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.
There has been much imposition of laws based on religious beliefs:
Sunday Blue Laws that prevented businesses from operating on the Sunday Christian Sabbath.
Bars restricted from opening and supermarkets/grocery stores restricted from selling beer before Church services were over on the Sunday Christian Sabbath.
Municipalities and municipal agencies using tax funds sponsoring Halloween, Christmas and Easter celebrations/festivities.
Uncovering your head in the Christian manner when in a gov't court.
Requiring parents to provide the name of a new born child within 3 days of that child's birth.
I have no problem with some such fundings, provided the celebrations/festivities are secular in nature. For example, trick-or-treating, Christmas trees, and coloring Easter eggs are no more religious than is referring to the fourth day of the business week "Thursday".
For example, trick-or-treating, Christmas trees, and coloring Easter eggs are no more religious than is referring to the fourth day of the business week "Thursday".
From a traditional Jewish perspective, these celebrations are not secular; and, the fourth day of the business week that begins on Sunday (actually begins at sundown on Saturday evening) on the civil calendar is Wednesday on the civil calendar.
It doesn't matter why someone opposes or supports abortion or gay marriage.
Someone who opposes abortion because that's what their religion tells them has as much right to influence gov't, policy as someone who opposes abortion because genetics or biology convince them life exists, or they know people who regret the decision, or saw a 3rd month sonogram and is sickened by the thought of anyone killing what they saw merely because that thing is an inconvenience.
Who are you or anyone else to tell someone to they can't influence law because you don't like Why they formed their opinions.
Tell me who would you seek treatment from - a doctor who formed their diagnosis by consulting with gods/spirits and reading bones/tea leaves or one trained in cold, hard medical/scientific facts?
Same goes for running a country and legislating law..
From a traditional Jewish perspective, these celebrations are not secular; and, the fourth day of the business week that begins on Sunday (actually begins at sundown on Saturday evening) on the civil calendar is Wednesday on the civil calendar.
Irrelevant.
From a traditional pagan Norse perspective, dedicating a day to Thor isn't secular. But that doesn't mean that everyone who speaks English and calls Thursday "Thursday" isn't being secular.
As with trick-or-treating, Christmas trees, and coloring Easter eggs. The fact that something comes ultimately from a religious origin, or may be used in a religious rite, does not make all such acts of that sort religious. I wasn't undergoing a religious rite the last time I had a glass of wine just because some people like to do so, pretending that said glass is the blood of a guy/deity who lived and died 2000 years ago.
Hello all,
Something I hear alot on here { and something I have said myself } Is that Atheists and unbelievers have a real problem with religious folk of any type trying to impose laws based on their religious beliefs into society. Myself, being an unbeliever of any organized religion, also thought this way.
Though, Not to long ago I thought about this for a little while and I now see what I percieve to have been an error in my way of thinking The following quote is what inspired me to start this thread.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
Or for instance, wouldn't it be the same as someone who was pro-life telling somone who was pr-choice that "they didnt care what they believe"......etc. etc. ????
Do you think this is the same? If no, then how not? If yes, than wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a democracy where majority rules? Lastly. isn''t it only fair that the religious get to impose their ideas into our laws if they infact have a mojority?
my POV:
1. it has much to do with what the speaker considers "based on religious belief." for example, during the last few years I've heard quite a few people make the excuse that having a viewpoint on virtually any topic that differs from 100% anarchy and so-called freedom 'musssst' be connected to 'religious beliefs' when that was not the case at all.
in contrast, if a regular person or politician clarifies his or her viewpoint that something should be legal or illegal "because the Bible says so" or similar, I believe that's way out of line.
2. while your main topic is "laws," I believe my comments above also extend to basic standards.
3. I'm totally against the "majority rules" concept. all you've gotta do is take a look at American history to see there have been quite a few topics on which "the majority" was not the best judge of what should be legal/illegal.
Tell me who would you seek treatment from - a doctor who formed their diagnosis by consulting with gods/spirits and reading bones/tea leaves or one trained in cold, hard medical/scientific facts?
Same goes for running a country and legislating law..
It doesn't matter what I'd do. Anyone for any reason can try to influence my opinion. I'd hope a majority of legislators would reject the advice of bone and tea leaf readers. Then again, tea leaves might might provide better economic forecasts than Harvard profs and the CBO.
Tell me who would you seek treatment from - a doctor who formed their diagnosis by consulting with gods/spirits and reading bones/tea leaves or one trained in cold, hard medical/scientific facts?
Same goes for running a country and legislating law..[/quote]
I guess that all depends on who's voting doesn't it? I mean again, would the majority prefer someone who bases thier views on cold hard facts, or someone who "consults Gods" ???
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 08-29-2011 at 05:49 PM..
I don't know. I like the guy consulting Gods. Hey, what's religion for? We consult facts when we are interested in policy management for the slavery done not to admit, to hide, and to support the law which only needs to be verified.
The law worded for religion, on the other hand, is for improving that we had a good conscience. No? Help us refer to past experience for better future decisions.
I haven't waded through all of the responses in this thread, so forgive me if I repeat a point that has been raised already. Actually, I sincerely hope I'm not the first one to raise this particular point.
Our country's Constitution guarantees us religious freedom. If we pass laws or other legislation based on the Bible, or any other religious text, that is infringing on the Constitutional rights of citizens that don't adhere to that particular belief.
Plain and simple. Majority v. minority has no bearing.
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.
We consult facts when we are interested in policy management for the slavery done not to admit, to hide, and to support the law which only needs to be verified.
