Does religion have ANY place in government or governmental discussion?

[rd_kent]

If so, why?

If not, then why do we even discuss topics like creationism, abortion, gay marriage, etc., when the ONLY reason people are against these topics is because of Religious beliefs?

[glen123098]

1. It doesn't have its place in government.

Stuff like Gay marriage bans and creationism have no place in government. I can see a non religulous argument against abortion though, so I wouldn't include that with the other ones though.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

32. WE THE PEOPLE WON'T BE WE THE FREE UNTIL FAKE GODS ARE ERADICATED

[Nostradammit]

35. And how do you propose we determine which gods are fake

and which gods are real?

Would you take away "We the People's" freedom of religion?

[rd_kent]

37. Unless you have some proof that one or more is real, then they ARE fake.....

THATS how we determine it. Proof. Evidence. Testable.

Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.....

[Nostradammit]

51. How much does love weigh?

[darkstar3]

52. The same amount as the person from which it emanates. n/t

[rd_kent]

54. Love is an emotion and has no weight.

What that has to do with the question, I am not sure, but your use of "the dodge" to avoid it is telling.

[Nostradammit]

56. Then love is not real, according to some.

"Proof. Evidence. Testable."

Can you prove that love exists?


For the record, I don't think government and religion
should mix overtly, but you will never, ever eradicate the
influence of religion on people's decisions. I completely
understand why some are threatened by religion, but
you create tremendous resistance by your hostility towards
people's deeply-held and often hard-won beliefs.

[darkstar3]

58. False analogy

Love can be proven in many ways, not least of which would be hormone and fMRI studies.

Can the same be said of any god?

[Nostradammit]

61. You would only be proving the effects of hormones

and neurological actions.

I'm trying to illustrate the difference
between that which is spiritual and that
which is "provable."

My red blood cells were chatting the other day.
One said to the other, "Do you believe in The Body?"
The other replied, "No blood cell has ever proven
the existence of The Body."
The first one wondered, "But you'll agree that it's
possible for there to be a body?"
Second one: "Until I have solid proof of it's existence, no.
Let's take a left up here at the right ventricle."

[darkstar3]

62. Love is one of those effects.

Love is not spiritual, though some may refer to it as a religious or spiritual experience.

And you've thrown out another false analogy with your body example. That example presupposes the existence of a God.

[Nostradammit]

63. Would it be possible for a minute part of a whole

to measure the existence of the whole?

One can neither hope to prove the existence
nor the non-existence of "God."

So it's left to the individual to decide, and
whether we like it or not, people will base some
of their decisions on what they perceive the nature
of "God" to be. Sometimes for the worse, and sometimes
for the better.

You still haven't proven to me that love exists.

[darkstar3]

64. I don't have to prove that love exists,

because I'm not trying to make claims, rules, or laws based on love.

You are correct that it is up to individuals to decide, but the problem is when individuals take it upon themselves to try and foist their beliefs onto others without a shred of proof.

[Nostradammit]

65. Exactly!

Which is why I always pipe up when someone says we must outlaw
religion. Which is what HowHasItComeToThis is proposing, however
indirectly.

[darkstar3]

70. For clarity:

I have never advocated the outlawing of religion, but I have advocated the out-religioning of law.
I don't think that HowHasItComeToThis is advocating the outlawing of religion either, but rather he/she is suggesting that we as a society would have an easier time moving forward and finding true equality if the antiquated beliefs of the past didn't hold such a high place in the minds of so many in the present-day.

[Nostradammit]

71. Understood -

But we must not throw out that which is good
while excising the bad. That is to say, for
some people, their religious beliefs have given
them great motivation to do very difficult things
that were of benefit to society as a whole, and
it is unreasonable to demand that people divorce themselves from
such convictions (the positive ones) in order
to participate in governance. To say that "false gods
must be eradicated" invites the question "how do
we determine the false gods and how do you propose
they be eradicated."

Some of the antiquated beliefs of the past are, indeed,
in need of a quick death, but don't fool yourself into
believing that man treated his fellows any better
before he invented god.

