PSA: God is not on the supreme court or an office holder

Nor is he an American Citizen. His opinion on Same Sex Marriage is irrelevant unless he plans on running for office or starting a citizen advocacy group.

There is no reason to bring up your religion in the course of making public policy, so speaking for him is also frowned upon.

Thank you for listening.

 

Tell me, what is the difference between wanting political action A because Marx said so, and wanting political action B because Jesus said so? From the point of view of a secular government, there is none. Both are equally valid. Saying that political actions cannot be based on Jesus is the same saying that they cannot be based on Marx, or any other figure such as Milton Friedman or Ronald Reagan, which is of course ridiculous. You are simply disqualifying God/Jesus with no good reason. You have perhaps not reflected over what a very undemocratic thing it is you are saying: That the opinions of a large part of americans are simply invalid because they are based in religion. And of course, you will justify this because the USA is secular and has a wall of separation between church and state... But secular means that the state is neutral in matters of faith. To invalidate religion as a basis is not neutral, but anti-religious. It is just the same as invalidating any views based on marx's works. The government should not be in the business of deciding which opinions are correct. The ultimate sovereign is the people, and it is their will which matters, regardless of what they base their view upon, religious or not.

 

Believers say God is everywhere. Religion is a different subject.

 

I rather think that if the supposed omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity has a particular bone to pick with politics or the judiciary of the United States, he can ruddy well take it up himself.

An almighty god doesn't need humans to speak for him/her/it/blob.

Let's hear from God blobself on, for example, the issue of marriage equality.

...

...

...

Damn, not a word. I guess God hasn't actually weighed in, only a bunch of humans.

 

I have never heard anyone argue a position just because Marx said so. That doesn't happen.

Furthermore: Religions are bad to base public policy on because nobody has the right to impose their religion upon anyone else. You don't deserve to be able to hijack the democratic process to create a theocracy and force people to live by your religion's rules.

You want to know why I like Jews? Because I have never heard a Jew criticize anyone for eating pork. They don't care if you're Jewish or not. That's not their concern. They generally keep their religious restrictions to their own lifestyle instead of trying to force them upon other people. Of course, hyperorthodox groups usually aren't that polite, but the average Jewish person is pretty polite about religion.

The people should not be allowed to screw over the minority just because they can shout louder and muster up a larger angry mob.

 

You're welcome. I read your post too, do I get thanked for reading?

 

I think you hit on something here that most Americans if not the vast majority do not understand. Our government is suppose to be neutral in all matters of religion, not pro or con. The first amendment states congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Today instead of interpreting that as freedom of religion it has come to mean freedom from religion. By the way, the phrase separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution.

 

They don't formulate it as such of course. But when someone says that socialist policy A is good, it might ultimately be because of arguments made by Marx. That is no different from another person saying policy B is good, because of something Jesus said.

But they're not. The democratic process is not hijacked. Religion is allowed to participate in the democratic process and be treated just the same as any other set of ideas. What I'm saying is that the people should be allowed to express their views in a democratic process, regardless of what those views are based upon. There is a big difference between saying that religion should hijack the democratic process, and that it should be allowed to participate and be treated as any other set of ideas.

We are talking about a democratic process. What is the difference between a majority of capitalists forcing capitalist-based laws on a minority of socialists, and a christian majority forcing jesus-based laws on a non-christian majority? There is none. The point I'm trying to get across here is that there is no meaningful difference between religion and other philosophies/ideologies/worldviews. So, you can not arbitrarily single out religion as being invalid.

 

Ideologies are backed with reasoning. Religions are irrational and backed by "faith".

 

Religion being allowed to participate is one thing. I have no problems with religious people basing their opinions on their religion, and sharing those opinions.

I have a problem with religious people basing laws on their religion that outright strip people of rights, and force those believes on people who do not share them. Bans on gay marriage, for example, are based solely on Christians not liking gays and the bible saying they are bad. There is no reasoning outside of religion for banning same sex marriage, or polygamy for that matter.

 

Of course the fact the the basis of US law is the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God and that all our rights come from our creator means nothing to libs. If you dont believe in god then the constitution is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper.

 

Actually the founders thought religion very important and did all they could to encourage Christianity. Their big premise is the less government needed the better. If everyone acted like Jesus there would be very little need for much government. They gave the Army chaplains and printed and distributed bibles to the indians for instance and every session of congress starts with a prayer. Also its claimed that god is not mentioned in the constitution. Thats because it relies on the DOI which already states we get our rights from god. The constitution merely confirms these rights are to be protected.

Only christian nations used this dating system back then

- - - Updated - - -

Thats BS. Its based on common sense and biology.

 

You realize that if you ban gays from marriage because they can not procreate you must also ban ALL other people who can not procreate as well, including forcing all married hetrosexual women to get divorced once they reach menopause.

 

When I want/desire/recommend political action, it is because I believe it justified. I will "listen" to religion or Marx or, for that matter, my cat, BUT I WILL MAKE UP MY OWN MIND. As for the Govt deciding which opinions are correct, look up equity in the dictionary AND THE CONSTITUTION. The religious right seeks not to express their belief (they can already) BUT TO IMPOSE THEM.

The so-called "Christians" who so loudly trumpet their religion would do well to read its history. They will find little to brag about.

 

3052. Stewart, Matthew. Nature’s God, The Heretical Origins of the American Republic. New York: W. W. Norton, 2014. (H)

 

I say you CAN be an atheist and a conservative

Imo the belief in god is what turns the constitution into a worthless piece of paper....
Since the ultimate point of reference is gods will
Hence now we have an apparent conflict between the constitution and gay marriage, etc
And before that we understood that god mandated racial separation, and even slavery
We have divorce, which god abhors
And we have forgotten the virtue of stoning people for violating gods will

The constitution needs to go and be replaced by gods law ,

 

Certainly you can be an atheist and a conservative the two are not mutually exclusive.
The ultimate point of reference is not gods will but where our rights come from
There is no conflict between the Constitution and Gay marriage. What is it with gay marriage anyway. I thought the whole idea was that marriage is marriage. Marriage is not in the constitution it falls under the 10th amendment and hence was always a matter for the individual states to decide.
God never mandated racial separation nor slavery
Divorce is as old as marriage
The constitution guarantees us the rights bestowed on us by our creator. Thats history not religion

 

You shouldn't govern based on what somebody said so, alone. I hate to use an example of Godwin's law, but doing things on what somebody said so is a poor idea.

 

I agree. The founders and framers did that. But in today's society or perhaps because of our school system that is lost in the classrooms. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion as so many people believe today.

 

I disagree, certain religions are not only discriminatory, but also violent. A person should indeed exercise their right to have freedom from religion.

 

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the phrase you are either ignoring or don't understand

you cant pass any law that forces one to violate ones deeply held religious beliefs and convictions

 

I am sorry, but certain religions have often been violent and discriminatory, I do not believe that they should freely exercise their rights.

 

then you better start advocating for a constitutional amendment
because you cant pass any law that forces one to violate ones deeply held religious beliefs and convictions

 

Perhaps it is in how freedom of religion and freedom from religion is defined. Supposedly we live under the rule of law, laws of men and not laws of god although some laws supposedly of god man follows and encodes them into his statutes such as thou shalt not kill.

 

Yeah, what if one's religious conviction was to do things like declare wars on the non-believers, have sex with minors, perform involuntary physical mutilations, etc. all of which are actual practices of religions throughout the world, big or small. past or present.

I always said, feel free to worship and believe who you want, however your rights end where the rights of others begin, something that religious people have never really respected historically.