|
|
Post by MrGoodTrips on Feb 21, 2004 4:45:12 GMT -5
I enjoy political discussions and healthy debate. I enjoy different points of view and respect originality. Because of this, nothing makes me more frustrated/amused than people who quote Bible verses in political discussions.
It isn't just because our Constitution mentions something about Church and State being separate, or something like that. It's the irrelevance of the Bible. Yes, you heard that correctly: IRRELEVANT!
I am a Christian, and I have read the Bible. It's a wonderful collection of stories. Some of them have good moral lessons, some of them are entertaining, some are quaint, and some contradict one another. But, you can't expect it to be perfect, because it was written by men, and not God.
In fact, it was written by men who lived almost 2000 years ago. These men thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that God (instead of stomach parasites) was striking them down for eating pork.
That is why I find Bible quotes so amusing. The men who wrote the Bible could not have possibly fathomed a society 2000 years later, nor would they have had anything relevant to say about its intricacies and nuances.
Don't hide behind the Bible when you argue, state your opinion. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong is no kind of argument. It's your opinion, and you're interpreting religion and using it like a tool to support yourself. Don't say something is so because the Bible said so. Prove it.
People who run around quoting the Bible and throwing it in each other's faces are not necessarily religious. They are necessarily judgemental and incapable of supporting their arguments logically. Quoting the Bible is the religious equivalent of settling and argument with, "Cuz I say so."
So grow a brain, and stop it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Feb 21, 2004 13:04:44 GMT -5
Only a secularist would be arrogant enough to think he had come up with some literary brilliance worthy of posting several times on the same board.  |
|
|
|
Post by MrGoodTrips on Feb 21, 2004 20:40:10 GMT -5
The secularist title I will freely accept. As for arrogant, that isn't really my motivation. To be quite honest, I got drunk and decided my original post wasn't getting enough views. I decided to change venues in hope of inciting a discussion. As for me believing myself capable of literary brilliance, I'm afraid you're off base there. I have my opinions and I like to express them in appropriate forums, but I would hardly credit myself with literary averageness, much less brilliance.
I just get tired of the alignment of Republican politics with meddling, evangelical Christianity. I think the GOP has the right idea - the government should leave its citizens alone, let them keep their money, and leave things up to the states. But once the Christian right puts their vote behind the party, we no longer have a minimal government, but an overbearing government trying to enforce the morality of some on all.
I would prefer that, rather than insulting me (which doesn't bother me, but isn't very interesting either), you explain to me why the Bible belongs in political discussions and in our government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Feb 28, 2004 17:38:17 GMT -5
I think it is alright for politicians to create a Christian image (as long as it is authentic and not just manipulating popularity), and to freely express his religious devotion, but when it comes to politics, it should be an entirely secular affair.
Now, I don't agree with removing the Ten Commandments from judicial buildings, because quite frankly, despite its religious nature, there is little or nothing in it that could be offensive to anyone except for MILITANT atheists. I don't think normal secularists would really consider it offensive.
As for political discussions and healthy debates, I would definitely not recommend quoting the Bible. There might be one or two special circumstances where it would be appropriate, but other than that, it's a bad idea.
People should try to understand the concept that many of the laws in the Holy Bible apply only to believers, and that disbelievers are not constrained by religion to live a righteous life. Because of that, Christians should not impose their beliefs on others through the creation of religiously-inspired laws. Democracy has to be fair to everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Feb 28, 2004 20:34:21 GMT -5
All that aside, though--aren't the Ten Commandments generally good ideas? Hell, if everyone followed them as well as they could, we wouldn't have half of the problems we do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starter on Mar 8, 2004 14:02:08 GMT -5
Why is it so hard for some to realize people that believe the Bible try to live by the morals it speaks about? If you try to live by a religious book, of course you are going to incorporate them into every facet of your life. That does include politics. It's an admirable way to live life. It's a lot harder than living without principles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 8, 2004 16:09:14 GMT -5
This very country was founded by Christians and I'm not talking about "Christians" like MrGoodTrips who claims to be a Christian yet fights any influence of his "beliefs" from being incorporated in the society in which he lives. No, the founders were real Christians and I find it hard to believe that Christianity didn’t influence their ideas for this country at all. This Separation of Church and State crap I hear liberals always falling back on is incredibly maddening. Here are some examples why the founders and early leaders of the US were not for a total isolation of Christian doctrine. The following examples are taken from clauses that were written into various state constitutions immediately following the Revolution:
1. Established a loyalty oath for legislators and government employees, requiring them to believe in the Trinity, and/or the divine inspiration of the Bible.
2. Prohibited clergy from holding office.
3. Required legislators to be Protestant Christians.
4. Permitted the state to support the Christian religion from general tax revenue.
5. Granted religious and other human rights only to Christians, or only to theists.
6. Specified "The Protestant Religion" (whatever that meant) to be the established religion of the state.
7. Required citizens to observe the Sabbath or Lord's day.
Whether you believe these things to be just doesn't matter, the fact is the separation of church and state argument does not mesh with liberals interpretation of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 8, 2004 17:36:07 GMT -5
Not to mention that the word "seperation" never occurs in any early American document. Government may not interfere with the Protestant Church, and the Church was encouraged to influence the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 9, 2004 20:06:08 GMT -5
Exactly. Goverment cannot endorse ONE religion. It also can't discrimanate against any religion, like not allowing Christians to pray in school.
|
|
Yukon
German Shepard
I am the YUKON MAN !
