22 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyIs that all it got you to thinking about? What makes you think Dr. King was against such separation? Can you state a case for it?
Now that it has passed, I got to thinking. If he were alive today would people be screaming for a seperation of church and state? I mean, he clearly had a Christian perspective and employed it in his tactics and ideology.
What do you think about the following article?
http://www.onlinejournal.com/TheocracyAlert/html/071605nall.html
22 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeySeparation of church and state protects people of all faiths. I'm surprised the church isn't a strong proponent of it.
Now that it has passed, I got to thinking. If he were alive today would people be screaming for a seperation of church and state? I mean, he clearly had a Christian perspective and employed it in his tactics and ideology.
Without it, nothing stops a president [or other gov't official] of a different faith than your own from mandating the practice of his religion in public schools, courtrooms, etc. Imagine if your child was forced to bring a prayer rug to school and pray to Mecca five times a day. Would you be OK with that?
22 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that Dr. King wanted a theocracy, rather, I am merely saying that he was a man of faith and was politically active. It seems to me that there is little difference between him being politically active and the Christian right being politically active. However, one seems to be attractive and the other repulsive to many. It just seems a little odd is all.
Is that all it got you to thinking about? What makes you think Dr. King was against such separation? Can you state a case for it?
What do you think about the following article?
http://www.onlinejournal.com/TheocracyAlert/html/071605nall.html
22 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyOnce again you are making a fool of yourself. There's a difference between being religious and wanting to force your religion onto everyone else. The separation of Church and State does not mean that religious people should be barred from politics.
You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that Dr. King wanted a theocracy, rather, I am merely saying that he was a man of faith and was politically active. It seems to me that there is little difference between him being politically active and the Christian right being politically active.
22 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSo the Christian right is trying to force you to become a Christian? If so, how so?
Once again you are making a fool of yourself. There's a difference between being religious and wanting to force your religion onto everyone else. The separation of Church and State does not mean that religious people should be barred from politics.
22 Jan 08
Originally posted by kirksey957There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
OK, good question. Chuck Norris and his wife, Gina, are advocating and working to get a Bible-based cirriculum in every public school. They endorse Huckabee for president.
22 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyAre you really as stupid as you pretend to be, or is that just an act?
So the Christian right is trying to force you to become a Christian? If so, how so?
They're trying to force their christianity on everyone, whether they intend to become a christian or not. Just listen to someone like Huckabee:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Dr. King never said anything like that.
23 Jan 08
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettOf course I can't speak for every Christian who are evangelicals in the Republican party but not all endorse a theocracy. Having said that, there is a difference between fighting for morals you think that are "good" and endorsing a Christian government. I can't speak for Huckabee but it may be that all he is saying is that we should have laws that reflect his own beliefs and not that we should have a Christian government. To be honest, however, I view him more of a demogague than sincere when spouting out such rhetoric. I think he is merely playing the evangelical card in order to get elected. I guess we will have to see if he has gambled correctly in order to win the nomination. Then again, what if he is sincere? Is he advocating a theocracy when saying such things? I would venture a guess that you would fight for laws that would reflect your morality whether it is based in atheism or otherwise. In a way, you could then say that you are fighting to make the government an atheist government because you would be influencing laws that reflect your morality. For example, there are atheists out there that would say that children should never be allowed to pray in school. There are atheists out there that would forbid children being taught that God could have ever been involved in the making of Creation/evolution. I would even venture a guess that there are atheists out there that would punish parents for teaaching their children that God even exists because children should be allowed to make up their own minds regarding what they should believe, and trust me, I have talked to a few.
Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be, or is that just an act?
They're trying to force their christianity on everyone, whether they intend to become a christian or not. Just listen to someone like Huckabee:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution t ...[text shortened]... e treat each other and how we treat the family.”
Dr. King never said anything like that.
Now as for doctor King, he was merely fighting for what he thought was right. Make no mistake about it, our laws are based upon morality no matter the law and no matter the morality whether it is Godless or otherwise. It then is only a quesiton of which morality we should live by. I would even say that the magority of our laws are based upon the Christian ideal of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. For the most part, everything is legal so long as you are not infringing upon the rights of another.
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyAnd that is the whole point of separation of Church and State - to help stop people from introducing constitution clauses that force their ideas of morality on others. I also would not really class the things you have talked about as 'morality'.
Of course I can't speak for every Christian who are evangelicals in the Republican party but not all endorse a theocracy. Having said that, there is a difference between fighting for morals you think that are "good" and endorsing a Christian government. I can't speak for Huckabee but it may be that all he is saying is that we should have laws that reflect h ...[text shortened]... most part, everything is legal so long as you are not infringing upon the rights of another.
When you refer to 'fighting for morals' do you mean for example that you would want to introduce laws that ban behavior you believe to be immoral?
23 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyOkay, perhaps I misunderstood your point. I was just concerned that of all the things that great man's life could get you to thinking about, you were latching onto one notion he was vastly too intelligent to support -- the dissolution of separation of church and state.
You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that Dr. King wanted a theocracy, rather, I am merely saying that he was a man of faith and was politically active. It seems to me that there is little difference between him being politically active and the Christian right being politically active. However, one seems to be attractive and the other repulsive to many. It just seems a little odd is all.
It seems to me that there is little difference between him being politically active and the Christian right being politically active. However, one seems to be attractive and the other repulsive to many. It just seems a little odd is all.
Actually, I think there is a huge difference between Dr. King and your average yahoo from that segment of the right who wants dissolution of separation of church and state. The average yahoo's allegiance tends to be oriented toward fundamentalism, where mere conformity to doctrinal account is given higher priority than the understanding and virtues that the accounts supposedly embody. They simply misfire on what they take to be reason-giving, they foster ignorance, and they are remarkably set in these ways. I don't think there is anything odd about why this is repulsive to many. On the other hand, Dr. King was a vessel for understanding and the virtues. His actions were informed directly by compassion, courage, justice, and the like. He bears no resemblance to the average yahoo above.