Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

Uhm....let's see...I granted you above that for sake of argument, let's say that religious laws are man-made so why would you answer me with that response? How about a serious response rather than an off-the-cuff-almost-rude-non-answer?

Under secular humanism and the approach that everyone is the developer of their own morals, how are laws created? 

Jordan .

I'm sure I'm going to make a few people cringe when I say this, but I say what I think whether it hurts someone's feelings or not, but hopefully my truthful talk can be respected.

I am no expert in these matters. I guess they are created the way they are created now in our democratic societies. How is that? Ask a law and/or politics major at some university for example.

That's the trouble with our society today. Everyone has these ideas on how the world can be a better place by criticising other beliefs, but no one seems to have a clue as to defend their own ideas. They take the easy way out by doing what you just did, CCC, "Talk to experts" type of answer. It kind of goes along the lines of, "Because I said so" type of answer.

You obviously feel strongly about laws that are free from religion and are based soley on people's individual morality, so how would this work? Think of an answer, then get back to us, and then maybe we'll have something to discuss.

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

But if someone is going to pick up the mantel of secular humanism, then they have to be willing to deal with the simple fact that the notion that everyone has their own morality and truths is going to be a problematic issue. You can't just say, "Well, I don't know how that will happen." Govt and rules of law is often based on religious themes that have been traditionally accepted and "approved" for thousands of years. When/If secular humanism takes over isntead of religion, then we have to figure out how laws are created based upon these new moral guidelines - thus my question. If everyone has their own morality and there is no standard, then what kind of laws would be produced?

Here's the thing - secular humanism only works on a person to person scale, whereas laws created through the tradition of religion (created by man or God holds no bearing at this point) has the ability to be placed on people globally because they are more encompassing and structured, and aren't based soely on someone's life experience.

Jordan .

Ummm....I did read your post, hense my response. Whether you want to see it or not, you did give a "talk to the experts" kind of answer

And frankly, my post was  no more condescending and rude than any others on this board.

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

CCC, I have another thought and it may appeal to you. We've often discussed the peril within Europe today. France, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the UK -- they all face growing populations of devoutly religious immigrants. That religion unites them. There is a strong sense of what is acceptable and what is not. Lots of rules and rituals all of which are more important to most than is a feeling of allegiance to any given nation. It is the Ummah that ranks highest.

For the host nations, who have become secular "free-thinkers," that free-thinking leaves for a whole cross current of beliefs. Think Roman Empire. The Romans tolerated the Christians to a degree. The Christians were not the only sect either. The Romans were very tolerant. They only asked that each citizen render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Well, we all know how that worked out for the Romans. Which is why there is a great big old Vatican sitting in the middle of Rome -- a separate state of its own.

This European tolerance, the low-birth rate, the lack of religious cohesiveness even in ITALY or SPAIN will pave the way for those with less tolerance toward them, high birth rates and lots of religious cohesiveness.

I fear that the European non-chalance and laissez-faire and overall tolerance for each encroachment into what was traditional European life, will doom them. What's to hold Europe together? What's to hold Holland together? Love of Van Gogh and Rembrandt? (those two Christians!) Seriously. I think, as Thomas Jefferson was said to have believed, although he as the president of the US may not have been a church-going Christian, he found it in the best interest of the United States that the population be Christians.

I don't suggest that you as an individual should be coerced into religion. But do you not agree that more Christianity in Europe might be a good thing? Myself, I was hoping against hope for a Nigerian pope after the death of John Paul just for the extra boost it might give on the African continent and particularly in the battled nation of Nigeria.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Jordan .

Okay, okay okay...I must say, Jordan, you are making it sound that if people don't have religion then they can never agree on anything and all there will be is anarchy.  Come on, seriously, what are you talking about??  We don't make laws based on religion.  We make them based on a common ideal.  Yes, they may be based on some religious belief way back when, but today we don't make law based on religion.  We can see by the recent passage of the anit-abortion laws what happens when we pass something based on religion.  The safety and wellbeing of others is overstepped, i.e., SD's Gov. doesn't care if its a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father, he only cares about how its against god to "kill" a baby.  That's just bunk!  I don't want to bring up an argument on abortion, but these days, abortion and gay marriage are the main arguments of the religious population (yes, that may not be everyone's arguments, but they are the most prevelant). 

