When will people understand religious freedom?

I'm tired of everyone saying that our country was founded on Xianity. Ben Franklin, Jefferson, Adams - they all opposed the religion.

Kimmse:

It is of course impossible to build a system of government upon such a broad statement as "live and let live" I also believe that the conclusion you draw is unwarranted. Hitler clearly didn't subscribe to this maxim. The Nazi regime forcefully made it impossible for others to live and let live mainly by enforcing horrible laws, sending people off to concentration/death camps or by starting war on them.

Clearly there is a also a conflict of interest between the slave and the slave owner. Live and let live results in contradictory results. However, my point is that having a secular constitution and the no establishment clause clearly is a far cry from letting Hitlers of the world have their ways.

To me there is no higher immutable standard of law (moral relativism, scary stuff ). This doesn't mean that everything is permitted however. Most people realize the need for a system of government that will protect rights of the individual and so forth. If you don't agree with this it will come down to who owns the biggest gun I guess. I also think that history suggests this (i.e Hitler was apparently not to reason with and war followed)

The system of law and government is an ongoing project and the "live and let live" principle is circumscribed a lot as your examples suggest. A modern society (say Sweden where I live or the US) has a law book the size of at least two Bibles.

Kimmse:

I was not aiming at the creator part really, more in context with what I wrote was the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part. I also noticed that this was from the Declaration of Independence and that it has no bearing on the constitution as far as I gather from this thread.

In short, why not allow for the most freedom possible and opt for a secular system and then have the people that wants to add God to an oath do that individually. That wouldn't push religion on anyone. All this even though certain famous people back then held a Godbelief of one sort or another.  Which they carefully kept out of the constitution (AFAIK).

Bloop

Aha, Moral Relativism. Not surprising. If truth is relative, then why isn't anything permissible? Why do Relativists insist on proclaiming no real standard, but they consistently set one for everyone else?
In fact, your statement about "there is no immutable standard of law" is relative in itself....(?) Your statement is invalid. It is nonsensical. There is no standard, yet you imply a standard that all should hold to make life easier for you.
So underneath all this rhetoric, it seems you still insist your philosophy of live and let live is valid and true. I've been asking what presupposition you hold to make that claim.
I've asked all along about the concept of law and justice itself...what presuppositons people hold.
You declare everyone has the right to believe whatever, but they can only act on it by your standards.
Right, Hitler didn't subscribe to your philosophy of live and let live; who are you to tell him he can't disagree and utililize his own philosophy? You say....well he imposes on others. So what? WHat is the authority on which you base your opinion is more true, right, and valid than his? Why do we or should we care about humanity if we all going to rot in a coffin anyway?
That is my question. The final resting authority underneath all this rhetoric of law and justice and doing the "right" thing.
A worldview that totally dismisses God puts the final authority on Man.
WHen the final authority rests on Man, it is changing, arbitrary, and creates a Hitler. And if you proclaim no other authority than Man, then like you said, it comes down to who has the biggest gun?
There you go. Final presupposition....who has the biggest gun, not that Absolute truth exists outside of Man.

P.S. I like the way you conveniently chose to ignore the entire reality of the quote you used....the inconvenient Creator part.

Please demonstrate that there is an objective moral truth.

I don't believe that you can.

You might not like that situation, but I do believe that's the reality of the situation.  We humans just have to muddle through.

This is simply not true. Anything goes is not a state of affairs that I like to see implemented. The laws and justice can be seen as a contract between members of a society if you will. This contract is under constant change because the world changes around us and somehow we have to try and deal with that. From this it follows that I do not set my own standard and forcefully impose it on everyone else. I can try to change laws that I don't like by joining the democratic process somehow. Try to get enough people to agree with me to get politicians to vote for this or that. If I decide to break the deal I probably have to face the consequences. Those still within the contract may put me in jail or fine me or try to show me the error of my ways by some other means. In a different system it might work out completely different (Nazi Germany, Afghanistan )

I can only hope that enough people agree with me to not start exterminating people they don't like and so on or help me stop them if someone did elsewhere.

No no no no... That there is no objective moral law is an empirical observation about the world that I make (with which you may disagree and I suspect that you do ). It is not something I arbitrarily adopt. It is not a moral statement in itself. If that had been the case then it would have been nonsensical.

What I say is "There is no objective eternal standard outside of man but I would like to live in a society such and such, do you agree ?" and maybe we can go from there.

That you would like it for an objective standard to exist doesn't make it so. You need to put forth some evidence of this if you want me to agree on this. My observation of general history suggests that there is no such objective moral standard imprinted "on the conscience of man". The Christian moral project is as much in evolution as the next one.


I think my presuppositions are made clear here in this thread although it is a bit vague. What are yours ?

For the umpteenth time no. It is not my standards. I had nothing to do with the writing of the US constitution, amandments or decisions taken by the Supreme Court to establish what is and what is not constitutional. The US society has conventions and laws that are up for change too right ? They are not set in stone.

