|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: do Christians want their values enforced on everyone by law? | |||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Christians are in a pickle.
They want the kingdom to come - for all goodness comes with it. Yet seeing as Gods laws being broken is an integral part of a person being convinced they are lawbreakers (which is instrumental in their salvation) all that upholds Gods law (such a no gay marriage) seems to work counter-salvation. You could understand that we can be two-minded about such things. Not wanting people to be allowed freefall into sin. Yet realising that the depravity of sin is their only hope. Parents experience it: you have to let go but you don't want to let go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Did you miss this in that link? Yes, Buz, I missed that. I have a learning disability that prevents me from reading boldface. How long the practice continued is irrelevent. It began where there were no churches. That's what the site says, and I have no reason to doubt that's true. Do you?
Are you trying to argue that going from church in Congress attended by supporters of the Constitution utilizing the government's military band is not "far more Christianity in government" than is allowed in government today? I rather thought I was succeeding in arguing that very point. First, as I mentioned in message 29, there's no mention of whether these were in fact "Christian" services. It says non-denominational, which could well mean religious in general, not simply Christian. We now have a goverment employee opening each session of Congress with a prayer. I'd say that's more religion in government than Congress allowing the Capitol to be used for services where there are no government officials presiding over the service. Consider also, there are many, many governmental facilities where religious services are held even today. If you think about it, I'm sure you will realize where they are. We may be at an impasse. I'm not aware of any way to measure units of religiosity. You think your example is more involvement, I don't, given all the circumstances. By what measure do you propose we resolve this dispute? In the alternative, since your original assertion was that there was "far more Christianty" in goverment in the past than there is now, perhaps you can find another example. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Arach writes: buzsaw is forbidden the privelege of enforcing his religion. You people are posting some unreasonable strawmen and I'm not going to needlessly sit here and address it all. I have shown where what is forbidden as mandated/imposed by law is much of what was allowed by law in the days of the framers of the Constitution. I'm not arguing for more or less. My point is the OP and thread title implication that Christians are imposing religion and that theocratic government is threatened upon the nation is false in that Christians perse do not impose laws. We, like secularists, gays, et al all work to elect lawmakers who make the laws most desireable to us. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
subbie writes: In the alternative, since your original assertion was that there was "far more Christianty" in goverment in the past than there is now, perhaps you can find another example. Hey, my friend, there's much more out there. If you can't accept this significant example, nothing more will help you. Do a google on the subject if you want more. I'm not into another thread at this time. One thread at a time is about all I have time for in active participation. Btw, the link you got your info from was not emboldened so if you missed the info in it it was because you only wanted to read what suited your argument. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Thank GOD!
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I did more than just not accept your single example. I gave substantive reasons why I didn't find it significant. I'd have more sympathy for your reluctance to continue if all I'd said was, "Nuh-uh!" If you'd care to explain why my reasons aren't persuasive, please do so. In any event, I'm certainly not about to go looking for examples for you to support your proposition.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
But your reply doesn't answer the question.
Why do Christian conservatives vote to support the death penalty, or vote to cut funding to programs to help the poor, or vote to go to war on a country that has never threatened or injured us, or vote to support business greed and wealth? Why do they do that when it is so clearly counter to what even Faith has agreed are good Christian values?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, how about if I said that Jesus held values in common with what we would call "social Liberals" today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: True, but in the US, it's the Christian Conservatives who are behind the interference, for no valid secular reason. Most people in the US support it, just as most people in the US support a woman's right to an abortion.
quote: Except that you are forgetting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
quote: Right. I don't get your point.
quote: Oh, don't worry about that. But again, your laws have to abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you want the state religion of the US to be Christianity, buz? Do you want a Theocracy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, you people think you ever had the right to indoctrinate all American schoolchildren into your religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Buz.
Read the Jefferson quote in my sig file. "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But this doesn't address my question. I wanted to know why it was that Christians are all gung-ho to get some of their religious views imposed upon everyone else by force of law, but not others. Why don't they try to enforce Jesus' attitude towards the greed and wealth of businesses, or his admonition to take care of the poor, or his lessons regarding how we should treat our enemies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6354 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Do you want the state religion of the US to be Christianity, buz? Ah but as those of us from a country with an established Church can tell you from bitter experience you can't have Christianity as a state religion. You have to pick which version of Christianity you want. We slaughtered many thousands over a few centuries (not to mention installing or toppling a variety of monarchs) over whether we would be Roman Catholic or Protestant. Actually not just Protestant but Church of England (Anglican or Episcopal as I believe it is known in the rest of the World). If you were to get a Christian theocracy in the US in the short to medium term I imagine it would be a united front of Evangelicals but shortly afterwards you would see internecine warfare of the sort not seen since religion was totally dominant in Europe. If on the other hand it were to happen in the (much) longer term then I suspect demographics mean it will be the Roman Catholic Church. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
You people are posting some unreasonable strawmen and I'm not going to needlessly sit here and address it all. clearly, since you aren't addressing this point to a real argument, those must not be strawmen. my point, which you ignored, is that christian literature is indeed taught in schools, and prayer groups are in fact allowed. since this is simply a point of fact, clearly what you are being forbidden is more than simply allowing christians to function as any other group within the public school system. if this is all you are clamoring for, then you are simply under a false impression, and in the process giving everyone else here a false impression of what you're asking for.
My point is the OP and thread title implication that Christians are imposing religion and that theocratic government is threatened upon the nation is false in that Christians perse do not impose laws. i agree, our lawmakers are not good examples of christians. however, they do claim to be christians (all of them, btw, or pretty close to all of them), and the current party in power in all three branches of government strongly plays to (and manipulates) white, christian america. these are christians making laws for christian voters.
We, like secularists, gays, et al all work to elect lawmakers who make the laws most desireable to us. "secularists" is not an organized group. neither is "gays." and secularism does not impose itself on religion; it is saying that the government should not be a religious organization. this allows every religion to operate as it so wishes. neutrality is the opposite of bias, buz. it's not just another bias. having a secular government is not the same as having a government that outlaws religions. but legislating any one religion is like confining all the others by law. and what you are essentially arguing for here, by bringing up "secularists," is that religion should be in government. that is the natural implication of your sentiment. by saying that you are not a member of the group defined by the belief in separation of church and state, you are saying that you do not believe church and state should be separated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024