Quote:
|
I trust you will not take it amiss if I revert to form and use data to substantiate a few details in this post. I'll try to not overdo it.
|
of course i don’t mind; i can appreciate discussion in all its forms…don’t hold back on my account.
and thank you, i enjoyed some of madison’s quotes very much.
i do agree entirely that not all religious influence upon law is negative, indeed much of it is not. but i maintain that the tenets adopted were not adopted because of their ties to religion, but instead because of their universal applications that help ensure a safe and prosperous society.
yes, the state may institute same sex marriages as legal. however, the federal government does not recognize them as such and therefore does not grant them the same rights as other marriages/civil unions in regards to tax benefits and laws, medical benefits, etc.
the defense of marriage act (a ridiculous term in itself - as if marriage is under attack somehow) in re to federal benefits usurps any law from the states and instead puts federal law above it in precedence. i realize that gays and lesbians who marry are not considered criminal by the federal government and therefore the defense of marriage act’s preeminence does not violate the constitution, but it’s still curious to me – as is the title of the act: it casts moral judgement where none should be cast. i do not imply that religion in politics is singular to republican politics - doesn’t matter whether a democratic or republican controlled congress enacted it, i am a non-partisan separationist. as it currently stands though, if the push to amend the constitution by the current administration is successful, then the states’ rights will be usurped.
federal marriage amendment version 2004
1.Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
again, i find this all or nothing approach odd. it writes discrimination directly into the constitution. it usurps state’s rights to regulate marriage. if ohio law could be used as precedent here, it could conceivably downgrade domestic abuse in same sex households from a felony to a misdemeanor. aclu claims that the second sentence of the amendment is superfluous and will only lay the ground work for the supreme court to begin re-interpreting all kinds of marriage laws. it would also deny the opportunity for religions which approve of same-sex marriage to perform legally binding same-sex marriages: a much more clear violation of separation of church and state.
i am not ignorant of the roll that religion has played in any of the presidents you mention, or many other politicians for that matter. (i wasn’t around then, or i would have bitched about that, too.
) all but three presidents (lincoln, jefferson and johnson) considered themselves followers of a certain denomination, and even those three were spiritually connected to their god, if not specifically affiliated. but most were just as happy to leave it behind in re to politics. some examples of early polititans who did so: ben franklin, thomas paine, thomas jefferson, james madison, john adams. even hamilton, who played with the idea of forming a christian commonwealth came to the conclusion that “neither philosophy nor religion, reason nor faith, love nor grace, can be relied upon to influence human conduct.” hamilton and madison compared religious sects to political factions in their tendency to fanaticism. franklin believed religion to be something better left to the middle ages. i remember learning in poli-sci 101 that four of america’s foundational documents (common sense, paine; declaration, jefferson; federalist, hamilton and madison: defense(of the constitution), adams) drew upon philosophers such as locke, hume, and adam smith, who cautioned against using scripture as a source of law. it is my opinion that if founding politicians wanted to make a stronger case for religion in america’s political culture, they would have done so clearly and concisely. the role of the state was - is - not to carry out god’s will but simply to protect life and property.
besides, religion and democratic politics are incongruous: if there is one idea central to most religions, it is that the eternal leads to the spiritual, but any politician who thinks beyond the immediate tenor of the nation – and their chances for election or re-election - would not be a politician.
certainly your mention of the climate then reminds me of the political climate today, but perhaps wilson (et al) truly did have the majority on his side. allow me to go back to another of your postulations a few posts back in regards to the clinton scandal: if - as many believe - the majority of the people today hold that religious morality is essential to our society then why were the people praising clinton for the u.s.’s economical state at the same time he was busted for having sex in the oval office? if i recall, it was the republicans who cried outrage and tried to get the country to follow suit. is it just coincidence that they were members of the minority party? i suggest politicians want religious morality to prevail only if it in some way compliments their own quest for personal/political satisfaction.
carter was indeed a born again christain, but i believe he said so during an interview with playboy. the fact that he even allowed himself to be interviewed by such a magazine, and many of the things he said during that interview, prove that he was tolerant of behaviors that did not jive with his own religious beliefs.
Quote:
|
Religion is not ethnicity. Religion is also not as lethal as the policies realized by Nazi Germany (20 million), the Soviet Union during the late 1930s (8 – 9 million) and the People’s Republic of China (14 million).
|
in re to the latter two, no, not inherently religious. i did not intend to say that genocide is mutually exclusive to religion, but much of it is inspired by religion. as for the first you mention… hitler believed he was furthering the prosperity of his god’s chosen people with his nazi politics.