Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people?
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,213 Views)
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
I think you are looking at this too simplistically. A President's job as chief executive is to enforce the law whether or not it conflicts with his religious faith


You're wrong;

His (or her) job is to lead, to craft laws that aid in out struggle for freedom. The attorney general enforces the law.

It's not simplistic. The church sees abortion as the murder of the unborn. No catholic can vcaim to be in support of the church and the right to commit murder at the same time. That is why I say the Kerry's religious faith is the moral equivalent of personal opinion.

ANOVA
Before one can live freely, one must live.
Therefore, the right to life has premacy over all other rights.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Wichita
Nov 25 2004, 11:08 AM
Personal Response

It just occurred to me that this thread isn't limited to just discussing the US ...

Quote:
 
 
1m Christians sign EU religion plea
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
(Filed: 25/11/2004)

More than a million people from all over Europe are to deliver a petition to Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders calling for changes to the constitution recognising Europe's Christian heritage.

 




Refusing to accept a secular "fait accompli" from Brussels, a Christian coalition is demanding that each EU state publish its version of the constitution's preamble, with references to God if desired.

Already armed with 1,149,000 signatures and with thousands more pouring in from Holland since the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh, the group claims that most states want some reference to Christianity but were blocked by France.

The move is keenly backed by Pope John Paul II, who has repeatedly condemned the "moral drift" of Brussels. "One does not cut the roots to one's birthright," he told pilgrims this summer.

Euro-MPs voted this week to back the calls for a change in the text. Petitioners, led by Italy's International Mission Centre, will now take their case to EU governments. The current version of the preamble eschews Christianity, talking vaguely of "the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe".

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, deliberately left the issue open when he wrote the document, inviting a petition.

"I have chosen not to insert the reference to the Christian heritage in the constitution,"he said. "Rather I appeal to you to persuade me of its necessity."

A British official said it was too late to change the preamble, although national parliaments could add a "rider" stressing their country's Christian roots.

An EU official said: "These Christians could at least have the good grace to accept that they lost the argument."




source

I loved this comment:

Quote:
 
An EU official said: "These Christians could at least have the good grace to accept that they lost the argument."


So, if someone complains about the Supreme Court rejected the 9TH Circuit's take on "under God" in the pledge, can I just accuse them of bad manners too?


;)

End of Personal Response

I might be wrong - but I understand there are alternative oaths and pledges for those who are not christian and for non-believers and you can not be forced to take an oath of the bible or pledge before your god.

This applies in Australia - I know this applies when engaged in Jury Duty as I have and did. (Mind you it caused some raised eyebrows.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^
It'd true in the states. One can either swear before God or affirm the oath.


ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
We know that the president is head of the exuctive branch and as such the president can tell the attoney general (also in exucitive branch) to do or not do something.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Minuet
Nov 25 2004, 09:24 AM
Doc - you keep going on about the will of the majority. I do not think this is always correct. As others have pointed out on other threads sometimes the "majority" - which can be very slim, 51 or 52 percent can want something that is wrong. For example - slavery in your recent past

I still think that the constitution of your country exists for a reason and certain basic values should not be wiped out due to the "flavour of the day". That is why the courts exist to interprete the laws and to try and protect basic freedoms from the whims of the "majority"

And just to be clear - I am not accusing Bush or anyone else of trampling on any of these freedoms. I am discussing this in the realm of an idea only. But it is important to note that just because Christians are in the majority it does not mean that thier "doctrine" should be imposed on all. I feel this issue goes deeper then a simple majority.

There is a protection, the Bill of Rights. No group, Christian, atheist, Jewish, communist, conservative, liberal, fascist, environmentalist, anarchist, or otherwise, can make a law that goes against this document. Anything that passes the Bill of Rights is within the right of the majority to judge as they see fit.

Democracy in America (and indeed in the West itself) is run by accepting the rule of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. You cannot pick and choose which majority gets to make the decisions. If one majority cannot make the decisions, then none can. Simply put, if you are in the majority, you are in control, but you are held back by a check that protects the rights of the people. In the US, that check is the Bill of Rights. You can therefore do ANYTHING you want as long as it does not violate the Bill of Rights. If what you want is too extreme yet still legal, you will probably end up losing supporters and you will no longer be in the majority.

However, saying that a certain majority has no right to press its morals on the minority is anti-Democratic. Your argument is nonsense because you are describing democracy in a way that democracy will not work. If you take away the rule of the majority, you therefore have a rule by the minority. When a minority of people have rule over the majority, you have dictatorship.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ Can the majority take away the Bill of Rights???

No they cannot - and that is my point. If a simple majority was allowed to do whatever they wanted then they might decide to do something like that. You are looking at things very simplistically. What is the power enforcing the Bill of Rights? The courts.

You are the one spouting simplistic nonsense.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
Minuet
Nov 26 2004, 09:06 AM
What is the power enforcing the Bill of Rights? The courts.

The exuctive branch's job is to enfore laws (include the bill of rights). The courts interpret the laws.

