Reply With Quote
Do you really want people to get passionate about an issue that has resulted in the death of 124 innocent people over the last 25 years?
I don't have all the answers and certainly cannot account for events that happened before my birth and/ or without my consent.
I can only point you to God's Word the Bible and assure you that if you sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to you, He will.
Now, it is time for me to leave work.
Do you really want people to get passionate about an issue that has resulted in the death of 124 innocent people over the last 25 years?
If you work in a Church, good for you; otherwise, LOL.
Now, it is time for me to leave work.
It is a pleasure to read a fellow Christian so proud and certain in her beliefs, and a shame more of us cannot be the same.
You wish it would be semantics. I have a strong conviction in freedom and non-establishment, but no conviction whatsoever in God and the Bible. That's a perfectly correct and understandable phrase.
As a bonus, ponder this: If their strong conviction in God and the Bible is what made them the founding fathers, then intrinsically, nobody before them had as strong as a conviction in God and the Bible (otherwise those other guys would have been the founding fathers). I somehow do not believe that.
And you don't think that was by design? It was a deliberate act to prevent the Nation as a whole to be influenced by one religion. I mean, if they were all nice Christians and truly believed in the goodness of religion, they wouldn't have needed to do any of that.
The separation of state and church is a very, very important point.
Are you aware that quite a few nations based their own Cons ution on the US one, except that they did not keep that specific point?
Except, as correctly pointed out by Shastafarian, none of those had anything to do with the founding of this country. Not to mention that acknowledging God is FAR from what I would call influence. If this country had any real Christian influence, cases like Roe vs Wade would read very different right about now.
+1
I can only point you to God's Word the Bible and assure you that if you sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to you, He will.
You're on top of your game today.
To me, the issue of a candidate's religion is as irrelevant as the candidate's race or gender. What matters to me is what the candidate's policies are. To the extent that policies might be guided by religious viewpoints, I suppose I consider the issue; but I would never make a choice to vote for a candidate based on the fact that we do or do not share religious beliefs.
As to the broader issue, I have no problem with elected officials expresssing views of faith (or a lack thereof) and I have no problem with officials who choose to seek spiritual guidance in the context of making decisions required of an office. I do, however, draw the line at the notion that Judeo/Christian majorities and Judeo/Christian traditions mandate the promotion (and, to some, even the inculcation) of Judeo/Christian principles through governmental programs. I will never support, for instance, initiatives to include organized prayer in schools -- if students wish to pray, nothing prohibits them from doing so as they wish during the school day; I don't think the choices that parents make regarding the religious education of their children should be supported or challenged by an entirely superfluous governmental effort to uncons utionally advocate in favor of religion. When I raise my children to pray, they won't need a governmentally-mandated prayer time to do so.
None of that is because I'm hostile to religion by any means; its because I firmly believe that freedom of choice, undoubtedly entrenched in the Bill of Rights, is eroded by governmental sponsorship of religion (no matter how subtle the sponsorship might be).
To me, it would be impossible for government to sponsor religion without choosing one religion over another. And the fact that the majority of the United States population maintains religious beliefs stemming from a Judeo/Christian tradition (or that I happen to believe as the majority does) doesn't convince me that sponsorship of those views over others is by any means justifiable. The beauty of the Cons ution (and the First Amendment in particular) lies largely in its protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority -- we protect expression of the unpopular viewpoint from being limited by government, both in speech generally and in the press particularly; we allow the disenfranchised to voice their disputes with government and to assemble with one another free from interference by government; and, germane here, we prohibit government from deciding, expressly or implicitly, what should be orthodox in matters of religion, allowing even the smallest groups of adherents to exercise their faith without interference while assuring them that government will not take a position as to the validity of their beliefs. To say that it would be acceptable for the machinery of government to endorse, promote, support, or sponsor particular religious views or practices would undermine those protections, in my mind.
