re: governments and religion


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

so compliance on something non religious people disagree with they should just accept?

don't think that's gonna happen

this isn't like a speed limit or no shirt no shoes no service thing, this is a far more serious issue, often going hand in hand with rights and the like

I suppose it also doesn't help that the arguments that religious people give mean absolutely nothing to the non religious

The more important the issue the harder it is to reach consensus. Speed limits aren't that important. A lot of people may wish to go faster, but they pay their fines, or comply. It doesn't reach the heart like abortion.

Yet, non-religious people expected us to fork up extra taxes to pay for them. My state taxed me to pay for abortions. My money went to kill babies. Mine. No pro-choicer is going to shed tears for me, because I don't want my earnings used to shed blood.

Now you say non-religious people can simply disregard any pro-life laws. They don't need to comply because they don't believe unborn babies have rights.

In any scenario where the laws of the land a pro-life, a super-majority has agreed. Very likely, a Constitutional amendment was passed--something that requries a ginormous super-majority. So, in all likelihood, we succeeded in bringing a good number of non-religious folks onboard with our coalition.

I'm back to my original premise. As a politician, I may oppose abortion because the Psalms tell me that babies are created by God. To build a coalition, I'll need more reasons than that--some of them secular. It's impossible to build broad coalition purely on religious grounds.

BUT, is your deciding factor in voting me out really that my ground motivation is religious? Or, is it that you don't agree with my politics? Would you really vote me out if you totally agreed with me, but my reasons were religious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2. France has a government agency that monitors religious practice, and, in the past, has labeled many groups considered mainstream in the U.S. as "mind-control cults."

I've never been to France but I agree with a lot of things I hear them do in that country. If only the U.S. were more like France. France is right, a lot of religions are control-cults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're against freedom of religion?

I'm for freedom of religion. But when religion gets involved in politics, religion oversteps their bounds. I agree with France wanting to ban head coverings for women. Any religion that forces women women or anybody else to cover their face should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if no laws exist, create them and prosecute them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon HooosierGuy. I hope you're doing well!:)

I'm for freedom of religion. But when religion gets involved in politics, religion oversteps their bounds. I agree with France wanting to ban head coverings for women. Any religion that forces women women or anybody else to cover their face should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if no laws exist, create them and prosecute them.

This is ridiculous. Why do you assume that these women are being forced to wear head coverings? I wear special clothing as a Mormon but I am not being forced to do it. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion would also allow the government to dictate to me and other Mormons that they are not allowed to wear their garments.

It is impossible (or at least extremely foolish) to seperate religion from politics. In fact any attempt to do so will result in an errosion of civil rights and turning morality in to a relativistic product where what is moral is dictated by the whims of those who have the most power. Without religion you could conceivably have a society that decides through popular vote that there is nothing wrong with torturing and killing infants for fun.

This whole argument of seperation of church and state does NOT mean that religion cannot be or exist in the political system. It ONLY means that the state ought not to endorse one particular religion over the other. As an example, Finland has a state religion; the Lutheran Church. It is supported by taxes and has much clout in the direction of the country. Although Finns do enjoy the freedom to go to any church they feel fit to go to or to believe as they wish. But it is this type of state endorsed religion that if adopted in the United States would be a violation of our Constitutional principles.

King Benjamin had no issues with being a prophet-king. He was involved not only in religion but was also involved in the politics of his time. The adversary and those who support him are working hard to remove God from government because when God is removed from politics we no longer have a guarantee of our inalienable rights. Rights become the product of government, which is essetially the arm of flesh, which is fickle and cannot be depended on or trusted.

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Grammar, spelling, clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for freedom of religion. But when religion gets involved in politics, religion oversteps their bounds. I agree with France wanting to ban head coverings for women. Any religion that forces women women or anybody else to cover their face should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if no laws exist, create them and prosecute them.

I'm with Finrock. What you are saying is that you believe the government has the right to stop women who actively choose to do something that harms no one from practicing their religion.

I've been long bothered by France's racism of Middle Easterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really want government making that call, though? :eek:

I remember when I lived in the Seattle area not far from where you now live PC, that there was a church in the area that caused a lot of problems. It was called the Venusian Church and claimed to worship the g-dess Venus. From outside looking in, this church it looked like hardcore porn and prostitution.

Eventually the church was shut down over sexual abuse involving minors, illegal drug use and extortion. But such claims of a church does cause one to ponder if governments should not have some say in regulating (laws) what can constitute a church.

I believe we can all be certain concerning extreme cases and that we all agree there ought to be laws to protect a society from those that would find some way to abuse protected rights. But as we all know - it is not so much the extremes but the gray areas that create various "differences" and how we balance that with considerations of "diversity".

The problem is when we make laws - we need to understand laws must be unforced the same in all circumstances and can reach far beyond the initial intent. Religion cannot be exempt from law and must answer to the law as any other element of society if there is to be justice or freedom. In essence it is up to each society and generation to determine how to deal with life and challenges they face. It would be nice if society could pass on solutions - but it appears to me that we must all participate in social law and order or suffer the consequences of our neglect. Perhaps this is in part the lesson that we should learn from the story and epoch of Noah.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with that church, Traveler. There are a few that have tried to run brothels, by claiming their workers were "temple prostitutes." So, yes, there is a line somewhere, in which government must step in. I would err on the far-end of freedom, though.

My views to this came real young. When the IRS came after Bob Jones University, threatening to remove their tax exempt status because the forbid interracial dating, I wrote a high school newspaper editorial supporting the university. I agreed that their dating policy was a very poor application of scripture, but argued that the government's social policy goals should not be used to create favored and non-favored religious categories.

BTW, BJU has since removed that repugnant policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
So, you're against freedom of religion?

I'm against barbarism. I was in a shopping mall this evening just walking around wasting time. I saw a Muslim woman with here head completely covered except for the eye slit. This is 2014, not the middle ages. To force or tell people they have to wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces is barbaric and the people pushing those ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... If I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To force or tell people they have to wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces is barbaric and the people pushing those ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... If I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery.

You are, however cool, with forcing people to not wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces. I take it the hypocrisy of your position is lost on you? You offer 'freedom' in the form of reducing what they can choose. You've spouted a lot of inanities HoosierGuy, but this one is easily in the top ten.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against barbarism. I was in a shopping mall this evening just walking around wasting time. I saw a Muslim woman with here head completely covered except for the eye slit. This is 2014, not the middle ages. To force or tell people they have to wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces is barbaric and the people pushing those ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... If I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery.

I'm against barbarism. I was in a shopping mall this evening just walking around wasting time. I saw a Mormon woman, well into her twenties, and I overheard her mention to a friend that she was still a virgin. This is 2014, not the middle ages. To force or tell people they can't have sex when they want, with whomever they want, is barbaric and the people pushing these ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... if I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery by . . . I don't know . . . in France they're talking about telling Muslim girls they can't wear the hijab; maybe in the US we can tell Mormon women they can't be virgins.

Surely you wouldn't object to reinstatement of droit du seigneur over Mormon girls? Gotta get 'em in step with the prevailing culture, you know. For their own good.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against barbarism. I was in a shopping mall this evening just walking around wasting time. I saw a Muslim woman with here head completely covered except for the eye slit. This is 2014, not the middle ages. To force or tell people they have to wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces is barbaric and the people pushing those ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... If I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery.

I am very grateful that you will never be president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against barbarism. I was in a shopping mall this evening just walking around wasting time. I saw a Muslim woman with here head completely covered except for the eye slit. This is 2014, not the middle ages. To force or tell people they have to wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces is barbaric and the people pushing those ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... If I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery.

I could not agree with you more. In fact, I think we should prosecute not only the preaching of Islam, but even its mere belief. I think death is not too harsh a punishment for such beliefs. I'm sort of thinking that even just hearing about Islam should be a capital crime.

