Religion and Government Inquiry

[gellar]

On Religion and Government – Or How are we any different than our ‘enemies’?

Disclaimer: I am in no way religious, and am actually anti any form of extreme religious action, so keep that in mind when you read my post here and any of my future posts. I’m horribly, violently against any sort of religion in any sort of government.

So here’s the thing. I’ve been reading a LOT of justifications of political positions in many threads here in R&P. I find that I most consistently and vehemently disagree with the folks that justify their stance based on their religious belief. Those folks also happen to be the ones that most vehemently disagree with me .

So that got me thinking… why can’t you be “for” your religious beliefs but still understand that it’s not up to the Federal Government to enforce them on everyone. Sure, you may think that gays can’t marry and if they do so, your entire world will burst aflame, but how is it Government’s position to enforce that? Is it because this country is primarily Christian, and thus we must conform to Christian beliefs, even if they’re against the Constitution that our forefathers set up for us? My American history is a bit hazy, but wasn’t one of the reasons we left jolly ole England due to enforcement of religious beliefs that we didn’t agree with? Doesn’t this whole justification fly in the face of what this country was founded on?

This then led me on another tangent. The Taliban. Al-Queda. Isn’t their primary reason for attacking America religious? The primary reason that they hold down women’s rights? Isn’t that also religious? Isn’t this the same reason we’re against them? How is it any different? Is it because they’re Muslim Extremists instead of Christian Extremists?

Sorry to single you out here, Eco, but since it was your post in Fireball’s thread that got me thinking… I’ve gotta ask you. I think a lot of different things are wrong on a personal level. That doesn’t mean I think they should be outlawed, however. People are individuals and allowed to make choices, so long as they don’t well and truly hurt society (and I’m talking proof here, not a belief founded on a religious principle). How can you think that a law that CLEARLY paints a group as a second class citizen should come to pass? Can you justify it in terms that aren’t religious?

So I guess that’s it. I’d like to hear some justifications on how we’re different. Sure we don’t blow people up as terrorist groups do, but we still treat those people as if they were not only “different”, but also as “inferior”. How does this work?

Finally… I remember this quote and thought it was apt on why Religion shouldn’t be involved in any sort of public policy… no one knows for sure:

"Fighting over religion is basically fighting over who has the better imaginary friend." ~ Jimmy Carter

gellar

[loc-nar]

Why do you hate america?

[DiscoJason]

I always avoid this forum, but gellar was bragging about this post in IRC, so I thought I would come check it out. All I can say is that I agreee 100% with gellar on this one. Good post.

The reason I don't post in this forum is that I never feel like defending myself to a bunch of people I don't really know about my own personal opinions and the energy required to form an intelligent post on subjects is more than I am willing to expend. So, you will just have to be content with my agreement on gellar's points and forgive me for not writing why I agree.

[LawBeefaroni]

They're 5 miles high as the crow flies
leavin' vapour trails against a blood red sky
Movin' in from the East toward the West
with Balaclava helmets over their heads, yes!

But if you think that Jesus Christ is coming
Honey you've got another thing coming
If he ever finds out who's hi-jacked his name
He'll cut out his heart and turn in his grave

Islam is rising
The Christians mobilising
The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

It's war, she cried, It's war, she cried, this is war
Drop your possessions, all you simple folk
You will fight them on the beaches in your underclothes
You will thank the good lord for raising the union jack
You'll watch the ships sail out of harbour
and the bodies come floating back

If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today
He'd be gunned down cold by the C.I.A.
Oh, the lights that now burn brightest behind stained glass
Will cast the darkest shadows upon the human heart

But God didn't build himself that throne
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome
God doesn't belong to the Yankee dollar
God doesn't plant the bombs for Hezbollah
God doesn't even go to church
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn
No, God will remind us what we already know
That the human race is about to reap what it's sown

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds
Armageddon days are here again

[Eduardo X]

We are no better than that which we destroy. Or, as I was quoted in GG, that witch we destroy. I hate that witch.

It really comes down to nationalism and a refusal to understand why people fight against the US.
Al Quada pretty publically states why it does each atrocity, but when Osama's tapes were being played all over the news, the US got pissed. Bush likes to say Osama "hates freedom," but that is like saying Hitler invaded Poland because he hated freedom. It is just about the worst sort of simplification there is.

[Crux]

On Religion and Government – Or How are we any different than our ‘enemies’?

Disclaimer: I am in no way religious, and am actually anti any form of extreme religious action, so keep that in mind when you read my post here and any of my future posts. I’m horribly, violently against any sort of religion in any sort of government.

