Politics: Any comments?
- Thread starter knots
- Start date
nw2sltfsh
Member
Originally posted by knots
Democrats vs. Republicans
Liberal vs. Conservative vs. Moderates
Anybody have any comments on any side?
How about:
Abortion?
Gay rights?
Marriage?
Religion and Government in the same sentence?
Or anything else.
Just curious what people think.
you must love confrontration - those are some touchy subjects that have been discussed on some other threads I have read and they got pretty heated
My personal feelings are just that personal and no matter what points someone brings up they will not change my opinion.
but this should be an interesting thread to read
By the way - I am 100% for Gay rights - I beleive very strongly that all people are created equally and should hold the same rights and tax penalties! Devoting your life to one person whether it is same --- or opposite is something that should be allowed for all the good and bad that comes with it-- Marriage is not a cake walk and it takes hard work - the only limitation that i agree with on marriage is that of an age limitiation.
marriage is not a "religious" event - while there is a ceremony many people are married everyday by the power of the goverment or state and these are recogonized marriages by everyone but the church - good thing my priest wont have a say if my hubby dies on his estate because we didnt get married in a church!
lionkiller
Member
marriage is not a "religious" event - while there is a ceremony many people are married everyday by the power of the goverment or state and these are recogonized marriages by everyone but the church
You are right to point. But Historically, Marriage was an act only done by the Church. It was a union between a man and a woman to show their devotion to each other before the eyes of good. The later, many years later, government stepped in declared the could marry couples. Marriage was originally intended as a Holy and Religious experience. Then the Governments stepped in (imagine that) In many countries years ago and declared if you weren't religious the government could marry you. So therefore, the original intent was infact religious.
However I personally don't care if the government wants to marry two men or women, but Don't ask the religions to if they don't want to. This infringes on religious rights.
Religion and Government in the same sentence?
This topic irritates me. Many people feel having a cross on a seal, having a church going President, or a statue of the ten commandments in front of a court house is mixing government and religion. That is not tru./ Here is why. The original fore fathers had to pay taxes to church of England even if they weren't members of this church. Why? Because the government sanctioned and supportted this church. Now the fore fathers in their highly intellectual thinking decided our government was not to support any ONE religion and claim it for it's own. Thus forcing non-members to pay taxes to the church they are not a party to. That is the separation of church and state. NO FORM OF GOVERNMENT SHALL SUPPORT ANY ONE church or religion.
Now tell me, what ONE religion does a cross represent? I believe it represents many religions actually. So therefore the government isn't showing any support for ONE religion. What religion does the Ten Commandments represent? Same answer.
The separation of church and government is being taken to an extreme in such a way that it is being pushed towards a truly atheist view (which incidentally is a form of religion as well). There is no way around having religions and government intertwine. But as long as the government doesn't support only one and rejects the rest....We will continue to have separation of church and state.
You are right to point. But Historically, Marriage was an act only done by the Church. It was a union between a man and a woman to show their devotion to each other before the eyes of good. The later, many years later, government stepped in declared the could marry couples. Marriage was originally intended as a Holy and Religious experience. Then the Governments stepped in (imagine that) In many countries years ago and declared if you weren't religious the government could marry you. So therefore, the original intent was infact religious.
However I personally don't care if the government wants to marry two men or women, but Don't ask the religions to if they don't want to. This infringes on religious rights.
Religion and Government in the same sentence?
This topic irritates me. Many people feel having a cross on a seal, having a church going President, or a statue of the ten commandments in front of a court house is mixing government and religion. That is not tru./ Here is why. The original fore fathers had to pay taxes to church of England even if they weren't members of this church. Why? Because the government sanctioned and supportted this church. Now the fore fathers in their highly intellectual thinking decided our government was not to support any ONE religion and claim it for it's own. Thus forcing non-members to pay taxes to the church they are not a party to. That is the separation of church and state. NO FORM OF GOVERNMENT SHALL SUPPORT ANY ONE church or religion.
Now tell me, what ONE religion does a cross represent? I believe it represents many religions actually. So therefore the government isn't showing any support for ONE religion. What religion does the Ten Commandments represent? Same answer.
The separation of church and government is being taken to an extreme in such a way that it is being pushed towards a truly atheist view (which incidentally is a form of religion as well). There is no way around having religions and government intertwine. But as long as the government doesn't support only one and rejects the rest....We will continue to have separation of church and state.
knots
Member
Originally posted by NW2SLTFSH
you must love confrontration - those are some touchy subjects that have been discussed on some other threads I have read and they got pretty heated
My personal feelings are just that personal and no matter what points someone brings up they will not change my opinion.
I really don't like confrontation but healthy discussion and others opinions I do like. Being a Christian things like abortion, gay rights, and marriage are subjects I have strong opinions about because of what the Bible says, but I still like to hear why people believe what they do. Of course I don't see how my mind can be changed but I would never say someone will not change my opinion on issues if they have proof, not just feelings to back it up. When you become closed-minded you stop learning.
Plus the "touchy subjects" are usually the most interesting.
lefty
Active Member
Originally posted by knots
How about:
Abortion?
Gay rights?
Marriage?
Religion and Government in the same sentence?
Or anything else.
Just curious what people think.
- Against
- Against
- Man and woman
- Not a problem unless people are being forced to take part in a particular religion and/or its customs (last time I checked, forced prayer in school was stopped a few decades back)
*puts on flame suit*
nw2sltfsh
Member
Originally posted by knots
Being a Christian things like abortion, gay rights, and marriage are subjects I have strong opinions about because of what the Bible says, but I still like to hear why people believe what they do. Of course I don't see how my mind can be changed but I would never say someone will not change my opinion on issues if they have proof, not just feelings to back it up. When you become closed-minded you stop learning.
Plus the "touchy subjects" are usually the most interesting.
Beleive it or not I was born and raised a very strict Catholic and I am also choosing to raise my children in that same tradition. In my life however I have seen many things and met many people that made me question whether or not I truly agreed with everything I read in the bible. And sadly after being very good friends with a gay couple then one of them was tragically killed in a car accident and then having to see what the other one went through at the hospital and afterwards - afterall he wasnt considered immediate family made me realize that if you can find someone, anyone that truly loves you why should you be denied these rights?
I have many gay and lesbian friends and even a friend that is transgender if nothing else they have opened my eyes to a larger more important issue on how we treat each other.
I know if I chose to kiss my husband in public I will not have to worry about the threat of violence because people dont like my lifestyle. My opinion is just that what happens in your bedroom is private -
For the other topics -
Abortion - I think it depends on the reason but i am pro choice
Politics and government - I agree with what was said in other posts that no matter what they will always be combined - as long as there is no total support or forced support of one religion I am ok with the way it is.
Gay Right - 100% for it
Marriage - 100% for it
Oh and for the record I am a republican!
broncofish
Active Member
broncofish
Active Member
Originally posted by Lionkiller
Now tell me, what ONE religion does a cross represent?
Christianity, not arguing, just answering a question.
lionkiller
Member
Broncofish, Christianity is not a religion. It is a word used to group a bunch of religions together that share similar beliefs. Each religion encompassed, however, does not believe everything or practice everything the same. Thus Christianity is not a religion but a term used for the universal belief in Jesus Christ shared by a great many religions.
broncofish
Active Member
Originally posted by Lionkiller
Broncofish, Christianity is not a religion.
"Christianity : the Christian religion, its beliefs and practices."
everything else, mormon catholic baptist etc...are denominations, sects if you will.
Just like Islam is a religion, and you have shiites, kurd, sunni
Buhddists have Tibetan, esalen zen, red thread etc...
lionkiller
Member
You are correct in a sense. I will conceed that. But Church of England also falls into the christianity basis as do Quakers, which many of our fore fathers were. Their intent was to not give any one sect power or sway just the same. The term is not separation of state and religion. It is termed separation of "Church" and state. As I said, once again giving no one church priority or favortism.
The constitution and bill of Rights were written in a very specific format, yet simple, for a reason. So the interpretation could not be confused or misinterpretted. Somehow we have still managed to do this. Our Fore fathers had no problem with religion being involved or condoned in government, just as long as no single church entity was given favors, support, or monetary supplements by the government.
The constitution and bill of Rights were written in a very specific format, yet simple, for a reason. So the interpretation could not be confused or misinterpretted. Somehow we have still managed to do this. Our Fore fathers had no problem with religion being involved or condoned in government, just as long as no single church entity was given favors, support, or monetary supplements by the government.
broncofish
Active Member
Originally posted by Lionkiller
Our Fore fathers had no problem with religion being involved or condoned in government, just as long as no single church entity was given favors, support, or monetary supplements by the government.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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."--Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802,
I could give you quote after quote that debates your opinion, and these quotes are directly form key founding fathers, Washington, adams in the treaty of tripoli, Franklin, Joel Barlow, Madison, Paine etc...Don't get me wrong I think faith is a great thing, but I think the key founding fathers got it right, keep it as far away from public policy as possible. Where it got messed up was during the late 1800'a and early 1900's when we let ministers hold sway over presidential opinion and public policy. Heck not one of our first six presidents were orhtodox Christians.
lionkiller
Member
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."
How does this disagree with me? It clearly states no laws or prohibition of religion.
Again, what religion is the government giving an opinion on with a cross or ten commandments statue or emblem? What laws were made from this statue?
Our country builds statues and monuments to events in our history all the time. It just so happens religion is a very important part of our history. There are pagan gods depicted on many of our state, county, and city seals...but no one says boo about it.....why? This is the same exact "support" given to a cross or the ten commandments.
How does this disagree with me? It clearly states no laws or prohibition of religion.
Again, what religion is the government giving an opinion on with a cross or ten commandments statue or emblem? What laws were made from this statue?
Our country builds statues and monuments to events in our history all the time. It just so happens religion is a very important part of our history. There are pagan gods depicted on many of our state, county, and city seals...but no one says boo about it.....why? This is the same exact "support" given to a cross or the ten commandments.
broncofish
Active Member
Originally posted by Lionkiller
How does this disagree with me? It clearly states no laws or prohibition of religion.
Because you said
Originally posted by Lionkiller
Our Fore fathers had no problem with religion being involved or condoned in government
when in fact they did have a problem with it, and wanted a wall of seperation..hence jefferson saying
"thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
hence keeping them seperate, not condoned, or involved.
I don't see the point in putting any religous symbols on any government property. It just invites controversy and activism by different religous groups. Keep the crosses, candles, buhdist wheels, half moons, gods, allahs almighty whatevers off of government stuff and we would have no problems what so ever. Putting the ten commandments on front of a courthouse implies christian laws. wether or not that is the intent, that is what it implies. I really don't see a need for it. If I want to see religous symbols I will go to church/temple/museum etc...
I really don't want to debate church vs state, so I'm not saying you or I are right, or wrong. Just stating earlier that Christianity is a religion, and the cross represents it, thats all. I'm done. I think this might turn itno a cool thread, and don't want to ruin it with religous or political debate.
molamola
Member
When Jefferson says, "...Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." he is assuring that the Church is protected from the State. I think that was the whole point in the beginning to ensure that any and all religions are free to practice their faith without the Government meddling in their business, not the other way around.
lionkiller
Member
The ten commandments are also Jewish. Not one religion solely.
I agree though, we agree to disagree.....let the others have some fun as well before we deteriorate thios discussion. Or I do anyway.
I agree though, we agree to disagree.....let the others have some fun as well before we deteriorate thios discussion. Or I do anyway.
broncofish
Active Member
Originally posted by MolaMola
When Jefferson says, "...Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." he is assuring that the Church is protected from the State. I think that was the whole point in the beginning to ensure that any and all religions are free to practice their faith without the Government meddling in their business, not the other way around.
I think that if you go out and check out www.monticello.org (basicaly the jefferson society) you will find that your view of what he inteded is not quite correct.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally posted by broncofish
I think that if you go out and check out www.monticello.org (basicaly the jefferson society) you will find that your view of what he inteded is not quite correct.
You fall into the trap of assuming Jefferson created the constitution. He offered one of many opinions that went into the drafting of our founding documents. If you read most of the writtings by the founders you will see they simply wanted to insure the government couldn't create a religion. They didn't intend for government to be a part of or apart from religion. Having an elected representative cast a voter based on religous beliefs is no different than a demonstrator burning a flag. The constitution gurantees the right to do both.
lionkiller
Member
I think that if you go out and check out www.monticello.org (basicaly the jefferson society) you will find that your view of what he inteded is not quite correct.
I believe I stated or was discussing what our "Fore Fathers" had intended.
I believe I stated or was discussing what our "Fore Fathers" had intended.