Stamping out evils through thought legislation! Who's with me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not agree with you more. In fact, I think we should prosecute not only the preaching of Islam, but even its mere belief. I think death is not too harsh a punishment for such beliefs. I'm sort of thinking that even just hearing about Islam should be a capital crime.

Stamping out evils through thought legislation! Who's with me?

I certainly hope you are being sarcastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against barbarism. I was in a shopping mall this evening just walking around wasting time. I saw a Muslim woman with here head completely covered except for the eye slit. This is 2014, not the middle ages. To force or tell people they have to wear a certain piece of clothing or cover their faces is barbaric and the people pushing those ideas should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and... If I were President I would try to pass laws that would free those poor women from quasi-slavery.

Is this really barbarism or just another game of "I don't like your brand of culture and, dare I say it, feminism?"

HoosierGuy, let me ask you a question: How many Muslims have you actually spoken to? How many Muslims do you know on a personal basis?

I know two. One is a lifelong member, the other an adult convert. Both are women. Both, being of the proper age and marital status, cover themselves. Both are smart, spirited, intelligent, and empowered women. Granted, I can only know so much of their lives, but they do not seem to be abused or put down.

Like McLainDow said, there are no easy answers with this stuff. From what I've studied, the hijab has a complex history. Is it a necessary part of the religion or is a cultural icon that became a little too embedded? Certainly not all Muslim women wear it.

But, because we have parts of the Islamic world where women are treated as lesser and there have been problems with the covering, should it be banned everywhere? Is taking away a women's religious covering really going to solve the heart of the problem?

Or is this like telling Jewish men and women they can't cover themselves appropriately or that Mormons can't wear their garments? Can't have a religion telling people what to do. That's the governments' job.

How is your proposed legislation going to fix the abuse that admittedly does happen in parts of the Islamic world without destroying the rights of many, many women to practice their religion as they see fit?

Why are there so many cases of Muslim women fighting for their right to cover themselves in certain places? Why are there so many Muslim girls looking forward to covering themselves?

Do you have the evidence to say that every single one of them is brainwashed and abused?

HoosierGuy, I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to these coverings. I don't think you have spoken to enough Muslims, nor have you researched the history and significance of the hijab. Your words in this thread have been filled with ignorance and the blatant belief that your way is the only correct way. You have no appreciation for just how complex and varied this situation is.

If you were so heartbroken on the state of that woman you saw at the mall, why didn't you rip the covering off her head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All dictators want to rule the world. The Gospel's central unit is the family. We need governments who give families and individuals the ability to govern themselves, and limit them on what they can impose on others. This rule applies to everyone. Sure some cultures are extreme and seem out of step with our beliefs. But think about this. Every person in every culture of every time and place thought their culture was right and everyone else was wrong. So the solution is to have a government that don't let one culture dictate to the rest.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe any woman would seriously want to cover her face. If she says she does she only says it to please her husband or father/family and out of fear. If she were truly free she would not cover her face. Come on people - this is 2014! Not 100 A.D.

Most religious groups in the U.S. are pawns of big business now. It's time the Federal government went after both - big business and their religious troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe any woman would seriously want to cover her face. If she says she does she only says it to please her husband or father/family and out of fear. If she were truly free she would not cover her face. Come on people - this is 2014! Not 100 A.D.

I can't believe any man would seriously post what you just posted. If they do they only do it out of fear. If you were truly free you would not post such things. Come on people - this is 2014! Not 100 A.D. So come, be honest with us. Who do you fear, HoosierGuy, that you say such things?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe any woman would seriously want to cover her face. If she says she does she only says it to please her husband or father/family and out of fear. If she were truly free she would not cover her face. Come on people - this is 2014! Not 100 A.D.

Most religious groups in the U.S. are pawns of big business now. It's time the Federal government went after both - big business and their religious troops.

Come on HoosierGuy it's 2014 not 1934!

nuremberg1934.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share