The staes ratify the constituation and make amendments. In order to remove any of the bill of rights, the states would have to decide. I think congress is involved, but nothing can be done witout the states as far as the constition is concered...........unless a patriot act is made.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Nov 26 2004, 09:06 AM
^^^ Can the majority take away the Bill of Rights???

No they cannot - and that is my point. If a simple majority was allowed to do whatever they wanted then they might decide to do something like that. You are looking at things very simplistically. What is the power enforcing the Bill of Rights? The courts.

You are the one spouting simplistic nonsense.

First, its not a simple majority, its a 2/3s majority (states that is not population). But yes a 2/3s majority could repeal every right in the Bill of rights by making new amendments that say the old ones no longer apply.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Coda
Member Avatar
Commander
I am only against christianity imposing its beliefs onto me because the goal of christianity is absolute power, consolidated under one man. It is apparent that without followers to enforce the pope' opinions on others, the pope would have no power. And the funny part is, he promises rewards after they die, for doing what he says. Gee, thanks.


If this country was founded on people wanting religious freedoms, we should ask ourselves why could they not practice their beliefs in their native countries?

Summarily, it would appear that two religions in one country, won't work. I think that is why the founders allowed freedom of all religions to be practiced here, and preferred religious beliefs separated from goverment laws. And that would mean a distribution of power, or checks and balances. No absolut power under one person, such as a pope or monarchy. There exist many countries that are run by a religious group. If you look at those countries, objectively, I don't think you would want to live there. Unless, perhaps you are a member of the ruling religion. Those ruling religions don't change easily, though. Of the ones I can name off the top of my head, change only occurs through violence.

If President Bush is not enforcing his personal religious beliefs on others, why has funds to constitutionally legal family planning centers been eliminated around the globe?
And why are my tax dollars going to faith based curriculums that advocate abstinance only? The most recent study mentioned on CNN Nov 24th (I apologize to those looking for details, I did not get the name of the organization that did the analysis, It might have been a university), states that from the beginning of a program started in 1997, till the end of 2003, there was no change in the proportional results from people of that program, compared to the general population. So, How can I keep my money from subsidizing abstinance only promotions? I would much rather my money go to education on human sexuality. And, one that celebrates us. Educates boys and girls, men and women, on their rights and responsibilities.

My point is that humans should use their brains. And each human should contain their own beliefs. If each human life is precious, I would think that their life if precious because each is unique. I am unique because my experiences are different than others. Therefor, on the larger scale, anothers belief is not applicible to me. And I resent the fact that religious people hi-jack the word faith, as if religion has a monopoly on faith. I have faith, and I am not religious.

Someone asked the question how is religion any different than others groups, Well, IMO, I think the other groups have some degree of accountibility. Meaning those responsible can be replaced at any time. And the figurehead or director, does not dictate all the rules. And what rules are created are negotiated to be made workable for all. They are discussed among the group or party. I think that it is different in christianity, and that the pope decideds the laws.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Summarily, it would appear that two religions in one country, won't work. I think that is why the founders allowed freedom of all religions to be practiced here, and preferred religious beliefs separated from goverment laws


The founders did not preferr religious beliefs be seperated from government. They allowed and endorsed states to establish religions. A person moving to New England could not run for office unless he was a member of the right church.

Seperation of church and state is a contrivance not mentioned in the constitution and not even thought of by the founders.

The president cannot enforce the laws our chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general and no amount of linguistic acrobatics will change that. It is not the mayors job to enforce the laws but the chief of police's for a particular city.

The moral character of a political leader determines what what legislative changes they will endorse and what chages they will fight. There should be no difference if the moral character is the result of rational thought or religious dogma as long as the leader is honest about it.

Kerry is not honest about it. This should be a mute point.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
Can the majority take away the Bill of Rights???

No they cannot - and that is my point. If a simple majority was allowed to do whatever they wanted then they might decide to do something like that. You are looking at things very simplistically. What is the power enforcing the Bill of Rights? The courts.

You are the one spouting simplistic nonsense


Well....

If you believe that the unborn is a living human being them you believe that nine people dressed in black can take away the constitutional protections from those who have no voice.

The right to life is stated in our declaration of independance as a chief right. When we allow a third party to decide if the unborn have rights we lack the philosopchic cogencey needed to sustain the constitution.

The fact that my state allows for abortion on demand and will try someone who kills an unborn in an auto accident for mansluaghter, shows that our rights are not absolute, but depend on the will of the majority.

ANOVA

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
ANOVA
Nov 27 2004, 10:27 AM
The right to life is stated in our declaration of independance as a chief right.

The declaration of independeance is not law. It was declaring independance.

If you were refering to the right of "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," that is not a law. It had intentions behind it, but has no legal standing.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Twilight
Nov 27 2004, 03:26 AM


Quote:
 
If President Bush is not enforcing his personal religious beliefs on others, why has funds to constitutionally legal family planning centers been eliminated around the globe?


Why should my tax dollars go to fund this? First of all, how can a family planning (i.e., contraception distribution / abortion) center in another country by legal under OUR Constitution?

You don't know much about our laws. If this is a concern to you, send a check to a clinic in another country.

Quote:
 
And why are my tax dollars going to faith based curriculums that advocate abstinance only?


Why not? After all, your tax dollars are ALSO funding curricula that advocate abortion and contraception, aren't they? Abstinence works EVERY TIME IT IS PRACTICED.

Quote:
 
I would much rather my money  go to education on human sexuality. And, one that celebrates us. Educates boys and girls, men and women, on their rights and responsibilities.


Whatever that means. Shall they also sing "Kumbaya" while they "learn" about this. What do you think abstinence teaches but responsibility?

Quote:
 
My point is that humans should use their brains. And each human should contain their own beliefs. If each human life is precious, I would think that their life if precious because each is unique. I am unique because my experiences are different than others. Therefor, on the larger scale,  anothers belief is not applicible to me. And I resent the fact that religious people hi-jack the word faith, as if religion has a monopoly on faith. I have faith, and I am not religious.


If humans only used their brains, there would be NO NEED for so-called family planning clinics nor any need for abstinence-based program. The content of your paragraph is more mamby-pamby feel good armchair secularism. Yadda yadda yadda. You don't have faith. I'd be willing to bet that entering a church or temple would terrify you.

Quote:
 
Someone asked the question how is religion any different than others groups, Well, IMO, I think the other groups have some degree of accountibility. Meaning those responsible can be replaced at any time. And the figurehead or director, does not dictate all the rules. And what rules are created are negotiated to be made workable for all.  They are discussed among the group or party. I think that it is different in christianity, and that the pope decideds the laws.


What is this supposed to mean? Sounds like cafeteria faith (still another name for liberal secularism).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 27 2004, 04:40 PM
Twilight
Nov 27 2004, 03:26 AM


Quote:
 
If President Bush is not enforcing his personal religious beliefs on others, why has funds to constitutionally legal family planning centers been eliminated around the globe?


Why should my tax dollars go to fund this? First of all, how can a family planning (i.e., contraception distribution / abortion) center in another country by legal under OUR Constitution?

You don't know much about our laws. If this is a concern to you, send a check to a clinic in another country.

Quote:
 
And why are my tax dollars going to faith based curriculums that advocate abstinance only?


Why not? After all, your tax dollars are ALSO funding curricula that advocate abortion and contraception, aren't they? Abstinence works EVERY TIME IT IS PRACTICED.

Quote:
 
I would much rather my money  go to education on human sexuality. And, one that celebrates us. Educates boys and girls, men and women, on their rights and responsibilities.


Whatever that means. Shall they also sing "Kumbaya" while they "learn" about this. What do you think abstinence teaches but responsibility?

Quote:
 
My point is that humans should use their brains. And each human should contain their own beliefs. If each human life is precious, I would think that their life if precious because each is unique. I am unique because my experiences are different than others. Therefor, on the larger scale,  anothers belief is not applicible to me. And I resent the fact that religious people hi-jack the word faith, as if religion has a monopoly on faith. I have faith, and I am not religious.


If humans only used their brains, there would be NO NEED for so-called family planning clinics nor any need for abstinence-based program. The content of your paragraph is more mamby-pamby feel good armchair secularism. Yadda yadda yadda. You don't have faith. I'd be willing to bet that entering a church or temple would terrify you.

Quote:
 
Someone asked the question how is religion any different than others groups, Well, IMO, I think the other groups have some degree of accountibility. Meaning those responsible can be replaced at any time. And the figurehead or director, does not dictate all the rules. And what rules are created are negotiated to be made workable for all.  They are discussed among the group or party. I think that it is different in christianity, and that the pope decideds the laws.


What is this supposed to mean? Sounds like cafeteria faith (still another name for liberal secularism).

Since when have people refrained from premarritiable sex in any society ? Did you ? I know I didn't , and my wife wasn't my first sexual partner. If you didn't how can you expect anyone else to comply with the RC and completely unrealistic desire for abstinence ?
Kids have to be taught to engage in safe sex rather than telling that they mustn't do it because it is a sin outside of marriage. All that tells kids is that's something that they can do to rebell - it's taboo so it's immediately desireable to be sexually active and even promiscuous.

(even priests who are supposed to set an example can't abstain or remain celebate and never could.)

If people used their brains rather than "letting it all hang out" and succumb to the moment and hormones and their lust partners' feromones and "attributes", then perhaps there would be very few divorces too. Many couples marry or form partnerships when they should not.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
There is no way to force abstinance - but I agree that it should be taught as the only 100% surefire way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

I believe sex education starts at home - but also believe it belongs in the schools because not all parents can be trusted to provide the information needed. All forms of birth control should be discussed and all the pitfalls of unprotected sex should be highlighted. Information is the best prevention we can provide our youth.

It is unrealistic to expect all of our youth to abstain - that is why we need to provide information. But that does not mean we should not highlight abstention as the best way to go. Religion does not need to come into that equation. It would be wrong to tell the kids they will go to hell if they have premarital sex. (in a public school setting - parents at home can say whatever they want) But it is right to show the hell on earth they might be making for themselves.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus