quote:ORLANDO, Aug. 25 -- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.
While I agree that Christians should be involved in politics, and that it's perfectly fine for people to hold religious convictions and have those inform their decisions in the political arena...I think Ms. Harris has a tendency to go way overboard with her rhetoric. This quotation doesn't surprise me, but I do hope there's more to it -- that the WP left out some context that makes her statement less obnoxious.
I'll have to look for the original interview article.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is from the last question/answer they put in the interview.
quote:Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?
They should care about this election period. I will tell you that everywhere I go throughout the state and even the nation, people say the pollsters, the politicians and spiritually—that Florida is the forerunner state. That what happens in Florida sets the trend for what happens nationally. And with this election, if Bill Nelson wins, it’s going to be a very frightening proposition in 2008 in the presidential elections because whoever wins Florida will win the presidency. And he’ll be in a position to largely influence. No other candidate can beat Bill Nelson except for me. No one even has a chance because of name identification and fund raising abilities and things like that. But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong.
posted
I still think her rhetoric is overboard. She's speaking to a particular political base, of course and maybe decided to speak just to them in this article. I think a good politician remains mindful of the broader audience. In essence, she's calling everyone who isn't Christian some sort of mindless follower -- looking to the Baptists to save us from ourselves. Yeah, right.
I'm impressed at how she has parlayed screwing up a national election into a political career though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when muslims get into power they can legislate Sharia. Huzzah. What a wonderful line of reasoning. =(
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason, the conservatives in Florida aren't following Gov. Bush's style. They're being very aggressively 'conservative', rather than trying to court swing voters in the state.
They must have their reasons for doing this, I'm guessing, and I know that Florida has a huge base of Christian Nationalists, so maybe it will work.
By the way, I don't recall seeing the war on terror being an issue in any ad campaigns yet here in Florida. I take this as a good sign.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like she has bought into the Christian Nationalist line of thinking. No, these are not just good, churchgoing folks...they actively advocate theocracy for the United States. These are the folks who say things like that separation of church and state is a myth or a "lie of Satan".
I just read an interesting book about the Christian Nationalists, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg. They don't want to just be left alone to live according to their worldview, but want to impose their worldview on the rest of the nation, even the rest of the world. And some of them aren't too worried about what they have to do in order to do that.
posted
Personally, I'm most amused by the assertation that "average citizens" are not Christian. Let's take a second look at that census data, I could swear it says almost 80% of Americans are Christian.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like Christmas in the summertime! Cynthia McKinney went down in flames, then Liebermann lost the primary (though he could still win in the general election). But for me the most visceral schadenfreude has to come from the Harris campaign. I can't remember a worse state-wide campaign, in any state.
posted
"supporting marriage" in this context really means "Against marriage." The only marriage she supports is marriage for people like her.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was raised a southern baptist and felt ok about it. No big deal until my brother dropped out of the flock to marry a catholic. When his best friend gave me the rant about my brother it was time for me to leave. My brother's friend got hit first for putting his hands on me and the assistant pastor almost got hit for trying to jump in.
Obviously I'm not the most religious person in the world, but I still follow my christian views from my upbringing.
That being the case, if I don't think I would want someone to watch over a teenage daughter, or any child for that matter, I won't vote for them. On occasion, this means leaving a ballot blank, but I still follow my heart when I vote.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My take on it is that religion has no place in politics or government. That is not to say that leaders cannot or should not be religious - they just have an obligation, the way I see it, to leave the religious beliefs at home while governing.
Why? Because not everybody in this country is religous, and of those who are, not everybody shares their particular religious beliefs. Leaving all personal feelings out of public government is the only sensible way to govern as fairly as one can. If we don't consider religion, "sin," traditional religious laws, etc., then we must instead consider only those rules of society that can apply to EVERYBODY.
Take me, for example. I am an atheist. I do not believe in God, Jesus, sin, or any other aspect of religion. I *do* believe that society needs a set of rules that everybody adheres to in order to function and thrive. I am in favor of laws - I am not in favor of being told by my government that laws are in place because to go against them is "sinful." So, Harris' assertion that without Christians in office we will be legislating "sin" is particularly offensive to me, because I resent being told that I should live my life by the guidelines of a popular mythology.
(I mean no offense to the religious folks here - Christianity, like all other religions, is a mythology *to me,* and I don't expect any other people to adopt my beliefs!)
The point here is that I am not any less a citizen of the USA than any given Christian, and both the Christian and I should be governed in *exactly the same way* by our public government - as should the Jew, the Muslim, and Pagan, the Buddhist - everybody. Religion-neutral laws are the only way to satisfy the need for governmental equality and public respect for ALL beliefs. This is a fact that many fundamentalist politicians (like Harris) either disregard or are completely ignorant of. That's too bad, because it DOES effect my life and the lives of other non-Christians.
Again, I am not opposed to openly religious people in government. I am opposed to religious beliefs being made into law, and the accompanying implication that if I do not hold religious beliefs, then I am somehow unworthy of being called an American and that I need to "fall in line." And, as somebody already pointed out, how would the fundamentalists feel if a Muslim majority were to rise to power and institute their own religious laws? Or, horror of horrors, an atheist majority, that pigheadedly ruled that nobody could express any kind of religious beliefs anywhere? Not happy, I'd imagine.
Harris is an offensive, insensitive jerk, in my opinion, and I hope this nailed the coffin shut on her campaign.
Edit: Sorry this is soooo long, guys, and I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this kind of doo-doo makes me so ticked off that I wanted to get all my thoughts out in one go so I can never come back to this thread and never be tempted to read Harris's lameness again.
Yeah, that whole "because they don't know better" thing is just unspeakably offensive to me. I considered myself a very devout Christian until recently. I guess I "knew better" back then, according to her.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yeah, but they aren't Real True Christians (tm).
KOM not every Christians thinks that others who disagree with them on particular docterinal points are not REAL TRUE Christians, just mistaken.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of us even think that there can be more than one valid, un-"mistaken" opinion on particular doctrinal points.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:KOM not every Christians thinks that others who disagree with them on particular docterinal points are not REAL TRUE Christians, just mistaken.
I think KOM's point is that Harris has just allied herself with those who pull the "no true Christian" line when they don't agree with another Christian.
It doesn't matter how small the fraction is. They do exist.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, BlackBlade, I'm fairly sure you yourself have pulled the 'No True Christian' when it came to events like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and indeed Hitler.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, BlackBlade, I'm fairly sure you yourself have pulled the 'No True Christian' when it came to events like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and indeed Hitler.
I'd like to see you once find a quote where I said somebody was not a, "Real Christian." Or something to that effect. I may have, but I cannot remember and I doubt doing so.
I cannot pretend to know the motives of EVERYONE involved in even 1 of those 3 events. I think its safe to say there were non Christians using Christianity as a means to an end, there were Christians who thought they were doing right, and there were Christians who thought it was wrong, but feared for the lives more than to rock the boat over it. And of course there were a handful of Christians who refused to participate.
Do you know the exact ratio of those 4 types of "Christians" when it comes ot those situations KOM? I sure don't, so don't condemn me for not taking EVERYONE's claims of Christianity at face value.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My take on it is that religion has no place in politics or government. That is not to say that leaders cannot or should not be religious - they just have an obligation, the way I see it, to leave the religious beliefs at home while governing.
Why? Because not everybody in this country is religous, and of those who are, not everybody shares their particular religious beliefs. Leaving all personal feelings out of public government is the only sensible way to govern as fairly as one can. If we don't consider religion, "sin," traditional religious laws, etc., then we must instead consider only those rules of society that can apply to EVERYBODY.
Can you leave "atheism" at home when you go to formulate laws? As much as I might, in theory, believe that religion shouldn't be injected into laws, I don't really see how we can call upon individuals who are elected as representatives to chuck aside their belief systems when crafting or voting on laws. Especially if those belief systems are part of what got them elected.
And I don't mean that in a "vote for me, I'm more Christian than the other candidate" way. I mean it in a simple "he or she is like me, so I voted for them" way.
If Ms. Harris becomes a senator from Florida, it'll be because a majority of those voting bought her message and voted for her. (Either that or she rigged the election...again -- sorry, couldn't resist.)
So, if she gets into office, how should she respond but to represent the people who put her into office?
Again, in theory, I expect the Senators from my state, and the Representative from my Congressional district to at least consider me when they vote, but realistically, I know that they know that if we are diametrically opposed on a particularly issue, we're probably far apart on many issues. In which case, they know they never had my vote in the first place and aren't likely to win it now. Even more so, they aren't going to win my vote at the expense of all the votes of people who put them in that job in the first place.