Posts: 13
|
Post by Yukon on Mar 11, 2004 9:31:30 GMT -5
We live in a secular society and that is guaranteed in the Constitution. For those who wish to live in a theocratic state I suggest you convert to Islaam and move to the middle-east.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Mar 11, 2004 18:52:51 GMT -5
Yet another un-insightful, not-quite-on-point post by Yukon. Try giving some examples why the Ten Commandments, which by the way are hung above the judge in every courtroom, shouldn't be allowed outside a courthouse. Give us some examples why a nativity can't be placed inside or out a public school alongside a Star of David or a muslim crescent. I'm afraid Yukon, you're not living up to your self-accredited title of Liberal warrior. Or perhaps by your off-topic, pathetic arguments you are.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 13, 2004 4:16:34 GMT -5
I think it is alright for politicians to create a Christian image (as long as it is authentic and not just manipulating popularity), and to freely express his religious devotion, but when it comes to politics, it should be an entirely secular affair.
Nicely stated.
Now, I don't agree with removing the Ten Commandments from judicial buildings, because quite frankly, despite its religious nature, there is little or nothing in it that could be offensive to anyone except for MILITANT atheists. I don't think normal secularists would really consider it offensive.
Whoops! You fell down there, though. The constitutional issue is not over whether anyone is offended (that's irrelevant), it's over whether the presence of the 10Cs amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Since the 10Cs are unique to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic complex of religions, the appearance of a governmental establishment of Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam) by permitting the display of the 10Cs in public (i.e. "commonly owned" places under the jurisdiction of the federal government) is a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment.
As for political discussions and healthy debates, I would definitely not recommend quoting the Bible. There might be one or two special circumstances where it would be appropriate, but other than that, it's a bad idea.
That's also probably true - for pretty much the same reason a Hindu might find inappropriate the display of the 10Cs in a public building.
People should try to understand the concept that many of the laws in the Holy Bible apply only to believers, and that disbelievers are not constrained by religion to live a righteous life. Because of that, Christians should not impose their beliefs on others through the creation of religiously-inspired laws. Democracy has to be fair to everyone.
Excellent observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 13, 2004 4:24:49 GMT -5
All that aside, though--aren't the Ten Commandments generally good ideas?
Well, the last 6 are, anyway. Of course the first quartet is fine ...as long as you're a Jew, or Christian, or Moslem.
Hell, if everyone followed them as well as they could, we wouldn't have half of the problems we do.
See above remark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 13, 2004 4:56:48 GMT -5
This very country was founded by Christians and I'm not talking about "Christians" like MrGoodTrips who claims to be a Christian yet fights any influence of his "beliefs" from being incorporated in the society in which he lives. No, the founders were real Christians and I find it hard to believe that Christianity didn’t influence their ideas for this country at all. This Separation of Church and State crap I hear liberals always falling back on is incredibly maddening. Here are some examples why the founders and early leaders of the US were not for a total isolation of Christian doctrine. The following examples are taken from clauses that were written into various state constitutions immediately following the Revolution...
[snip]
I point out that all state consitutions are subordinate to the federal constitution. All those religious 'tests' were incorporated into the various state constitutions because the federal document deliberately omitted such mention (it must be assumed it was deliberate - one could hardly expect such an omission by Christian men of good faith to be accidental!)
And let me ask you: how many of those religious tests have since withstood federal constitutional muster? The answer: not a single one of them.
Whether you believe these things to be just doesn't matter, the fact is the separation of church and state argument does not mesh with liberals interpretation of it.
Apparently it does, since numerous men of professed Christian faith have sat in judgment of such cases on the federal Supreme Court, and yet none of those religious tests has withstood the scrutiny of prolonged constitutional analysis. Seemingly the true state of affairs is that the insistence by theists that the First Amendment was never meant to keep specifically religious doctrine out of government, is simply wishful thinking on their part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darwinist on Mar 13, 2004 5:05:20 GMT -5
Not to mention that the word "seperation" never occurs in any early American document. Government may not interfere with the Protestant Church, and the Church was encouraged to influence the government.
A certain degree of influence in government by religion is simply unavoidable, since men typically develop in religious faith and are inculcated to religious standards of thought and behavior long before they seek service in government. The Framers of the constitution, clever fellows that they were, undoubtedly were fully cognizant of this truth.
Yet it's not unreasonable that the Framers would seek to keep the overt influences of religion to a barest minimum in the persuance of governmental affairs: to allow too much religious influence would be to risk the degradation of the Republic into the totalitarianism of Theocracy. And I'd be willing to bet that they were also cognizant of that.
|
|
