• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just what we need - just what faith needs

Pah

Uber all member
In case you can't tell - the title of the thread is sarcastic


Saturday 5th February, 2005

House Democrats to draw up faith agenda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Monday 31st January, 2005 (UPI)

The complete article

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants her House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants her party to develop a faith agenda for 2006 to try to reconnect with religious-minded Americans voters.

Pelosi has tapped U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., to lead the effort to recapture faith-based voters who, exit polls indicate, constituted a substantial bloc of votes in the 2004 U.S. elections.
If it is wrong for Republicans to "play" on faith for political purposes, it is wrong for Democrats to do likewise.

We NEED to remove religion from politics and government.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Faith needs to be honest; politics can never afford to be so.(Quote:- [Me])
(Absolute power corrupts............)
the only thing wrong with life as we know it is that we humans corrupt it.:eek:
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
This will be like soft money. Niether should have it, but unless the Dems try and take it, the Republicans will shamelessly try to capitalize on this voting block.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Is religion forcing its way back into poltics in America or has it always been so?

I speak to the odd American online and hear stuff through the news, but I was wondering if it's simply being reported more.

Similarly I'm curious if the decision to teach creation in a school in Pennsylvania is a new trend or an isolated event that caused a racket.
 

desi

Member
Don't you get it. Most people are religious and vote as such. To ignore this is to set your candidates up for failure in future elections.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
truthseekingsoul said:
Is religion forcing its way back into poltics in America or has it always been so?
No, it has not always been so.

It has always been a factor on a personal basis but it has never been harnessed and used for political gain in my lifetime the way it has the past 4-5 years.

It`s scary.
 

Pah

Uber all member
desi said:
Don't you get it. Most people are religious and vote as such. To ignore this is to set your candidates up for failure in future elections.
I would say that is true for candidates bought by Christians to force Christian principles on the rest of us. Perhaps you, yourself don't get it - the Constitution protects our right not to have that happen.

What would you call someone who flaunts the Constitution by making a religion, and a particular religion at that, a religious test? Unamerican? Lawless? Traitor?

It even could be considered sinfull - not to follow the dictates of Jesus when he said to allow government it's own business.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I speak to the odd American online
Hey bud,

We're allowed to be odd, it's in our constitution. :D But we can't force our oddities on others in the name of religion. That's what happening here.
 

Faminedynasty

Active Member
I propse a violent struggle to the death between those who do and do not respect the sepparation of church and state. True, those who recognize the sepparation will probably lose, but that's fine with me. I prefer death to theocracy.
Ms. Pelosi is going to have to work hard to prove that the democrats are as ignorant, hateful and pro-elite as the republicans. She should push forward the "hatred of homos" bill and the "women back to the kitchen" bill if the democrats really want to win some red states.
 

desi

Member
pah said:
I would say that is true for candidates bought by Christians to force Christian principles on the rest of us. Perhaps you, yourself don't get it - the Constitution protects our right not to have that happen.

If the majority of voters are Christians there is nothing you can do, that I know of, to stop them from voting for a self professed Christian candidate who will do whatever is within their power when they are in office. Each issue a candidate addresses has several sides with Christians and nonChristians together on both sides for various reasons. To say a politician did x because of y seems an oversimplification in most instances.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
If the majority of voters are Christians there is nothing you can do, that I know of, to stop them from voting for a self professed Christian candidate who will do whatever is within their power when they are in office.
But thats just the point.

They are doing things that ARE NOT within their power.

y`know that thing called the Constitution?

Apparently they don`t.
 