So here’s the thing. I’ve been reading a LOT of justifications of political positions in many threads here in R&P. I find that I most consistently and vehemently disagree with the folks that justify their stance based on their religious belief. Those folks also happen to be the ones that most vehemently disagree with me .

So that got me thinking… why can’t you be “for” your religious beliefs but still understand that it’s not up to the Federal Government to enforce them on everyone. Sure, you may think that gays can’t marry and if they do so, your entire world will burst aflame, but how is it Government’s position to enforce that? Is it because this country is primarily Christian, and thus we must conform to Christian beliefs, even if they’re against the Constitution that our forefathers set up for us? My American history is a bit hazy, but wasn’t one of the reasons we left jolly ole England due to enforcement of religious beliefs that we didn’t agree with? Doesn’t this whole justification fly in the face of what this country was founded on?

This then led me on another tangent. The Taliban. Al-Queda. Isn’t their primary reason for attacking America religious? The primary reason that they hold down women’s rights? Isn’t that also religious? Isn’t this the same reason we’re against them? How is it any different? Is it because they’re Muslim Extremists instead of Christian Extremists?

Sorry to single you out here, Eco, but since it was your post in Fireball’s thread that got me thinking… I’ve gotta ask you. I think a lot of different things are wrong on a personal level. That doesn’t mean I think they should be outlawed, however. People are individuals and allowed to make choices, so long as they don’t well and truly hurt society (and I’m talking proof here, not a belief founded on a religious principle). How can you think that a law that CLEARLY paints a group as a second class citizen should come to pass? Can you justify it in terms that aren’t religious?

So I guess that’s it. I’d like to hear some justifications on how we’re different. Sure we don’t blow people up as terrorist groups do, but we still treat those people as if they were not only “different”, but also as “inferior”. How does this work?

Finally… I remember this quote and thought it was apt on why Religion shouldn’t be involved in any sort of public policy… no one knows for sure:

"Fighting over religion is basically fighting over who has the better imaginary friend." ~ Jimmy Carter

gellar

Interesting post, Gellar. My wife and I have 'discussions' about a lot of this every once in a while. Ours is centered mostly around the government legislating personal morality though. She is dead-set against gay marriage, and my take on things is that if two consenting adults want to do something behind closed doors, it is their business. Where we really disgaree though is what role the government should take in this. She sees nothing inherently wrong with the government enforcing personal morality, but I suspect that is mostly because she is Christian and that morality matches roughly with her own.

But, I'd be very interested to hear any of the anti-gay marriage people with a credible argument as to why this type of discrimination is 'ok'.

[Dramatist]

So that got me thinking… why can’t you be “for” your religious beliefs but still understand that it’s not up to the Federal Government to enforce them on everyone.

I am a Christian. I believe I do understand that it's not up to the Federal Government to enforce my beliefs on everyone.

I bet there are alot of Christians like me, we just aren't very vocal. I think it's like everything, a small minority of buttheads can leave a bad taste in someones mouth about a whole organization.

[Guy Incognito]

a small minority of buttheads can leave a bad taste in someones mouth

Excuse me why I go get some mouthwash, I'm feeling a bit queasy.

[$iljanus]

So I guess that’s it. I’d like to hear some justifications on how we’re different. Sure we don’t blow people up as terrorist groups do, but we still treat those people as if they were not only “different”, but also as “inferior”. How does this work?

On the scale of "government" we are different because we are allowed and even encouraged to have debate on these issues with all the chaos, enlightenment, ignorance, and sometimes violence and sometimes even progress that it brings. That, to me, is a major difference between "us" and "them".

[Faldarian]

So that got me thinking… why can’t you be “for” your religious beliefs but still understand that it’s not up to the Federal Government to enforce them on everyone. Sure, you may think that gays can’t marry and if they do so, your entire world will burst aflame, but how is it Government’s position to enforce that? Is it because this country is primarily Christian, and thus we must conform to Christian beliefs, even if they’re against the Constitution that our forefathers set up for us? My American history is a bit hazy, but wasn’t one of the reasons we left jolly ole England due to enforcement of religious beliefs that we didn’t agree with? Doesn’t this whole justification fly in the face of what this country was founded on?

Three words. Special Interest Groups.

It's all about politicians trying to win the Christian lobby and connect with Christian voters; you support a stance vocally and with religious conviction, you can win a great deal of votes just by having that stance. GWB has proven that exceptionally well. Not only is he leading and passing laws based on religious principle, but he is encouraging people to vote for him as the religious candidate; I've recently run into a group of people who plan to vote for him because they see him as the "moral, religious" man... the other issues did not matter to them, they wanted a strong Christian president.

