.....proposing changes to the law to remove the death penalty as an option for punishment and require prosecutors to prove that the alleged blasphemy was intentional and not inadvertent. Pakistan's blasphemy law makes it a crime to defame the prophet Muhammad or Islam.....
so because of that he is viewed as not supporting islam, and someone decides he needs to be killed and the guy kills him. The assassin is then viewed as a hero.
Quote:
At Qadri's court appearances, lawyers have showered him with flower petals and kissed his cheeks, a worrisome sign that his support stretches far beyond Pakistan's underclass and into the upper echelons of society.
so yeah you may think my hatred for anywhere "god" has been shoe horned into our government is excessive, but going down that road is very dangerous and why most developed countries have gone away from state governments.
Anyone who has made a cursory study of history and current events in other parts of the world understands why theocracies are to be avoided.
When a leader of a secular nation allows his religious teachings to influence him or her when making decisions, is that OK in your opinion?
that depends on whether they conflict with human rights, but genrally any valid logic or ethics based argument should not need any religious argument if it is valid for a secular nation.
for example a wanting to avoid war due to the sanctity of life or value of a person is a good thing, but there are ethical arguments for that as well that don't need religious arguments. So maybe you can give me a better example of where a conflict would exist in this clause. But generally any claim that can ONLY be supported by religious thinking I would not support, Anything a president does/says should be based on logic and secular based ethics.
So say a politician supports circumcision (either male or female) based on his religious beliefs even though there are no justifications to force a religious belief that can't be undone on an infant then I have a strong issue with that as it is placing religious beliefs above human ethics/rights to their own body. Or say he supports a religious blasphemy law to "in his mind" reduce tensions between atheists and christians. by reducing "hateful speech". Both of those would be bad but can be supported by religious logic, not to mention stoning for adultery/castration/ and other forms of mutilation/torture etc.
Maybe you can describe a better example where a valid conflict would exist related to your statement.
No, what I meant was if a politician determined a course of action based on the moral teachings gleaned from religious study. I don't have a specific example. What I was curious to know is if you would prefer atheists only ever hold elected office, or if you're OK with people who embrace religion holding those posts.
While the idea of a "Church of the United States" is anathema to our founding, we aren't a secular nation. That notion was introduced about 50 years ago, but the larger portion of this country's history shows clearly that religion(s) and politics mixed without disaster befalling us.
The Capitol itself was used for religious services on a regular basis, for example.
No, what I meant was if a politician determined a course of action based on the moral teachings gleaned from religious study. I don't have a specific example. What I was curious to know is if you would prefer atheists only ever hold elected office, or if you're OK with people who embrace religion holding those posts.
it doesn't matter, same as a school teacher, when they are teaching classes I expect them to teach evolution and not creationism, now if their religious belief contradicts that then fine, but leave it out of school and I expect the same from our government
Quote:
While the idea of a "Church of the United States" is anathema to our founding, we aren't a secular nation. That notion was introduced about 50 years ago,
?????????????????
This nation has always been a secular nation officially, the constitution makes no mention of god, I do agree there used to be a lot more toleration of intermingling but to say america which was formed for freedom was religious based is absurd
Quote:
but the larger portion of this country's history shows clearly that religion(s) and politics mixed without disaster befalling us.
because the majority believed it, plus admittingly christianity is a generally less cruel religion then many, at least in recent history
Quote:
The Capitol itself was used for religious services on a regular basis, for example.
so what? just because there was some mingling doesn't mean it was religious based government, and comparing what happened 50+ years ago to today is absurd, we are a drastically different society with different expectations of freedom.
sec?u?lar
[sek-yuh-ler]
?adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
While we do not have an official church or religion, that is a far cry from saying religion has played no role in government either in the past or today. Government (at all levels) does not avoid anything of a religious nature at all costs; far from it.
I didn't say our founding was based on religion. But it was founded by religious people. While religion is certainly not mandated as a component of government (which is a good and wise thing), it is not specifically forbidden, either. In the last few decades, we have been taught that it must be forbidden and that is wrong. Historically, religion and politics or politicians have mingled with no calamity.
I didn't say our founding was based on religion. But it was founded by religious people. While religion is certainly not mandated as a component of government (which is a good and wise thing), it is not specifically forbidden, either. In the last few decades, we have been taught that it must be forbidden and that is wrong. Historically, religion and politics or politicians have mingled with no calamity.
the first amendment was made specifically to clear this up, seperating the church from the state. yes some of our founding fathers believed in religion but they were also smart enough to see the danger of a religious government and hence why we are not one.
the 1st amendment?
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.
While we do not have an official church or religion, that is a far cry from saying religion has played no role in government either in the past or today. Government (at all levels) does not avoid anything of a religious nature at all costs; far from it.
I didn't say our founding was based on religion. But it was founded by religious people. While religion is certainly not mandated as a component of government (which is a good and wise thing), it is not specifically forbidden, either. In the last few decades, we have been taught that it must be forbidden and that is wrong. Historically, religion and politics or politicians have mingled with no calamity.
It doesn't, but it should and is supposed to.
We were not founded by religious people, some of the people who founded this nation just happened to be religious and several weren't. God and any other mention of any sort of higher power was specifically left out of Constitution and James Madison, who wrote the First Amendment at the request of Thomas Jefferson, wrote extensively about the intention of the First Amendment being to keep religion and government totally separated.
Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819
There are literally hundreds of writings and letters by him advocating the total separation of Church and State.
Jefferson:
?The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.?
?Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.?
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
?God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.? (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson?s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
John Adams:
?The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity? I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.?
?[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.?
?John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]
Franklin:
?God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel? ?Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
?In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered? do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?? [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Madison:
?We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We?ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity?to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.? [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
?It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.?
Let me know if you want more examples of ways in which the founders certainly did hold religion as important in one regard or another. There is a profound difference between being a nation that has no official religion, which was the founders' goal -- to avoid religious oppression, and being a nation whose government must not be touched by religion ever in any way.
One quote by John Adams is very profound:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
He was right. You don't have to look far at all to see the degree to which we have degraded as a society. It's not a matter that I'm a prude or being judgmental; there are very clear, tangible ways in which the erosion of personal integrity and moral clarity have hurt and continue to hurt this country.
Personally, I know that a solid moral grounding that is compatible with the Constitution can be obtained outside of attending religious sermons. But it isn't easy and it requires a great deal of introspection which most people may not be willing to do. Attending religious services, whether you like the church as an entity or not, DOES impart sage moral advise to many people at once.
Right, like I said, several of them were Christians, but that changes nothing. Especially Jefferson who was one of the biggest advocates of total separation of Church and State, as Madison's mentor he was the one who urged Madison to introduce the Bill of Rights and especially the Establishment clause. Jefferson and Franklin both wrote quite a bit about how religion should be a personal issue and nothing more. Just look at Jefferson's two largest writings, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Neither mentions God and the DoI only mentions a generic creator, not God. The "creator" is nothing more than a reference to John Locke's Natural Rights of Man and is intentionally left non-specific.
As for Adams, yes, he's one of the more prominent Christian's who was more ok with mixing the two, but he was also an incredibly strong Federalist who wanted a much stronger, federal government and in reality had little to do with the actual structuring of the Federal government after the war. He also constantly came under attack from Jefferson and the Dem-Reps. He was a founding father, but the vast majority of his contributions came prior to the war, through diplomacy as a Congressional ambassador during the war, and as President after the war. And even as President his only real noteworthy accomplishment is signing the Alien and Sedition acts which at the time and even now have been largely called unconstitutional and a deliberate infringement on state's rights.
Linear Mode
