- Jul 18, 2018
- 2,575
- 1,142
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Married
I can define God as the universe. Did I prove God is real? No. Do you see the similarity in your argument?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I can define God as the universe. Did I prove God is real? No. Do you see the similarity in your argument?That definition does not apply to some of the religions and is extremely vague. For example, Confucianism doesn't have anything to do with the service, worship of God or the supernatural.
Second, what does it mean to be devoted to the "religious faith or observance"?
I suppose many would say the Golden rule -- treat others the way you would have them treat you.
So then, even if we use your definition I would argue that for a Christian it is referring to the golden rule given by Jesus. For Jews it would refer to the "two greatest commandments" expounded on by Jesus.
I don't think that is fair to all religions but it doesn't matter to me. I was simply taking the more inclusive definition.
Besides, there is no conflict. If you ask me, a Bible believing Christian, if I should use my religious beliefs to inform my political decisions then what does that mean? Why wouldn't I refer to James and Jesus?
It isn't that black and white. Every political policy is sold on its benefits (cut taxes, law and order, help the poor, etc). But hidden in the bill is lots of pork, that is government corruption. Bridges to nowhere. I can be against the corruption and that can be portrayed as being against the poor.There are programs for the poor. That Republicans like to pull funding away. For greed. Conservative are part of this problem. They are free to go to church. But not force their moral laws on us. Catholics and other religions do charities. So they are free to do that all ready.
I was asked if I would use my religious beliefs to inform my political decisions.I can define God as the universe. Did I prove God is real? No. Do you see the similarity in your argument?
Because you definition would make me religious. I am not religious at all. According to you, anyone who wants to take care of orphans, widows, and fight corruption, is religious. That's unreasonable.I do not understand why you or anyone else is taking issue with that.
"Should religious belief inform public policy?" This is asking me if my religious belief should inform my public policy. If your religious belief is different from mine so be it.Because you definition would make me religious. I am not religious at all. According to you, anyone who wants to take care of orphans, widows, and fight corruption, is religious. That's unreasonable.
There is no "my" public policy--public policy affects everyone. I am not talking about your vote; this thread is about legislation and political power."Should religious belief inform public policy?" This is asking me if my religious belief should inform my public policy. If your religious belief is different from mine so be it.
This is the most idiotic thread I have ever seen.There is no "my" public policy--public policy affects everyone. I am not talking about your vote; this thread is about legislation and political power.
Individual voters can vote their religious beliefs without impediment. Religious people are welcomed to gather likeminded thinkers in public spaces--no problem. But lawmakers should not write legislation and cite their religious text as a reason why the whole state or country should be compelled by law to observe. The separation of church and state makes this clear, but some religious believers continue to advocate for Christian values in our laws. That's why this thread is not "idiotic," as you say.I can make my decisions based on my religious beliefs, part of my 1st amendment rights, but the elected officials who propose and pass the legislation can't? So you are requiring that we all be hypocrites?
So my religious belief, a Christian definition, and one that could reasonably be expected to be shared by other legislators is to fight corruption. So you are saying that a candidate is should not campaign on that issue?Individual voters can vote their religious beliefs without impediment. Religious people are welcomed to gather likeminded thinkers in public spaces--no problem. But lawmakers should not write legislation and cite their religious text as a reason why the whole state or country should be compelled by law to observe. The separation of church and state makes this clear, but some religious believers continue to advocate for Christian values in our laws. That's why this thread is not "idiotic," as you say.
Fighting corruption and providing "for the general welfare..." are not Christian issues--they are human issues. I am taking about specific things in the biblical text that are (mostly) unique to religion.So my religious belief, a Christian definition, and one that could reasonably be expected to be shared by other legislators is to fight corruption. So you are saying that a candidate is should not campaign on that issue?
Another religious belief I and other Christians share is to care for widows and orphans. So if we pass a policy that benefits orphans and widows we shouldn't say that? Because something about the church?
My religious belief, defined by the NT, says nothing about the church. Why would the separation of church and state have anything to do with it? Actually, I see this policy of "separation of church and state" to be part of my religious belief, to fight corruption.
That might work in a free market, but not all businesses operate in a free market. I don't care if the guy running the store down at the corner hates my race or not. All I want from him is to sell me the goods in a civil manner.
The superficial level of external regulation may create a veneer of justice and equality, but IMO people still hold on to their deep down beliefs and unfortunately act on them in more subtle ways that aren't often overtly seen.my point was that the Civil Rights Act is a good thing because it ensures that racists engaged in serving the public must not discriminate. They can have all the little racist and underdeveloped thoughts they want floating around in their head; but they cannot act on them when engaged in business.
Then I don't see a point in discussing it. I am talking about present and historical realities; you are conceiving a thing that has not happened and shows no evidence of happening.What I suggested was never really put into practice in the USA.
I am okay with that. That's the best we can do.The superficial level of external regulation may create a veneer of justice and equality, but IMO people still hold on to their deep down beliefs and unfortunately act on them in more subtle ways that aren't often overtly seen.
So you blame Lincoln when he said "a house divided cannot stand". The people who made the liberty bell also violated this commandment of yours when they put the verse on the bell. They need to take the oath of office with their hand on the Bible so long as they don't actually open it up and read it. George Washington obviously did not subscribe to your laws: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.” – George WashingtonFighting corruption and providing "for the general welfare..." are not Christian issues--they are human issues. I am taking about specific things in the biblical text that are (mostly) unique to religion.
But even so, no political argument should be made by quoting scripture or by saying "God told me..." Policy that affects a pluralistic society should be made on secular grounds alone. Your personal reasons for how you vote, raise your kids, or conduct your personal life are yours--no one should interfere with your genuinely held beliefs (assuming they are not harmful).
Me neither, that's why education and empathy are so important. We have to live in reality after all. Until we reach some far-fetched utopia, we must be satisfied with incremental progress. There is no other valid alternative.I'm not okay with a superficial image of justice and equality. I don't want food servers to be compelled to serve me with a fake smile on their face - perhaps after spitting in my food where nobody could see them.
So the dictionary defines my religious beliefs? Awfully arrogant of you. How very hypocritical of you, on one hand you cry about Christians trying to define your religious beliefs and on the other you impose your definition of religious beliefs on Christians.Buy a dictionary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?