That's all I'm suggesting.

[heidler1]

89. There is hard statistical evidence that being a proclaimed Atheist.

causes marriage to last longer than being religious does. In my opinion this is most likely due to the religious persons belief that he/she is so special that life eternal is what they expect. That would would not wear well IMO.

[geckosfeet]

2. Yes. When enforcing the separation of church and state.

[rd_kent]

4. Good point. But is that a discussion about religion or about separation of?

[geckosfeet]

44. It's mostly about keeping unsubstantiated religious beliefs out of the decision making

process (separation).

It also keep opposing religious beliefs from declaring civil war on each other.

Enforcing separation takes into account religious views. Presuming that letting religious views into government will ultimately lead to discrimination, persecution and inequity.

[msongs]

3. sure if people do what jesus said: go in your closet when you pray and quit braying in public nt

[izquierdista]

5. People have the right to practice their religion

If and when they get it right, THEN the should offer their opinion.

[rd_kent]

8. What does practicing ones religion have to do with government?

And what does "when they get it right" mean? Who decides that? ANd if it is "right" what place does a religious opinion have in governmental decisions?

[HeresyLives]

6. None whatever.

[PDJane]

7. No.

Period. Endit.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Of course it does...

since religion is an essential part of many people's lives, and forms many of moral and ethical codes we live by.

Banning any discussion of religion from any government discussion is as silly as banning marriage, vegetarianaism, or anything else we involve ourselves in from government dicussion.

(It's "discussion" fershitsake, and nothing to get all worked up about unless it becomes "dictation")

[darkstar3]

11. Dawkins and other prominent atheist writers disagree

with your statement that religion is the source of any morality or ethical standards. What we have here is a classic chicken/egg scenario, where no one really knows whether religion helped to create morality and ethics, or whether it adopted morality and ethics that already existed for its own purposes.

[Sal316]

14. Dawkins is a tool.

He only sees religion through the fundamentalists' eyes, and then uses the fundamentalist viewpoint as his baseline when talking about people of faith.

He, and Mills among others, also hold the opinion that if you're not a fundamentalist whackjob, then you're not a "real Christian".

He's just as much a zealot as Robertson, et.al., and should be ignored accordingly.

[darkstar3]

15. Ah, an ad hom dismissal, why am I not surprised?

Further, Dawkins characterization, if you can call it that, of religion is certainly not limited to fundamentalism, and the man has never accused anyone of not being a 'real Christian.' No, he leaves that type of bullshit to the religious arguers who attempt to debate him. And if you had actually read any Dawkins book cover to cover, you'd know that.

Now, if you want to accuse an atheist writer of being a tool, go have your fun with Hitchens. The only thing I'll say about that man is that atheist or not, he is an asshole.

[Sal316]

24. Well, yes, they all have.

Christians are viewed by these guys through fundamentalist eyes, and those who DON'T follow the fundy view are considered to be pretenders, Dawkins, Hitchens, Mills, all use this straw-man.

There is no room for nuance in theology for them...and, yes, I have read their books. They view Scripture through the same literalist eyes as fundamentalists do and say if you don't believe it means exactly what it says it means. In fact, Mills has put it this way:

“The Great Pretenders (non KJV literalists) simply dismiss all Bible absurdities as metaphors and pretend that nothing in scripture really conflicts with science.”

“In newer, modern language translations, these ridiculous passages of Scripture have been dishonestly excised, rewritten or edited beyond recognition from their original translation in the King James.“

“…the Bible, under their (the Great Pretenders) supervision appears to be experiencing a quiet, behind the scenes, Hollywood makeover.”

“The purpose of this pompous intellectual charade is to allow the Great Pretenders to ‘have it both ways’ – imagining themselves to be both religious and scientific at the same time.”

“Perhaps it is time for citizens of the scientific age to grow up, to swallow hard, and to forgo the religious superstitions of their childhood.”

They see any deeper meaning, anything beyond the words printed on the page as nothing but fiction, at best, a "perversion" at worst.

