1. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110383
    24 Dec '09 02:39
    In an ideal USA, each person would be free to practice his religion (or no religion at all) but not be free to impose his religious views on others. For example, If your religion does not allow birth control, don't use it, but don't force others to your view. Same thing with gay marriage, abortion, or religious displays on government property, or school prayers.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    24 Dec '09 03:28
    Originally posted by 667joe
    In an ideal USA, each person would be free to practice his religion (or no religion at all) but not be free to impose his religious views on others. For example, If your religion does not allow birth control, don't use it, but don't force others to your view. Same thing with gay marriage, abortion, or religious displays on government property, or school prayers.
    You say this with the presumption that secular views are superior to religious views. Of course, not everyone would agree. In short, what makes you better than those that oppose you?
  3. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    24 Dec '09 03:40
    Originally posted by 667joe
    In an ideal USA, each person would be free to practice his religion (or no religion at all) but not be free to impose his religious views on others. For example, If your religion does not allow birth control, don't use it, but don't force others to your view. Same thing with gay marriage, abortion, or religious displays on government property, or school prayers.
    What about those who would "force" their religious views on others by forbidding murder and theft? I say, more power to 'em, force away.

    I'm with you on the religious displays on gov't property; I think this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. However, your other issues are more murky. Gay marriage could be opposed on grounds that the gov't ought to get out of the business of certifying ANY marriages [straight included]. Abortion is still a hotly debated issue. There is a good case to be made against permitting third-trimester abortions, for example. School prayer should be permitted on the student's own time [no official pauses for it, though].

    Of course, all this demands that the issues be debated on their own merit, rather than taking the easy way out and stamping the word RELIGIOUS on opposing viewpoints to deny the opposition a voice in making law.
  4. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49970
    24 Dec '09 09:10
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    What about those who would "force" their religious views on others by forbidding murder and theft? I say, more power to 'em, force away.

    I'm with you on the religious displays on gov't property; I think this is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. However, your other issues are more murky. Gay marriage could be opposed on grounds t ...[text shortened]... g the word RELIGIOUS on opposing viewpoints to deny the opposition a voice in making law.
    Laws against murder and theft aren't religious in basis - human societies have always opposed these actions.
  5. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    24 Dec '09 10:27
    Originally posted by amannion
    Laws against murder and theft aren't religious in basis - human societies have always opposed these actions.
    with the exception of in war... all societies
  6. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110383
    24 Dec '09 13:08
    Originally posted by whodey
    You say this with the presumption that secular views are superior to religious views. Of course, not everyone would agree. In short, what makes you better than those that oppose you?
    Each religion thinks it's the one true religion. This leads to the trouble that caused certain disfavored religious people to flee persecution in Europe and come to America. Our founding fathers realized these religious conflicts would erupt here and thus decided religion must be kept out of government leaving each person freedom of or from religion, and unable to foist his religious ideas on others who believe differently. I am no better than you, but you are no better than I!
  7. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    24 Dec '09 13:50
    Originally posted by 667joe
    In an ideal USA, each person would be free to practice his religion (or no religion at all) but not be free to impose his religious views on others. For example, If your religion does not allow birth control, don't use it, but don't force others to your view. Same thing with gay marriage, abortion, or religious displays on government property, or school prayers.
    Following the constitution would make for an ideal USA.

    What do you mean by "forcing" or "imposing" one's views?

    One can't make another believe anything they don't want to.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    24 Dec '09 13:593 edits
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Each religion thinks it's the one true religion. This leads to the trouble that caused certain disfavored religious people to flee persecution in Europe and come to America. Our founding fathers realized these religious conflicts would erupt here and thus decided religion must be kept out of government leaving each person freedom of or from religion, and u ...[text shortened]... deas on others who believe differently. I am no better than you, but you are no better than I!
    You are missing my point. You are caught up with the notion that morality based upon X is inferior to morality that is based upon Y, thus assuming Y is better than X. However, you then turn around and say that you are no better than I and vise versa.

    If there is no God, then the morality that has stemmed from religion is simply the morality adopted from societies over the years around the world, just like any other society. What you are really saying, however, is that if any of this morality was adopted with the notion that "God said", then it should be readily rejected based soley upon that premise.