Because I think government should be wholly isolated from religion and entirely neutral on those issues (and I don't think that neutrality amounts to an endorsement against religion), issues of the faith of individual candidates are not a part of my voting equation.
Do you bother reading posts? 124 haven't died. 124 have been found to have been falsely convicted. I haven't found numbers on wrongful deaths and frankly I doubt any numbers will ever be looked at. And yeah, anytime someone is killed by their own government and is innocent of the charges, I expect people to be outraged. Sorry if that's too liberal for you.
I guess we could go into an issue on Iraq if you want. There's lots more innocent people dying o'er ther!
Sorry to re-hash a page 2 thread, but I just wanted to respond:
It's not a cause and effect thing. I'm not saying it was their Biblical convictions that made them the founding fathers. I'm saying they were the founding fathers, who so happened to have Biblical convictions.
It was absolutely by design. That was my point. If they wanted to establish a "Christian Nation" they probably could have done it, and gotten away with it. But they didn't...they looked to set up a just society, not a Christian one. And again, let me state the obvious. The non-establishment clause is not to keep religious people out of government. It is there to keep the country from establishing a state-sponsored religion. If you want to keep religious people out of government, don't vote for them.
Let me make sure I understand this...I can't reference the Pledge of Allegiance as evidence of the influence of Christianity on the founding fathers, but you can reference Roe v. Wade as evidence of the lack of Christian influence on them? C'mon...let's play by the same rules here.
Look...if you want to study history, and read historical do ents, and understand the lives of the men who framed the Cons ution...and you do that with an open mind, then come to the conclusion that Christianity had NO influence on the foundation of this country, then that's your conclusion to make. Me, I've studied it, I understand it, and the evidence leads me to understand that Christianity had a STRONG influence on the foundation of this country.
There were 55 men who were part of the Cons utional Convention. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and 3 deists. So of the 55, 51 (93%) were of Christian faith. 70% of those (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Dutch Reformed) were members of some of the most extreme and dogmatic forms of Christianity. So, when these guys refer to God in any of their writings, which God do you think they are referring to?
I don't really care much about a candidate's religion. It just simply is not an issue for me.
Fine. The point is still the same. Let's just say that all 1100-1200 death row executions over the last 30 years were false. Yes, they would all be outrageous, they would all be terrible...but the numbers simply do not add up to the number of innocent deaths caused by abortion. If you're so outraged over these relatively small numbers, why are you not outraged by the loss of life abortion causes?
I'll tell you why, because it's a completely different argument, and the two should not be compared. Remember, you're the one who first referenced capital punishment in response to abortion. I'm simply pointing out to you that reference is invalid.
Man...I enjoy talking to you, and you mostly come across as an intelligent guy. But when you do this act, it's completely unfunny, and drags down any conversation you're having. You do it all the time (twice in this thread), and all it serves to do is make you look childish.
No sorries. We're amicably talking here.
That was exactly my point.
Exactly.
You just said their Christianity had no effect on the founding of this country, which has been my entire point from the get go. Let me repeat myself here: Acknowledging God is far, FAR from being an influence. Mandated praying in school is what I call influence. Spending government money on religious en ies is what I call influence. But you won't find any of that in the Cons ution, because these Christians did not put religion over country. Which is the strongest evidence that Christianity did not shape our Cons ution at all. Let me add, again, that some other countries that took the US Cons ution and used it as the base for theirs did go a different path. I lived 20+ years in such a country. I have experienced first hand what true religious influence is. Perhaps that's why I see 'influence' in a different light.
But I think we're much closer to agree here. It might be just semantics at this point.
Faith should never be an issue when talking politics.
Especially in a country with so many diferent religions and beliefs.
I do not care if leader of my country (Slovenia) is christian, muslim or jewish... if he makes lifes of all the people better and does not act like a jerk while doing it he is the right guy.
He could worship stones for all i care...
If someone does not vote for a candidate because he is not of the same faith or very religius it is the same as he would not vote for someone for being black or a woman.
No I think you're wrong. The reason I'm not outraged by the number of "lives" lost because of abortion is because I don't view them as lives.
Why does it make me look childish? I enjoy it.Man...I enjoy talking to you, and you mostly come across as an intelligent guy. But when you do this act, it's completely unfunny, and drags down any conversation you're having. You do it all the time (twice in this thread), and all it serves to do is make you look childish.
I think it says more about the inconsistencies within the Bible. Like regarding his birth. You know like how the Gospel of John and Mark are mum on his birth.
Or how the Gospel of Luke and Matthew have two conflicting views on the so-called virgin birth. And they both point out different genealogies, as well as different time frames for the birth.
"Matthew's account places the birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, but Luke dates it to the census of Quirinius in 6 AD"
It's a pointless argument to make about anything. I think angel_luv is an idiot when it comes to religion anyway. Not that she doesn't know what she says but she's just too blinded by it. It's alright though. It's what makes her what she is and I'm not trying to convince her otherwise.
I would NEVER take the Bible as anything more than a book. There are no words that are fact to me. I consider more to be a collection of cool sayings and quotes. Just like I consider the Koran to be the same. There are some beautiful verses in the Koran.
Back on the topic, the faith of any politician means nothing to me. It only matters to me when they start to dictate from the podium about their religion.
angel, although I profoundly disagree with your positions, especially the whole Obama/AC thing (shame on you), I think that you genuinely believe what you say. The thing is, you're pretty young, and you don't really see how things work in the world. The only interest that the GOP has in Evangelicals is their votes. They don't give a about anything else.
Question: the GOP controlled the House, Senate, and the WH for 6 years, and after the SCOTUS decision on the 2000 election it's pretty clear that the court was theirs too. Why is abortion still legal?
Don't see why you support the GOP then. Those things are what they do best. Greed is Good is practically their party motto.
I find it funny that left brings up how religion has started wars and killed thousands upon thousands... while forgetting the fact that the great atheist states of the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, and Cuba have all together killed millions in just the last century...
I'm not sure people have ever claimed mass murder was exclusively done by religious nuts.
FORCED atheism is no better than forced religion.
I would say that belief in Natural Rights was the dominant concern. It could be argued that this came from a particular understanding of Christianity, but for most of history, there was more emphasis on the divine right of Kings rather than the rights of people.
No. If you believe a fetus is a human life and it is sacred, then all life is sacred. If you do not believe life is inherently sacred, then you're just arbitrarily picking and choosing. If one life is not just as sacred as the next, then what are you basing your opposition to abortion upon?
This is a moral dilemma. It's just one you've convinced yourself doesn't matter. This is one of the biggest problems people like me have with the entire pro-life movement. Most of it is deeply hypocritical and arbitrary.
Why draw the line at conception anyways? My sperm has the potential for human life and I am wasting it away everytime I masturbate.
This is why the pro-life agenda is indefensible in my mind and should be indefensible to anyone who is examining the problem from a civic perspective. Just like Evangelicals cannot prove that God exists, the pro-life enthusiasts cannot prove that "life" begins at conception. It is opinion and belief and no one should support a law that gives your belief the right to tell me what to do with my body.
Let's say in the future, a technique is devised whereby a 3 day old fetus can be taken out of the womb alive and put in some sort of test tube/medical compartment to develop. Now apply the famous old utilitarian argument to a scenario. The lab or hospital is on fire and there's a 5 year old child in one part of the building and the 3 day old fetus in another part. You will probably be able to save only one of them. Which one do you save? For me, it's the 5 year old child. And it would still be the 5 year old child even if there were 5,000 fetuses in the other part of the building, because in my eyes there's no way i would equate the life of a 5 year old, or a 10 year old, or a 50 year old, with that of a 3 day old fetus.
Your future has the ability to bring a fetus to term outside the womb, but no technological advancement in sprinkler systems. Maybe Joe the Plumber does need to be elected to congress...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions