Poll: Religion out of Politics?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

By campaigning, I mean setting forth their intended agenda for legislation.

I disagree with the notion that the Constitution hasn't been abriged with some of this stuff.

Assisted suicide is one example, in 35 states it is a crime. Defined as a crime based on moral principles, i.e. the notion that your body belongs to God and not to you. That is the objection, whether stated or unstated.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said, there is a difference between campaigning and legislating. But if you want to split hairs, what is the moral difference in laws that say a person's body is not their own or laws that say a person's property is not their own? Answer: none. The similarity in agenda is what leads you to argue on the false logic that 2 wrongs make a right.

Property laws are not derived from religious moral principles, assisted suicide laws are. That's the difference.

Edit - I'm going home for the night, goodnight gentlemen.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

By campaigning, I mean setting forth their intended agenda for legislation.

I disagree with the notion that the Constitution hasn't been abriged with some of this stuff.

Assisted suicide is one example, in 35 states it is a crime. Defined as a crime based on moral principles, i.e. the notion that your body belongs to God and not to you. That is the objection, whether stated or unstated.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said, there is a difference between campaigning and legislating. But if you want to split hairs, what is the moral difference in laws that say a person's body is not their own or laws that say a person's property is not their own? Answer: none. The similarity in agenda is what leads you to argue on the false logic that 2 wrongs make a right.

Property laws are not derived from religious moral principles, assisted suicide laws are. That's the difference.

And now you prove that you have no reading comprehension!

Property laws not derived from religious moral principles guarantee a person the right to his property. Property laws derived from religious moral principles are those which think Robin Hood was right. After all, what is religion morality but the belief that you know what's better for other people than they do?
I think your lack of comprehension here comes from the obvious fact that you think that "religious" means only fundamentalist christian.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

By campaigning, I mean setting forth their intended agenda for legislation.

I disagree with the notion that the Constitution hasn't been abriged with some of this stuff.

Assisted suicide is one example, in 35 states it is a crime. Defined as a crime based on moral principles, i.e. the notion that your body belongs to God and not to you. That is the objection, whether stated or unstated.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said, there is a difference between campaigning and legislating. But if you want to split hairs, what is the moral difference in laws that say a person's body is not their own or laws that say a person's property is not their own? Answer: none. The similarity in agenda is what leads you to argue on the false logic that 2 wrongs make a right.

Property laws are not derived from religious moral principles, assisted suicide laws are. That's the difference.

Edit - I'm going home for the night, goodnight gentlemen.

I see assisted suicide laws as a public safety issue.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I see assisted suicide laws as a public safety issue.

Just like the amount of water in our toilets is a subject of the regulation of commerce clause.

 

[Im With Stupid]

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

It's nothing to do with denying the right to speak about your political beliefs. It's just about making sure that it's done in a religious debate, not a political debate. Take a political discussion about abortion, for example. Whether you believe it is wrong or acceptable, and how you came to that decision, is irrelevant. A political discussion should have no judgements on morality, it should just have problems, proposed solutions, and predicted effects of the solutions proposed. It's then up to the public to decide whether they are convinced on a moral (religious) level that the changes the politician is trying to make are desirable. This should be a personal thing, not influenced by any religious argument made by the politicians, because it isn't their place to do so. They are paid to discuss politics, not morals and religion. And it is also up to the public also to decide whether the political arguments put forth by the politicians are feasable, and the predicted effects of their actions are likely.

And that's what I'm arguing. Not for some sort of ban on politicians expressing their political beliefs, just a bit of common sense (a lot to ask of politicians, I know) on their part to know that when they are talking politics, politics is all that is relevant, and that their campaigns should be based on political arguments, rather than religious ones.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

For those that are more than interested on the issuse of abortion, check out this.

The last abortion clinic

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

Your grandpa was either ignorant or a liar. Do some research. Abortions were performed in clinics, just kept discreet.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Poll: Religion out of Politics?

My Vote: Yes.
Reason: If I see another religious guy on any news station about "God" and his ways with homosexuality, etc.. Im going to SNAP!

Curious to see who disagrees and why.

Theres no "indifferent" option.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

Your grandpa was either ignorant or a liar. Do some research. Abortions were performed in clinics, just kept discreet.

A brief history of the abortion controversy in the United States

By 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.

Who's the ignorant one? Could you repeat that?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

Your grandpa was either ignorant or a liar. Do some research. Abortions were performed in clinics, just kept discreet.

A brief history of the abortion controversy in the United States

By 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.

Who's the ignorant one? Could you repeat that?

Wow. I guess you. Text

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

Your grandpa was either ignorant or a liar. Do some research. Abortions were performed in clinics, just kept discreet.

A brief history of the abortion controversy in the United States

By 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.

Who's the ignorant one? Could you repeat that?

Wow. I guess you. Text

I don't know, Tab seems a little better off on this one than you do. He simply claimed that women went to Mexico often time, which is 100% accurate. You called him ignorant and said they were done in clinics. While that it true, Tab's response is also accurate, so why did you call him ignorant? As a matter of fact, the abortion industry boomed in Mexico around that time. Only those who could afford the abortion went to a clinic, and even then, they had to find a clinic that would perform it.

I see both of you being correct in where abortions were performed, but you are obviously wrong in calling Tab ignorant.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

Your grandpa was either ignorant or a liar. Do some research. Abortions were performed in clinics, just kept discreet.

A brief history of the abortion controversy in the United States

By 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.

Who's the ignorant one? Could you repeat that?

Wow. I guess you. Text

I don't know, Tab seems a little better off on this one than you do. He simply claimed that women went to Mexico often time, which is 100% accurate. You called him ignorant and said they were done in clinics. While that it true, Tab's response is also accurate, so why did you call him ignorant? As a matter of fact, the abortion industry boomed in Mexico around that time. Only those who could afford the abortion went to a clinic, and even then, they had to find a clinic that would perform it.

I see both of you being correct in where abortions were performed, but you are obviously wrong in calling Tab ignorant.

LOL. That was a great post I'll concede tab is not ignorant.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.

Quotations please. The Founding Fathers to my knowledge never took a position on abortion, and there is no mention of it in the DoI (which is not law BTW) or the Constitution, which means that under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the issue.

I think you misread my statement. The "or" is a separator. I have no knowledge of founding fathers' views on abortion, if any.

And I agree with you completely. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court invented a right for women which does not exist, and which denies the legitimate rights of the unborn. The goverment should have never been involved, as things were fine before it.

They clearly didn't have any. Regarding their "religious words," I strongly suggest that you read the Jefferson Bible.

Roe vs. Wade did not invent any rights. The federal government has no constitutional authority over abortion period. The unborn have no constitutional rights period. And things definitely were not "fine" before Roe vs. Wade.

I remember discussing abortion with my grandfather. He told me that women would sometimes take "vacations" down in Mexico, sometimes they would not come back.

Your grandpa was either ignorant or a liar. Do some research. Abortions were performed in clinics, just kept discreet.

A brief history of the abortion controversy in the United States

By 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.

Who's the ignorant one? Could you repeat that?

Wow. I guess you. Text

This link proves what exactly?

 

[Coldkilla]

To remove Religion from Politics, that means removing anybody who is religious from politics.

*Sigh* Some people these days..

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

By campaigning, I mean setting forth their intended agenda for legislation.

I disagree with the notion that the Constitution hasn't been abriged with some of this stuff.

Assisted suicide is one example, in 35 states it is a crime. Defined as a crime based on moral principles, i.e. the notion that your body belongs to God and not to you. That is the objection, whether stated or unstated.

A secular state could easily say that assisted suicide is illegal because your body belongs to the state. Society clothed you, fed you, educated you, invested in you, and now you belong to society.

I just made an argument against suicide with no basis in religion. The problem isn't religion, it's government having too much power of citizens lives.

 

[TravisT]

I voted No. Not becuase I think we should force a religion on anyone. I'm not going to vote for everyone in America to have to attend a protestant church each week. And i'm not going to ban other religions from our country. But I do believe morals are defined by your beliefs and religion. We should be able to pass along what we feel is right and what is wrong, and we have a right to, when it comes to the voting booths.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Im With Stupid

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

It's nothing to do with denying the right to speak about your political beliefs. It's just about making sure that it's done in a religious debate, not a political debate. Take a political discussion about abortion, for example. Whether you believe it is wrong or acceptable, and how you came to that decision, is irrelevant. A political discussion should have no judgements on morality, it should just have problems, proposed solutions, and predicted effects of the solutions proposed. It's then up to the public to decide whether they are convinced on a moral (religious) level that the changes the politician is trying to make are desirable. This should be a personal thing, not influenced by any religious argument made by the politicians, because it isn't their place to do so. They are paid to discuss politics, not morals and religion. And it is also up to the public also to decide whether the political arguments put forth by the politicians are feasable, and the predicted effects of their actions are likely.

And that's what I'm arguing. Not for some sort of ban on politicians expressing their political beliefs, just a bit of common sense (a lot to ask of politicians, I know) on their part to know that when they are talking politics, politics is all that is relevant, and that their campaigns should be based on political arguments, rather than religious ones.

Common sense is a lot to ask of anyone, not just politicians. Your post here proves it. For example, are laws against murder political or moral in origin? If your fantasy law here should be enacted, shall we repeal the laws against murder because they are morally based? Next, please define these "common sense" differences between political beliefs and religious beliefs. What if one's political beliefs involve morality and giving to the poor? Are those not also religious beliefs?

The fact of the matter is you're yet another young and stupid idealist with a chip on his shoulder who would take away his own rights to spite the rights of those you don't like.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Im With Stupid

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

It's nothing to do with denying the right to speak about your political beliefs. It's just about making sure that it's done in a religious debate, not a political debate. Take a political discussion about abortion, for example. Whether you believe it is wrong or acceptable, and how you came to that decision, is irrelevant. A political discussion should have no judgements on morality, it should just have problems, proposed solutions, and predicted effects of the solutions proposed. It's then up to the public to decide whether they are convinced on a moral (religious) level that the changes the politician is trying to make are desirable. This should be a personal thing, not influenced by any religious argument made by the politicians, because it isn't their place to do so. They are paid to discuss politics, not morals and religion. And it is also up to the public also to decide whether the political arguments put forth by the politicians are feasable, and the predicted effects of their actions are likely.

And that's what I'm arguing. Not for some sort of ban on politicians expressing their political beliefs, just a bit of common sense (a lot to ask of politicians, I know) on their part to know that when they are talking politics, politics is all that is relevant, and that their campaigns should be based on political arguments, rather than religious ones.

Common sense is a lot to ask of anyone, not just politicians. Your post here proves it. For example, are laws against murder political or moral in origin? If your fantasy law here should be enacted, shall we repeal the laws against murder because they are morally based? Next, please define these "common sense" differences between political beliefs and religious beliefs. What if one's political beliefs involve morality and giving to the poor? Are those not also religious beliefs?

The fact of the matter is you're yet another young and stupid idealist with a chip on his shoulder who would take away his own rights to spite the rights of those you don't like.

I thought he was ok with any belief you wanted to hold so long as you argued it in a political sphere politically and not, for example, because the Bible says so. You can argue that it's good to take care of the poor, not because Jesus says you should, but because it's good to teach people how to fish so they can take care of themselves and not burden others with their need.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought he was ok with any belief you wanted to hold so long as you argued it in a political sphere politically and not, for example, because the Bible says so. You can argue that it's good to take care of the poor, not because Jesus says you should, but because it's good to teach people how to fish so they can take care of themselves and not burden others with their need.

On the other hand, a purely atheistic viewpoint might be to ignore those in need, it's natural selection at work.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought he was ok with any belief you wanted to hold so long as you argued it in a political sphere politically and not, for example, because the Bible says so. You can argue that it's good to take care of the poor, not because Jesus says you should, but because it's good to teach people how to fish so they can take care of themselves and not burden others with their need.

On the other hand, a purely atheistic viewpoint might be to ignore those in need, it's natural selection at work.

There is no greater evolutionary advantage than that given to creatures with empathy. The empathic creature saves his brother's ass because his brother's ass will turn around and save him. The psychotic says, 'that ain't my bro.' because he has disassociated from his feelings.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corbett
I find it amusing that Christians are supposed to ignore the very guidelines by which they live when discussing politics.

You guys call it their "personal life".

Well sorry to break the news to you but when you vote for a person you vote for what they believe in

OK, lets say Catholics make me Pope.

I run for President and get elected.

According to you everyone in the U.S. now instantly believes everything I believe in.

So this explains it, Bush is the U.S. version of The Pope.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I thought he was ok with any belief you wanted to hold so long as you argued it in a political sphere politically and not, for example, because the Bible says so. You can argue that it's good to take care of the poor, not because Jesus says you should, but because it's good to teach people how to fish so they can take care of themselves and not burden others with their need.

On the other hand, a purely atheistic viewpoint might be to ignore those in need, it's natural selection at work.

There is no greater evolutionary advantage than that given to creatures with empathy. The empathic creature saves his brother's ass because his brother's ass will turn around and save him. The psychotic says, 'that ain't my bro.' because he has disassociated from his feelings.

Not so. The very concept of "goodness" has been a major controversy to evolutionary scientists for decades. At best, the only theory they have been able to agree to (as you pointed out) is that altruism is actually indirect self-interest, i.e. "I'll scratch my brother's back because he'll scratch mine." Being able to work with others is evolutionarily beneficial, but I would not argue that there is "no greater evolutionary advantage." The ability to survive long enough to propagate one's genetic code is the greatest evolutionary advantage.

This whole argument is tedious because:
- The concept of "religion" is not constrained solely to Christianity and the Christian Bible.
- Freedom is universal. A freedom denied to one is a freedom denied to all.
- Our laws rightly protect freedom of expression (the 1st Amendment), and such protection should not be removed. A law forbidding candidated and politicians to hold religious views would be a direct assault on the 1st Amendment.
- The process of democracy already does what some short-sighted people think that a law is required for. Elected politicians represent the views of those who elected them.


You should take your own advice about being empathetic with your brothers. There is no greater selfishness than insisting that the world mold itself into your ideal.