Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, then, we either declare 'Christianity' to be the official foundation of our laws, or we allow the Homonic Hymns, the Theogony, the Havamal, the Eddas, the Great Hymn to the Aten, the Pāli Canon, the Prinicipia Discordia, the Vedas, the Quran, the Satanic Bible, Dianetics, the Charge of the Goddess -- and writings virtually every other religion that is currently practiced in the US to have a say as well.
I hope someone has a plan to resolve the massive conflicts and contradictions that will appear when we try and actually write such a law.
It's really not complicated. If the majority becomes "secular" in their world view, we will naturally have the secular non-God view dominating our Government. Would I like it? No...but that's how the game is played.
Nice try though. Your apparent knowledge base with respect to all the various god's and godesses appears to be quite extensive.
tigetmax24 apparently doesn't understand the protections the constitution gives on the minority, to prevent Tyranny of the Majority. We're not a pure democracy for that reason.
It's not about imposing atheism, it's about NOT imposing ANYTHING and instead, being NEUTRAL toward religious / lack of religious beliefs, so that you can remain free to practice your own religion (or not) as you choose, without a law forcing you in any direction.
Right, everyone needs to be clear in understanding that the only world view that can be imposed and officially instituted as the official state world view would be the secular/non-God view.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
There is nothing hypocritical about that. Secular society has no business enforcing God's laws on anyone. It is counter to God's desire that we voluntarily adhere to His laws. Forcing society to adhere under penalty of human action emasculates God and defies His wishes. God is not impotent and does not need humans to enforce His laws . . . it wouldn't do any good anyway. Forced behavior changes nothing IN the individual.
The law will be (should be) thrown out if it is based on religion. You should know that as a voter and should know that a vote to impose your religion on others is a vote for an unconstitutional law. But the only way to regulate this is for the courts to determine so after the law has been passed.
I think you are misunderstanding.
The point I am trying to get at is the law itself, in written for i.e. ballot language, wouldn't be based on any religion. But, what about those individeuals who vote for or against a law based only on their religious views.
P.S.
the "knowing that as a voter" honor system thing isn't going to work. A fundie Christian won't stop and think to themselves.... "well, I'm for this law because my religion says so and so but im going to vote no because it wouldn't be right to vote on my religious beliefs"......just wouldn't work.
It's really not complicated. If the majority becomes "secular" in their world view, we will naturally have the secular non-God view dominating our Government. Would I like it? No...but that's how the game is played.
Nice try though. Your apparent knowledge base with respect to all the various god's and godesses appears to be quite extensive.
And if the law is religiously-oriented, we'd have the Christians objecting to a law based on Wicca, the Satanists objecting to Christianity-based laws, Islam objecting to any laws that aren't reflective of *their* views....
The point that I'm trying to make is that, by remaining a secular institution, nobody is offended, everyone is protected equally, and we don't have to spend umpteen million dollars trying to resolve the conflicts that will inveitably arise between laws that are fundimentally (pardon the pun) opposed in content and intent.
Say, for example, a Christian manages to pass a law that outlaws witchcraft, based on that infamous 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' passage. Most practicing Wiccans, then, become criminals based on the words of a religious text.
Moreover, suppose a Wiccan coven then sues and tries to have the law struck down as discriminatory? Do we abolish the law (in favor of the Wiccan's suit), do we uphold the law (because it was passed as law), or do we simply change the law to omit religious references entirely (which would completely invalidate the point of having such laws)?
It's not as simple as 'religious vs. secular'; it's an issue of impartiality, as well as fundimental rights and freedoms.
tigetmax24 apparently doesn't understand the protections the constitution gives on the minority, to prevent Tyranny of the Majority. We're not a pure democracy for that reason.
It's not about imposing atheism, it's about NOT imposing ANYTHING and instead, being NEUTRAL toward religious / lack of religious beliefs, so that you can remain free to practice your own religion (or not) as you choose, without a law forcing you in any direction.
I fully understand the theoretical concept of neutrality.
Logically and realistically, how do you actually propose to police such a thing? Who gets to make the determination between that which constitutes the "neutral," "secular" or "religious" thought motivations? To be sure, our judges are, for the most part, political appointees. However, the judiciary will still naturally tend to be a reflection of the contemporary mood and moral make-up of the electorate (majority).
Also, logically, either God exists or no God exists. The choice in government is either the God view or the non-God view. Logically, with respect to theism, there is no neutral place that we can run to.
The point I am trying to get at is the law itself, in written for i.e. ballot language, wouldn't be based on any religion. But, what about those individeuals who vote for or against a law based only on their religious views.
P.S.
the "knowing that as a voter" honor system thing isn't going to work. A fundie Christian won't stop and think to themselves.... "well, I'm for this law because my religion says so and so but im going to vote no because it wouldn't be right to vote on my religious beliefs"......just wouldn't work.
Well if the law itself is not based on religion, and does not impose or prohibit any religious expression, then that's all that matters. I never said we could police a voter's intentions. You have even quoted where I said the only thing to do is for the courts to determine constitutionality.
Also, logically, either God exists or no God exists. The choice in government is either the God view or the non-God view. Logically, with respect to theism, there is no neutral place that we can run to.
Not true. It's not the government's place to decide 'god or no god'. They remain secular so that you can decide for yourself! There should be no government imposition or prohibition of religion at all. That's neutral.
Not true. It's not the government's place to decide 'god or no god'. They remain secular so that you can decide for yourself! There should be no government imposition or prohibition of religion at all. That's neutral.
Okay. If you're willing, let's take this step by step.
Would you agree that all law is imposition?
Would you also agree that all people have a world view (opinions/conclusions about life's ultimate questions)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
