Who will pay for the sin of murdering the unborn?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

If you want to start interjecting religion into politics, then it's only fair that politics be interjected into religion.

If you want to start taxing the churches, then we can discuss it.

Obviously this would not be a good thing as it would require religions to run as businesses and automatically the "less mainstream" beliefs with fewer followers would be at a disadvantage and probably go under.

This is one reason the wall between church and state is necessary. It's not just to protect government from religion, it's to protect the churches from government too.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If you want to start interjecting religion into politics, then it's only fair that politics be interjected into religion.

If you want to start taxing the churches, then we can discuss it.

Obviously this would not be a good thing as it would require religions to run as businesses and automatically the "less mainstream" beliefs with fewer followers would be at a disadvantage and probably go under.

This is one reason the wall between church and state is necessary. It's not just to protect government from religion, it's to protect the churches from government too.

Amen brother!

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If you want to start taxing the churches, then we can discuss it.

+ infinity. I see no reason for churches to be tax-exempt.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Mule

You must have missed the first part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That's exactly what I quoted in my post. Didn't miss a thing.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If you want to start interjecting religion into politics, then it's only fair that politics be interjected into religion.

If you want to start taxing the churches, then we can discuss it.

Obviously this would not be a good thing as it would require religions to run as businesses and automatically the "less mainstream" beliefs with fewer followers would be at a disadvantage and probably go under.

This is one reason the wall between church and state is necessary. It's not just to protect government from religion, it's to protect the churches from government too.

I still want to know how you separate God & state.

Funny how you totally ignor and want to change to conversation to taxing churches... classic.

Oops, unless you logic is flawed. Unless you can't separate religious beliefs...

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

If you want to start interjecting religion into politics, then it's only fair that politics be interjected into religion.

If you want to start taxing the churches, then we can discuss it.

Obviously this would not be a good thing as it would require religions to run as businesses and automatically the "less mainstream" beliefs with fewer followers would be at a disadvantage and probably go under.

This is one reason the wall between church and state is necessary. It's not just to protect government from religion, it's to protect the churches from government too.

I still want to know how you separate God & state.

Funny how you totally ignore and want to change to conversation to taxing churches... classic.

Oops, unless you logic is flawed. Unless you can't separate religious beliefs...

[skipdup]

You guys want to debate the legality of religious beliefs. Want to keep them totally separated. But, you won't discuss how that's done?

[nostatic]

Here's one way. The bible is a religious document. God knows it isn't a history book

If someone is wanting a law and basing it on arguments from the bible, then you discount that opinion.

That work?

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Here's one way. The bible is a religious document. God knows it isn't a history book

If someone is wanting a law and basing it on arguments from the bible, then you discount that opinion.

That work?

I was actually asking the question in response to POP's statement that religious beliefs can not be mingled into government. I want to know how that's done.

If religious beliefs aren't allowed, then no religious people are allowed in government, right???

Also, shall we take murder off the law books? That is definitely a "religious" belief.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by skipdup

I still want to know how you separate God & state.

+1. Better yet, define and demonstrate "separate." I'm not entirely sure a pure separation of C & S is possible in this (our) country.

[nostatic]

I think what he meant is that religious beliefs should not be the basis for government actions. Laws should be based on people and actions, not on what a religious text or teaching tells them. No doubt that they will sometimes overlap, but they should not be solely based on a religious text.

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I think what he meant is that religious beliefs should not be the basis for government actions. Laws should be based on people and actions, not on what a religious text or teaching tells them. No doubt that they will sometimes overlap, but they should not be solely based on a religious text.

I tend to think he meant what he said... He was clear. Said the same thing different ways.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Here's one way. The bible is a religious document. God knows it isn't a history book

If someone is wanting a law and basing it on arguments from the bible, then you discount that opinion.

That work?

How many laws have been based on arguments from the bible?

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by dd74

How many laws have been based on arguments from the bible?

I'm not positive... but basically, doesn't the constitution state that our rights are given by the "creator"?

That sounds very "religious" to me.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by skipdup

I'm not positive... but basically, doesn't the constitution state that our rights are given by the "creator"?

That sounds very "religious" to me.

I underlined the two words that leave the statement up for interpretation. I'm not certain most on this thread want to go that deep. Though I'm sure some will...

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by dd74

I underlined the two words that leave the statement up for interpretation. I'm not certain most on this thread want to go that deep. Though I'm sure some will...

a quick search and I found...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted...

So, our rights are given to us from our "creator". Again, that seems pretty "religious".

[dd74]

Originally Posted by skipdup

a quick search and I found...

So, our rights are given to us from our "creator". Again, that seems pretty "religious".

OK, so what does that mean? We owe the creator for our rights?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The context of those documents is from another time and culture when people were less prone to getting themselves worked up into a lather about religious beliefs. There was an understanding that people generally believed in certain similar principles when it came to their religious beliefs. As such, it was part of the culture - more so then than now.

Unfortunately if one fast-forwards to today, everything has an ulterior motive. A demand for public prayer is a thinly-veiled attempt to get a government endorsement of a particular "brand" of belief. A display of the ten commandments in a courtroom is vilified because it is interpreted (perhaps correctly) to represent a bias of government towards Judeo-Christian beliefs. And so it goes. The culture has changed.

To answer your question, I think the FF intended to have no unreasonable or no seepage of religion into government (or vice-versa) beyond what was openly understood in everyday life in the context of the day. Back in their time, an assumption that people believed in a Creator or in something more Judeo-Christian in nature with respect to belief/faith was more reasonable. Part of it was due to the fact that virtually all "Americans" at that time shared the same background (immigrated from Europe, usually England, or directly descended from those who did). Today it is much more complex. The world has become smaller and we have many more people with many more backgrounds and many more faiths than the FF probably were ever aware existed (and they were educated people!)

So to answer your question, I think it's reasonable to include religious symbology, references and even (to some extent) ritual out of respect for our history and for the way things were at the time this nation was founded. The problem is that there are plenty (and I believe you're clearly one of them) who would seek to distort this and (mis)use it to your advantage in an attempt to "kick the door open" and flood religious dogma into our society WAY beyond what is warranted under a simple respect for our history.

And FWIW the FF were not Christians, they were largely Deists (or a way of saying "undeclared"). They had their faiths but kept the specifics of it close to their hearts - which is where it belongs, frankly.

As such, the ONLY allowance I'd make for religion in politics (or vice-versa) is only what is appropriate to pay our respect to our history and to establish some traditions in our government, which is helpful to legitimize it.

[skipdup]

DD- All it means is I'm still wondering how we separate God from State - as POP and others seem so bent on doing.

I think they're really scared of a theocracy. But, they seem to be arguing against the non-existent pro-theocracy PPOT group. I know I've never read a pro-theocracy post (at least that I remember).

They seem to think that if a person if anti-abortion, they are pro-theocracy - at least that's the arguments they've been making. It's silly! Even more so when you consider not all anti-abortionists are religious.

I also think it's silly to think you can separate "religious beliefs" from government. Religious beliefs permeate everything - if a person is religious. Are we going not allow those religious people into government because of this - for it'd be the only way to keep religious beliefs from affecting government.

Again, I want to know what the world these guys want looks like.

- Skip

[skipdup]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

...
The problem is that there are plenty (and I believe you're clearly one of them) who would seek to distort this and (mis)use it to your advantage in an attempt to "kick the door open" and flood religious dogma into our society WAY beyond what is warranted under a simple respect for our history.
...

You got all that because I'm anti-abortion? You must be very insightful.

Please enlighten... Just what other religious dogmas do I want to force you? Please be specific - or vague. I really need to know.