And If Elected, I'll Put God In Every Home...

[telaquapacky]

Songseeker wrote: Do you care about the political beliefs of politicians? Enough so that their religious beliefs are likely to influence whether or not you'll vote for them? If so, why? If not, why not?I like a candidate who believes in strong, moral ethics and human rights, but one who is dead set against government imposing any set of religious beliefs or practices on it's citizens, or giving any advantage to any religious interest group. Politicians who pander to religious groups threaten freedom of religion, because the electoral system dictates that they will favor the majority religion, which will invariably result in disadvantage for minority religions. Freedom without equal treatment of minorities is not freedom. Besides, the majority is always wrong about spiritual things. If spiritual things were determined by human reasoning and conventional human wisdom and majority rule, they wouldn't be spiritual- they'd be humanistic. When you get too much religion in politics there's trouble ahead.

[Clint]

telaquapacky wrote: I like a candidate who believes in strong, moral ethics and human rights, but one who is dead set against government imposing any set of religious beliefs or practices on it's citizens, or giving any advantage to any religious interest group. Politicians who pander to religious groups threaten freedom of religion, because the electoral system dictates that they will favor the majority religion, which will invariably result in disadvantage for minority religions. Freedom without equal treatment of minorities is not freedom. Besides, the majority is always wrong about spiritual things. If spiritual things were determined by human reasoning and conventional human wisdom and majority rule, they wouldn't be spiritual- they'd be humanistic. When you get too much religion in politics there's trouble ahead.
What we need is a strong theocracy that agrees with my theology. I wouldn’t just vote for it, I’d campaign for it.

We all want a government that lines up a closely to what we believe as possible. All this talk about neutrality regarding religion in government is just talk. Look at the leaders of the “separation of Church and State” movements. Aren’t they almost exclusively agnostic, atheistic or a part of the group that isn’t in the majority at the time? I know we see as few folks with their collars turned around espousing separation but what do they really believe? The news media loves them because they are rebels. They don’t even need to know what they are talking about.

[capt_buzzard]

Clint wrote: What we need is a strong theocracy that agrees with my theology. I wouldn’t just vote for it, I’d campaign for it.



We all want a government that lines up a closely to what we believe as possible. All this talk about neutrality regarding religion in government is just talk. Look at the leaders of the “separation of Church and State” movements. Aren’t they almost exclusively agnostic, atheistic or a part of the group that isn’t in the majority at the time? I know we see as few folks with their collars turned around espousing separation but what do they really believe? The news media loves them because they are rebels. They don’t even need to know what they are talking about.Churches made by man? And another inquisition? They have had their day, Now its time to let God in.

[Clint]

capt_buzzard wrote: Churches made by man? And another inquisition? They have had their day, Now its time to let God in.
Provided we don't decide what he is going to look like before we even open the door.

[A Karenina]

Clint wrote: What we need is a strong theocracy that agrees with my theology. I wouldn’t just vote for it, I’d campaign for it.



We all want a government that lines up a closely to what we believe as possible.
?? WIth all due respect, I'd prefer a government that gives me room to live according to what I decide is good. I don't care what the goverment believes, but I do want the freedom of choice.



Clint wrote: All this talk about neutrality regarding religion in government is just talk. Look at the leaders of the “separation of Church and State” movements. Aren’t they almost exclusively agnostic, atheistic or a part of the group that isn’t in the majority at the time? I know we see as few folks with their collars turned around espousing separation but what do they really believe? The news media loves them because they are rebels. They don’t even need to know what they are talking about.
Would you say the same if the majority weren't Christians? What if you belonged to a minority religion, or to no religion at all? It's not just talk. And it really doesn't matter if the proponents of the separation between church and state only believe in purple pigs...my feeble attempt at saying this lightly.



What matters is the principle. Does government have the right to impose moral values on its citizens?

[greydeadhead]

The idea of a theocratic from of government sends chills thru me. There has to be a separation of church and state. No way would I want a person even attempting to tell me what or who to believe in or what my morals should be..... Or even worse.. have church laws enforced upon the public. Very scary thoughts there.. a return to public stocks and punishments.. women as second class citizens again... no way.. talk about a return to the ice age.