It's a common theme, to set up the literalist, fundamentalist view of God as their "Holy Strawman" to beat down in an attempt to make themselves seem smarter about theology than they really are.

If you are looking for a book... Read Karen Armstrong's "Case for God: What Religion Means".

[darkstar3]

27. It's not a strawman.

You just don't want to see the point staring you straight in the face.

The Bible is either holy, or it is not.

If it is holy, then it must be revered and adhered to as closely as possible, and any translations or interpretations thereof must be very carefully and painstakingly weighed against the whole of the original text to guarantee that they are true to the holy message as sent by God.

If it is not holy, then any interpretation of the text is fine, because there is no special reason to revere it or to adhere to it.

I don't see a middle ground here, and neither does any non-Christian I know, yet so many Christians like yourself are hell-bent on creating and squatting on that middle ground. Some claim that they are able to interpret their holy text because they have a close personal relationship with Jesus that tells them everything they need to know. Some claim that they are able to interpret their holy text because they know all about the historical context in which it was written. Whatever claims they make, however, are unimportant, since their interpretations are not peer-reviewed, and have no or almost no scholarly rigor applied to them.

In essence, the quote that you pulled in your post above is proof that Christians are claiming that their book is holy while treating it as though it is not holy. That's called having your cake and eating it too, and even if it pisses you off when people point that out, you can't simply claim that the argument is a strawman.

PS: I can't believe you threw "Case for God" at me. That book falls victim to the same exact problem all of Lewis' work had, which is that a big circle always looks like a line to the person riding their bike on it. ;)

[Sal316]

66. Now I get it!

The Bible is either holy, or it is not.

OH! You think that Holy is equivalent to "must be read exactly for what it says, nothing else".

Now I understand where you went off the rails.

If it is holy, then it must be revered and adhered to as closely as possible, and any translations or interpretations thereof must be very carefully and painstakingly weighed against the whole of the original text to guarantee that they are true to the holy message as sent by God.

If it is not holy, then any interpretation of the text is fine, because there is no special reason to revere it or to adhere to it.

You're half right. You see, there are rules for translation/interpretation. It's called hermeneutics

In essence, the quote that you pulled in your post above is proof that Christians are claiming that their book is holy while treating it as though it is not holy. That's called having your cake and eating it too, and even if it pisses you off when people point that out, you can't simply claim that the argument is a strawman.

No, it's a strawman, and a completely asinine argument to boot. Tell me, is our understanding of 1st Century Greek language and culture and pre-common era Hebrew and Aramaic the same as it was in the 17th Century?

No? Then Harris' argument is shit because HE is saying that if you differ from a 17th Century understanding (KJVO), you're not a "real Christian".

It's a classic strawman, and should be used as an example in every logic course from now until eternity.

[darkstar3]

68. So you put words in my mouth to setup your own strawman,

ignore completely the points that I make, claim that there are rules for interpretation/translation as if it's some new pronouncement and not a point I was already trying to make, and continue repeating your accusation of strawman against the author when the nature of the quote has been shown? Stay classy, Sal...:eyes:

There is a whole thread, that you started, that illustrates the entire point the author in your pulled and sliced quote is trying to make. You still haven't answered any of the questions posed to you in that thread, so why should I continue that debate with you here?

Don't think for a moment that you can simply repeat yourself ad nauseum and win the argument. It doesn't work for 5 year olds, and it doesn't work on an adult discussion board either.

ETA: You admit there are rules for interpretation/translation, but you can't possibly claim that everyone interpreting the Bible today follows those rules, and you can't even prove that YOUR rules are the right ones. Further, why do people try to put those rules in place? Is it because they are necessary to keep the message of the Bible holy? Of course it is. So my point still stands: Many Christians today claim their book is holy but do not treat it as such.

[rd_kent]

38. There IS no room for nuance, Sal.

If there is, then WHO gets to decide what those nuances are? And who decides who the deciders are? And why?

[Sal316]

67. It's called hermeneutics

But, let's look at your point.

