Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

It has to do with your assertion that there should be a 'wall of separation' between religion and government since things like public displays of the Ten Commandments and the Nativity Scene have been attacked and/or removed by government mandate, the example represents government oppression of religion, not the establishment of a State Church.

Judeo-Christian philosophy is what most Americans live by. Most of it aligns with the Constitution because the Constitution was written with Judeo Christian philosophy....Take our a dollar bill and read "In God We Trust."

OK...So why are you so worried about Judeo-Christian philosophy in government legislation? As I have reiterated many times in our discussion, we have no State church. Even after 200+ years of a predominant majority of Christians in America.

I know of no law mandating the practice Christian dogma into American law. Provide a citation please.

So...It's OK with you of Confucius, Buddda and Hammurabi advocated the Golden Rule but not Chrisianity? Seems a bit biased.

I'm not confused at all, we have freedom of religion per the Constitution and again, please provide proof that we have a State Church in America or that any law mandates Christian worship.

Alcohol prohibition was instituted because of the great number of 'Saloons' that proliferated as brewers competed with each other. Gambling, prostitution etc. were becoming and increasing problem. It was not Christian law.

Which State law advocates violence against non-Christians?

 

Of course it matters ?

It does not take religion to tell us that high interest rates are injurious to ones pocketbook. This matters even more when taken in context with laws that allow the state to enforce civil contracts.

Religion does not need to come into play at all. In this case "philosophic reason is clear" and it matters not that some religion also had this edict.


What on earth does your comment have to do with the fact that the making of a law allows the state to force compliance ? A fact which both you and RP seem to be having such trouble understanding.

Legitimate justification for law, at least according to the founders, does not include " because God says so".

This is exactly what Jefferson is saying when he says the legitimate powers of Government extend only to acts which are injurious to others. God does not need to come into the equation and nor should it.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that "God says so" is not a legitimate argument for making law ?

Even if we were to say "God says so" was a legitimate argument. What then ?

Can anyone prove that they know the mind of God be it from the Bible or some other Holy Book such that we can be sure that "God really does say so"?

Who gets to be the arbiter of what God thinks or says ? The Pope, the President, Jerry Falwell, Jack van Impe or perhaps some Imam as after all they believe in the first 5 books of the Bible, the part that contains the law as well ?

What exactly are you claiming ? Do you really want to claim that making laws on the basis of religious belief is legitimate ?

Great ... then back up this claim with something.

You are trying to hide behind the "will of the masses". The constitution is specifically to protect individual rights and freedoms from the will of the masses.

The whole point enshrining individual rights and freedoms in the constitution is to protect people from the state making laws that infringe upon these freedoms.... will of the masses or otherwise.

In the real world sometimes there are grey areas. In such cases it is up to the State to present "compelling" justification for why rights are to be infringed upon.

Compelling = more than 50% + 1. The vast majority, at least 80% or more should agree.

Take heroin for example. Clearly "liberty and pursuit of happiness" is violated by a law prohibiting heroin use. Someone using heroin does not pick my pocket or break my leg. An act which is injurious to myself is not an act of one person injuring another.

Tell you what though ... 80% of the populace is going to agree that heroin should be illegal.

Pot ? No way.

There is no compelling argument why a woman should be forced to pass a large object through her vagina against her will.

It is predominantly extremist religious folks ( who can not even come up with a religious argument never mind a secular one) wanting to force what they think "God says" into law.

The same thing happened with Prohibition. Satan's brew and so on.

One of the primary purposes of the Constitution is to protect individual rights and freedoms from religious will of the raging masses.

Perhaps you want a society where the raging masses are allowed to violate, individual rights and freedoms (endowed by the Creator or otherwise).

I say - be careful what you wish for and I do not want to hear any complaining about violations of the 2cnd amendment or any other violations of rights and freedoms by the State on the basis of utilitarian justification for law ( an Obama and liberal favorite) as that is what you are arguing for Dixon/RPA1

 

Not one bit. Whether usurious interest rates are opposed for religious reasons or instead just a sense of what is right or wrong is completely irrelevant and neither of your quotes state otherwise.

 

You keep building straw men - accusing me of saying things I did not. I am not sure whether this is just your way to avoid addressing the points I made or what your deal is but obviously it is pointless for me to make further points if all you are going to do is create straw men and deny the obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me for trying to talks sense to you ... I should know better by now.

 

Not sure of your point. No one has argued that such a religious motivation supersedes "philosophic reason".

Not sure of your point. No one is suggesting criminal laws against heresey would be legitimate. Why dont you try addressing the argument Ive made instead of the ones you have imagined

I never said otherwise. I SAID whether the voters and legislatures are opposed to usurious interest rates for "philosophic reason" or "religious reason" makes no difference. I never said it "takes religion" or that religion is "needed".

 

Justice John Moore wants to force his personal religious beliefs on others regardless of philosophic reason - even the philosophic reason of the courts in this instance.

http://www.bilerico.com/2015/02/cnns_chris_cuomo_rips_alabama_judge_roy_moore_apar.php

It is the "God says so" argument that those who want to make abortion law - claiming the zygote is a living human. There is no philosophic reason proving the zygote is a living human such that a law is justified. It is about religious belief plain and simple.

Unless you are going to claim "God says so" is part of philosophic reason, using the justification "God says so" to make law goes against Philosophic reason and that is exactly what the religious right does.

 

I did address your argument directly and I did so without creating a straw man like you have. I never even mentioned heresy .. why are you creating this straw man.

I gave specific examples of religious folks trying to make law based on religious belief. Abortion is one, SSM is another. Why are you talking about heresy ?

 

Of course it makes a difference. Philosophic reason gives a valid justification for law and "God says so" is not a valid justification for law.

"God says so" is fallacious argument right from the get go and we have Justices and Congressmen in this country using this fallacy to create law.

 

Because thats what Thomas Jefferson is talking about in his quote. And I never said "God says so" is justification for a law.

 

says the muslim that was educated here...unreal