The Fall of Religion, and Why the State is Next.

Remove all ads!

One can always find offense, when one chooses to look for it.

Remember that it's a fundamental premise of Christianity that their way is the only way to heaven, and that they have a solemn duty to show the rest of us the error of our ways. This is at odds with protection of individual liberties at the most basic level.

 

@Rally:
On the contrary, Christians are called to tell people when we see them doing wrong, but not to force change, nor to invade people's privacy to find wrongdoing. We are called to tell people who God is and what the difference between right and wrong is, but it is up to the individual to either agree with us and change or blow us off and not change. There is no interference with individual liberties here.
You also said it is not the government's job to legislate morality, but how can the government avoid it to some degree? How many laws are based on juedeo-christian ethics? How many are based on a simple understanding of right and wrong? There are many moral issues the government shouldn't touch, I agree, but they can't avoid the issue all together.
As for public education on issues like homosexuality, promiscuity, etc., here it isn't the government's job to teach morality, it is the parents. The government should do no more than to educate the people on what these things are and what the different views are, they should not tell us which is right or wrong, even on a conotation basis.

 

Here I think we are in agreement.

All I ask from others is that they not infringe on my rights. Prehaps I am misreading some of the posts but I get the feeling that Conservative/Orthodox (whatever) Christians want laws passed which would infringe on my rights.

I phrase this as a personal statement because I also feel that the individual gets lost in the argument.

I have the right to decide who I wish as a partner and to be able to establish a committed loving relationship which includes the right to be consider the next of kin. Anyone who tries to take that right away from me is going to hear about it and loudly.

I will also defend the right of others to the same thing.

Do I make myself clear?

 

Well, there are many issues where chistians do want laws passed that you may feel infringe on you're rights. There are many christians that feel homosexuality should be made illegal. Almost all of us think abortion should be made illegal. Of course no one is guaranteed any rights on these issues right now, the government still needs to decide how it stands on these issues before anyone can claim that their rights are being infringed upon.

As for homosexuality, personally, I think the government should just get out of the marriage business all together. Civil unions should become teh government standard and they can issue these to whomever the government decides should have them. If you (anyone) want to get married, find an official of your religion to perform the cerimony, the government has nothing to do with it.

What I'm really talking about, however, is how the government educates our childern to these things. If the government says it is illegal, then they can teach the children that it is illegal, and they can even tell them why it is illegal, but I'm tired of christian children being treated by the schools as if their parents were wackos just because of their religion. I'm tired of seeing minorities given more rights and privileges than anyone else simply because they have loud lobbyists. If there are any minorities out there that are actually being oppresed by your government, or tossed off as if you didn't matter, than that needs to change, too. Basically, I'm tired of all the double standards.

If you haven't seen this kind of thing where you live, or heard about it on the news, then just ignore what I'm saying, because it doesn't apply to you. But if you have seen it, then I hope you agree with me.

 

I suppsoe quite a few. But a lot of Judeo-Christian ethics see parallels in other cultures. For example, "Thou shalt not steal" is nto a idea unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and if it were not an law rooted in ethics shared by mostly every culture on earth, one would see countries with endorsed, rampant theft.

Agreed.

[ April 07, 2006, 09:04: Message edited by: deepfae ]

 

@ Aldeth

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour" I imagine could be construed as perjury, which is illegal. Alternatively it might be Libel/Slander, which is at least an offense, if not exactly illegal.

 

Or it could simply mean not to lie, or gossip. But still, I'll grant you that in certain circumstances, there is a possibility of three Commandments that are also illegal.

 

I started this last night, but my connection cut out on me. I've got some work to do...

But at what point does that redefinition go to the classroom or other public place where the Children are going to learn that one? At what point does the state try to supercede the right to teach our own children?

And the sides on that one are more strongly entrenched. Those opposed strongly believe that not only is it a bad thing, but society as a whole will suffer for that decision.

And studies on either side of the debate will be criticized by the other side. Thus nothing will be proven on one side or the other...

Actually, if you believe that Marriage and teh family are an important part of how our society functions, then changing that definition, you are in fact reshaping society to suit someone else...

Exactly, the Government should stay out of that debate. That would have stopped this problem right then and there.

What I'd like is for certain ideas to be kept within the confines where they are suposed to be taught. Gay people have as much right to the public eye as religion does. That means that homosexuality ought to be kept out of the classroom and government.

Actually, for the first objective to suceed, they must be able to think for themselves. Teaching them morals is not about doing what the book says because the book said so. It's about understanding the reasons behind these things. Things like consequences and why certain choices are better than others...

Words alone don't convince people, and I am not the best with such words, but my obligation to try...

The definition is ultimately changed, so what we teach is ciontradicted by government.

But that does not mean that the State has the right to subjugate religion to their own ends. That is not separation, but subjugation.

I don't know yet. I don't have kids. I would guess that once they learn faith, and about consequences, then it can happen.

They are still free to choose sin, but with that come the consequenses. Knowledge of right from wrong still requires you to choose the right...

I've even heard of cases where talk of Abstainance was left out of sex education because of it's "religious" origin.

This is a problem whenever the discussion changes focus to the collective. To put forth an alternative, Hobbes suggested that freedom ought be abandoned in favour of a Leviathan (government) to protect us from external and internal threats. Could it not be argued that we ought to forgo certain freedoms for the greater good?

And the previous Canadian government made it's point clear--much to the shagrin of a large portion of Canadians...

So you suggest laws for how these relationships work and leave marriage to the church? Brilliant, but that's why the government won't think of that...

Those are two of the key points I've had all along. As state tries to step into the moral debate, then they offend massive numbers of the rest of us. and the more they give to the minorities at teh expense of the majority, the more they foster internal divisions within the populace.

Good point Caracoth. Some things undet the 10 Commandments fit under the civil law heading (Adultery in divorce, libel and slander suits)...

 

When they come into your home to contradict you. If you don't hold more authority over your kids than teachers at a school, then you're just plain crap as a parent. I am getting so sick of this "Boo hoo, they're making it harder for me as a parent" sh!t. If you can't handle it, then too f***ing bad. Do you think you're the only ones who have to correct their kids when they come home from school? Suck it up and stop whining.

News flash: Your religion does not constitute the entire society. What you define marriage as is not a universally accepted definition. To take it a little further (than perhaps I should...), Christianity is not the world's foremost authority on everything, and should stop acting the part. "My domain stretches as far as I can see" doesn't work anymore.

Again, boo hoo.

You're right, you're not good with words. The argument is circular, as the second sentence talks about the first, and neither have anything to do with the topic. Unless you'd care to elaborate (though I suspect it'd be the same "interference in teachings" crap, in which case...boo hoo).

Something tells me it's not as black-and-white as you tell it. There are always circumstances.

Hello boys and girls; can we say "contradiction"? You only don't want the state defining morality if it isn't yours.

I'd also like to point out that the 'divisions' you speak of are between the arrogant whiners (which I admit I've done a time or two) and those who recognize that the minorities actually need the help, whereas the majority does not. Again, suck it up.

 

School should be about education, not teaching morals or ethics. Thats the right of the parent, not the government. However, the classroom needs to be an learning enviornment, and a learning enviornment means no hate. That is, the school has a right to say that one must tolerate one's peers, and that students cannot focus their discrimination or hate against peers who are something or have a lifestlye said students disagree with. Furthermore, though the government (and by extension the public school system) should not promote the views of ANY particular faction, individual teachers will have opinions, and should not be silenced. As long as their opinions do not foster hate, as long as the teachers make sure that the students know that they are only OPINIONS, and as long as the teachers do not try to convert the students, then they hould be free to say what they think. For example, if a particular teacher thinks abortion should be illegal, the teacher should be able to say: "I think abortion should be made illegal, and here's why..." But thats it. The teacher should stop there. Now if you want a school that is not suetral, but rather reinforces your own values, then there is always private school.

Which means that, if one is gay, one has a right to tell the world that they are gay, if they so please (as many members of religion openly display their religion), and the right to not be discriminated against (which means equal rights as those who are not gay).

Applaud. I agree with showing children the reasons behind your faith. To do otherwise is blind faith, wich it seems we can both agree is bad.

Religion is not subjugated. Unless the government says that a certain religious practice or belief is unlawful, then religion has not been subjugated.

I could be, and it has been historically. The problem is that we can not all decide on what constitutes as the "greater good". BEcause of this, all the ogvernment can do is to allow people to choose to sacrifice personal freedoms, but not enforce this sacrifice.

 

But Are they trying to take that away from those that they don't agree with? And at what point do those that they disagree with going to get fed up with it and revolt?

"Blind" faith is a recipe for disaster. If someone doesn't understand why they don't do certain things, they won't refrain from these things to long...

And the more people get offended by the lack of such a definition, the less the Government really does...

 

The real problem is with society. No, I'm not just talking about the teachers, I'm talking about the parents, teachers, curriculum writers, everyone. In America, in the 1960's and 70's, schools taught right and wrong, they helped the parent teach and discipline the child. Parents became dependant on it. Then the schools taught someone's child something they didn't want that child believing, and the schools were no longer allowed to teach morals, but the parents (many, not all) had forgotten that they were supposed to do the job, so it didn't get done. Now we have all these people saying everything goes, and don't discipline you're children.

On top of that, the school system (and teachers in specific) can have a lot of impact on what people believe, and can be very oppresive. I almost failed high school bio simply because I pointed out that the theory of evolution was still just a theory, and that the 'evidence' for it was not conclusive. There was no discussion of the evidence, or of other theories, or of the scientific process, just the teacher telling me to sit down and shut up or get out of her class. Through some intervention from another teacher, I got the grade I deserved, a B, instead of the F she wanted to give me for challenging Evolution.

 

Then you should have no problems. By understanding that simple point, you already have gained a fundamental piece of knowledge in Parenting 101. Granted, the hard part is the execution of this, but if you don't understand it to begin with, you'll never properly execute it - so you're half way there anyway - which is probably acceptable seeing as you don't have kids yet.

ROFL!

AHA! Gnarf has just given himself away! Gnarf is NOT the Canadian Mormon he'd like us to believe. That statement gives him away as none other than President George W. Bush. How sneaky! How subversive! How brilliant! Wait a minute... if it was truly brilliant there's no way it could be W. OK, so Gnarf is a W sympathiser, that's it!

 

@Aldeth:
2 points, but that was low.

 

For all I've heard about George W, I can only make one conclusion--John Kerry must have been a real knob...

 

Yeah, pretty much. That and the fact that he scammed his way into at least one of his medals. You would think this would make him a better polotician, but he was stupid enough to call the doctor who refused to suggest him for a medal as a witness to how he got it.
"I put a bandaid on it!"