Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zangi]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121057189

Here is the summary in one quote:

"The point is that for any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith." ~ Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence

Loyalty to one's faith over one's country, I believe is what I'm asking your opinions on.  A politicians reason for making decisions and forwarding or impeding policy.

What do you think about it?

[LegoLord]

Well, for the most part, there's no problem with that, so long as the individual doesn't try to do crazy things that violate the first amendment, like banning the consumption of cheeseburgers (that's in the same part of the Bible that's against homosexuality, curiously; "though shalt not eat the flesh of the calf with the milk of its mother" as they would say it in the 'ole days.  Even though I'm Christian, I don't believe any of those claims of abominations) or something like that with his religion as the sole justification.

Basically, as long as the faith-based goals agree with the constitution, and it has a practical purpose, it's alright with me.  But blue laws are bad.

[Jude]

It's inevitable unless you ban religious people from politics, period.

It's also not really a problem, legally speaking, because we have rule of law and the first amendment. Of course, if there are enough of these people, we get problems like them trying to force religious morals down everyone's throats as with gay marriage and so on, which the system doesn't seem to handle as well as it should.

[Sevrun]

Considering the country was based upon the religious values of it's founders, I don't see much of a problem with it.  Where I start to see problems are when people decide to attack people who choose to believe under the guise of political correctness.  I can't understand why people who have chosen not to believe in a religion seem to have this overwhelming drive to attempt to disfigure, corrupt, or even destroy religion.  The reason I mention it here is because I see them trying to use politics to do it.  I see it quite a bit, but what I don't see is the same radical assault going in the other direction.  i.e. against those who have chosen not to believe.

  I'm not a religious person in the slightest, but when someone sprays a dozen rounds at you from 10-15 feet away and hits _nothing_ ...  well believing there's nothing out there watching my furry backside is kinda difficult.  I tend to trust people who believe in something more than people who believe in nothing.  In my personal experience they tend to be more reliable.  A desirable trait in a politician... if you're silly enough to trust them.

[DJ]

I don't know, I think that most people touting religious values are just using them as a smokescreen.

[Jude]

I don't know, I think that most people touting religious values are just using them as a smokescreen.

if only...there are some real, genuine wackos in politics whose wackiness takes the form of religion. Whether the religion makes them wacky or whether wacky people incline towards fundamentalism is up for debate, I guess, but there's no question they're seriously off the wall.

[G-Flex]

Considering the country was based upon the religious values of it's founders

I don't know about this. A lot of it was secular 1700s-era philosophy. A lot of them were deists, but then again, deists tended to be pretty secular anyhow.

I can't understand why people who have chosen not to believe in a religion seem to have this overwhelming drive to attempt to disfigure, corrupt, or even destroy religion.

You're painting with extremely broad strokes there, and I take exception to that.

The reason I mention it here is because I see them trying to use politics to do it.  I see it quite a bit, but what I don't see is the same radical assault going in the other direction.  i.e. against those who have chosen not to believe.

You seriously don't? There are still some people who think Atheists and Satanists are the same thing, for crying out loud, and the fundamentalist Christian cross-section of the population are completely happy imposing their views on everybody even when it doesn't really make sense at all.

I'm aware that not every Christian is an evangelist or ignorant, and that not even every evangelist wants to force their views on others, but in my experience, they tend to care quite a bit about what other people do or don't believe, and there is an incredibly long history of prejudice (including institutional disfavor) in the US and other countries against non-Christians and the irreligious.

I tend to trust people who believe in something more than people who believe in nothing.  In my personal experience they tend to be more reliable.

I don't see how this can even possibly be the case, considering that most of them have viewpoints that are mutually contradictory.

[Wimdit]

Honestly, I think faith of any sort has no place in politics. It seems to me that making laws based on the tenets of a particular religion is, well, stupid. If your religion forbids something, then that's between you and it. Secular law has nothing to do with it, and a politician should never allow his faith to enter into his judgement.

To put it another way, if you don't want to have an abortion because you're Catholic, then fine. But don't try to get in the way of mine by changing the law; try converting people instead.

And Sevrun, uh, what G-Flex said.

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion: it just guarantees the freedom to believe what you like.

[Jude]

AMERICA'S FOUNDERS WERE MOSTLY NOT CHRISTIANS AND AMERICA IS NOT "FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN VALUES"

OK I just had to get that out there because it should be common knowledge that it isn't true but people still seem to say it quite a bit

@ Wimdit: The first amendment does a lot...it guarantees freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, and also says the simple line that government cannot establish any law respecting religion, or words very similar to that. Seems vague, but the upshot is that the government can't make laws which discriminate against or favor any religious group, at least not as such. That includes using public money to fund any religious activities, stopping people from practicing any aspect of their religion (unless that aspect breaks other laws, of course) and having religious rituals be part of public procedure (of course, people still swear on religious books, which really has no place in America).

It does NOT say that nobody can have religious values as the basis for their motivations in legislation; it just sets limits on how religion can influence law. If someone believes it is moral to ban abortion because they are a Christian, they can go ahead and challenge abortion on moral grounds, but any arguments based on Christianity won't be given any credence in court so they have to argue from something else.

it even applies to that one famous case where the Ten Commandments had to be removed fro ma courtroom because they are a religious symbol and had no place in a publicly funded institution of law. This is where religious fanatics start to confuse the ACLU with some group trying to destroy Christianity - the fundies can't distinguish between removing religious symbols from publicly run establishments, where they have no place, and removing religious symbols from any publicly accessible area, which obviously would be illegal.

[Sevrun]

I don't know, I think that most people touting religious values are just using them as a smokescreen.

if only...there are some real, genuine wackos in politics whose wackiness takes the form of religion. Whether the religion makes them wacky or whether wacky people incline towards fundamentalism is up for debate, I guess, but there's no question they're seriously off the wall.

You'll find them within religions and atheists.  Just look at how much crap the Catholic church has to put up with out in San Francisco. 

  G-flex, the founders were a collection of both religious and non-religious people who came to a fundamental understanding about what they all felt was best for the country they were trying to bring into being.  Any more there aren't many people who still hold that same belief in their hearts.  As far as painting with a broad stroke, I can only point out my observations.  As such I make no attempt to hold them up as the be all end all of the universe. 

[G-Flex]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

Take the issue with Creationism in public schools. "Intelligent Design" as a movement was pretty much explicitly designed to dress religious thought up in secular clothing, in order to slip in, under the radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people

This is an example of a creationism textbook that was introduced to public schools after literally the only thing done to it was basic search-and-replace, changing words like "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and "creationist" to "Intelligent Design proponent". Its inclusion was ruled unfit by the courts, since this demonstrates the that foundation of the text is religious in nature.

[kuro_suna]

As far as painting with a broad stroke, I can only point out my observations.

But aren't you using generalizations to attack people for making generalization?

[Jude]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

Take the issue with Creationism in public schools. "Intelligent Design" as a movement was pretty much explicitly designed to dress religious thought up in secular clothing, in order to slip in, under the radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people

This is an example of a creationism textbook that was introduced to public schools after literally the only thing done to it was basic search-and-replace, changing words like "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and "creationist" to "Intelligent Design proponent". Its inclusion was ruled unfit by the courts, since this demonstrates the that foundation of the text is religious in nature.

"Intelligent design" is an interesting case because it's a religious creed trying to masquerade as a non-religious one. In this case, the masquerade was so blatantly obvious that the courts could shoot it down, but I'm not sure what they'd be able to do if it were more subtle.

Hopefully, they'd just rule that ideas with scientific merit should be taught in schools, and ones without scientific merit would not; but creationists would still find ways around it, since there are plenty of them on school boards...

[Sevrun]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

Take the issue with Creationism in public schools. "Intelligent Design" as a movement was pretty much explicitly designed to dress religious thought up in secular clothing, in order to slip in, under the radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people

This is an example of a creationism textbook that was introduced to public schools after literally the only thing done to it was basic search-and-replace, changing words like "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and "creationist" to "Intelligent Design proponent". Its inclusion was ruled unfit by the courts, since this demonstrates the that foundation of the text is religious in nature.

  So they teach Darwin's theory of evolution as if it were a law of physical reality.  While I find it very likely, I also find it rather questionable that this happened purely by accident.  One type of life could indeed be an accident, but entire ecologies??  Calling all that an accidental fluke of reality sounds more like an excuse not to figure out what is driving things, and why...  or how.  but the last one is usually a little dangerous.

As far as painting with a broad stroke, I can only point out my observations.

But aren't you using generalizations to attack people for making generalization?

  I have no doubt that it would appear that way, but when I say I'm telling you what I've seen, I mean just that.  the people I have observed tend to act in that fashion.  I make no call for or against those I haven't observed. 

[G-Flex]

Also, as for the First Amendment, while I'm not particularly familiar with American law, I don't think it forbids the imposition of the values of a certain religion

It does, in the sense that you can't have laws respecting any particular religion. So really, any law that has religious reasoning behind it is unconstitutional, as is any law that favors one religion over another, or religion in general over no religion, or no religion over religion, or anything like that.

Take the issue with Creationism in public schools. "Intelligent Design" as a movement was pretty much explicitly designed to dress religious thought up in secular clothing, in order to slip in, under the radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people

This is an example of a creationism textbook that was introduced to public schools after literally the only thing done to it was basic search-and-replace, changing words like "creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and "creationist" to "Intelligent Design proponent". Its inclusion was ruled unfit by the courts, since this demonstrates the that foundation of the text is religious in nature.

  So they teach Darwin's theory of evolution as if it were a law of physical reality.  While I find it very likely, I also find it rather questionable that this happened purely by accident.  One type of life could indeed be an accident, but entire ecologies??  Calling all that an accidental fluke of reality sounds more like an excuse not to figure out what is driving things, and why...  or how.  but the last one is usually a little dangerous.

It's not as questionable as you think. It sounds questionable to you because you probably don't understand the mechanisms involved or how they interplay. If you know more about biology and how these ecologies manifest in the first place, it becomes fairly plain-as-day and obvious. Things like this don't just become accepted science on a whim, or overnight.

You sound like you're treating evolution as the random rolling of dice, without considering how processes like natural selection result in divergent organisms that play roles in an ecosystem.