Religion and Politics

[CyniQ]

What role should religion and religious ideals have in legislation and politics?

It may be more difficult to answer than you think. How do you feel about legislation regarding gay marriage? Depictions of religious icons such as the 10 commandments or Moses in government buildings. Do you believe that morality can or should be legislated?

 

[Grizzly]

Absolutely none whatsoever. No, morality should not be legislated. Who I fuck or what I smoke is none of your goddamend business.

 

[CyniQ]

Absolutely none whatsoever. No, morality should not be legislated. Who I fuck or what I smoke is none of your goddamend business.

Okay. But is it that simple? Many kinds of things are (or are made to be) religious issues. Abortion, Family/Adoption, Marriage, Censorship, Education, and any number of other things. Many people claim to believe in a separation of church and state. Then others claim that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution and that the founding fathers had no intention of separating religion and government.

I believe the latter to be true. The founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution were deeply religious men who believed that God had a hand in everything that they were doing. They believed that they were building a nation that would be blessed by God. They were opposed only to a "Church-State" in which the Government and Church would be one. It is highly unlikely that they would disaprove of legislation of moral issues.

 

[Grizzly]

I'm pretty sure the most of them were Deists.

Really simple solution. Propose a law. Evaluate it on its merit and its merit ALONE. God, Jesus, Ali Baba, Woden, Zeus or anyone else's supposed stance on the matter is completely irrelevant. If you can not support your argument with legitimate arguments, then, obviously, your law sucks ass.

 

[J DUB]

If you can not support your argument with legitimate arguments, then, obviously, your law sucks ass.

Excellent way of saying it. It is so easy to say something is immoral because it is in the Bible or something stupid like that, but how about having a good, logical round-table discussion about the issue and see if it really makes sense or not. Our laws should never have a religious basis for their existance.

 

[CyniQ]

Our laws should never have a religious basis for their existance.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Virtually every law we have has some sort of religious basis. Everything you know about right and wrong is based on the Bible.

Grizz. Diests!!! Where do you get that??
I understand that some people believe that many of the founding fathers abandoned traditional religious ideals for a more "enlightened" European (Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire) kind of philosophy.

But there is an enormous amount of evidence in their speeches and letters that they believed strongly in Scripture and in Christian ideals.

George Washington is quoted as saying "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." He also famously prayed publicly at Valley Forge. (There is a pretty solid arguement against this. If you know it then we can discuss that as well.)

James Madison the "father of the constitution" is oft quoted by THE LIKES OF YOU as skeptically questioning the motives of the Clergy. And exposing the pride and indolence of them while speaking openly of the common superstitions held by the laity. I could do much the same. Many Christians, like Garyzilla for example, don't hold me in very high regard because I hold some of the same beliefs. I have my own contempt for organized religion. Does that make me any less spiritual?

 

[Grizzly]

That is absolutely ridiculous. Virtually every law we have has some sort of religious basis. Everything you know about right and wrong is based on the Bible.

Are you participating in a similar discussion on another board? Is your real name Keith? I don't think so because he's a dick and you're just stupid. LMAO!

Are you kidding me? Based on....the Bible?!?! It's much easier to argue that the Bible is based on pre-existing notions of right/wrong and laws than it is to argue the reverse. How many hundreds of years did Plato, Aristotle, Socratese or any thousand different non-christian, non-bible based religions/moral codes/legal systmes exist before the Bible was even a twinkle in some peyote eating hippie's eye?

Can you recall a moral system or religion that was widely practiced that advocated theft or murder? No? Probably because no such thing ever existed and the Bible is no more revolutionary than re-inventing the wheel.

I got the deist thing from 15 different history classes. As far as I recall, aside from fighting in the war, Washington had nothing to do with the creation of the gov't, so he's a non-issue. The Deist thing I have most commonly heard ascribed to Franklin and Jefferson.

 

[Grizzly]

What happens if a Muslim takes office? Can he use the Koran as a means to justify the killing of all the infidels in America because his religion says to do so? One can use both the Koran and the Bible to justify to subjugation of women. One can use the Bible to justify the killing or discriminating against homos. One can use religious scripture to justify stoning to death those whom are unfaithful in their marriage.

Is any of this even remotely reasonable behavior for a "civilized" society?

 

[Grizzly]

Oh wait! I just thought about it. People HAVE used religion to justify doing those things as recently as yesterday and we, as "enlightened", 21st century Americans laugh at the folly of those individuals. We consider them uneducated, unenlightened, koopa troopas that are laughable individuals.

 

[CyniQ]

Though I'm not sure if it is known for certain. I think Plato was born in 429, Aristotle in 384, and Socrates in 470. The Bible, on the other hand, dates back to about 1513 BCE. The oldest dated Biblical manuscripts date back to just before 300 BCE. The earliest known Platonic manuscripts date back to 900 AD. In case you're as good at math as you are at philosophic interpretation, that's about 1200 years (you started it, you called me stupid ).

I'm familiar with the arguements that Franklin was a Deist. In point of fact he said himself that he was. This is VERY open to debate though. Franklin said a great many things (even late in life) that contest this point of view. I think it is quite probable that what HE considered Deism and what WE consider Deism are very different. I think he meant that he was nondenominational. He prayed to God, believed in the immortality of his soul, that good deeds would be rewarded and evil deeds punished in the afterlife (concepts that I don't believe in personally). IF you read his Autobiography, it's obvious that he was very "religious" or spiritual and believed that God directed things on earth according to his will. I can provide direct quotes if I must, but you can take my word for it.

As for a Muslim taking office???

Now we're getting somewhere. The concept that religion has any place in politics is absurd. So many "Christians" in this country believe that their beliefs and morals should appear in legislation. Funny to me that Jesus himself would have never approved of such actions. Most Republican candidates are elected based on very social platforms. "I go to church and hate abortion. Vote for me." Who the hell cares? Abortion legislation isn't going anywhere. On the national level, Politicians focus more on economic issues than anything else, because that's where the money is (haha). Religious people especially should be against religion in politics. The only way we can be assured of our freedom of religion is if the church and the state remain very separate.

 

[CyniQ]

what are "koopa troops"??

 

[Grizzly]

Koopa troopas are those little turtles from Mario Brothers.

 

[Grizzly]

427-347BCE according to my google search was the lifetime of Plato. Though the Old Testament might be older than Plato, that is the Torah not the Bible. The Bible was written in the CE. Plato is older than the Bible. Druidism is older than the Bible. Brehonic law is older than the Bible(that's the laws of the Celts under the Brehon tradition). But I'm getting slightly off point with those last two. Plato is older than the Bible, bitch!

On top of that, it is completely reasonable to argue that the god of the OT is someone completely different than that of the NT which then completely negates using the OT as an example of older than Plato.

Of course, I guess the ten commandments are OT shit though.

 

[CyniQ]

427-347BCE according to my google search was the lifetime of Plato. Though the Old Testament might be older than Plato, that is the Torah not the Bible. The Bible was written in the CE. Plato is older than the Bible. Druidism is older than the Bible. Brehonic law is older than the Bible(that's the laws of the Celts under the Brehon tradition). But I'm getting slightly off point with those last two. Plato is older than the Bible, bitch!

On top of that, it is completely reasonable to argue that the god of the OT is someone completely different than that of the NT which then completely negates using the OT as an example of older than Plato.

Of course, I guess the ten commandments are OT shit though.

Holy Shit. You're joking right? You've lost this one, you realize it, and you're fucking with me. Right??

The definition of "Bible" according to dictionary.com.

1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.

The "Bible" consists of 66 books. Both old and new testament. The NT (or sacrifice of Christ) does not in any way negate the OT, only the official Mosaic Law.

And it is NOT in ANY way reasonable to argue that the God of the OT is in ANY way different from the God of the NT. The concept is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to pursue explaining why...

The Bible is older than Plato. The Bible IS THE authority on what we consider to be right and wrong. As far as I know, the Bible is the oldest religious text known to man.

 

[CyniQ]

BTW the term "Torah" refers to the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Not the entire OT.

And the Druids had no official religious texts. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. They believed that is was sacriligious to put such holy things in writing. Since they were the Ruling Religious class of the Celts, the Brehonic laws were unwritten as well. The Celtic traditions date back to approximately the time of Plato. So, the Bible is older than the Oral traditions of the Celts and Druids as well. Since they never wrote down their beliefs and religious traditions, what we think we know of their religion is mainly suppostition.

 

[Grizzly]

And it is NOT in ANY way reasonable to argue that the God of the OT is in ANY way different from the God of the NT. The concept is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to pursue explaining why....

I guess he must have undergone a serious change of heart and personality between the two texts, then.

 

[Grizzly]

And the bible sure as fuck is not the "authority on right and wrong". Fact of the matter is people lived for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the INVENTION of Christianity and their societies and social mores reflected those we hold today. Thus, it didn't take the Bible to tell us what is right and wrong because it had already been established on however many continents by however many societies long, long, long, long, long, long, long before Christianity even existed.

 

[CyniQ]

And the bible sure as fuck is not the "authority on right and wrong". Fact of the matter is people lived for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the INVENTION of Christianity and their societies and social mores reflected those we hold today. Thus, it didn't take the Bible to tell us what is right and wrong because it had already been established on however many continents by however many societies long, long, long, long, long, long, long before Christianity even existed.

I don't necessarily consider the birth (or death) of Christ as the begining of Christianity.

Through my personal study of the Bible I have found that it has a common theme that runs throughout. In a basic form this theme is found in Genesis 3:15, which is, ahem, OT. It is the vindication of God's right to rule mankind and the realization of his purpose by means of his Kingdom (I typed that while my eyes rolled back in my head and I entered a trancelike state. Must have something to do with all that brain-washing ). The Bible never waivers from this theme. 2 Tim 3:16 which is, ahem, NT, says that ALL scripture is inspired by God and beneficial. The only thing that really changed was the Mosaic Law (as I said before). Christ was the end of that law covenant and the begining of a new one.

So everything that occured (scripturally) before Christ was leading up to his birth, ministry, and death. There was no "change of heart" or personality. I can assure you that the Bible does not contradict itself on any fundamental level.

 

[Grizzly]

I didn't say he contradicted himself. I said that god has two distinct personalities clearly divided between OT and NT. In the former he is a fire and brimstone, do what I say or I turn you into a pillar of salt or drown you with a torrential downpour and in the latter he's a fucking hippie. Two distinct gods. I am certainly not the first person to come up with this line of thought. In fact, it was brought to my attention whilst attending a lecture on something or another in the ol' college.

 

[CyniQ]

I didn't say it contradicted himself. I said that god has two distinct personalities clearly divided between OT and NT. In the former he is a fire and brimstone, do what I say or I turn you into a pillar or salt or drown with a torrential downpour and in the latter he's a fucking hippie. Two distinct gods. I am certainly not the first person to come up with this line of thought. In fact, it was brought to my attention whilst attending a lecture on something or another in the ol' college.

No. You're not the first person to pursue that type of reasoning. Many people, especially the so-called "intellectuals" you may find at a university, seem desparate to discredit the Bible. Even though we disagree on a number of issues, I hope that you regard me as reasonable. I believe that I am. I look at the Bible from a very secular point of view. I believe in logic and order and reason, WHEREVER I find them, even if it is in the Bible.

My previous arguement covers the difference you speak of. JESUS' birth, and more importantly, his death are what makes things different between the NT and OT.

I'll post more later. Gotta go.