Putting everyone in the "religion" box (1 Viewer)

[tosca1]

You, as a believer in whatever tenets your religion provides, have the absolute right and privilege to practice as you wish (so long as it does not interfere with others). You do not have the right to impose those beliefs on others. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Don't believe in contraception? Don't use it. Don't like what's taught in school? Get your education elsewhere (on your own dime). It's a simple as that. Live your life as you wish, but don't expect us to live it with you.

Non-believers shouldn't be imposing their beliefs on others as well.



"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate."


When Democrats and progressives prevents a religious man to follow his conscience - like, forcing a doctor to perform abortion, or a public servant to perform same-sex marriage - that's forcing your non-religious views on that man.
You are denying him his right to follow his conscience.

 

[ataraxia]

If the Bill of Rights, is based on Christian principles - how can we truly say, it is "secular?"

Why don’t we ask the guys who wrote it?

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution..What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy conveient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

“It was the general opinion of ancient nations, that the divinity alone was adequate to the important office of giving laws to men... and modern nations, in the consecrations of kings, and in several superstitious chimeras of divine rights in princes and nobles, are nearly unanimous in preserving remnants of it... The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history... [T]he detail of the formation of the American governments... may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven... it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses... Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
― John Adams, The Political Writings of John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787

 

[NWRatCon]

Non-believers shouldn't be imposing their beliefs on others as well.



"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate."


When Democrats and progressives prevents a religious man to follow his conscience - like, forcing a doctor to perform abortion, or a public servant to perform same-sex marriage - that's forcing your non-religious views on that man.
You are denying him his right to follow his conscience.

Nope.

 

[tosca1]

Nope.

Can you expand on that?

 

[tosca1]

Why don’t we ask the guys who wrote it?

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution..What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy conveient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

'The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
-John Adams

“It was the general opinion of ancient nations, that the divinity alone was adequate to the important office of giving laws to men... and modern nations, in the consecrations of kings, and in several superstitious chimeras of divine rights in princes and nobles, are nearly unanimous in preserving remnants of it... The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history... [T]he detail of the formation of the American governments... may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven... it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses... Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.”
― John Adams, The Political Writings of John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787

Can you provide the links, please.

 

[ataraxia]

Can you provide the links, please.

These are quotes from the founding fathers. Just copy and paste them into Google and you will have all the links you want.

 

[tosca1]

These are quotes from the founding fathers. Just copy and paste them into Google and you will have all the links you want.

That's your job...........................it's your argument.

Anyway - if you don't want to provide it, fine.
That'll be the end of that!

have a nice day.

 

[NWRatCon]

Can you expand on that?

Nope. I'm done responding to you. Thanks for not playing.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Nope. I'm done responding to you. Thanks for not playing.

 

[NWRatCon]

In this thread, and in other posts, I have used the terms "religionism" and "religionist". I do not use them as pejorative, but descriptively. Because that applies directly to the conception of this thread, I think it appropriate to explain what I mean.

Many of us adhere to a faith. As I've said, I find no fault in that. There are many levels of such adherence, though, from "non practicing" to fundamentalist to evangelical. Religionist falls in a band the middle range of the spectrum, but to the right of "secularists". A religionist is, in my view, one who sees and organizes their life through the lens of their faith. Some religionists wear their faith on their chests, literally. Some advertise it, again literally. But many do so quietly and privately. As stated earlier, faith provides their "moral compass".

I approach religion from an ethical standpoint, neither for nor against it. I have a strong ethical foundation and was raised in a religious household, attending church, singing in the choir, and participating in a lay capacity, as usher, and occasional speaker. (I can give a good sermon, too.) As I've noted, my higher education was in denomination-affiliated schools. But, I cannot consider myself a religionist. It is not the center of my life and hasn't been for most of it.

So, in that sense, I come at this issue from the outside. My faith is in the Constitution and the rule of law. I'm a fierce advocate for it. And that zeal, in this case, is directed at protecting faith, and lack of it, for all participants, as the Constitution requires. I'm a staunch believer in the separation of church and state for the benefit of both. That stance protects everyone from the atheist, to the minority worshiper, to the societal majority.

It is for this reason, too, that I insist on segregating religious purpose from social purpose in the law. Sometimes they coincide - say in prohibiting murder - and sometimes they conflict. And, sometimes, one is used as a cover for the other. That also has to be policed vigorously.

Aggressive religionists try to force everything to be viewed through their lens (the religion box) - tolerance of others, differences in lifestyle, social and medical determinations, education, and regulation. They argue, as they have in this thread, that merely existing in a diverse society is an affront to their beliefs - but that's a cop-out and a false construction. As a close chaplain friend of mine observed, the best approach to reach someone spiritually is to go to them where they are, not to drag them over to you. I think that approach works for the law, too: adapt your behavior to comport with the Constitution, don't try to force your views into it.

 

[Aries]

Non-believers shouldn't be imposing their beliefs on others as well.



"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate."


When Democrats and progressives prevents a religious man to follow his conscience - like, forcing a doctor to perform abortion, or a public servant to perform same-sex marriage - that's forcing your non-religious views on that man.
You are denying him his right to follow his conscience.

Yeah those damn pro-reasoners harassing people trying to go to church are out of control.

Said no one ever.

 

[Aries]

That's your job...........................it's your argument.

Anyway - if you don't want to provide it, fine.
That'll be the end of that!

have a nice day.

You probably already found it mixed in with a bunch of other ones that falsely support your claims.

People can cherry pick anything they want from anything out there.

 

[Mulefoot]

The United States was expressly founded as a secular nation. Religious zealots detest that reality and are willing to violate any principle, anylegal concept or the very foundations of our social construction to make it untrue. That is not what  my religious iinstruction or legal education justified.

From Jesus, "render unto Caesar", from Peter, "submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority" and from Paul, "everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established". Never was this message intended to mean that the faithful should first submit to government, and then to Christ. It meant and still means simply walking in peace. Representing the King of Peace. Abiding in Christ while walking thru life, "being at peace with all men, as far as it depends on you". Resting in Christ, as THE source of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. And bearing those fruits are no any more conjured, summoned or forced than a natural branch conjures, summons or forces its grape from the branch. The kind of zealotry that the NT presents is unbelievably effective in establishing a joyful, peaceful life for the believer, but also as a by-product, effecting change in those that happen to be in your orbit. Changing the world was never Jesus' goal for sure. But the gospel of Christ is powerful enough to change hearts, which BTW is the only way to change any man. I've seen it more times than I can count.

The problem is that kind of life is also extremely difficult, probably because it brushes up against mankind's desire to rule their own life and everyone else's I suppose. So difficult in fact, that thru centuries, so called "followers" have abandoned that message and instead opted for easier and cheaper substitutes like politics. Or even worse, a mix-mash hybrid like RCC and MAGA evangelism where mankind CAN circumvent organic fruit mentioned above and instead opt for easier rules instead of hard faith, and control instead of peace. And finally, hate. As brother GK said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

None of this means anything to the OP really. It's an unfortunate by product of religion, practiced apart from Christ, as it normally is with its God awful traditions, elements of corruption and control. What an awful, awful hobby is religion.

 

[MamboDervish]

No, the USA was founded as a Christian nation............but that means, equality with others who held different beliefs.

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.

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

[get-content name="print-page-left" include-tag="false" /] Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and...

www.archives.gov

The USA was not meant as a secular nation, but it was meant to have a law that would prevent any predominant religion - like Christianity - to become abusive towards those who believe differently.

The Bill of Rights, is actually based on Christian principle. FREE WILL.
And, justice and equality for all. Those are Christian principles.



1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason
and conviction, not by force or violence."[Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16]

Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments

If the Bill of Rights, is based on Christian principles - how can we truly say, it is "secular?"

You're entirely wrong. In fact, its a steaming pile of bullshit. Secular moral principles predate anything resembling "christianity" by perhaps 100,000 years or more. Christianity didn't invent free will, no matter how large or bold you set the type. Likewise the idea of equality. In fact, nothing that is biblically derived results in equality. Quite the contrary, the bible is absolutely breathtaking in its promotion of inequality!!! Have you ever read the book? It would seem not.

The Bill of Rights is mostly an intellectual extrapolation, derivative of what are really the most naturally arrived at moral principles inherent in human life itself. In fact, at least some of its principles are totally counter christian in the extreme.

For example, what in heaven's name do you think is "christian" about the right to bear arms? Do you think Jesus would be carrying a Glock on his hip? Or was he more of a SIG Sauer man?

No - absolutely not. The United States was founded as a secular country - not a christian one. Period.

 

[butterfly]

How many people do you think know that "in God we trust" and "one nation under God" were added during the cold war to...idk...combat those godless commies or something?

I bet most people think that the founding fathers put that there and wanted it.

I do because I remember--advantage of age. E pluribus unim was better by far.

 

[Gordy327]

I do because I remember--advantage of age. E pluribus unim was better by far.

That's the one devised by the Founding Fathers. There is no record anywhere of them ever saying "IGWT."

 

[Overitall]

You're entirely wrong. In fact, its a steaming pile of bullshit. Secular moral principles predate anything resembling "christianity" by perhaps 100,000 years or more. Christianity didn't invent free will, no matter how large or bold you set the type. Likewise the idea of equality. In fact, nothing that is biblically derived results in equality. Quite the contrary, the bible is absolutely breathtaking in its promotion of inequality!!! Have you ever read the book? It would seem not.

Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

You don’t get any more equal than this.

The Bill of Rights is mostly an intellectual extrapolation, derivative of what are really the most naturally arrived at moral principles inherent in human life itself. In fact, at least some of its principles are totally counter christian in the extreme.

For example, what in heaven's name do you think is "christian" about the right to bear arms? Do you think Jesus would be carrying a Glock on his hip? Or was he more of a SIG Sauer man?

Jesus’ ministry was short (one year) and focused on healing all that he could, as well as calling out his “Bride”.

No - absolutely not. The United States was founded as a secular country - not a christian one. Period.

Religion, and the freedom to worship as you choose, were core factors in the founding of our great nation. There’s no getting away from it. We’re still debating its importance in the country even today.

 

[NWRatCon]

You're entirely wrong. In fact, its a steaming pile of bullshit. Secular moral principles predate anything resembling "christianity" by perhaps 100,000 years or more. Christianity didn't invent free will, no matter how large or bold you set the type. Likewise the idea of equality. In fact, nothing that is biblically derived results in equality. Quite the contrary, the bible is absolutely breathtaking in its promotion of inequality!!! Have you ever read the book? It would seem not.

The Bill of Rights is mostly an intellectual extrapolation, derivative of what are really the most naturally arrived at moral principles inherent in human life itself. In fact, at least some of its principles are totally counter christian in the extreme.

For example, what in heaven's name do you think is "christian" about the right to bear arms? Do you think Jesus would be carrying a Glock on his hip? Or was he more of a SIG Sauer man?

No - absolutely not. The United States was founded as a secular country - not a christian one. Period.

Yeah, those founding Christian moralists really wanted to make sure that this was a Christian nation and everyone knew it, which is why they put it directly in the Constitution: Article VI, Clause 3: "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And that "no establishment" clause in the First Amendment obviously wasn't meant to apply to Christians.

 

[MamboDervish]

Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

You don’t get any more equal than this.

Starting from the very first book of the bible, "god" tells us he has a "CHOSEN PEOPLE".
You don't get more racist than that. That's the definition of racism.

Jesus’ ministry was short (one year) and focused on healing all that he could, as well as calling out his “Bride”.

And the bible is nothing short of breathtaking in its misogyny. Practically starting from page one, women are second class citizens. NO EQUALITY! Eve comes after Adam - in fact, as an after thought! "God" is a Man. He sends his Son. Apostles? Men. Disciples? Men. Books of "prophets" - written by Men. Noah? A Man. Moses? A Man. Not even an ounce of true equality between the sexes from the first page until the last. The book promotes slavery - NOT equality. The book promotes genocide. Just ask any Canaanite.

Religion, and the freedom to worship as you choose, were core factors in the founding of our great nation.

?? So what? Hindus promote freedom to worship as you choose, too! Nothing to do with christianity.

There’s no getting away from it. We’re still debating its importance in the country even today.

Seriously - have you even read the damned book? I have. If you have, then you somehow you must have been reading it with blinders on. The documents that define this nation have led, more and more, to something resembling true equality. Conversely, anything derived from the bible does just the opposite, your cherry picking notwithstanding. It says what it says.

I suggest you read it again.

 

[NWRatCon]

Starting from the very first book of the bible, "god" tells us he has a "CHOSEN PEOPLE".
You don't get more racist than that. That's the definition of racism.

Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Except for you, you and you. That dark-faced fella in the back, that woman over there, and neither of you guys holding hands... you don't belong.

Seriously - have you even read the damned book? I have. If you have, then you somehow you must have been reading it with blinders on. The documents that define this nation have led, more and more, to something resembling true equality. Conversely, anything derived from the bible does just the opposite, your cherry picking notwithstanding. It says what it says.

I suggest you read it again.

Again? At all. Either of them.

 

[weaver2]

Bill of Rights, is actually based on Christian principle. FREE WILL.
And, justice and equality for all. Those are Christian principles.

Religion is based on the will of the people that created the god not the free will of mankind. Equality is for believers only and Christian justice is eternal hell for non-believers.
The purpose of a theocracy is sorting the believers from the non-believers. That's not the definition of equality and it doesn't lead to justice.
Only secular government is free enough from religious dogma to attempt justice and equality to all citizens.

 

[blueskies2018]

Not really. The Constitution is an outline for our form of government. The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government. Other amendments alter the government's function as well as provide rights for slaves and women. Slavery could certainly be seen as a moral issue. Prohibition was enacted largely on moral grounds and failed.

Colonial law existed long before the Constitution.

Yes, but all law etc is created by people who whether religious or not had morals etc that they used to determine what things should be law or put into the constitution. Our laws and constitution change over time as peoples morals etc change. All of it always comes from peoples morals and values etc tho. Therefore, religious or not these are decisions made on one’s beliefs of right and wrong. A religious person gets their view of right and wrong from a church and non-religious people get their view from life experience, philosophy etc. Either way, all people will use those morals when voting on laws etc. All I’m saying is even if they “keep religion out of it”, religious people will still make decision based on their morals that they likely developed around their religious beliefs. The same way a non- religious person will make decisions based on their morals they gained form wherever.

Agreed, but people behave in "immoral" fashion regardless of religion, or even law, as was with Prohibition.

All people do that of course. Religious people and non-religious people I think all agree that everyone has flaws and can be evil.

The government should protect rights, irrespective of anyone's religious view of morality.

They should but again, those rights were written down and determined by people who used their morals and beliefs to determine what were rights in the first place.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Religion is based on the will of the people that created the god not the free will of mankind.

Yes, and not the reverse where the will of the people is based on religion.

Equality is for believers only and Christian justice is eternal hell for non-believers.
The purpose of a theocracy is sorting the believers from the non-believers. That's not the definition of equality and it doesn't lead to justice.

And I would submit that Christian justice is not about equality.

Only secular government is free enough from religious dogma to attempt justice and equality to all citizens.

 

[Mulefoot]

And I would submit that Christian justice is not about equality.

Equality doesn't necessarily add much to the recipient in most cases, except the right to vote, marry, pay tax, own something, etc. IOW, external benefits. For example, government can enact law and, by force of fines, imprisonment or shutdown require me to sell a a certain type of cake to a certain type of person. But it doesn't ensure the benefactor experiences happiness, prosperity, joy, peace self-discipline etc. It ensures the benefactor gets a cake, that's it. The benefactor may interpret that cake as equality, and still be dead inside. Still depressed. Still suicidal. Still broken maybe. Who knows.

Christ didn't mention equal rights, or misogyny, or any other political football that every civilization has dealt with since the beginning of time. Didn't mention slavery, even. His goal, and rightly so, was not to address institutional inequality that when repaired, may or may not create happiness, prosperity, joy, peace self-discipline etc. in the fact of whatever inequality might have existed, but to change hearts in the face of inequalities. Even from an accounting perspective, forcing equality requires something to be taken from someone. By force. Of course it misses the heart.

Actually, all the more reason theocracy doesn't work. It just creates another institution that doesn't address the heart.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Equality doesn't necessarily add much to the recipient in most cases, except the right to vote, marry, pay tax, own something, etc. IOW, external benefits. For example, government can enact law and, by force of fines, imprisonment or shutdown require me to sell a a certain type of cake to a certain type of person. But it doesn't ensure the benefactor experiences happiness, prosperity, joy, peace self-discipline etc. It ensures the benefactor gets a cake, that's it. The benefactor may interpret that cake as equality, and still be dead inside. Still depressed. Still suicidal. Still broken maybe. Who knows.

Christ didn't mention equal rights, or misogyny, or any other political football that every civilization has dealt with since the beginning of time. Didn't mention slavery, even. His goal, and rightly so, was not to address institutional inequality that when repaired, may or may not create happiness, prosperity, joy, peace self-discipline etc. in the fact of whatever inequality might have existed, but to change hearts in the face of inequalities. Even from an accounting perspective, forcing equality requires something to be taken from someone. By force. Of course it misses the heart.

Actually, all the more reason theocracy doesn't work. It just creates another institution that doesn't address the heart.

Jesus is attributed as saying Matthew 7:12 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Fine and noble words but unfortunately we require the rule of law in the United States as we cannot depend on Matthew 7:12 to ensure that we do not mistreat or harm other people.