I think religion is a personal matter and government should reflect that. Theocracy has really held back societies from the feudal fiefdoms of the middle ages to the Sharia law systems of today. Laws should neither favor a religion or prohibit it.

One of the biggest issues about this (in the US at least) seems to be prayer in schools. Of course, anyone is free to pray in the schools who wants to -- but you could not, for example, say a prayer over the PA system. Again, I don't think it would be right for the school to endorse a religion.. and people always have the options of private schools or home schooling.

 

PDF said: Final-Fan said: A man is free to argue for a law that fits his faith, but he has to justify the reasons for having it in a secular government. So "no abortions 'cuz the Bible says ___" is not acceptable. So somone saying I think abortion should be allowed because what JFK said __________ is acceptable??? We are all influenced by somthing and it should not make anyone opinion less important. You are right that the man of faith would have to argue that he believes it is life and he thinks killing it is wrong but if he got to the decision on what his faith says is no different that what led the man who dissagrees with him to his decision.

You completely missed my point.  If someone said we should do something because JFK said so, I would ask why JFK said we should.  "Do this 'cuz JFK says so" is equally unacceptable. 

In fact, this is a general rule which you seem to be unfamiliar with.  "Do this because ___ said you should", with no other justification, is always a bad argument. 

If someone wants to use his religion to guide him to the correct laws we should have, that's fine, but he still needs to give us a better reason to go along with it than "my religion says it's a good idea". 

Here's an analogy, if you remember getting yelled at to "show your work" in math homework:  Religion may give him his answers, but he still needs to show his work on why we should follow its suggestion, and "because the Bible says so" is bad math. 

Don't you agree? 

PDF said: Separation of Church and State. Religion and Church are not the same thing. Dont blame a whole religion for one donomination.

It's "church and state" because "religion and state" doesn't sound as nice. Seriously, man, saying the State can have "religion" as long as it doesn't have "church" is just ASKING for trouble. It's like telling an alcoholic to have one and only one drink a day.

"Don't blame a whole religion for one denomination" Does this mean you think it is ok for the State to do generic Christian stuff but not specifically Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican/whatever stuff?

Absolutely, After all God will establish His eternal government here on this earth. It should be our every endeavour to vote for the canidate that best suits the U.S. politically, and even more spiritually (christianity).

No.

If you can't see why religion should be a private matter just refer to the middle east.

If you still can't see why please refer to history. Crusades, Witch Hunts, Oh man there is so much!

Religion + Government = people are going to die.

There is enough religion in the world for us all to kill each other but not love each other.

Of course it doesn't. As religion is basically a political standpoint in its own form, at least the orginization ones.

The only thing religion can lead to in government, is corruption and violence, as it so has done throughout history. Governments need to be religion free, otherwise we'll have the same old shit we've always had.

I'm not saying religion is bad, but the orginizations behind them don't need any more power than we give them already. Because religions have the power to brainwash and manipulate minds into a nationalistic pride. Now countries can do that, but we don't need anymore players in this game.

elendar said: No. If you can't see why religion should be a private matter just refer to the middle east. If you still can't see why please refer to history. Crusades, Witch Hunts, Oh man there is so much! Religion + Government = people are going to die. There is enough religion in the world for us all to kill each other but not love each other.

There is plenty enough Religion for us to love each other, death comes when you throw politics in the mix. Crusades? Political, they wanted the land and used religion as an excuse.

Witch Hunt? Someone was doing something stupid and hid behind religion and superstition to get out of it, people got killed in the process and no one wanted to admit that they had made a serious mistake, so they just kept the lie running instead of admitting it.

Terrorism in the Middle East? small group is using religion to fuel anger over other countries being better off.

Name any problem in the world and i'll show you where it really comes down to politics. Politics will lie, twist and corrupt anything. Religion is just one of the things that has the most horrible events when it gets corrupted. But it happens to government, history, and even sciences and other schools of learning.

Religion by itself is actually quite reasonable and is pretty much the moral standard upon which the laws of the government were based on in the first place. There's a reason why the Court houses have (or at least had) the ten commandments on them.

Oh, and does anyone remember things like "In god we trust" and why you swear on the bible when testifying, and "god given rights?"  You need to have a religious foundation in order to ensure that there is always a point at which teh government cannot supercede it's own authority. By pointing out that there are "god given rights" it means that there are things that the government is not allowed to touch PERIOD. If teh government is the one that makes a law, they can change that law. so if the government was the one that gave you those rights, the government would be able to change those rights if it wanted to.

Even if there was only one religion in the world I would still say no. To me anybody who is true to their religion would follow it regardless of the law to try and save others by mixing religion politics adn law confuses the issues adn blurs teh lines between law and morality which are two unique and seperate things. If I felt something was moral I would break the law. I am a big fan of Kohlberg on this one with his stages of moral development.

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles

I would appreciate it if an anti-religion-in-law person would explain this part of the general position to me.

What principle of government demands that religious people not allow their religion to influence their decisions when they vote on laws regarding moral decisions (such as what behaviour should be criminal, not the establishment of religion)?

There appear to be two main reasons offered:

1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" entails there must be no influence of religion in government.

2. Religion influencing government will lead to poor decisions.

I personally find the 1st to be so tremendously flawed that I can't even begin to respect the exegetical ability of anyone who believes in such an interpretation.

I also personally find the 2nd to be a matter of debate and opinion. Unfortunately, I also think that the debate little chance to be to be resolved within this thread and will likely degenerate into the equivalent of shouting wars.

Is there another reason or should I just shrug and leave this topic?

finalsquall said: Well seeing that most laws, morals and ethics have been based around religions. I think it's the basis of our society and still is a good foundation for society (I'm coming from the Christian side as it has the most influence in western society - I'm unsure of their countries and their religions). My view however is based the human voice - freedom to vote, free speech and debate what is right, just and appropriate for the time/age of society.

I always see this argument and it's a faulty one. It is religion that has based it's laws around what human societies naturally deem unacceptable. Rape, murder and theft were considered bad by society long before any of todays major religions existed and it will remain when todays major religions die out. Most doctrines are also completely incompatible with what humans now consider immoral. Corporal punishment and animal cruelty are considered bad things in the majority of the western world yet most religions rarely mention. In many cases (such as corporal punishment) christianty and islam promote it. And no one is saying that you can't have faith and opinions on social issues, but you can't enforce your opinions on everyone else through law. For arguments sake your $deity says that homosexual relationships are wrong and should be outlawed. Then through a majority vote it became outlawed. That would be imposing your religion on other people regardless of their belief. In essence, what I'm saying is that your faith is fine as a guiding moral compass that you can personally follow, but if you tried to have your faith enshrined in law then you have overstepped the seperation of church and state.