In the case of the hawaii PD oath I suggested that "live and let live" is applicable and that by this I mean a secular approach to the oath to have it not exclude anyone unecessarily. Like the court decided was constitutional

That this life here and now is the only one I get should make me more worried about the state of the world not less. With eternal bliss around the corner, why should I care what happens here on earth for a very insignificant amount of time ?

Do you want me to say that I think Hitler was a bad man ? I think Hitler was a bad man. Can I justify this objectively ? Not to my knowledge. Do you agree that Hitler was a bad man ? Good. So the next time someone like him comes along let us figure out a way to stop him.

For what its worth:There is actually atheists that believe in objective morals. I am not one of them. There might be something to it though as I am not to familiar with these ideas.

One question that I like you to answer for me. Who is the final authority on interpreting the morals in the Bible ? How do we verify this interpretation ?

I don't personally believe in a Creator but in equal rights and the right to  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that a good way to do this is to not force God on captive audiences, into national mottos or on national currency. But that is just me and part of the process of society is you and me disagreeing on this.

Bloop

Dear Crazyfingers,

Your entire everday life depends on objective truth. Your existence...your ability to breathe outside, to fly in an airplane, to watch the sun rise and set, depends on objective truth. There are absolutes we operate under.

As for moral objective truth, I cannot convince you or any other relativist who does not admit in the deepest recesses of your soul...in your bones...underneath all the earthly apologetics and rubble...there lies a piece of some bigger Truth. I can't convince you God exists. I can't convince you of the hopelessness of investing in earthly truths and ignoring (or not even exploring) the possibility of eternal truths. I don't care to "win an argument" concerning God.

I only questioned the presuppositions you do hold. May one day you understand the futility of investing only in Man's ideas of Truth. THe disappointment must be great...seeing as how you feel the best answer is "humans just muddle through." Many in early Rome thought the same thing until a certain Light dwelled among them to tell them different. And many, like yourself, still did not believe.

I can't make you believe anything. No one made me believe anything. My journey started by asking myself what do I truly believe, why, what is the source, and what is Truth? I could not honestly believe the source for truth, beauty and goodness was ultimately to be found in soley Man's definition. Just look around at Man.

Peace

Bloop,
It is impossible to discuss the entire context of the Bible on this forum. The objective fundamental truths I declare start with belief that a certain figure in history is who He said he was...He was Truth.

We can argue context/content/passages in the Bible all day and night. But
If you don't believe CHrist was who he said he was,first and foremost, nothing else makes sense. He makes it clear that you will not understand by external proof alone.
C.S. Lewis said it best: I believe in CHristianity as I believe that the sun has risen...not only because I see it, but because BY IT I see everything else."
You've pretty clearly stated your belief system. We don't agree. I can't argue with every relativist that comes along....I've already spent too much time here when I should be doing more productive things.

Peace....and I truly mean it.

Red herring. I only mentioned objective moral truth. 

As for moral objective truth, I cannot convince you or any other relativist who does not admit in the deepest recesses of your soul...in your bones...underneath all the earthly apologetics and rubble...there lies a piece of some bigger Truth. I can't convince you God exists. I can't convince you of the hopelessness of investing in earthly truths and ignoring (or not even exploring) the possibility of eternal truths. I don't care to "win an argument" concerning God.

Well, until you can demonstrate objectively the existence of a god, there will be no foundation for your objective moral truth.

I only questioned the presuppositions you do hold. May one day you understand the futility of investing only in Man's ideas of Truth.

And what other ideas are there?

THe disappointment must be great...seeing as how you feel the best answer is "humans just muddle through." Many in early Rome thought the same thing until a certain Light dwelled among them to tell them different. And many, like yourself, still did not believe.

Given that there seems to be no objective moral truth, what would you suggest?   Pretend that there is?

I can't make you believe anything. No one made me believe anything. My journey started by asking myself what do I truly believe, why, what is the source, and what is Truth? I could not honestly believe the source for truth, beauty and goodness was ultimately to be found in soley Man's definition. Just look around at Man.

Peace

I don't think that the solution is wishful thinking.  I agree with bloop. A society does come to a consensus on moral issues; not because they are true but because a society must if it is to function. These are entirely practical solutions but in no way objective.  What bloop described well and in detail is essentially what I described.  Ultimately, we have to muddle through.

Power! Might really makes right, in every practical regard.

__________________
Hier sitz´ich, forme Menschen
Nach meinem Bilde,
Ein Geschlecht, das mir gleich sei,
Zu leiden, zu weinen,
Zu genießen und zu freuen sich
Und dein nicht zu achten,
Wie ich!

(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Prometheus)

 

Ok, just one final note then. Since it is clear to us both (and crazyfingers) that we disagree on this and that we will get no further, it is time to draw our guns. By that I simply mean that we will fight this matter out via politics and/or lawsuits. crazyfingers might employ ACLU and you might bring along the Christian Coalition, we will go soulreaping elsewhere and try to win people over to our "side". All this part and parcel of this system I ascribe to.

Apart from that

Have a good one