The bottom line, the laws need to be made based on the good of the commuity, protecting our children, and helping us as a whole prosper.  Especially in a country such as ours where there is more than one religion, if we were to take religious beliefs and make them the basis for our laws, we wouldn't know where to start.  Do we go with the most prevelant religion and forget about the others?  Do we try to take something from all of the religions?  Bottom line, leave religion out of the lawmaking process. 

"What the f*ck does it matter that you oppose or applaud something on religious grounds and I based on my personal beliefs?"

Now we're getting somewhere! EXACTLY!!! What does it matter if I base my personal beliefs on religion. I (and others around this world) are continually told that we shouldn't use religion to make our opinions on things, esp when it comes to government (what smeds basically said above without using those words). That somehow we should pull out that religious part of us and somehow replace it with somethign else in order to come up with an opinion on something and we should keep our beliefs at teh doorstep of the govt building or in other places in society - that's STUPID! No one else is asked to leave their core beliefs at the doorstep. It has been stated in this thread, has been implied in other discussions that I have had regarding this very issue that religious people should just move beyond their traditions and beliefs and that if we did, the world would be a better place. If we would just get rid of the notion of sin then thigns would be better.  And I've always responded with "does it matter if I come up with my beliefs based on some old book and you come up with them because it was written on a cereal box?" Aren't they the same in the end?

I don't care if you come up with your personal beliefs based on secular humanism. I think that's fine. My whole point in this thread has been very simple - if we were to apply secular humanism to the government, how would govt be created? It's obvious that govts around the world have been formed based on religious undertones of some type. This isn't always a bad thing.

"People with shared values and opinions will naturally form groups that will contribute to our democratic processes."

Again, we are looking at the keyword of "shared values." Shared values of morality will vary drastically from individual to individual because everyone's life experience is different. This has been my whole ponit. Yes, we can all agree on basic stuff like murder, rape, racism, etc. Those are the big things that are easy to deal with. But about the smaller things that involve more with ethics and philosophy that government has to deal with everyday is where the problem begins. Great example is pre-emptive war. Some say bad, some say good. It comes down to a morality and world view in the end.

Religion is simply the creation of a structure for society in many ways. That's at least what Judaism was all about, and Christianity was an extension of that social creation. I think people forget that many of the Jewish laws were more about social justice than they were about a God. God was the lynchpin which brings me to Smeds post.

Smeds - you and I will both agree that the USofA was created on the notion that God has given us rights. The very basic structure of our national govt is based on the belief in God. The development of our country was mostly done 200 years ago because of a belief in a Supreme Being. Some of the basic foundations of our Constitution stem from a religious belief. And every law created thereafter is evaluated by these basic foundations created from a concept of religion. Our Constituon is really a secularized religion in some ways - it is the translation of our religious beliefs set forth in a secular format. But they are religious in theme.

"People with shared values and opinions will naturally form groups that will contribute to our democratic processes."

I am not suggesting such a thing - I am simply asking that we think secular humanism all the way through to its final point - that of the creation of a govt and laws. Because there are no standards in secular humanism because to create standards would destory the basic foundation of secular humanism - beliefs based soely on one's life experience. Yes, we can all agree on some big issues, but then we have to deal with a lot of other more ethical issues after that.

No, we do not make laws based on religion, and I never said we did. I said that our Judeo-Christian foundation background and philosophies help us form our laws (okay, I didn't say that exactly, but that's what I beleive). And because our Constitution is based on principle with religion, every law from that stems from a religious undertone.

I'm not going to touch the abortion and gay marriage comments because that will only take us off a path that I don't think we have to go down so skipping over that....

Finally, as I stated above - you cannot leave religion out of the political process. That rejects the majority of people in the world who are religious and create their views based on religion. If I have a belief based on religion shouldn't matter to anyone one way or the other. Here's the problem - when you start saying  that beliefs based on religion should stay outside the govt, then you are discriminating against people. Another way of saying it - if a secular humanist decides that he/she is pro-life and comes to that view without religion, and another person is pro-life for religious reasons - you are suggesting/saying that the secular humanists' view should take precendence over the religouis because one is based on religion and one is based on "life experience." so if we passed a anti-abortion bill passed solely on secular humanism (granted, probably imposible but let's play with the hypothetical), then it would be okay because it's not based on a holy book?