    You also assume that religions will duke it out in terms of who should be "the religion" thus they should be prevented form coming to power. However, I've got news for ya, even if everyone adpoted a religion, there will be those within that religion which will duke it out as they form various sects and interests like we see in every religion today. There is no utopia, whether it be in the name of religion or otherwise. It is simply human nature to seek power, secure, power, and then seek even more power whether it be done in the name of God or otherwise. There is no utopia with or without religion I'm afraid. :'(
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    24 Dec '09 14:08
    Originally posted by josephw
    Following the constitution would make for an ideal USA.

    What do you mean by "forcing" or "imposing" one's views?

    One can't make another believe anything they don't want to.
    The Framers were more interested in preventing the state from manipulating the church and vise versa than they were constructing a wall between the church and state. If not, why then does Congress begin with a prayer? Why all the references to God in the Constitution and other documents?
  10. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    24 Dec '09 14:181 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why all the references to God in the Constitution and other documents?
    Which part of the constitution contains a reference to god?

    The full text of the constitution can be found here:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    I did a search for god and didn't find a single one.

    Can you enlighten me as to where just ONE reference to god is in the constitution?

    Also, just because the founders wanted it, doesn't make it right. How many of the founders owned slaves?
  11. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110383
    24 Dec '09 14:21
    Originally posted by whodey
    You are missing my point. You are caught up with the notion that morality based upon X is inferior to morality that is based upon Y, thus assuming Y is better than X. However, you then turn around and say that you are no better than I and vise versa.

    If there is no God, then the morality that has stemmed from religion is simply the morality adopted from ...[text shortened]... e name of God or otherwise. There is no utopia with or without religion I'm afraid. :'(
    You don't get it. The US constitution drafters realized there would be constant fighting for power by and between religions(exactly as you say in your post) and removed religion as a tool of the government precisely to avoid the infighting (and the consequences thereof) that religion inevitably causes. This is why our government is secular and was, by the way, the 1st secular government established in the history of the world.

    It is debatable which morality is superior, but it is well documented that such debates have often led to big trouble.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    24 Dec '09 14:30
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    [b]What about those who would "force" their religious views on others by forbidding murder and theft? I say, more power to 'em, force away.
    You raise a good point. I have always said that we all have an underlying morality which is the golden rule spoken of by Christ. Simply put, do unto others as you would have them do to you. And there you have it, the one rule that governs all other rules given to us by one Jesus Christ. Of course, you can argue all day that he was not the first to give us this rule, and I would agree. It is innate and people who lived before him deep down knew the same rule even if it was not articulated.
  13. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    24 Dec '09 14:30
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Which part of the constitution contains a reference to god?

    The full text of the constitution can be found here:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    I did a search for god and didn't find a single one.

    Can you enlighten me as to where just ONE reference to god is in the constitution?

    Also, just because the founders wanted it, doesn't make it right. How many of the founders owned slaves?
    You are correct, sir. There is not one single reference to 'god' in the Constitution. It is an entirely secular document.
  14. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    24 Dec '09 14:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    You are missing my point. You are caught up with the notion that morality based upon X is inferior to morality that is based upon Y, thus assuming Y is better than X. However, you then turn around and say that you are no better than I and vise versa.

    If there is no God, then the morality that has stemmed from religion is simply the morality adopted from ...[text shortened]... e name of God or otherwise. There is no utopia with or without religion I'm afraid. :'(
    I dispute your dismal account of "human nature."
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    24 Dec '09 14:382 edits
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Which part of the constitution contains a reference to god?

    The full text of the constitution can be found here:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    I did a search for god and didn't find a single one.

    Can you enlighten me as to where just ONE reference to god is in the constitution?

    Also, just because the founders wanted it, doesn't make it right. How many of the founders owned slaves?
    You are right, of coure, I was thinking of the Declration of Independence. You also have God mentioned in many constitutions of various states. So the question begs, if they wanted a wall constructed between religion and the state, why?

    As for slavery, this is a good example of how morality has changed over the years. When the powers that be legalized it, the masses by in large went along with this morality, however, after it has been outlawed for such a long time, the pendulum has swung the other way. Abortion is another good example. When it was illegal, the consensus was that it was immoral, but now people say "its the womens choice". Today, we are caught up in the societal attitude that slavery is "wrong" and abortions is "OK". Just don't fail to overlook the powers that have shaped your morality whether you agree with these societal norms or not. We have conformed our morality to those that we see in authority over us. It is simply human nature.

    Speaking of slavery, why is it that Christians think that gay marriage should be outlawed and abortion outlawed based upon their religious beliefs, but do not push for slavery to be made the rule of law again? After all, is not slavery allowed in the Bible?
Back to Top