im going to hang out with some freinds and play Dungeons and Dragons. Im a Level 14 Halfling. Shizam Mofo's.

Beat that.

I'm afraid I can't beat that, so instead I'll go and watch a few episodes of Star Trek.

 

[PLC1]

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.

Exactly. Good to see that someone gets it.

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.

Yes, religious doctrines do guide how people view right and wrong. There are some religions that think eating meat is wrong. Some frown on dancing. Some want to cover women from head to toe. All that is well and good, so long as they don't try to impose their values on the rest of us.

The reason our founding fathers didn't want religion and government to be together is that people who are true believers in a particular religion do want to impose their values on the rest of society.

Homosexual marriage is a prime example. There are religious sects that view homosexuality as a grevious sin. That's their view, and they're entitled to it. The problem comes when they want to impose their personal views on the rest of society. There is really no logical reason to outlaw same sex marriage, other than the religious views of some of the citizens. Abortion is another issue. Personally, I believe that abortion is morally wrong, unless it is done to preserve the life of the mother. That is my view, and you may or may not share it. If you don't share it, are you willing to have me impose my values on you? If you do share it, do you want to impose that value on the rest of society? I know I don't. I value my freedom, and so neither want to impose my values on you, nor to have you impose yours on me.

 

[Castle]

Homosexual marriage is a prime example. There are religious sects that view homosexuality as a grevious sin. That's their view, and they're entitled to it. The problem comes when they want to impose their personal views on the rest of society. There is really no logical reason to outlaw same sex marriage, other than the religious views of some of the citizens. Abortion is another issue. Personally, I believe that abortion is morally wrong, unless it is done to preserve the life of the mother. That is my view, and you may or may not share it. If you don't share it, are you willing to have me impose my values on you? If you do share it, do you want to impose that value on the rest of society? I know I don't. I value my freedom, and so neither want to impose my values on you, nor to have you impose yours on me.

You do realize that there are self proclaimed Christian homosexual groups who's sole purpose is to force Christian churches and congregations into accepting their unions. I have no issues with homosexuals and civil unions. I am also comfortable with same sex unions forming their own religious faith. I do, however, take issue with them coming into my church and attempting to force our acceptance of their lifestyle.

-Castle

 

[PLC1]

You do realize that there are self proclaimed Christian homosexual groups who's sole purpose is to force Christian churches and congregations into accepting their unions. I have no issues with homosexuals and civil unions. I am also comfortable with same sex unions forming their own religious faith. I do, however, take issue with them coming into my church and attempting to force our acceptance of their lifestyle.

-Castle

I didn't realize that, but you have helped to make my point. Do we want Christian groups such as you describe using the power of government to impose their values on the rest of us? No, I think not. Let them have their opinion, and the rest of us have ours. The government doesn't need to impose my values on them, nor theirs on me.

 

[vyo476]

I didn't realize that, but you have helped to make my point. Do we want Christian groups such as you describe using the power of government to impose their values on the rest of us? No, I think not. Let them have their opinion, and the rest of us have ours. The government doesn't need to impose my values on them, nor theirs on me.

Hmm. My first reaction to this was that the line of reasoning you have taken leads to anarchy, where the government is incapable of imposing values on people through legislation because the people might not necessarily agree.

However, that isn't entirely correct. The government would still be able to impose legislation based on values shared by the majority of society - the murder analogy I used earlier, for example. The government would then allow people to make up their own minds about issues that society is more divided on - homosexual marriage and abortion.

I'm pretty close to being sold on this; but I just can't shake the feeling that removing spirituality from government would be restricting the freedom of politicians to pursue what they and their constituents believe to be right.

 

[PLC1]

Hmm. My first reaction to this was that the line of reasoning you have taken leads to anarchy, where the government is incapable of imposing values on people through legislation because the people might not necessarily agree.

However, that isn't entirely correct. The government would still be able to impose legislation based on values shared by the majority of society - the murder analogy I used earlier, for example. The government would then allow people to make up their own minds about issues that society is more divided on - homosexual marriage and abortion.