Bottom line - you can't discriminate against anyone because their beliefs are based on religion.

In the end - I am just saying that secular humanism at its core is a beleif that will vary from individual to individual, and this makes it almost impossible to use in teh creation of soceity. Maybe I'm wrong - but my faith in human nature varies more than maybe it does for others. For secular humanism to work, people have to be more alike than they are different with some of the basic values. Religion helps create those values and standards that are needed for society.

Take it or leave it - not sure what else I can say at this point. :) 

Jordan .

 OK, so let's practice this form of government without any regard to religion or morality.  If a majority feel that Christians, or Jews, or people with dark skin, or people who have a name that begins with A, or any other minority for that matter, should have no rights, then is it OK for the government to enact a law to please that majority?  Religion, in a generic sense, forms the basis for government.  In a way, it is what unites citizens.

"OK, so let's practice this form of government without any regard to religion or morality. If a majority feel that Christians, or Jews, or people with dark skin, or people who have a name that begins with A, or any other minority for that matter, should have no rights, then is it OK for the government to enact a law to please that majority? Religion, in a generic sense, forms the basis for government. In a way, it is what unites citizens."

So the religious are the only people who can impose rules against discrimination and the like. In my experience with religion, it is the exact opposite, religion tends to discriminate against those who are different.

Also, IMHO, you guys seem to be taking and putting words into people's mouths and twisting what is being said.

Bottom line, there is a time and a place for religion, it is not the time or place when we make our laws. For your reading pleasure, please read what our founding father, Thomas Jefferson, wrote on religion. This is correspondence between him and a church:

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled 
October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America. 


Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; 
we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, 
since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief 
magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly 
and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe 
that none are more sincere. 

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and 
places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, 
or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government 
extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our 
constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made 
coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our 
revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and
therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of
the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable
rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of
freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek
after power and gain under the pretense of government and
religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,
because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ. 

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national
government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes
are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which
have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all
the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the
earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow
of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God
has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill
which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God
strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you
enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of
those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty
and subjection of the people. 


And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you
at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious
Mediator. 

Signed in behalf of the association,  Nehemiah Dodge
                                      Ephraim Robbins

                                      Stephen S. Nelson

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

First off, I'm not trying to take anyone's words and twisting them. I am taking them to their full extension that is often not done. I am trying to get beyond the rhetoric we always hear and into practicality. Smeds I made a comment above that I was hoping you would've responded to directly but didn't so let me stress it again.

You said in your previous post - bottom line - leave religion out of the lawmaking process. The lawmaking process not only includes writing laws, but it also includes voting on those laws. So I used abortion as my example. We all have our own value systems, and none of us can leave them at the door of anything because they are core values and beliefs. So if an individual was pro-life for a secular reason, and another was pro-life for a religious reason - which opinion creation is "better" (for lack of a better word)?

I submit to you that where we get our values should not matter when it comes to the lawmaking process. Saying that religouis people should leave their beliefs out of the lawmaking decision is impossible to do - just like it's impossible for a human secularist to leave his/her beliefs at the door either. And furthermore, it's a type of discrimination against religious people.

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

For anyone who doestn' care about US politics and government, skip the next part. Smeds, you aren't allowed to skip

Now I was trying to avoid making this a US-specific discussion because it alienates non-Americans, but you posted the letters between the church and Jefferson. This is an honest question and I don't mean to come across badly - when you took Constitutional Law and you got to this point in the class, how many interpretations did the professor offer to you regarding this letter? Was it simply the 1947 ruling by the Surpreme Court, or the 1880s ruling of the Court? Both courts had differing views on this letter, as did the first 200 or so years of our coutry. Everythign changed in 47 when it came to the view of religion and government.

first, the letter from the Baptist church and in its original context. Like many Baptists, they were thrilled that Jefferson was now president. The church was concerned that other Christian sects (denominations) would try and force the federal government into a certain sect which was sorta big during those intitial years of US government. Havign come from forced religion less than a generation before, the issue was still strong and udnerstanable.