Then I guess Jesus was truly meant that faith was equivalent to mustard seeds, the secret of the Kingdom of God IS a pretty pearl, and he literally meant a camel going through the eye of a needle (not the entrance, that'd be nuance).

Also, by your logic, that there's no room for nuance, that the only Church who has it right is the Roman Catholic church, since every other church (including Eastern Orthodox), split from the Holy Mother Church over 'nuance'. John of Damascus, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Bonhoffer, Leibniz, et.al., must all be idiots because they dared disagree with the way the RCC interpreted things.

You suffer from the same disconnect that most atheists suffer from.... the belief that faith and reason don't belong together...that literalism, hence fundamentalism, is the only TRUE interpretation.

It's not only a logically deficient view, but theologically untenable as well.

[darkstar3]

69. Faith and reason are incompatible.

Faith is the acceptance of a belief without any evidence.

Reason, on the other hand, is concerned with facts, and what effect those facts have on our current ideas.

In other words, faith presupposes something (like the existence of God), and cares nothing for the lack of facts to back up that presupposition or belief. Reason uses facts to arrive at a conclusion.

They are diametric opposites.

[rd_kent]

74. Your points have nothing to do with the question in the OP

Many of us have asked you, Sal, and you have not given an answer.....either the bible IS the direct word of god and is infallible or it IS NOT.

If it is, then that needs to be PROVED. If it is not, then discussions about making laws and rules should NOT include a rel;gious viewpoint at all....


ANd what does it matter what jesus said? Can you prove he ACTUALLY said it, or that jesus was ACTUALLY real? Nope, so why should I take into consideration what may be completely made up?


You seem to suffer form the disconnect that most believers suffer from....the idea that a belief NOT shared by everyone in this country has a place in government when making laws and rules.

For the last time, sal, either the bible IS or it IS NOT the divine word of god. Which is it?

[rd_kent]

85. So after reading about "hermeneutics, I find that nothing has been answered

since it seems that hermeneutics is taken form the different points of view......


we are back to the original problem, WHO decides what is right and wrong when interpreting? Who made THEM the deciders?


The problem, sal, is that there is NO common consensus on how to interpret the bible nor that the bible is the divine word of god. Until THAT happens, then the bible has NO place in making the rules and laws for ALL of us, wouldnt you agree?

[ZombieHorde]

18. "He's just as much a zealot as Robertson, et.al., and should be ignored accordingly"

This is a logical fallacy. Arguments should stand on their own regardless of the source. An argument is true or not true regardless of the source.

[Nostradammit]

36. +1

[TZ]

73. Tell me have you ever bothered to even READ anything of Dawkins?

I would guess not. Why don't you call Einstein a tool while you are at it. Dawkins is a very very very highly regarded evolutionary biologist whatever lay-idiots like you think.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Fuck Dawkins and I did not say ...

that religion is always the originator or source of ethics. Religion is often simply one depository of ethics, the mores of a society having evolved through some other mechanism.

Besides, religion is simply philosophy with the addition of a deity, so why would a religion based ethic be objectionable any more than one from objectivism or nihilism?

Oh, and back to Dawkins-- I really don't give a shit what he says about the subject any more than I care what a reactionary fundie preacher says about it. Not at all a "fair and balanced" opinion.

[ZombieHorde]

20. "religion is simply philosophy with the addition of a deity"

I disagree. Religion is different than a philosophy, but the two often go together. Religions concern the afterlife, but don't always have gods.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Actually, the concept of deaity is basic to the...

definition of religion, although defining the deity isn't so easy,as with Quaker, Buddhists, animists...

And religion doesn't always concern the afterlife. While there are many Quakers who do have beliefs about the afterlife, most of us have no clue what happens after death and simply assume that if we do OK in the here, the hereafter will take care of itself.

Religions just add Theology to Epistemology, Cosmology, Ethics...