[capt_buzzard]

greydeadhead wrote: The idea of a theocratic from of government sends chills thru me. There has to be a separation of church and state. No way would I want a person even attempting to tell me what or who to believe in or what my morals should be..... Or even worse.. have church laws enforced upon the public. Very scary thoughts there.. a return to public stocks and punishments.. women as second class citizens again... no way.. talk about a return to the ice age.Good Girl

[telaquapacky]

Clint wrote: What we need is a strong theocracy that agrees with my theology...All this talk about neutrality regarding religion in government is just talk. Look at the leaders of the “separation of Church and State” movements. Aren’t they almost exclusively agnostic, atheistic or a part of the group that isn’t in the majority at the time? Since when does a majority defend the rights of minorities? America used to stand for equality but Liberal values like equality have gone out of style in America. The wants and wishes of the majority are always guaranteed. Who defends freedom except minorities? Of what value is freedom unless it is freedom for all- even those who are different?

My church has a department of attorneys and lobbyists who defend the religious rights of all other religions. We won for Mennonites in one of the eastern states, the right to obtain drivers’ licenses without having to be photographed. We have defended Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Ba'hais- we even tried to defend a couple of Native Americans who lost their jobs for smoking Peyote in their religious rituals.

We publish the number one periodical regarding freedom of religion, Liberty Magazine. Our offerings pay to put a monthly Liberty magazine on the desk of every judge and lawmaker and every Evangelical in America that we can think of. Most of them receive our message coolly because freedom of conscience clashes with their agenda.

We started the ball rolling on the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, and lobby for it constantly. Our church never tells anyone who to vote for, and stays as neutral as possible on every issue, except for protecting every citizens’ right to practice their religion as their conscience dictates. In every country where we have churches we are as good citizens and try to stay as friendly to government as conscience allows.

As you might imagine, in the U.S. we are increasingly walking on a tight-rope. We are pro-life, but we stay out of the abortion debate, because the pro-life forces have a hidden agenda to press other religion-enforcing laws that we don’t endorse.

We started Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, we were so open-minded that we joined hands with atheists and allowed them to collaborate with us in that effort- mistakenly thinking that they loved freedom of conscience as much as we do. Instead, they took it over, and Americans United has become Atheists United for the Suppression of Any and All Religion in Our Culture. That is not separation of church and state- it only proves that Atheism is a religion, and is seeking to establish an anti-God “theocracy” of it’s own, to deprive those who believe in God of their rights of free expression.

I want a government according to my religion- that is that you, whoever you are, whatever you do (as long is it’s not harming anyone else) are free to believe or not to believe, practice or not to practice. I’m not just talking. I’m part of a movement that’s doing something about it.

[Lon]

Songseeker wrote: Do you care about the political beliefs of politicians? Enough so that their religious beliefs are likely to influence whether or not you'll vote for them? If so, why? If not, why not?
Surely you mean't religious beliefs, their political beliefs are pretty well defined by what party they belong to. Yes, I am interested in their religious beliefs as it oft times influences their thinking on capital punishment, abortion, gays, prayer in school, etc. etc.

[Clint]

A Karenina wrote: ?? WIth all due respect, I'd prefer a government that gives me room to live according to what I decide is good. I don't care what the goverment believes, but I do want the freedom of choice.

Would you say the same if the majority weren't Christians? What if you belonged to a minority religion, or to no religion at all? It's not just talk. And it really doesn't matter if the proponents of the separation between church and state only believe in purple pigs...my feeble attempt at saying this lightly.



What matters is the principle. Does government have the right to impose moral values on its citizens?
There must be a smiley that has its tongue in its cheek. It should have been with my first paragraph. Beyond that, I’m just being pragmatic about it. If the majority believed in purple pigs (good one) you can bet they would want their piggish eating habits to be the norm. The beliefs of the majority find their way into government. Government reflects the values of the majority and those values come from the morals of the majority.

I have to say that government does have the right to impose the morals of the majority. It actually has the obligation. If the majority believes pink pigs shouldn’t fly because looking at the bottom side of a flying pig is immoral, then pink pigs should be grounded.

Should we permit polygamy? It is clearly a reflection of a moral value rooted in the majority religion.

One community or State will outlaw shops that sell pornography and another allows it. It is a reflection of the prevailing morals of the community. Those morals almost without exception reflect those of the majority religion in that community.

I have traveled to other countries where the majority religion wasn’t Christian. I respected their laws knowing that they were rooted in their religious beliefs. If I was the minority here (I mean this) and I was bothered as much as some seem to be bothered, I would move to where my moral values were reflected in the laws.

One of the great things about America is that we try not to oppress those who’s beliefs are different from the majority. We also have a system that will adapt if the minority manages to convince the majority to adopt their views, making them the majority. The way you do that is to change the heart of the majority… not by forcing the will of the minority on the majority.

[BabyRider]

Clint wrote: I have to say that government does have the right to impose the morals of the majority. It actually has the obligation. If the majority believes pink pigs shouldn’t fly because looking at the bottom side of a flying pig is immoral, then pink pigs should be grounded.




Ooo. This is touchy ground. I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I like to read them, in hopes of learning. This caught my attention.

How could the government impose morality? I'm thinking of past politicians, and wondering how, with the total lack of morals I've seen, they could possibly hope to accomplish this. This is a recipe for disaster. Our morals based on what lying, and occassionally corrupt people believe to be moral? It's absolutely laughable. I believe the obligation is to BE moral, not impose morality, and unfortunately, a lot of politicians fall WAY short of the mark.

[Clint]

BabyRider wrote: Ooo. This is touchy ground. I don't normally get involved in discussions like this, but I like to read them, in hopes of learning. This caught my attention.

How could the government impose morality? I'm thinking of past politicians, and wondering how, with the total lack of morals I've seen, they could possibly hope to accomplish this. This is a recipe for disaster. Our morals based on what lying, and occassionally corrupt people believe to be moral? It's absolutely laughable. I believe the obligation is to BE moral, not impose morality, and unfortunately, a lot of politicians fall WAY short of the mark.
One of the realities of our form of government is that our elected officials are a reflection of the majority. IF they are corrupt and continue to be corrupt, we have a corrupt society.

I agree that we have the obligation to be moral. If we are, then our government will also be moral.

[Lon]

Clint wrote: There must be a smiley that has its tongue in its cheek. It should have been with my first paragraph. Beyond that, I’m just being pragmatic about it. If the majority believed in purple pigs (good one) you can bet they would want their piggish eating habits to be the norm. The beliefs of the majority find their way into government. Government reflects the values of the majority and those values come from the morals of the majority.



I have to say that government does have the right to impose the morals of the majority. It actually has the obligation. If the majority believes pink pigs shouldn’t fly because looking at the bottom side of a flying pig is immoral, then pink pigs should be grounded.



Should we permit polygamy? It is clearly a reflection of a moral value rooted in the majority religion.



One community or State will outlaw shops that sell pornography and another allows it. It is a reflection of the prevailing morals of the community. Those morals almost without exception reflect those of the majority religion in that community.



I have traveled to other countries where the majority religion wasn’t Christian. I respected their laws knowing that they were rooted in their religious beliefs. If I was the minority here (I mean this) and I was bothered as much as some seem to be bothered, I would move to where my moral values were reflected in the laws.



One of the great things about America is that we try not to oppress those who’s beliefs are different from the majority. We also have a system that will adapt if the minority manages to convince the majority to adopt their views, making them the majority. The way you do that is to change the heart of the majority… not by forcing the will of the minority on the majority.
Good post Clint. What if majority thinking and values are in conflict with existing Constitutional Laws?

[Clint]

Lon wrote: Good post Clint. What if majority thinking and values are in conflict with existing Constitutional Laws?
Good question Lon. I think that when it comes to the framework of a country we have to honor it and recon to it as long as we can. If there is enough pressure by the majority of the citizens to change it then it must be changed.

If you are referring to the “separation of Church and State” issue, I don’t think the Constitution supports the minority uproar. We have freedom of religion…not freedom from it. There are always two directions to take the extreme. Right now the extreme being pushed is one that says the Constitution excludes religion from policy discussion. It could also be argued that religion belongs right in the center of the discussion. After all, the Constitution prohibits government from interfering with religion… it’s not the other way around