Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:58:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1630 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
I submit that history shows the strong ties between religion and government
by the presence of many state-enforced religions (including Islam in much of
the Middle East, the Anglican Church in England, and Atheism in the
ex-U.S.S.R.). I submit that many formal state religions exerted power on
their respective governments by threats of punishment in the afterlife,
including excommunication. I submit that when devising a set of laws and
punishments, you will be influenced by your own moral compass, which will be
greatly affected by your religion (as evidenced by the Spanish Inquisition in
the West, and the Taliban-enforced requirements for beards and veils in the
Middle-East). I submit that the lawmakers of the US have always been and
continue to be largely of a Judeo-Christian background, and therefore will
legislate based on what they’ve come to believe to be right and wrong. I
submit that the mere use of the phrase “In God We Trust” signifies that the
Founding Fathers did indeed allow some form of religious background to
influence the basis for our government.
|
Good suggestions all. I’d like to disclaim, though, that my original
formulation of the question
made a few stipulations, among them the following:
Values predating Judeo-Christianity must not be included (ie, “do unto
others...”)
Values not manifest in secular law (ie, no shellfish) must not be included
Values present in Judeo-Christianity (ie, slavery, which is repeatedly endorsed
in scripture) but antithetical to our secular law must not be included (I would
add to this that such currently-antithetical values must be accounted for;
specifically, why are these certain values okay to exclude while we are somehow
required to accept other values as fundamental.)
I don’t even question that many of our politicians have been devout Christians.
However, except where their values have no precedent outside of
Judeo-Christianity, I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that those values are
part of a Judeo-Christian foundation. That would be like claiming that, because
Ford trucks use interchangeable parts, therefore Ford Motor Company invented the
notion of interchangeable parts. Sure, they may use them, but the idea predates
them. So it is with many Judeo-Christian notions and values.
If we must include those values in our discussion, can we not instead
identify them appropriately according their origins, rather than ascribing them
to a convenient stopping-point (Judeo-Christianity) along the way?
| |
What does all that mean? That our government has a Judeo-Christian
background, but not that it’s under Judeo-Christian rule. The 1st Amendment
prevents any religious organization from gaining direct control of the
government by imposing their religion, as a whole, upon the populace. It
doesn’t prevent individuals from voting based on what their respective
religions have told them is right or wrong.
|
I suppose I’ve been kind of unclear on this point in the past. It would be
foolish to insist that public officials wholly divorce themselves from their
faith or sectarian beliefs when making public policy decisions; those officials
are clearly informed by their own value systems, which in turn may be based on
faith. That’s part of the melting pot, and IMO it’s fine as long as no
faith-based (or nonfaith-based) group attempts to criminalize another group’s
beliefs (or nonbeliefs).
However, there was a case recently (I’ll try to find it--it shouldn’t be
difficult) in which members of a jury consulted the bible during their
deliberations for advice re: punishment. That is, IMO, an unforgiveable
encroachment of religion into public law, and such intrusions should be resisted
at all costs.
**snip of the rest, which was pretty good stuff, too**
Dave!
Speaking as 25% of the club.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