[darkstar3]

22. And why so much venom?

Dawkins gets an awfully bad rep from a lot of people on the religious side of the debate, but he is in no way venomous toward those religious believers. He calmly and rationally lays out his case, and that's all. The fact that he does it so well has landed him book deals, which has led to interviews, which has led to a lot of quotes being taken out of context, but if you actually read what he has to say, you'll see that your venom and animosity is groundless.

As for what you said about religion as a source of ethics, from your post: "and forms many of moral and ethical codes we live by."

"Forms". If religion forms it, or in other words creates it, it must be a source for it. So now you're just backtracking.

[TreasonousBastard]

31. I don't have too many problems with Dawkins, but I'm getting...

little tired of alleged atheists dropping his name as if he has reached some plateau where he doesn't even have to be quoted any more.

Kirkegaard, Sartre, Nietsche... Far more interesting and went over this stuff years ago.

What's with the nitpicking over one word in my post that means something entirely different when combined with the next word in that post.

[darkstar3]

33. *sigh*

We're talking around each other, so let me break this down.

You stated that religion 'forms many of moral and ethical codes we live by.'

I stated that many atheists, some of them prominent, disagree with you, and consider the morals and ethics espoused by religions to have simply been co-opted rather than created.

You injected the word "always" into my argument in your post #17 just so you could try to knock it down, and I missed that particular point the first time around and responded to your post trying to point out that you DID say religion was a source of morality and ethics.

So here's the deal: I never said you were claiming that religion was ALWAYS THE source of morality and ethics, but you DID say that religion is A source of morality and ethics. I disagree with you. I, like many others, think that the morals espoused by religion are simply the same morals taken from the non-religious and then claimed as God's law. I first read about this in a Dawkins book (The God Delusion), which is why I mentioned him.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. You said...

"...your statement that religion is the source of any morality or ethical standards..."

which I took to mean that you thought I said religion was the basis of all morality-- which I did not say.

Now that that's cleared up, the statement "...the morals and ethics espoused by religions to have simply been co-opted rather than created" is absurd. Ethics, morality, social mores and values... they have many sources and to exclude religion as one opf them is ridiculous.

[rd_kent]

12. Why would a religious opinion be taken into consideration when making laws?

Morals and Ethics are not necessarily based on religious doctrine, for starters. One does not need religion to be moral and have ethics.


If we have separation of Church and State, why would a religious opinion be considered when making a law? What religion would you say gets to have an opinion when making a law?

[BrklynLiberal]

16. "One does not need religion to be moral and have ethics." Bingo!!!

In fact, I have met many the most "religious" people who are neither moral nor ethical..

[TreasonousBastard]

23. But you must have some basis for the mores of a society, and...

religion is often the source, but even more often the repository, of these mores.

I have absolutely no idea how Jews 5,000 years ago came up with the idea of "Thou shalt not kill" on a stone tablet but is it or is it not a good idea?

All ethical systems have to have some philosphical basis, and religion is simply philosophy with the added complication of a deity and some fancy footwork in the cosmology. Why should my acceptance of Quaker testimonies be less valuable than whatever you basde your ethics on?

Which brings up the question of just how you arrive at your ethical boundaries.

I followed a long road over the years and my acceptance of Quaker values is essentially shorthand for beliefs I came up with independantly. If necessary, I can explain both the Quaker and my own rationale but simply pointing to Quaker thought is much easier. This is not unusual for any religious ethical thought.

For the atheist or agnostic, however, there is no such shorthand so some explanation of how you get to your ethical positions would be nice. As many times as I have heard an atheist correctly state that a deity is not necesary for moral behavior, I have rarely heard any explain precisely how they define that moral behavior themselves.

[rd_kent]

25. Our morals and ethics come from what we feel, as a society, is acceptable.

One mans porn is another mans art. What on considers moral another may not.

We, as a society and regardless of the origin (thats a WHOLE other debate), have decided what is and what is not acceptable. Taken as a whole, we have done a pretty good job, but the finer details, we still are working out. Its in these details where we need to find common ground, and having religion give its $.02 worth is not only wrong, it is unconstitutional.

No, religion is not needed, at least not anymore, when it comes to making societal decisions. If we allow religion, I ask again, what religions get consideration and why?