So...really, representative government is a fine theory, but in practice is a numbers game.
Any politician who doesn't play that game either never gets elected or tends to have a short tenure in office.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you leave "atheism" at home when you go to formulate laws?
Quite easily. Atheism is a philosophy, just like any religion. A lot of people feel that atheism means opposition to god or regligion, when in fact it means a lack of any kind of religious beliefs. I'd think in a world where explicit religion is being left out of lawmaking, it would be pretty easy to also leave a lack of belief in God at home. I mean, I'm proposing that we don't make laws or political speeches or proclamations that say, "God says to do X," but rather, "It's decided by a majority that it is the best for all of us if you do X." Although that can be looked at as a basically atheistic statement, it doesn't exclude any religious beliefs. Rather, it welcomes all religious beliefs AND non-religious philosophies under the same umbrella while still communicating clearly what the letter of the law is.
quote: As much as I might, in theory, believe that religion shouldn't be injected into laws, I don't really see how we can call upon individuals who are elected as representatives to chuck aside their belief systems when crafting or voting on laws. Especially if those belief systems are part of what got them elected.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with politicians and leaders being openly religious. I have a problem with the decision that *their* religion is the *right* way to think (as illustrated by Harris's statement that non-Christian people just don't know any better, and also her comment that without fundamentally Christian beliefs *actively* demonstrated in government, we'll be legislating "sin," a concept which is in and of itself explicitly religious).
The good thing here is that most of the laws that make for a livable, productive society are universal to human communities. Yes, they are the laws set out in the Ten Commandments and many other major religious texts. But they are universally accepted. Why do we need to identify them as "Christian" (for example) when we can just as easily and more inclusively identify them as "the laws of society?" That definition includes Christians and atheists and everybody in the entire community (except the anarchists, ha ha).
I just have a problem with a particular religion's name being applied to laws and rules because of the exclusion it implies.
quote:And I don't mean that in a "vote for me, I'm more Christian than the other candidate" way. I mean it in a simple "he or she is like me, so I voted for them" way.
I understand that, and it is one of the most powerful campaign platforms. But as I said, just because your beliefs got you voted in, why do you have to draw such an obvious line of superiority and exclusion? Especially in modern America? Aren't we supposed to celebrate diversity and free thought here? So why are people who don't believe all Christian-like being so obviously rejected from society by our governments? Isn't it actually un-Christian to do so? Isn't the more Christian way to accept and love all the members of society, even if you don't agree with their "sins," and let God sort out who wasn't good enough and who was?
quote: If Ms. Harris becomes a senator from Florida, it'll be because a majority of those voting bought her message and voted for her. (Either that or she rigged the election...again -- sorry, couldn't resist.)
Heehee! Yes, I know. And there's a good chance she might. In the current world environment, nothing is scarier to some populations than a lack of a very publicly displayed God. I just wonder how all these people would feel if, as I said somewhere else, it was animist Pagan ideas that were being touted all over the government as if they were obvious truth that clearly *every* American accepted as the way things were. They'd all flip their lids, and they'd resent being told how to believe by their leaders. After all, being told how you should and should not believe is counter to our Constitution, right?
quote:So, if she gets into office, how should she respond but to represent the people who put her into office?
With laws that are fair to *everybody.* How can Christians complain about that? Just because "'Cause God said so" isn't tacked onto the end? She can still proclaim herself a Christian woman who loves and worships God - that doesn't bother me in the least - as long as she doesn't pubicly proclaim that I have to believe that, too, and also follow *God's* laws instead of the State of Florida's laws. As long as she doesn't make it implicit that in my following of her laws, I am also expressing a belief in God.
quote:In which case, they know they never had my vote in the first place and aren't likely to win it now. Even more so, they aren't going to win my vote at the expense of all the votes of people who put them in that job in the first place.
So...really, representative government is a fine theory, but in practice is a numbers game.
Any politician who doesn't play that game either never gets elected or tends to have a short tenure in office.
...and while my idea is only a Utopian dream, that right there is the sad reality of it. No, I don't expect to ever see fair representation and consideration of everybody in this government in my lifetime. It sure would be nice if it were as socially acceptable in America to be an atheist as a Christian, though.
I always have to laugh when Christians complain that it's "practically against the law to be Christian anymore!!!" They don't know what it feels like to have their belief system practically OUTLAWED until they've tried being an atheist! Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My take on it is that religion has no place in politics or government. That is not to say that leaders cannot or should not be religious - they just have an obligation, the way I see it, to leave the religious beliefs at home while governing.
I'm really not sure what people mean by this. Do you mean that it is inappropriate for me to pursue political change based on values which stem from my religious belief? If so, then you are applying a prejudice against the religious.
Let me offer an example.
Suppose we have two people who value wilderness. One participates in a native american religion, animism, that teaches a spiritual value for wilderness. The second is not at all religious, but likes to hike in the backcountry. Do both people have an equal right to support laws and policies that would preserve wilderness?
If both persons were elected to public office, would the animist be expected to leave his pro-wilderness values at home while governing?
What if instead of wilderness, they value unborn children, or heterosexual marriage, or private property, or social justice, or clean air?
The problem with saying that religious people should leave their religious beliefs at home when governing, is that religion influences what we value. There is no public policy choice that does not pit human values against each other.
If religious people aren't allowed to bring their values into the public arena, but non-religious people are then we have created a fundamental inequality between religious and nonreligious people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm really not sure what people mean by this. Do you mean that it is inappropriate for me to pursue political change based on values which stem from my religious belief? If so, then you are applying a prejudice against the religious
If I may answer your question: short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: I will grant you that people may do things with the best of intent, and that these things may even work out beneficially on occasion. Everyone rolls a 20 once in a while.
BUT! when it comes to my government doing stuff, I only want it doing stuff for reasons that are rationally defensible. To take your example, I don't want somebody to save the trees because the tree-spirits are sad, I want somebody to save the trees because he can show why we NEED the trees.
You're familiar with the old saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"? It's nice to be well-intentioned, but it doesn't make the best policies.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really have a problem with religious people in government. If they run with their religion as a piece of their platform, and the people KNOW that they are getting an individual with heavy religious beliefs, and they KNOW that he plans to legislate those beliefs, then I don't really see how it is any different than someone who holds any other political belief, so long as everyone knows about it, there's nothing dishonest about it.
However, I do NOT think it is fair, for the religious to call people who oppose their legislative aims "anti-religious" or anything similiar.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope everyone realizes that Katherine Harris has no chance of winning in November. I can't find any exact poll numbers, but according to The Miami Herald she's trailing Bill Nelson by 30 points. Considering that she seems to be making self destruction a new art form, I don't think those numbers are going to rise.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
People of faith have the right to vote. People of faith have the right to be elected. People of faith have the right to serve when elected. People of faith have the right to honor their religion and their religious beliefs while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to guide them while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to make fair and just laws.
People of faith do not have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their religion, any more than they have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their wallet, their family, or their friends.
People of faith do not have the right to use the law to force thier religion upon anyone.
A law stating that everyone must believe in Jesus Christ is our personal saivor may sound like a great idea to someone looking to affirm this is a Christian nation. Outlawing Judaism for its supposed sin, in either the creation of modern Isreal, or its part in the death of Jesus may also be another law that will protect us from Sin, that a good "Christian" may decide to create. Such laws are not within their rights.
To argue that Abortion is a sin according to the Pope and must be stopped is not an argument that will convince me, since I am not Catholic.
So to, any argument a Christian politician has, that has its sole purpose the removal of a Christian sin will not be taken as valid by anyone who is not a Christian.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:People of faith do not have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their religion, any more than they have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their wallet, their family, or their friends.
I think that's part of the problem with this argument. Me making a law that gives a million dollars and tax free status to my brother isn't fair, of course, it caters directly to me and my family. However, abortion is almost entirely a religious issues. I'm...somewhat more pro-life, but not for religious reasons. However the grand majority of pro-lifers I think it is fair to say are religious. Should they not be allowed to legislate what is largely a religious belief? One that would force religious doctrine on others?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then aren't they all as a collective still forcing their beliefs on the NON-religious?
It's a problem because there are non-religious people that agree with them for non-religious reasons, but the issue stems from a point of doctrine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then they can stop using doctrine to support their point. Abortion is different because it isn't only religious people against it.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: But all religions are against abortion, not just one.
Not true. There are religions that have no position on this issue, and religions that are pro-choice in at least certain circumstances.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quite easily. Atheism is a philosophy, just like any religion. A lot of people feel that atheism means opposition to god or regligion, when in fact it means a lack of any kind of religious beliefs. I'd think in a world where explicit religion is being left out of lawmaking, it would be pretty easy to also leave a lack of belief in God at home. I mean, I'm proposing that we don't make laws or political speeches or proclamations that say, "God says to do X," but rather, "It's decided by a majority that it is the best for all of us if you do X." Although that can be looked at as a basically atheistic statement, it doesn't exclude any religious beliefs. Rather, it welcomes all religious beliefs AND non-religious philosophies under the same umbrella while still communicating clearly what the letter of the law is.
I think the analogous situation for an atheist would be when you are called upon to craft or vote on laws RESPECTING the religious notions of others. I've known atheists who could not fathom the value to this nation of allowing native Americans to hunt puma. They would simply say "no, that's an endangered species and we don't give two hoots abour your religion." Now, whether I agree or disagree with that sentiment, I think that the analogy is what we're after here. I mean, OBVIOUSLY an atheist would have no trouble separating the lack of belief in God from questions of "right behavior" on things like murder, abortion, etc. I think the case that needs to be considered is when our laws actually work to protect and nurture religious activities and you would need to decide what's best for America and what your constituents would want. If 90% of the people in your district believe in God, for example, would you feel best trying to get "In God we Trust" taken off of our money, and "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance? What about tax exempt status for churches. I know many atheists who have a major problem with that, and yet, it's a cornerstone of our tax policies in relation to the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution -- at least it has been so far.
Can you leave your atheism out of the equation when your "prejudices" tell you we're supporting religion? Even though most people seem to want it that way?
I don't see atheism (broadly defined so as to include agnostics) as "anti-religion" but I do see it often as exchanging one set of prejudices for another. In it's strictest sense (atheism excluding agnosticism), it is no more founded in science or reason than is religion. It's a belief that something unproveable does NOT exist. It's faith in Occam's Razor. Which is fine by me, but people often have trouble recognizing that faith in simplest possible explanations may not be warranted, and that it's precisely at those vast and ultimate questions where Occam's Razor is just as much a leap of faith as is believing the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or <insert name of deity here>
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm really not sure what people mean by this. Do you mean that it is inappropriate for me to pursue political change based on values which stem from my religious belief? If so, then you are applying a prejudice against the religious.
No, not at all! I think it's inappropriate for *religion specifically* to be prominently displayed in government. For example, I feel it is wrong for a politician to say, "We don't kill people because God said not to." Or, worse, something like "We need to all do the Christian thing in this war." I think it's highly inappropriate for a politician to assume or to imply that everybody *is* or *should be* the same religion as they are.
I think it's perfectly OK for a politician to be openly religious, and to propose laws that may stem from their religious beliefs, as long as they aren't presented as "This should be the law because I belong to Religion X and therefore this is correct for everybody." That excludes people of other religions or of no religion, and all people in this society are, in theory, equally important with equal rights. Plus, the public should have a chance to vote on law changes, and majority votes should be respected by the government no matter what their personal religious beliefs may be.
quote: Suppose we have two people who value wilderness. One participates in a native american religion, animism, that teaches a spiritual value for wilderness. The second is not at all religious, but likes to hike in the backcountry. Do both people have an equal right to support laws and policies that would preserve wilderness?
Yes, absolutely. The only time I would consider any political action inappropriate would be if the animist said, "I am going to pass this law to preserve this wilderness area because Wek-Wek the Falcon God wants it to be that way."
quote:If both persons were elected to public office, would the animist be expected to leave his pro-wilderness values at home while governing?
No. I would hope that he would not, since many religious values are very beneficial to society. I would hope equally that he would not imply that everybody should believe as he does.
quote:What if instead of wilderness, they value unborn children, or heterosexual marriage, or private property, or social justice, or clean air?
In my opinion, it's fine for politicians to believe however they personally believe. It's fine for the public to know their reasons for believing as they do. What is not fine, in my view, is for them to imply or openly state that *everybody* should share those beliefs *and* share them *for the same reasons* (i.e., a specific religious doctrine). What is appropriate is for the public to vote on such topics, and for the governing politicians to uphold the laws according to majority feeling.
Sadly, that is often not the way things go.
quote:The problem with saying that religious people should leave their religious beliefs at home when governing, is that religion influences what we value. There is no public policy choice that does not pit human values against each other.
If religious people aren't allowed to bring their values into the public arena, but non-religious people are then we have created a fundamental inequality between religious and nonreligious people.
Perhaps I worded my thoughts wrong when I said "leave their religious beliefs at home," because that is not exactly what I meant. I'm A-okay with people being open about their religious beliefs, as I pointed out in my first post. What I feel they should leave at home is their belief that their religion is *the only right way of thinking.* Similarly, they need to leave the hateful speech that Harris displayed at home, if they are the kind of person who is predisposed to making stupid, exclusionary statements in their campaigns!
Sorry to create such confusion over my feelings on the topic. Although I am an atheist, I have a lot of respect for religion and I don't believe that everybody needs to think or feel the same way I do. That would be boring. I do believe that everybody's religions and philosophies need to be *EQUALLY* respected. That can't happen when a particular religion is set up by the government as "the right way to think." That is the religious attitude that needs to be left at home. And yes, if an openly atheist politician were ever to miraculously be elected to a major office, I would expect the exact same kind of equality-respect from him or her. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: [QB] People of faith have the right to vote. People of faith have the right to be elected. People of faith have the right to serve when elected. People of faith have the right to honor their religion and their religious beliefs while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to guide them while in office. People of faith have a right to use the guiding principals of their faith to make fair and just laws.
People of faith do not have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their religion, any more than they have the right to tailor laws for the sole benefit of their wallet, their family, or their friends.
People of faith do not have the right to use the law to force thier religion upon anyone.
A law stating that everyone must believe in Jesus Christ is our personal saivor may sound like a great idea to someone looking to affirm this is a Christian nation. Outlawing Judaism for its supposed sin, in either the creation of modern Isreal, or its part in the death of Jesus may also be another law that will protect us from Sin, that a good "Christian" may decide to create. Such laws are not within their rights.
Dan_raven, thank you for summing my my entire point much more succinctly than I could. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Libbie, I agree with much of the rest of your post. I'm sorry I can't go point by point, though. I really don't do well with that posting style. I would, for example, point out that you chose to break my post so you disagree with something that I had already dealt with in the very next sentence, which you then agreed with.
Lisa does this kind of thing all the time. It's a style you may like. I can't deal with it effectively, so I won't. I'd have to spent 1/2 my time re-integrating my first post, then responding to your partialing out of my entire statement. I can't be bothered.
Also, since you chose to respond in chopped up pieces, I only have the energy to deal with one of your many thoughts on the topic. I assure you I agreed with a lot of what you had to say, but I'm already beat from typing a response to just the first part.
I'm NOT trying to be critical. I only begged Lisa to knock it off once. I'm just letting you know why you're only going to get partial responses from me if you adopt the chop-it-up style.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Then aren't they all as a collective still forcing their beliefs on the NON-religious?
It's a problem because there are non-religious people that agree with them for non-religious reasons, but the issue stems from a point of doctrine.
Why does abortion have to be presented to the public *as* a religious problem? Let the people vote on it. Their reasons for voting however they will are their own, whether religious or non-religious. There are plenty of non-religious people who oppose abortion, and plenty of religious people who support it. Let the majority decide without bringing religion into it. That's the only way that is truly fair to *everybody*.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: And what reglions are pro-choice?
Unitarian Universalism is officially pro-choice.
Judaism supports abortion if the life of the mother is threatened.
Several Protestant denominations including The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church have statments along the lines of "we don't support abortion as a form of birth control, but when life conflicts with life the choice must be left to the woman and her family, with appropriate medical and spiritual guidence."
The Japenese-American Buddhist Churches of America have the following in an official pamphlet: "It is the woman carrying the fetus, and no one else, who must in the end make this most difficult decision and live with it for the rest of her life. As Buddhists, we can only encourage her to make a decision that is both thoughtful and compassionate."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Who?!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That is the religious attitude that needs to be left at home. And yes, if an openly atheist politician were ever to miraculously be elected to a major office, I would expect the exact same kind of equality-respect from him or her. 
