- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,157
- Reaction score
- 22,315
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What do YOU see as greater than yourself?
Bowing your head represents a recognition that there is something greater than yourself, an acknowledgement without which public service is impossible.
If you're representing others who serve God, then you're doing both.
If you're representing others who serve God, then you're doing both.
That's kind of the point of a representative government though... no representative is ever going to represent everyone. No representative is ever going to have allegiance to "the people" - just some of the people at any given time.But no representative in this country represents only those who serve god, and certainly not people serving the same god. Allegiance to god over country is unacceptable for an American lawmaker. They should have allegiance to country and people first, and everything else second.
You've gotten the closest.What? I don't know if it's impossible, but I do suppose the People are greater than the State, so the State can bow its "head" to the People.
That's kind of the point of a representative government though... no representative is ever going to represent everyone. No representative is ever going to have allegiance to "the people" - just some of the people at any given time.
Religious tradition is inextricably intertwined with our culture, and the manner in which the people of that culture have chosen to govern themselves.Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. God has nothing to do with the governments of man.
Religious tradition is inextricably intertwined with our culture, and the manner in which the people of that culture have chosen to govern themselves.
Surprising that this happened in Arizona
You've gotten the closest.
Bowing your head represents a recognition that there is something greater than yourself, an acknowledgement without which public service is impossible.
And we long ago divorced government from religion for the benefit of both.
Supreme Court to weigh in on legislative prayers
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a new case on the intersection of religion and government in a dispute over prayers used to open public meetings.
The justices said they will review an appeals court ruling that held that the town of Greece in suburban Rochester in upstate New York violated the Constitution by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity.
<snip>
Two town residents who are not Christian complained that they felt marginalized by the steady stream of Christian prayers and challenged the practice. They are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Reacting to the court action Monday, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said, "A town council meeting isn't a church service, and it shouldn't seem like one."
If what you say is true, then it is the atheists we need to watch out for, because they are apparently so bereft of morality that they would blindly show allegience to a nation, no matter the course of action. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... you just may be on to something there.They might not represent the interests of all the people, but they do owe allegiance to everyone. Not just the people they share a religion with.
And we long ago divorced government from religion for the benefit of both.
Yes, it has worked out quite well, allegiances and all. But it's not that we've divorced government from religion, it's that we've divorced government from *a* religion.
You can't truly divorce government from religion any more than you can divorce government from culture. In a representative government at least.
That system of laws predicated on individual rights and liberty brought us prohibition, kept women from working, enslaved Africans, and would have no issue with outlawing abortion, placing restrictions on marriage, and disallowing work on Sundays if the people wished it to be so.You most certainly can. You make a system of laws predicated upon the rights and liberties of the individual and then religion can have no rightful hold. Only the freedom of The People.
That system of laws predicated on individual rights and liberty brought us prohibition, kept women from working, enslaved Africans, and would have no issue with outlawing abortion, placing restrictions on marriage, and disallowing work on Sundays if the people wished it to be so.
If what you say is true, then it is the atheists we need to watch out for, because they are apparently so bereft of morality that they would blindly show allegience to a nation, no matter the course of action. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... you just may be on to something there.
That system of laws predicated on individual rights and liberty brought us prohibition, kept women from working, enslaved Africans
and would have no issue with outlawing abortion, placing restrictions on marriage, and disallowing work on Sundays if the people wished it to be so.
I can only assume that since you seem to be so worried that a religious person might have an allegiance to something beyond his country, that atheists do not and steadfastly hold to that allegiance no matter what shape that country takes. I mean if not, then they're no better than those darn biblethumpers.That's really just sad. You go from "elected officials' highest priority should be to serve the people they govern, regardless of their religion" to "atheists are immoral and support genocide."
I'm sure you'd be singing a very different tune about a politician's allegiances if they were praying to a different god than you are.
The constitution can be changed. It happened with prohibition and it happened with abortion, albeit by a different means. If you were to fill the government with fundamentalists or atheists, they could enact incredible change in a very short time. Just think about the SCOTUS alone. If you can find a right to abortion in the Constitution, you can find just about anything if you want it bad enough.and yet the secular constitution prohibits those things, even when people DO wish it to be so, or hadn't you noticed that when Christian majorities in a state vote to enact SSM bans, their courts strike them down as unconstitutional?
There was nothing archaic about prohibition. It was brought to us by the progressives, along with eugenics and forced sterilizations. Progress! More recently they've been "increasing liberty" with progressive taxation, state funded welfare, universal healthcare and... oh my bad, liberty hasn't been increasing with time. At least not lately. We must not be a "truly free" society. Or maybe its just that we're truly free to shape our government as we see fit.No, archaic notions left over from history brought that. Though if you commit to the never ending fight for freedom, those sorts of notions eventually die out. Which is what happened and is still happening here. I truly free society increases its liberty with time.
I can only assume that since you seem to be so worried that a religious person might have an allegiance to something beyond his country, that atheists do not and steadfastly hold to that allegiance no matter what shape that country takes. I mean if not, then they're no better than those darn biblethumpers.
The constitution can be changed. It happened with prohibition and it happened with abortion, albeit by a different means. If you were to fill the government with fundamentalists or atheists, they could enact incredible change in a very short time. Just think about the SCOTUS alone. If you can find a right to abortion in the Constitution, you can find just about anything.
It depends.
It's pretty easy, given the histrionics of the religious right.
That's what YOU believe. Do you want to force others to believe it too?
There is a reason our forefathers put separation of church and state into our constitution. They remembered governments in Europe forcing people to practice THEIR religion or else. They left Europe and came here to escape all that persecution. Separation of church and state not only represents freedom of religion, but freedom FROM religion as well.
The way I see it, if you want to force your religion down the throats of others, you should move to a country where forcing religion down the throats of others is accepted..... Like Iran.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?