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Religion has no place in the discussion of...

assisted suicide? The death penalty? Heroic end of life treatments?

Don't be ridiculous. Whether you like it or not society takes everyone's arguments into account, and if you don't believe in a soul or afterlife, or a divine existence, a lot of people do and they have a voice in matters.

It's called democracy, and it's not a technocracy run by formula-- it's a messy business run by the beliefs and emotions of the members, including you and any foolish beliefs you may have.

I agree that such things as the argument of a soul entering a fetus at conception is absurd, but enough people believe that way that they ARE a part of society that evolves the ethos.

Deal with it.

[darkstar3]

34. There is a difference between discussion and government.

The religious have as much right in a representative democracy to put forward their ideas as anyone else. They do not have the right to expect those ideas to be respected.

The thing that religious need to deal with, though, is the fact that not everyone agrees with them, and they can't prove that they are right. In a free society, we a need a reason to make something illegal, and since religion can't provide any other reason than the fact that they believe "it" is wrong, there will never be a compelling reason to implement religious views on assisted suicide, the death penalty, end of life treatments, or a myriad of other things.

Bottom line: If your religion is more restrictive than the law of the land, feel free to hold yourself to that standard, but the rest of us don't need to be forced into your ways.

[rd_kent]

39. Not when we are talking about those subjects in the LEGAL sense, it doesn't.

Were not talking about you and I have a "discussion", this is about making laws and rules, you know, GOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSIONS, as I said in my OP.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Why shouldn't it is the better question. We have...

refused to accept a state church here in the US but have never had a full wall between religion and the state. Some religions have been around far longer than political or economic systems, and have certainly outlasted empires, developing a wisdom of the ages.

If we find comfort and wisdom in the words of Buddha, Maimonedes, or Aquinas; if we find some truth in the Bible, the Commentaries, or the Vedas-- should we just throw it all out because it's religious?

Nonsense. It shouldn't run the show as in a theocracy, but over 80% of the world's population claims some religious belief and it's completely absurd to ignore it.

[rd_kent]

47. Your logic is flawed...

Just because people BELIEVE something does NOT make it true. Just because something has been around for a long time, does not make it TRUE!

You keep continuing to assert that we should just "throw out" any religious discussion. Why can you not understand that this is about having religious discussion IN GOVERNMENT WHILE MAKING LAWS AND RULES. No one is saying that all religious discussion should be abolished.

Now that we have that cleared up, WHY should religious viewpoints be allowed in governmental decision making?

[TreasonousBastard]

59. your problem is that you have some obessession for...

this thing called "truth."

Government is not about truth, it is about, ummm... governing.

The society has evolved values, and many of those values are tied to religion. So, somewhere along the line the government will end up accepting some of those religious values because they are the values of the society.

This does not mean tha all religious values will be accepted. Nor does it mean that religious values will automatically be accepted. It means that in a democracy religious values have the same validity as any other values and they get discussed, and possibly enacted into law, just like anything else.

What part of that is in Russian or some alien code that it doesn't get through?

[rd_kent]

86. SO you choose not to answer the question?

Those values that we as a society, have chosen to accept are NOT what is in question. Its the values that we, as a society, have NOT agreed upon that are the problem. Those values have different meaning to different people, and deciding to make those values LAW for us all should NOT include the religious viewpoint because of the reason I outlined before. DO you not agree now?

[TreasonousBastard]

87. No, I don't agree. You have no argument. Now claim that I am...

wandering off and conceding defeat with such a dismissal of your feeble thoughts and it will change nothing.

I will still think your arguments are trivial.

(Because they are.)

[rd_kent]

90. No worries, It is not my job to ensure you are not ignorant.

Feel free to carry on.....Have a nice day.

[darkstar3]

10. Religion IS a form of government

Think about it: There are laws, administrative and deliberative bodies, board/council meetings, taxes, votes...

It's only natural that the people who belong to these groups would wish for their governmental structure to supplant the civil government. That does not, however, give them the right to try. Religion is an inherently exclusive form of governance, and therefore has absolutely no place in the inclusive democracy that is our country.