Jefferson specifically wrote and said that the federal government would not impose a religion on anyone. He said that the rights of religion are an "unalienable" right that could not be taken by government. The context of ths letter is never offered when the discussion of seperation of chruch and state is brought up anymore, but it's important to note the context so we can read the intent. I have never said differently in any of my posts above. I have stated that it's impossible to remove religion from the legislative body as so many peopel suggest/imply we should do and our forefathers agree (with me).

But let's dig a little further. From June 7 to Sept 25, 1789, the Congressional Records make clear their intent for the First Amendment - "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don't want one deomonination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans or any other single denomination. We do want God's principles, but we don't want one denomination running the nation."

The intent of this nation was to have God's principles. Seperation of Chruch and State?

The Supreme Court ruled in 1799: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on teh same equal footing." The word "church" was referring to denomination, not anything else.

Speaking of Jefferson, he wrote to Benhamin Rush that he would not allow denominations to achive the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" within the US government.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees came back with a report that basically said the same thing in March 1854 that read: "Had the people (Founding Fathers), durign teh REvolution, had a ssupicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that REvolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged [jordan's note - "encouraged" not "forced"], but not any one sect (denomination)...In this age, there is no substitute for Chrsitianity....That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they epxected it to remain the religion of the descendants." A couple of months later this was written: "Teh great, vital, and conservative element in our system (in other words, the thing that holds our system together) is the belief of our people in the pure doctorines and divine truths of the Gosple of Jesus Christ."

Ouch....

During the late 1800s, Christian principles in the US government once again hit the Supreme Court, and Jefferson's letter was once again used in Reynolds v United States (Smeds - this is the court case I asked about). The Court used Jefferson's letter to prove that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles and practices in official policy. And for the next decade or so, the Supreme Court continued to uphold this legal precedence.

It wasn't until 1947 that the Court took out only the 8 words of that letter, didn't use those words in context and overrode all precedence of the Supreme Court regarding this issue before then. And then in 1962, teh final nail was in the coffin in Engel v Vitale. The word "church" was redefined from a denomination to a "religouis activity in public." You'll remember from above, previously "church" was intended to be a denomination.

Before someone suggests that I want a theocracy, that's not what I am saying - far from. I am simply arguing 1) that the intent of our founding fathers was to allow Christian principles in governemnt, and 2) there's nothing wrong with using religion to write/create laws as long as those religious beliefs do not interfere with the betterment of society (that's why animal sacrifice, polygamy, etc in the US would be considered wrong).

Finally, one of the most quoted individuals in the creation of our country, and one that our forefathers based some of their govt creationism on was Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu. He wrote: "Society, notwithstanding all its revolutions, must repose on principles that do not change." He went on to say, "The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." Monte was also big on seperation of powers which may have had its founding in no other place but right directly in teh Bible - Jeremiah 17:9. It's an obscure verse, but the quote is important - "The human heart is most deceitful and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is." This verse is about how humanity is at the core immoral and corruptable. Seperating powers allows for the possiblty of one branch of government becoming corrupted and the others able to do something about it. With power divided, it would help stop corruption and complete government take-over. Our forefathers were concerned, as we all know, by the corruption of government so they strived to find a way to help ensure that it would not happen. Moreso, Isahiah 33:22 may have been used to create three branches of government to a certain extent.

I'll leave you with these quotes:

John Quincy Adams in 1821 said “the highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity”.

The US Supreme Court said in 1892: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian”.

The current view of seperation of Church and State was a Supreme Court creation in 1947 that I personally believe is not following the original inetnt of our founding fathers. Our forefathers didn't create a theocracy, but they did create a government based on Christianity and religion.

Jordan .

Here is all that I am going to say, there is a separation of church and state within our nation. Jefferson was at the for front of this argument. The reason for me posting the letter was very simple (Jordan I know simplicity is hard for you since you must write a novel for every post you make), Jefferson saw religion as being between a man and his god and no one else. The point I was hoping that letter would show was just that. Your religion is between you and your god same for any of us. Jefferson didn't want someone discriminated based on their religion, their way of thinking. Hello!!!!!! What more can I say?!?!? BTW, I discovered the letter in my research for my separation of powers argument for my paper I just wrote. My Con Law profs didn't have any input into my interpretation of it so leave them out of it. It's totally my interpretation, being that I spent that last four months reading nothing but Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, I think that I can hold my own on interpretation. BTW, Jefferson was a big propoent of leaving church out of the decision making process, but he respected (there's a little word that I hope is in everyone's vocabulary) other people's views and beliefs.

