read the whole question before answering please.
Whenever Liberals cant argue on their position they will SOMETIMES say the opposition is injecting their religion. Whats wrong with that? freedome of religion is the foundation of this country. Also, If laws cant be faith based then are you saying a person who has faith cant hold public office. Then it only reasons, that people of faith shouldnt be allowed to vote either. All 3 are linked, so stop with this stupid arguement
Answer:
I am a Southern Baptist, one of the most conservative Christian denominations out there, and I actually find your logic a bit faulty. Let me address your question one part at a time:
"SOMETIMES say the opposition is injecting their religion. Whats wrong with that?"
The United States is a secular government that is legally separated from a church of any sort. Individual government officials can vote and act based on their beliefs (that's their job), except for judges, but the government as a whole cannot impose certain beliefs or any kind of religious dogma onto the population as a whole. For example, the government cannot declare Islam to be illegal, just because a few crazy extremists blew up the WTC.
f"reedome of religion is the foundation of this country"
Freedom of religion also means the freedom to practice religion or abstain from it. I don't want the government telling me I have to be a practicing Catholic.
"Also, If laws cant be faith based then are you saying a person who has faith cant hold public office"
This is just flat out wrong. How you made the leap of logic for this is beyond me. There are probably a lot of closed-minded atheists who would agree with you, since they believe they are more intelligent than believers, but most of our elected officials are religious. They can vote on issues based on their beliefs, but they can't legislate anything into existence that violates the separation of church and state or individual constitutional freedoms.
"Then it only reasons, that people of faith shouldnt be allowed to vote either. "
Another astronomical leap of fallacial logic. Everyone in the country has the right to vote. It's the government that's secular, not the population.
"All 3 are linked, so stop with this stupid arguement"
It is a stupid argument, but this isn't the method to argue it. A more proper method would be to use non-faith arguments to counter liberal ones. It's hard, but it's possible and puts you on more solid ground with someone who profoundly dismisses religion.
Amen. I have noticed the Democrats running for President have been playing the race of lately, even HRC, like she really cares .
First, do you mean to say the laws can be biased towards religions or are based on religions?
At the end of the day, religion is and should indeed be a way of life restricted to one's private life! And, there should be no laws which favour or discriminate against anyone based on religion!
And, what is the stupid argument that you want others to stop?
I agree with you, however most people don't understand, is mojarity of the laws we have today came directly from the word of GOD, if a person studys there bible today, one would actually find the bankruptcy laws, and some of the laws of health, DR's use in pre- surgery, don't quote on this one but I am pretty sure, and these are the few I know off the top of my head, so that argument is dead anyway, look at our Judges today they are still following some of rules and regulation, or standards they self's must live by in order to become appointed as a judge, those principles or precepts are inside the Holy Bible.
Is this a question?
There IS freedom of religion. There is also freedom from establishment of any particular religion (hence the name, "establishment clause"). The state can do nothing that establishes or gives preference to a particular religion over others, but cannot restrict you from practicing your religion (unreasonably, in the event your practice tromps on the rights of others).
Take the famous Christmas manger scene issue. If City Hall (e.g., the State) allows a manger scene at City Hall at Christmas, it has ordained a preference for a particular religion (Christianity). If challenged, it can either choose to remove the manger scene (and all the Christians going crying to Fox News), OR they can allow equal access to *all* religions for their festivities- Menorahs at Hannukah, Muslim thingies during Ramadan, Kwanzaa, etc. That would include things you might find offensive (such as a Santeria group sacrificing a goat, perhaps, or Satan worshippers putting up pentagrams for Dark Night or whatever they celebrate).
If Christians (and I am one) would simply accept the fact that other religions exist and allow them to peacefully coexist as equal religions on this country, you could have your manger scenes, Young Life meetings in school,etc. The Supreme Court ruled decades ago along these lines (Allegheny County vs. ACLU).
Your question fails to logically connect between posit#2 (laws can't be faith based) and posit #3 (people of faith can't hold office). People of faith can hold office, and always have. They just can't use their position to bludgeon other religions into submission.
freedom of religion was not the reason that this country was founded. it was one reason of many. it was not the foremost reason.
this country was founded in 1776, not by the pilgrims in 1620. the main reasons were taxation without representation, and desire for independance from english rule.
religion was given tax free status and an agreement that it would not be interfered with by the government. there are good reasons for not mixing politics and religion although some people seem to think that they should be intertwined.
religion based laws? most of the islamic countries have this.
the most important laws transend religion. every country has laws against murder, robbery, rape, arson, kidnapping. they didnt have to consult the bible to think off them. its common sense, you cannot maintain a civilized society without them.
Yes our country is founded on freedom of religion and also separation of church and state. By your reasoning then it should be okay to make laws based on the Muslim faith. How well do you think Christian Americans would react to that? They would probably would feel very offended. But yet these same Christians think it's okay to make Christian law=American Law and having non-Christians follow them whether they like it or not. America is suppose to be a secular state as planned by our founding fathers, "One Nation Under God" means the God that created all of us, no matter what religion we belong to.
first let me enlighten you to the fact that "law isn't necessarily justice; it's how it happens to be interpreted". that is what precedents is about.
yes there is Law that is of this earth and there is the bible which is Law that is not of this earth....God's law. we are commanded by the bible to obey the law....that is, any law.
please don't mistake Christianity for religion. religion is the segregation of the christian faith. Christianity has no segregation. it seems a conflict of interest to be a holy man and a politician because a person ends up compromising their own beliefs.
we are fortunate that God in his infinite wisdom and grace allows us our own discretion. with all of the precedents formed in modern law the clarity of right and wrong seems more and more distorted.
All law is religion based. Law is based on societal values, a society usually has a large percentage of religious adherents. Thus law is based in religion in some ways no matter where you are with perhaps the exception of a communist state but then most communist states also have religious populations who tend to lend their own social values onto the culture itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.