It's a Me world and a Me society we live in. People do almost everything because of what is best for Me, vote for what will most benefit Me immediately, and lower others to a different standard. If you don't have what they have, you're doing something wrong (or aren't smart enough, educated enough, and so on). Help other countries? How does that benefit Me? Bomb other countries? As long as the shooting doesn't come toward Me, who cares.

I've turned into a hardcore cynic, I think, and it's just getting worse the older I get. I guess that's what happens to idealists when they find out that nobody cares enough to change things, or can't even see the problems until after they've exploded into catastrophe.

Now I'm just ranting, but my point is that money and power talk. As long as there's money and power to be had by adhering to your faith as a tool of government, it's going to happen and it's going to become more and more a part of our society.

[gbasden]

So that got me thinking… why can’t you be “for” your religious beliefs but still understand that it’s not up to the Federal Government to enforce them on everyone. Sure, you may think that gays can’t marry and if they do so, your entire world will burst aflame, but how is it Government’s position to enforce that? Is it because this country is primarily Christian, and thus we must conform to Christian beliefs, even if they’re against the Constitution that our forefathers set up for us? My American history is a bit hazy, but wasn’t one of the reasons we left jolly ole England due to enforcement of religious beliefs that we didn’t agree with? Doesn’t this whole justification fly in the face of what this country was founded on?

In my opinion, yes.

If a person's religions beliefs conflit with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. In part, the original folks who came to the U.S. did so to escape religious tyranny and in my opinion, the Constitution does a remarkably good job of making sure that we are protected from that happening again.

For the most part, Christian beliefs are shared amongst most others in the world. I doubt anyone is going to find a strong majority of folks anywhere in the world that don't believe that wanton killing is wrong, taking your neighbor's goat (or wife) is wrong, or that bearing false witness is wrong.

However, I'm quite glad that religious law is not the law of the United States. I need no law to tell me not to worship graven images. I don't think a law forbidding the consumption of pork would fly. And I'm glad that the laws screwing over gay people are finally being challenged in court.

The comman precepts that most people seem to believe in seem to be injunctions against *harming* someone else. Feel free to sit in moral indignation, but if the actions of one person aren't harming others, I see no reason for the government to outlaw it.

[Poleaxe]

So that got me thinking… why can’t you be “for” your religious beliefs but still understand that it’s not up to the Federal Government to enforce them on everyone. Sure, you may think that gays can’t marry and if they do so, your entire world will burst aflame, but how is it Government’s position to enforce that? Is it because this country is primarily Christian, and thus we must conform to Christian beliefs, even if they’re against the Constitution that our forefathers set up for us? My American history is a bit hazy, but wasn’t one of the reasons we left jolly ole England due to enforcement of religious beliefs that we didn’t agree with? Doesn’t this whole justification fly in the face of what this country was founded on?

The answer is simple really. If you are religious and believe in an afterlife and god, then the focus of existance is not our time on earth and your allegiance is to the higher power moreso than towards your country and your fellow citizen. And BTW, no where in the constitution does it say "separation of church and state."

This then led me on another tangent. The Taliban. Al-Queda. Isn’t their primary reason for attacking America religious? The primary reason that they hold down women’s rights? Isn’t that also religious? Isn’t this the same reason we’re against them? How is it any different? Is it because they’re Muslim Extremists instead of Christian Extremists?

Muslim culture was once the most elightened on the planet. Muslims are generally friendly, congenial people. Unfortunately, the middle east is basicly third world. Muslim leaders have maintained control by focusing on the jews in palestine and, since the seventies, on the great satan- America. Despite our religious leanings, America is really very liberal in a global context. Our culture is antithetical to the teachings of the mullahs. Whether because of true belief or the impetus to maintain power (or both), they paint us as evil and decadent. Wahabism, the white supremisists of the mid east, has in my opinion sprung from the disconnect between some of the more nationalistic teachings of Mohammed and the reality of how marginalized islamic peoples really are in the modern world. If it were not for Israel and our support of Israel, their ire would more than likely beturned on their own leaders. Muslim leaders, especially those who are mostly secular, realise this and so have another reason to play up the conflict with Israel/America.

So I guess that’s it. I’d like to hear some justifications on how we’re different. Sure we don’t blow people up as terrorist groups do, but we still treat those people as if they were not only “different”, but also as “inferior”. How does this work?

For myself, I don't really need us to be different. It is enough that I want us to win. But the truth of our difference should be manifest. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that the concept of civil rights in the middle east is roughly equivalent to the seventeen hundreds in the west.


I saw you other post in RM9's thread, and I hope you understand that responding to a post like this takes time and thought. Sometimes that's not possible while you are at(avoiding) work.