I know you can't take the religion out of the person, however, our lawmakers should be of intelligence that they know what is right for the community. I get so pissed off when I see the Catholic church involved so closely with the passing of legislation. What you may ask? Well, the Catholic church opposed the look back window in a statute (victims rights statute, dealing with anyone who had been the victim of sexual abuse, doesn't say anything about the church in it) that was on the Senate floor in the state of Ohio about a month and a half ago. Why? Because #1 they didn't believe the victims that came out about abuse 20 years after teh fact and #2 it costs them too much money to settle these suits. So what happens? They go in plead their case about how they are going to go bankrupt (bunch of BS if you ask me) if this window is put in the law (the window allows a victim one year to bring suit once the memories come back). So, we don't get a window, instead we get more priests shuffled around, allowed to work with children and why? Not because it was what was best for society, but because that's what the church wanted. See a problem with this? I do. This is why I don't want the church involved in any decision process. Those members of the church, yes, lobby about whatever issue it is that you're passionate for, the church as a body, no.

Bottom line, church as a body out congregation members in.

I'm done, I have tried to prove my point to you and it keeps falling on def ears.

"(Jordan I simplicity is hard for you since you must write a novel for every post you make)" ---- wow.... I'll assume that's a backhanded joke.

Yes, Jefferson, and our forefathers, saw religion as something between God and man - as a personal thing, but that totally leaves out how they used religion to form our government. the very basis of our government is rooted in religion. You and I can and have agreed on that and revisionist history is trying to blur that line.

"Jefferson didn't want someone discriminated based on their religion, their way of thinking.  Hello!!!!!!  What more can I say?!?!? "

Hello! Have I said differently? I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT! I stated above that our forefathers didn't create a theocracy. I have never said any different - and if anything I said was interpreted that way, then it was not my intention.

"I know you can't take the religion out of the person, however, our lawmakers should be of intelligence that they know what is right for the community. "

Again, I agree, but each person is going to have their own opinion as to what is right for the community. Throw in secular humanism (getting back to that), and you could have a mess on your hands.

And I agree with your take on the Catholic church and the bill you mention. I do believe that's wrong. BUT they are a lobbying group and a religion, and they have all the right in the world to lobby for or against a bill that may do them harm. It's up to lawmakers to do what's right for the public good. Maybe the Catholic Church going bankrupt might fix a few thigns within the church.

Nothing you have said is falling on deaf ears. I agree with your statements. I have simply stated that our founding fathers created this country based on religion, that up until 1947, it was prefectly okay to combine religion and politics together until the Supreme Court did a complete 180 on this issue, and has made "seperation of church and state" the law of the land, when in fact, it may very well be one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.  

In your research on Jefferson's letter, did you come across the court case I mentioned above in which the Court used that very letter to support religion in government?

Jordan .

In your research on Jefferson's letter, did you come across the court case I mentioned above in which the Court used that very letter to support religion in government?

Once again, research was a different subject.  I used it to prove my point on this issue.  Now if you want to go and do some research read about Jefferson and you will find that he was against religion in the law.  Enoguh about this.

So you say if we through secularism in there's going to be chaos?  Well, if we agree that everyone will still have their beliefs, wherever they come from, when they go and make decisions, why is this different?  Do you think that if we allow the Muslim way of thinking in there will be chaos?  Oh, I get it, only Christian thinking...come on, you truly believe that if secularism is thrown into the mix its going to be that bad?  That is just so off course.   

Kelly

How Do You Live Your Dash?

Check out the Kids' blogs:
The CaleBlog and the Zoe Blog

"Now if you want to go and do some research read about Jefferson and you will find that he was against religion in the law."

YES - I know Jefferson's stance on law and religion. I already know it - I don't have to research it. But Jefferson is not the be-all and end-all of everything about seperation of church and state which is one reason why I didn't use any other quotes from Jefferson except for the one I mentioned that he sadi to that guy (forget the guy's name now but I wrote it above). He believed in freedom of religion, adn beleived that keeping religion out of law as being a good thing, and I AGREE. You complained above about people putting twisting words, and yet here we are - me having to repeat again and again that I AGREE.  Jefferson rejected much of the Christian faith involving mysticism and other things - but he agreed with the basic principles laid out in the Christian faith. Jefferson may very well have been the first (and maybe only) agnostic President but his morals were created from Crhristianity.