I'm pretty close to being sold on this; but I just can't shake the feeling that removing spirituality from government would be restricting the freedom of politicians to pursue what they and their constituents believe to be right.

The purpose of government is not to impose anyone's values on society. The purpose of government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Removing spirituality from government isn't necessary. What is necessary is removing dogma from government, thus preserving our freedom from having the values of a particular sect forced on those who don't share those values.

Your freedom is inviolate, so long as you don't have the freedom to impinge on my freedom. Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

 

[top gun]

The purpose of government is not to impose anyone's values on society. The purpose of government is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Removing spirituality from government isn't necessary. What is necessary is removing dogma from government, thus preserving our freedom from having the values of a particular sect forced on those who don't share those values.

Your freedom is inviolate, so long as you don't have the freedom to impinge on my freedom. Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

DITTO!

 

[jb_1430]

Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Honor thy father and mother, render unto ceasar, all kinds of Dogma are enforced as law. Recently read a good book on the topic-

Locke and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke’s Political Thought by Jeremy Waldron

Our nation was created on the dogma of the protestant reformatoin.

MARK

 

[top gun]

Our nation was created on the dogma of the protestant reformatoin.

MARK

Not even close! You can Goggle page after page. Look up, "America not founded on religion" and see what you get. I'll cut & paste one for ya.

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.


The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

 

[jb_1430]

Not even close! You can Goggle page after page. Look up, "America not founded on religion" and see what you get. I'll cut & paste one for ya. ....

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief.

I didnt say America was founded on religion. And I said the Protestant reformation, not the Protestant Church. The protestant reformation is why we have, not just the Catholic church, but instead we have Catholics, Protestants, Luterans, Ana Baptist, Puritan, Calvinist, Presbyterians etc. The Protestant reformation turned a relationship between an individual with the Catholic Church, and therefore God, into a direct relationship between God and the individual. Before the reformation, "Christianity" was defined by the Catholic Church. After it was defined by the Bible, now available to the masses in printing press form. Before the reformation, the authority to govern flowed from God, to the Church, and then to whoever they decided to ordain. With the Church out of the equation, and God in a direct relationship with the individual, Gods authority to govern is given to the individual, who gives it to the government. America was the first opportunity for such ideals to be put into practice without the old order established in place, desparately trying to hold on to the God given authority to govern. MARK

 

[top gun]

I didnt say America was founded on religion. And I said the Protestant reformation, not the Protestant Church. The protestant reformation is why we have, not just the Catholic church, but instead we have Catholics, Protestants, Luterans, Ana Baptist, Puritan, Calvinist, Presbyterians etc. The Protestant reformation turned a relationship between an individual with the Catholic Church, and therefore God, into a direct relationship between God and the individual. Before the reformation, "Christianity" was defined by the Catholic Church. After it was defined by the Bible, now available to the masses in printing press form. Before the reformation, the authority to govern flowed from God, to the Church, and then to whoever they decided to ordain. With the Church out of the equation, and God in a direct relationship with the individual, Gods authority to govern is given to the individual, who gives it to the government. America was the first opportunity for such ideals to be put into practice without the old order established in place, desparately trying to hold on to the God given authority to govern. MARK

I'm sorry but from how I read you I see tap dancing around to try and promote that there was religious doctrine inserted into our government. If this isn't true then I apologize for my misunderstanding. If it is true then we're at total odds in this discussion.

I think it's clear and established that "God" regardless of ones "personal relationship" cannot have a direct relationship with government because he or she or it isn't talking directly & verifiable to us. That leaves scripture and that is a specific doctrine or "church" item which goes to separation.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

 

[jb_1430]

I'm sorry but from how I read you I see tap dancing around to try and promote that there was religious doctrine inserted into our government.

Or, maybe I am discussing things you couldnt possibly understand. MARK

 

[top gun]

Or, maybe I am discussing things you couldnt possibly understand. MARK

I suppose anything is possible my friend... but I still have to call 'em like I see 'em.