crusader1234 Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 "Render to Caesars what is Caesar's and to God What is God's". Democracy should be democratic and Religion should be Religious. Imagine... a democracy where mass was enforced, and a church where we got to vote on what is a sin. I'll pay taxes for mass and vote yes on masturbation? I think that sounds odd. If we dont get to vote on what is religion, should religion get to decide what political law is? Fundamentally, is abortion wrong? Yes... its murder. Is masturbation wrong? Yes... it is unchaste. God gave us free will to make our decisions. Humans invented democracy to avoid chaos. On issues such as abortion, shouldn't the decision be between the courts and the parents? Do we have the right to take away free will against sin? Will we next ask to change the constitution to amend it against all forms of sin? I always say (when I hear about abortion or something controversial like that in the law) that the government can deal with me here but God gets me for eternity... so i'll be playing by his rules. What are your views on religion's place in law? (this post was inspired by many many bashing posts of John Kerry) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 (edited) but murder is a religious tenet and that is against the law. there are some things that blur the line of the separation of church and state, such as lying under oath, murder, and stealing. abortion is one of them because people are being discriminated against and murdered LEGALLY. slavery used to be legal, too, because people didn't consider africans human beings. but then christians stuck their noses in things and helped make it illegal. there are soooo many laws on the books about how to treat animals used for research (it's ridiculous how hard it is to get permits to test on animals), it would be illegal to do experiments on animals that cause them to undergo extreme suffering and pain and yet fetuses are aborted, have their brains sucked out, and are sometimes left to die if it slips out during a partial birth abortion -- even if you consider a fetus not a human being, you have to still classify it as an animal and even then it doesn't even get the same respect and treatment as a lab rat. politicians have an obligation to enact laws that protect all citizens, not just the ones who have voices and money and who can vote, like so many women and men who want to kill their babies. to answer your question: there are moral guidelines that are common to church and state and to act as if there weren't is ignorant at best and disastrous at worst (in the case of abortion). Edited April 16, 2004 by CreepyCrawler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 16, 2004 Author Share Posted April 16, 2004 oh im not saying i dont see how they overlap and im dead set against abortion however i still dont think the law should be based on 'sin'. some people are against abortion because its murder. some people just say its a sin and thats where i think they lose a lot of credibility because theres so much more to the argument. i know what you mean about moral guidelines though and totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 sometimes i think that the state has a hard time minding its business rather than the church. for example, why is the state trying to redefine marriage? marriage is a RELGIOUS ceremony. technically, the state shouldn't even be involved. or what about catholic companies who are being forced to offer contraception in insurance plans? it seems like the state is imposing upon the church. sorry...i just get mad about this sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 17, 2004 Author Share Posted April 17, 2004 the redefinition of marriage is stupid. marriage is a religious thing, so if the state wants to let ... lets say alternative couples make a union make up a new name. but yeah the state shouldnt be able to force conraception onto businesses. OH that reminds me! check my next post hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voiciblanche Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Here's the funny thing about "seperation of Church and state". [b]All laws are based on morals![/b] Every one! Like murder, par exemple. The reason why it's illegal is because it's a moral issue, right? It would be like if someone in a satanic or other perverted religion went to the government and said, "My religion says murder is perfectly fine. You can't make me follow your religion." You see? All laws are based on morals!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 17, 2004 Author Share Posted April 17, 2004 actually the murder one is there for safety. lol, i dont think the gov't has a problem with the fact that murder is a sin, i think they dont like their constituents getting shot/chopped up/stabbed, etc. haha but it is true they are based on morals and mosaic law and the torah. as for pervs... i think that thats a matter of safety too but morals play a bigger role. good point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 some governments like their constituents getting chopped up, look at the democratically elected Hitler and his govt., look at certain communist governments, look at many ancient civilizations such as Rome, which were so violent. we think democracy means no violence... yeah right. democracy is rule by the people and if the people are all bloodthirsty, heads will roll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I think the state is interfering with religion too much. Religion when involed with poltics gets messy and tends to lead to really bad things. IE Iran, White Anglo-Saxon supemeicay, Spanish American War, etc. I can't support the marriage admentment. I want to support it but this goverment has its head in the sand. So many other BIG issues (Civil rights, women rights, equal pay, medicare reform, SS reform) and they focus on a vote grab issues like gay marriage. All fine and dandy to ban it but if there is no longer a US to ban it in what have we done? If the socieconomic system collespes gay marriage won't be a worry. By the way I am a doomster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 the U.S. will still exist even with socioeconomic disaster, look at the Depression. I'd rather be poor and have a somewhat moral country than the other way around. But I don't really control those things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted April 17, 2004 Author Share Posted April 17, 2004 1) about romans and hitler... those arent great examples. roman votes were based on the rich and the working class had little or no say. hitler also didnt view jews as his constituents or people he wanted as constituents. 2) i live in canada and weve got healthcare adn all that pretty cleared up. i guess im a socialistic hippy... catholic hippys, what a great idea. 3) i agree that gay marriage is a grab issue (or did you mean garbage?) either way... i think thats a secondary or tertiary priority. what about world hunger? water shortages? the aids pandemic? whats the world coming to! 4) im going to move to switzerland, get citizenship, then apply for the swiss guard. if not, im moving to canmore and spending my tiime on the slopes (canmore = village in bc [canada] by whistler and stuff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreepyCrawler Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 i just meant that for germany and rome to be governments, not simply democratic ones. how about sadaam hussein, he considered all the iraqis his constituents but didn't care about killing them. i think it depends on the attitudes of society. if society doesn't like killing its constituents (or some of them) then it won't, but if it wants to, it will. i'm not a poli sci major so maybe that's overly simplistic. i have to stop phatmassing.... i've been on here too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 CreepyCrawler, what I am saying is we need sound polices and need to work to reach peace. Banning some immoral acts but negelcting social justice and other aspects of the faith is as bad as doing nothing. Do you know what would happen during a depression of that scale today? Civil issues would grow to a level unbeliviable and overwhelm society, likely leading to choas or a revulation is neither party works, effectivly, to get us out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voiciblanche Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 [quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Apr 16 2004, 06:25 PM'] yeah right. democracy is rule by the people and if the people are all bloodthirsty, heads will roll! [/quote] Luckily for us, we have the ::cough:: electoral college. ::cough:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn_H Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 I dont think the state (as in the current U.S administration) is trying to redefine marriage through the Constitutional amendment, but to put a stop the judical activism that IS trying to redefine it. Just my personal view, but I like Bush, and overall I think he and his administration is doing a good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now