[RKP5637]

21. Absolutely Correct!!! Religion has no place in our government! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

13. NO.

[RKP5637]

19. And which one... I believe there are something like 1600 religions and most

likely more.

[rug]

26. Other than creationism, the other topics you mentioned have nonreligious opponents.

[darkstar3]

28. Name for me please three nationally known non-religious opponents

of abortion or of gay marriage.

In fact, if you can name three nationally known non-religious opponents TOTAL to those two items I'll be surprised.

[Meshuga]

46. I don't know any but

I am sure there are non-religious people who are anti-abortion and I can see a non-religious reason for them to be anti-abortion in the same way that there are anti-abortion people (in a sense that they would not get an abortion themselves) who are pro-choice. Or at least understand that there are exceptions when the life of the mother is at risk, for example.

I am not a woman but I am sure getting an abortion is very difficult decision for women in general to make even when religion would have nothing to do with it. I would imagine it is a difficult decision for many especially after the embryonic stage.

Obviously, religious groups (that, as George Carlin used to say, believe every ejaculation deserves a name) will be the first to actively fight abortion and women's right to choose. But that does not mean non-religious conservatives would not financially support or even join these groups.

There is at least an "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League" out there but having to find three non-religious groups who are against abortion does not negate the fact that religion is not the only reason people would be against abortion. But, of course, I agree it is easier for the religious right to be against it as a consequence of their beliefs and values.

[rd_kent]

40. What are the non-religious arguments on those subjects then?

I would love to know what the non-religious arguments against gay marriage or abortion are. Please elaborate.

[rug]

41. Re abortion, start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x332050


Re same sex marriage, the President can explain his rationale:

We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important than equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)

[rd_kent]

48. I asked for YOUR arguments, rug.

Please, either answer what I asked or just dont post. I really dont want to go off on a tangent with you.

[rug]

50. Read the post again. I didn't say I was making the argument.

Nor did you ask for my arguments.

[rd_kent]

53. My post #40 CLEARLY asks for it.

And you posted something else in response. I asked you again and you replied that I did not ask. So, here we are.....are you going to answer what I asked or not?

[rug]

55. Not to be pedantic, but the question is in the third person, not the second.

And I'm referring to grammar not the Trinity.

If you are interested in the arguments, read the link.

[rd_kent]

57. Oh for fucks sake, rug.

Have a nice day....

[Jim__]

43. Of course religion has a place in government discussion.

For instance, when a new law is proposed, constitutional issues can be raised and discussed. The first amendment to the US Constitution protects freedom of religion. Therefore, discussion of whether or not the new law would infringe on religious freedom is a legitimate discussion.

[rd_kent]

49. Thats a good answer, but it is dodging the OP.

I asked if religion had a place in governmental discussion when making laws, not if religious freedom would be infringed.

What place does religion have, other than ensuring religious freedom, when making laws and why?

[Jim__]

72. You seem to be dodging your own question.

You asked: Does religion have ANY place in government or governmental discussion? - your caps.

Now you want to limit the question to: What place does religion have, other than ensuring religious freedom, when making laws and why? Seems like you've added a qualifier to your ANY.

To be sure my previous answer is clear, in order to insure that certain laws do not infringe upon religious freedom, legislators may need to discuss how the legislation interacts with various religious tenets that touch on the same area. That clearly qualifies under the umbrella of whether or not religion has ANY place in governmental discussion.

[rd_kent]

75. OK, you got me.

For fucks sake, I redefined my question because you brought up a valid point, and now you disparage me for it? I redefined my question because I needed to make my point more clear. I see your point, do you see mine? If so, then answer my question.

[Jim__]

77. What place does religion have ... when making laws and why?

That is an extremely difficult question to answer which is why my original answer was a counter-example. The fact that a counter-example is so readily available, makes me believe the answer is that religion does have a place in the discussion about some laws. To find out what that place may be, we would have to go back and look at various legislative discussions over the years (including the Constitutional Convention) and see when religion came up. Were all of these examples invalid? I doubt it.

