NeoNotes — Religion enshrined in law
❝❝Simple questions.
Why should any religion be enshrined in law? Raised above all others as THE Moral Standard?
Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?
Or at least something calling itself your religion.
Pardon, but that isn't the question.
Why should any religion be enshrined in law?
Shouldn't faith be between you and the Divine?
Shouldn't religion be your choice and not imposed on you by some government functionary?
Coke may be less disagreeable than Pepsi, but I don't want armed special agents making sure I drink it.
Only if you think government must be predicated on or derived from religion.
Which, thankfully, the Founders did not.
But it's not about if religions are "equal" or not.
It's about if a single religion should be enshrined in law. And what happens if you are not a member of the religion that is made part of law.
Should you be bound by a religion you are not a part of?
Yep, I did. And for very good reason.
I also said this:
Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?
I've really tried to be polite on this board, but believe when I say I've seen more than enough Christian intolerance to last me several lifetimes. It's not every Christian, but it is there. Nor are Christians alone in their intolerance.
What I am trying to say is that by making religion a part of government you're setting the grounds for much more intolerance.
Even if you stuck to Christians, you'd be asking for trouble. Should Catholics have precedence over Baptists? What about the Mormons and the Methodists?
Yep, that happens too.
But when someone defines intolerance as everyone else not putting that someone's religion over every thing else, well, the someone crossed the line and they are fair game.
No, that isn't what I said.
Look at what Moore said in the article. He's talking about defending Christianity in the law. And creating more law that incorporates "Christian principles."
"Do not murder." That's a good idea. It also predates Christianity by quite a bit and is shared by many cultures and faiths.
"Do not murder because of the Ten Commandments and what Jesus said." That's not the same thing and it adds baggage to something that should be simple.
Pardon, but that is an opinion.
My gods prefer that people work it out for themselves.
That's an opinion too.
You mean other than Roy Moore up there in the original post?
You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order ….
That's certainly a religious point of view.
Nondenominational? Ah, I see.
It's only the Christians that need apply? You don't need the Jews.
I live next to the Navajo reservation. Will you exclude the Sky People?
One of my neighbors three doors down is a Buddhist. Doesn't she get a say?
One of my companions is an atheist. She's also one of the wisest women I know. Should she get a say?
Why or why not?
And I've answered it several times, twice directly.
When you assume that government is based on a religion you are imposing and enshrining that religion.
When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.
Then why is Roy Moore making so much noise?
I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.
I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.
Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.
I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.
And if that's the case, I'm asking why.
No, actually we weren't.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.
It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.
Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.
They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.
Talk about timing…
I always find it amazing when I have to point out the U.S. was not founded as a "Christian nation" when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate.
I've written about this many times before. But please don't take my word for it.
http://www.usconstitution.net
That's a site created to explore and explain the Constitution. Look for yourself. Try to find any mention of the Bible or the Divine.
Considering the custom of the times, omitting "those words" was even more revolutionary than the Declaration of Independence and the battles that followed.
Again, that doesn't mean that the Founders weren't devout. It does mean that they knew about the English Civil War and the problems caused by some colonies and their religious restrictions.
I'd like to think that each of the Founders decided that if his church wasn't going to be "top dog," no one else's would be either.
And that is why Roy Moore is wrong.
Can you show where I'm wrong?
The question you should be asking yourself is not if the Founders were religious or if the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation."
No, the question is why the Founders, among the best educated men of their time, chose not to make the Constitution dependent on any faith.
I'll give you a hint. Too many people are in religion for the politics.
I am, and it relates to the question in the title of the post.
If anyone thinks their religion needs the force of law to back it up, then they are doing it wrong.
The law should neither help nor hinder religion. But no religion should rely on force either.
If it's a straw man, then why did Roy Moore say what he did?
There's a difference between personal faith and public policy.
Pardon, but I think that's wrong.
It's not that the American people hate the Divine. And I don't think they may object because it is a Christian policy.
I think they object because it is a religious rule made policy.❞❞
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
blog comments powered by Disqus