Nadler derides God...

SkyWriting said:

Again, no religion can be used as an argument in secular government proceedings.
The Church of England is the reason for this distinction.

Click to expand...

I am asking a question and you have not answered it. My question is 'What moral view can be used as an argument in secular government proceedings?". As secular government makes laws based upon a moral viewpoint of some kind as to what is beneficial and what is malevolent, I need to know what moral view can be used as an argument in secular government proceedings. You have already stated your claim that religious moral views cannot be used I don't need you to repeat that. What I need you to do is tell me which moral views are in your opinion acceptable in arguing within secular government proceedings.

What moral view can be used as an argument in secular government proceedings?

Click to expand...

Christians see this as an example of natural law, as St. Paul mentioned it:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

But whatever the reason is, I notice that atheists and agnostics clearly do have moral codes. So moot point.

grasping the after wind said:

Did you misread the question?

Click to expand...

I thought you were asking what moral view can be used in secular government proceedings. What did you mean to ask?

SkyWriting said:

The golden rule may be used as a personal moral ideal as long as no attempt is made to justify it based on a specific religion.

Click to expand...

How did you determine that it was acceptable? Your chart seems to indicate it is a religious idea. 13 religions are cited and no non religions.

The Barbarian said:

Christians see this as an example of natural law, as St. Paul mentioned it:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

But whatever the reason is, I notice that atheists and agnostics clearly do have moral codes. So moot point.



I thought you were asking what moral view can be used in secular government proceedings. What did you mean to ask?

Click to expand...

That is what i meant to ask . You did not provide me with an answer. You mentioned that atheists and agnostics have moral codes but did not tell me which moral views are acceptable in arguments in government proceedings. Unless you meant to tell me that atheist and agnostic moral arguments are acceptable and not other moral views are acceptable. Is that what you meant?

Hammster said:

Well, I’m not talking about establishing a religion.

Click to expand...

Supreme Court has ruled on that. Yes, any such injection of religion into government is establishment in the intent of the founders. Would you like me to show you what they wrote about it?

So your point is moot.

Click to expand...

Would have been if we didn't have those documents.

grasping the after wind said:

How did you determine that it was acceptable? Your chart seems to indicate it is a religious idea. 13 religions are cited and no non religions.

Click to expand...

As St.Paul noted, morality and the law are seen by all men, even gentiles. It's nature, as Paul put it. Not only a religious idea; it's given to all humans as part of our nature.

God's universal standard of right and wrong is rooted in our human nature and knowable through reason and a well-formed conscience.
Mosaic

That’s when Democrat leader Jerry Nadler jumped in, “Mr. Steube when any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will has no concern of this Congress.”
"God's Will is No Concern of This Congress" - Top Democrat Nadler Derides God (VIDEO)

He didn't disparage God, just some people who ascribe things as God's will. Isn't telling the truth, part of God's will? If so, those guys come up short, don't they?

Shame on them.

Hammster said:

God law in reporting, but not in US law?

Click to expand...

Shame on them for misrepresenting what Nadler said. I understand why they wanted to do it, but it's still dishonest, and an insult to God, to lie about such things.

grasping the after wind said:

That is what i meant to ask . You did not provide me with an answer.

Click to expand...

Several answers, trying to clarify for you.

You mentioned that atheists and agnostics have moral codes but did not tell me which moral views are acceptable in arguments in government proceedings.

Click to expand...

Government cannot establish religious doctrines. However, as you see, a lot of things that religious people believe are really based on natural law, which all humans understand. So those moral codes can be written into law, primarily because they have a practical effect of making people free and secure. But only as they have a useful function for the society, not to make us behave morally.

Unless you meant to tell me that atheist and agnostic moral arguments are acceptable and not other moral views are acceptable. Is that what you meant?

Click to expand...

See above. Religious doctrines can not be established in law. It is not the function of law to make us good, or even to make us behave morally. It is the function of law to protect us from others who might harm or oppress us, and to promote the general welfare; in a free society, morals matter only in the sense of justice, not goodness, which is between man and God, not man and government.

SkyWriting said:

Again, no religion can be used as an argument in secular government proceedings.

Click to expand...

That's the way it should be. We live in a country where the freedom of religion is one of the esteemed founding cornerstones of our nation and it's a valued freedom. It should be protected and preserved.

The government (federal, state, local) should not endorse and promote specific one religion over all the other religions practiced in our country, and that includes Christianity. Moreover, Christians and other groups of religious people shouldn't be given precedential treatment by the government either.

That’s when Democrat leader Jerry Nadler jumped in, “Mr. Steube when any religious tradition ascribes as God’s will has no concern of this Congress.”

He didn't disparage God, just some people who ascribe things as God's will. Isn't telling the truth, part of God's will? If so, those guys come up short, don't they?

Shame on them.

Shame on them for misrepresenting what Nadler said. I understand why they wanted to do it, but it's still dishonest, and an insult to God, to lie about such things.

Hammster said:

So God’s law is good in reporting, but not in US law?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could rephrase that in English? What does that have to do with the guy who lied about what Nadler said?

Hammster said:

Except when men say that murdering babies in the womb is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Or say that black people shouldn't have the right to vote. Or say that if you lose an election, you should get up a mob to steal it. Or any of a lot of other unjust things humans do.

Hammster said:

Show me where they said that we can’t use the ultimate standard of morality to create laws.

Click to expand...

First Amendment says "no establishment of religion." Amendment XIV puts the same limits on state governments. And of course, every religion claims that they have the "ultimate standard of morality." The Founders fixed that by simply banning any establishment of religion at all.

Guinan said:

That's the way it should be. We live in a country where the freedom of religion is one of the esteemed founding cornerstones of our nation and it's a valued freedom. It should be protected and preserved.The government (federal, state, local) should not endorse and promote specific one religion over all the other religions practiced in our country, and that includes Christianity. Moreover, Christians and other groups of religious people shouldn't be given precedential treatment by the government either.

Click to expand...

No other religion based government has been able to be as unbiased
regarding religion.

Hammster said:

God says differently.

Click to expand...

I can partially back that statement.

1 Peter 2:13-17
2 Peter 2:10
Titus 3
1 Timothy 2
Psalms 22:28
Daniel 2:20-21
Romans 13
Deuteronomy 16:18-20
Revelation 1
Romans 13
Proverbs 21
John 19:11
Mark 3:24
Proverbs 29
Proverbs 8:15
Psalms 94:20
Deuteronomy 28
Daniel 2:21
John 19:10-11
Jude 1:8
Colossians 1:15-17
Ecclesiastes 10:20
Acts 8:32
Acts 23:5
Matthew 10:38

Exodus 22:28
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

grasping the after wind said:

What I need you to do is tell me which moral views are in your opinion acceptable in arguing within secular government proceedings.

Click to expand...

Any. Any moral views.