I can only try to recall things that I am aware of coming up in various discussions over the years. I do remember that during the Vietnam War there was a Catholic priest from, I think, Mass., that was anti-war. Did he ever bring any religious concerns into the discussion (e.g. his idea of Just War Theory), I don't know. The Rev Sloane Coffin (sp) also testified before congress during the war, did he bring up religious arguments, I don't know. During the Civil Rights era, my guess is that religious questions came up - on both sides of the issue.

I think the question is better posed as should we ban bringing up religious discussion in government. I don't believe we should.

[rd_kent]

78. Ok, no need to get too specific.

If religion DOES have a place, then WHICH religion gets heard? Which religions do NOT? Who determines which religious viewpoints are valid and which are not?

[Jim__]

79. If we don't ban religious discussion from governmental discussion ...

... then anyone involved in the discussion can bring up a point, religious or not, depending on the ground rules of that particular meeting. The meeting's chairperson should be able to rule any particular point as being out of bounds.

I just noticed in R/T, a thread about problems for Muslims in the American military. I haven't read the thread. But, if there are issues for Muslims in the US military, the government should certainly be open to a full discussion of these issues.

[rd_kent]

81. Jim, were talking about the public discourse and making laws here

not some "meeting"......The bigger picture here is what I am talking about.

[Jim__]

82. It's the same thing.

If the government is going to address, say issues raised by Muslims in the military, Congress will begin with meetings to discuss the problem. This may eventually lead to a bill, and in the discussion of the bill, representative (or Senators) may have questions about what issues there are, why there are issues, etc. That discussion could easily involve a discussion of religion. I don't believe such discussions should be banned. If they shouldn't be banned, and they are brought up, then these discussions have a place in governmental discussions of potential laws.

[Meshuga]

45. It does now...

...when issues dealing with the first amendment are being discussed.

Government adopting conservative religious ideals like forcing creation science to be taught in public schools, creating an amendment or laws that would only allow marriage between a man and a woman, making abortion illegal, sending women who get abortions and their doctors to prison, etc. would interfere with the first amendment of the constitution, more specifically the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion").

Creationism, abortion, gay marriage, etc. are all "relevant" topics because the politics of fear seem to be working just fine for Republicans. We have to discuss these topics because there is a chunk of the voting population who care about these issues. Feeding the anger of mainstream white America at minorities, immigrants, gays, feminists, taxes, affirmative action, big government, etc. make these topics hard to ignore.

[rd_kent]

76. Ahh, but thats my point!

The opposition to these topics mostly comes from a RELIGIOUS viewpoint. More specifically, the CHRISTIAN viewpoint. If we have the separation of church and state, then why do we take into consideration the opinion from a religious group, and a SPECIFIC religious group at that? Unless we take the opinion form ALL religious groups, we are discriminating against other religions from the start, and THAT is unconstitutional.

[Meshuga]

80. Correct

What the "culture war" crowd wants is to establish their own religious views as the norm, infringing on the establishment clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution.

But why should the government have the authority to tell a member of the clergy whether he/she is allowed to marry same sex couples? The religious right want to use government as a proxy to tell the minority religions what they can do or practice.

Not to mention the obvious fact that this would be a case of religion dictating civil matters for citizens who are not religious. And case of denying the civil rights of minority groups.

[Deep13]

83. No.

There, that was easy. :-)

[DeSwiss]

84. As these notable Revolutionaries and Founders didn't think so....

...I will say that even though many wore powdered wigs, I agree with their politics on this issue completely:

Quotes on Religion by Famous Revolutionaries and Founding Fathers

"Whenever we read the obscene stories (of the Bible), the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the Word of God." ~ Thomas Paine

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." ~ George Washington

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." ~ James Madison

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." ~ John Adams

- Nuff said.....

[Iggo]

88. No.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

91. No.

My general feeling is that religion, and religious opinion, is of little value. Government ought to secular.