To summarize my view - our forefathers used the principles of Judaism and Christianity to create the Constitution, and Jefferson agreed with these basic principles. Because of this, our foundations are religious, and as a result, it's impossible to seperate religion from government in the US of A when our foundation is religious themes which our courts have tried to do since 1947.

"So you say if we through secularism in there's going to be chaos?  Well, if we agree that everyone will still have their beliefs, wherever they come from, when they go and make decisions, why is this different?  Do you think that if we allow the Muslim way of thinking in there will be chaos?  Oh, I get it, only Christian thinking...come on, you truly believe that if secularism is thrown into the mix its going to be that bad?  That is just so off course."

no, no, no, and more no. Go back and reread my post to CCC on page 1 - one of teh long ones . My last post on page 1 stated to CCC -- "Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere!" and I responded to your type comments already in that post  but I will try again:

Through the years I have continually heard secularists and non-religious say that that religion should be kept out of government (you said the same thing above for the most part).

I have stated time and time again that this is impossible to do because we are talking about core values taht are based on religious thought (which you have agreed with).

I have stated that what does it matter if I get my beliefs from some old book, adn someone else gets their beleifs from a cereal box one moring - they are still my beliefs and I should not be discriminated against, or told that my beliefs aren't allowed because they are based on religious thought. Belief is belief and saying that my beliefs are not allowed because of religion is WRONG. As a result, you cannot seperate church and state because we are only human and we create our belief systems usually on religious principles.

That has been my entire point from almost post number 1. Please reread it all again so I don't have to say "I agree with you" one more time because I generally do agree with you.

Now let's get back to the issue of secular humanism. No, it will not create chaos. Please reread that so I don't have to say it again (I think this is the second time I ahve said this now).  what I have stated is secular humanism leaves teh door open for belief systems to widely vary from individual to individual because there is no guideline or structure in place - it's all based on life experience. I'll say it this way - there's no general code of ethics. There's no structure - it's all personal and personal things liek this vary drastically.

I have stated that I have no problems if someone wants to use secular humanism as their approach to life. But I have also stated that this belief system is not the best system to use when involving government. Theoretically, it's possible that 100 Senators could have 100 different viewpoints about Issue X if they all based their opinions on their life experience. Granted, that could be teh same with beleifs created from a religion background, but less likely because religious morality creates a structure and a limitation.

Maybe here is where I have been communicating wrong. I have taken the idea of secular humanism as if no other belief system is around. Because Judeo-Christian values are all over the place in this world, even secular humanists will come up with their belefs based on this value system. But let's for a moment, hypothetically, take the approach that Judeo-Christian vlues do not exist in a vaccuum and let's replace it with secular humanism. I personally feel that secular humanism by itself as an approach to government to be truly dangerous and easy to fall - much like true democracy. True Democracy cannot work because of teh same reason why I beleive that pure secular humanism cannot work. Opinions, ideas, truths, and beliefs are all personal and ever-changing with no constraints except to make the world better and that in the end is going to vary from person to person.

Let me summarize it again - secular humanist approach is a fine belief system, and works fine in life and even in lawmaking, but by itself, I view it personally as not the best approach to creating and maintaining government because it's about personal morals and personal truths, both of which will vary from individual to individual with the potential of few constraints.

And BTW for the record - I don't believe that a moderate Muslim viewpiont is a problem in government either, nor will it create chaos.  Muslims should be allowed to hold office and write their own laws, just like Christians, as long as it does not contrast with the Constitution and the overall good for society.

THE END.  

Jordan .

Whatever you do, CCC, keep that hammer away from your new computer!

What happened to you today? Did you encounter a Jehovah's Witness on the beach? A member of the Church of Latter Day Saints run you down on his bike? Or was it the Pope's invocation to the Swiss Army guards?

Calm. Serenity now. Ommmmmmmmm. In the name of Hay Sooz Kree Stoz...

Etc.

I hope CCC will be back. The real deal, that is.

Now PLEASE remove the curse already! My back is killing me! In the name of all the unforgiven, take down this curse, Mr. CCC-orbachev!

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin