Faith-Based Legislation

Superman · 08-02-2004, 12:04 PM

Some say that John Kerry's faith is deep and strong, but that he puts that aside when doing his job as a senator. I notice there is a presumed separation of church and state, at least in the United States of America. In fact, the progressive liberals (not what Kerry is by a long shot) and the token liberals (bingo) both have a reputation for being amoral. Not immoral, amoral. They seem non-religious.

Some say the fiscal differences between the parties and the candidates are quite small. We've got (as is usually the case) a Republican president that is setting a new world record for deficit spending, and a liberal candidate that is cozy with the corporate world.

It is said that the real difference between the parties right now is on the "social " issues. Not the usual social issues. But rather the "moral" social issues. One party promises to stamp a moral code on our nation's laws. Abortion. Gay marriage. Gifts of my tax dollars given directly to churches by the federal government under the heading of "education." Yadda yadda.

Does anyone see a problem here? Besides me, I mean? Let me spell it out. Liberals seem non-religious. The United States of America is a nation where a sharp line is drawn between church and state. Should politicians seem religious? Should they grind the axes of their religious beliefs on the grinding wheel of congressional legislation? Have we decided to eliminate the barriers between church and state? And how do the Republicans explain that this agenda promotes "freedom?"

Most importantly: Are we reversing our nation's longstanding policy of separating church and state? This strikes me as a very fundamental constitutional question. I have seen no opportunity to vote for or against a constititional amendment combining church and state. And yet I feel like I'm dressed for a wedding, wondering whose church will be married to this bridegroom (my nation). My church (Roman Catholocism) is prepared to take over. Everybody okay with that?

lendaddy · 08-02-2004, 12:17 PM

Please refresh my memory as to the "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution. The one I've read doesn't say that, but then I might have missed your version?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

The Religious Right has been gunning for a theocracy for decades, and GWB is their tool to help them get there. The irony is this is exactly what we're claiming to save the poor Arabs from.

The problem with mixing church and state in this country is 'which church?' And what happens to those who aren't in the 'correct' church? That was the whole purpose for climbing on the Mayflower and getting the hell out of Dodge in the first place, wasn't it?

I don't think 'amoral' - ie 'without morals' is the correct word to use - it's too loaded.

jm951 · 08-02-2004, 12:30 PM

I don't think the "religous right" is "gunning" for any such thing. From what I've observed, they're more after stemming the tide of liberals attempting to erase any reference to God anywhere in the government and the secular humanists trying to force atheism as the state religion.

BlueSkyJaunte · 08-02-2004, 12:34 PM

Just because I don't bow down to some dead guy on a stick, I'm amoral?

That's remarkably insulting.

Len: I'm not going to spew verbiage at you, but I invite you to read the opposing view: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

the "separation of church and state" language was actually from Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, a group who feared that Congregationalists would become the national religion.

dtw · 08-02-2004, 12:36 PM

Uh oh, Thom's onto our plan to hatch a theocracy. Guess that tin foil hat countered our efforts to brainwash him. Thom, now that you know, can you help us name the new regime? The current front-runner takes a page from Afghanistan's book, we call it, "The Dubyaban". Has a nice ring to it, eh?

Brothers, don't forget, we have a "Bible Study" tonight at 8. (That's our code for evil plotting and subterfuge gathering).

Hey Thom, did you cringe when JFKerry said "God Bless the USA"?

PS: How about: ERWC? (Evil Right Wing Conspiracy).

dtw · 08-02-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
some dead guy on a stick

And that's not insulting?

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by dtw
And that's not insulting?

can it be funny *and* insulting at the same time?

I got this image of religion satay...

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by jm951
I don't think the "religous right" is "gunning" for any such thing.
You're not up-to-speed on Christian Fundamentalism, are you?

From what I've observed, they're more after stemming the tide of liberals attempting to erase any reference to God anywhere in the government and the secular humanists trying to force atheism as the state religion.

First of all, nobody is trying to make atheism a state religion. That's the hyperbolous call to arms of those who wish to make christianity the state religion.

Answer me this: Why should there be a reference to god in government, unless you're want a theocracy? I don't wanna hear the 'this nation was founded on christian blah blah blah". Why do you want a theocracy?

We atheists are simply tired of getting xtianity shoved down our throats.

Churches get special treatment as it is. I say we abolish the tax-free status of the church.

Some more reading on the subject:
http://www.alternet.org/story/18259
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/kiefer1.html

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

since churches are in fact a business, shouldn't they be taxed as such?

I recall a Frank Zappa song where he would stop the music and say:

"tax the churches"

then play a bit more, and then

"tax the businesses owned by the churches"

You tax the churches, and the deficit problem is pretty much solved.

jm951 · 08-02-2004, 12:55 PM

Just a couple of links from the opposing viewpoint-

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/index.htm
Follow the articles and read them thoroughly. Follow his documentation from historical references.

And what the Founding Fathers had to say-
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

And besides Thom, if we aren't trying to enforce state mandated atheism, why are we removing the cross from the seal of LA? Why is there a movement afoot to erase any religous place names now starting. So what are you going to name Corpus Christi, LA and SF? Why should we remove "In God We Trust" from our currency? Does that statement on our cash make us a theocracy? If you're offended by hearing God's name, so were the Pharisees and the Jews before they demanded the Romans "kill a guy by hanging him on a stick"? Where do you draw the line?

dtw · 08-02-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nostatic
can it be funny *and* insulting at the same time?

I got this image of religion satay...

Thai hors d'oeuvre aside, it was mean-spirited, so no, not funny and insulting at the same time. Just insulting. Now the "Life of Brian", that's funny and insulting.

singing: "Always look on the briii-ght side of life..."

Mmmmm satay. Time to go raid the fridge.

lendaddy · 08-02-2004, 01:01 PM

Like has been said before you can find founders quotes that are all over the map. Look at the actual verbage of the Constitution and their actions. Look at what they did and said in their lifetimes and you will see that they clearly did NOT mean total separation of C&S. It is called the establishment clause for a reason. Now, I am off to have libations at my local watering hole, you kids be good while daddies gone.

BlueSkyJaunte · 08-02-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

it was mean-spirited

Sorry, ain't got a mean bone in my body.

Would you have preferred I said "Our Lord Jesus Christ upon his Cross"? That would have been disingenuous. Frankly, I don't believe in any of that stuff.

Now please explain how, exactly, it was insulting to you. Should I be hypocritcally respectful of an idol that a group of people claim is god? Is it more or less insulting than exclaiming, say, "Jesus H. Christ on a crutch!" when I stub my toe?

Superman · 08-02-2004, 01:21 PM

I'm looking for a square answer. From the conservatives. The two options are:

1. Separation of church and state, for the most part (like the status quo, or maybe even better separation), should remain.

2. They should be combined. Legislation promoting the principles adopted by the (insert formal church name here) church should be passed and obeyed by all citizens.

Of course, the actual name of the church in #2 will eventually be necessary, but I'm just trying to get a read on the individuals who are comfortable with the blurring of lines between church and state.

So, put up or shut up. Do you believe we should legislate religion and morality?

Superman · 08-02-2004, 01:39 PM

Maybe I can help here. I am a practicing roman catholic. Started my career as an altar boy roughly forty years ago. Today I am a Eucharistic Minister, CCD teacher, etc. And a liberal. So those of you who think liberals are also satan worshippers should just pull the covers back over your heads and return to your sleep.

I believe the administrative/managerial arm of my faith is crossing the line. It seems to be bullying elected officials using the communion rail as a bludgeon. I believe abortion is wrong. Very very wrong. But I also believe that my Lord set these decisions up as individual decisions. If we take away the personal decision, we are not necessarily making good people out of bad people. Dealing with pregnancy and having a child (choosing not to have an abortion) avoids sin. Not being able to have an abortion does not avoid sin. In fact, it takes away the opportunity to make a decision that pleases God. In a perfect world, all children would be wanted, and abortions would not be popular. But making them illegal does not bring this perfect world about.

So, I don't happen to believe that legislation has any impact on sin, other than perhaps to strip people of their opportunity to make a free choice to reject sin and please God. I don't think you can legislate morality, even if you try.

But I'm looking for the really astonishing finding here. I suspect that the same geniuses who believe that dropping bombs on Muslims makes us safer from terrorists, also believe that avoiding jail time is the same as pleasing God.

And I just want to hear it directly from them.

dd74 · 08-02-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Maybe I can help here. I am a practicing roman catholic. Started my career as an altar boy roughly forty years ago. Today I am a Eucharistic Minister, CCD teacher, etc. And a liberal. So those of you who think liberals are also satan worshippers should just pull the covers back over your heads and return to your sleep.

I suspect that the same geniuses who believe that dropping bombs on Muslims makes us safer from terrorists, also believe that avoiding jail time is the same as pleasing God.

And I just want to hear it directly from them.

You just answered your own question. As far as hearing it from them, you never will.

Hugh R · 08-02-2004, 01:51 PM

I usually don't get into these, but think about it Super, we legislate religion and morality every day in this country. Have you ever heard of a "dry county" where they don't sell alcohol? That's usually from a religious (often Baptist) push by the legislators and those they represent. What about prostitution, same thing, ditto for walking around naked. Stealing, thats not allowed by another commandment. The morals of a society are set by the victors of war/takeover. Do we not impose the will of the United States (our laws, which reflect our collective moral will) on places like Hawaii, that we bought/took?

We don't impose laws (any more) that say you must go to church, we did in the days of the Pilgrims. Maybe I'm not being too thoughtfully deep on this one, but ours laws definitely reflect our morals, which often come from our (collective) religion. If someone is an athiest, it doesn't mean they necessarily believe that stealing, killing and coveting thy neighbor's wife are OK (well, maybe the last one is actually more of a guideline than a rule).

gaijinda · 08-02-2004, 01:55 PM

The tyranny of the majority can be the dark side of any democracy. Considering the religious faith of the majority of American citizens, I would say they have been rather tolerant on this issue.

Are immigrants from other religious backgrounds (I am not talking Christian sectarian divisions here) excluded from this country? Are not huge amounts of popular culture consumed with hardly any reference to faith? (Who besides the Simpsons goes to church??) Public education is stripped of all but a passing mention of God.

"Should politicians seem religious?" Considering they are trying to get and stay elected and who is doing the voting, it is pretty silly to think that they will leave all religious sensibility behind.