Pah

Uber all member
desi said:
If the majority of voters are Christians there is nothing you can do, that I know of, to stop them from voting for a self professed Christian candidate who will do whatever is within their power when they are in office. Each issue a candidate addresses has several sides with Christians and nonChristians together on both sides for various reasons. To say a politician did x because of y seems an oversimplification in most instances.
I don't blame the voters and there just might be something that can be done about Christian organizations that delve too much into the issues. I would look into the possibility of a court action to prevent religious money going to campaigns. Or a suit to deny these non-profits any tax breaks if they have affiliation with religious organizations. There is precedent and a proper case could be found. I would seek to remove religion not only from the government but from the process of forming the governement. I would seek to keep religion in the pulpit and to keep politics out of the pulpit

I don't believe the is any scripture that supports forcing a religious morality on those not professing the religion unless you count the genocides in the Old Testament. There is Constitutional protection from imposing your morality as a law.
 

Pah

Uber all member
TranceAm said:
pah said:

There is Constitutional protection from imposing your morality as a law.

To take this one to the edge and see if it flies:
So someone that imposes his morality in law is seen in the spirit of the constitution as a ?

And someone that changes the constitution to be able to impose his morality in law is seen in the spirit of the constitution as a ?

No wonder they keep hammering on "The constitution is a living document" changable over time.
Religious morality was the context
 

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD
TranceAm said:
ok, Allow me to include and adapt:

So someone that imposes his Religious morality in law is seen in the spirit of the constitution as a ?

And someone that changes the constitution to be able to impose his Religious morality in law is seen in the spirit of the constitution as a ?

No wonder they keep hammering on "The constitution is a living document" changable over time.

Does it Fly? ;) And Frubals for the answer.
The answer to both questions is "theocrat."
 

Pah

Uber all member
TranceAm said:
ok, Allow me to include and adapt:

So someone that imposes his Religious morality in law is seen in the spirit of the constitution as a no-no

And someone that changes the constitution to be able to impose his Religious morality in law is seen in the spirit of the constitution as a citizen

Does it Fly? ;) It soars like a Bald Eagle

But retrorich is right too!
 

Irenicas

high overlord of sod all
Well, I think the obvious problem here is the division of religion and state. In many countries, the state religion and the state government are strongly connected, and this is true in the USA. However, what is different in this case is the actual way the state was set up, and also the way the religious basis was set up. The US was intended to have very seperate geoverment and religion, and in the original consitution no reference to God was made at all - this was a much later addition.
However, we must remember that the USA is a very Christian country, mostly we can assume because of it's founding. However, with the recent mixing of religion and politics by the Republicans and now the Democrats, a distinct problem arises. A hundred and fifty years ago this wouldn't be a problem, simply because EVERYONE in the USA was Christian. But now we must recognise that the USA is a multi-cultral society, and if the governmental candidates mix Christian ethics with their own political machinations, then surely these toher faith groups (including athiests we should remember!) will be neglected. Certainly, the majority of the voters are Christian, but the US government has an obligation to care and serve all the people, not just the Christians living in the States!
 

Melody

Well-Known Member
Irenicas said:
Well, I think the obvious problem here is the division of religion and state. In many countries, the state religion and the state government are strongly connected, and this is true in the USA. However, what is different in this case is the actual way the state was set up, and also the way the religious basis was set up. The US was intended to have very seperate geoverment and religion,
I had a political science professor in college who taught that the "separation of church and state" was being perverted in our court rooms. That it was intended only to mean that the state could not create a "state" religion such as the anglican church in England. Not that every reference to God should be eliminated from the state.

Oh....and he is an atheist btw.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Melody said:
I had a political science professor in college who taught that the "separation of church and state" was being perverted in our court rooms. That it was intended only to mean that the state could not create a "state" religion such as the anglican church in England. Not that every reference to God should be eliminated from the state. ...
Wouldn't you call Christianity a religion? How many religions do you know where the name of the diety is God other than Christianity?

What the courts have done is not only not create a state religion but are avoiding sponsering one.

I would gladly discuss with your professoer the history of religion in our early Constitution (both Federal and State) and the meaning of the phrases dealing with religion in the First Amendment.

 

Melody

Well-Known Member
pah said:
What the courts have done is not only not create a state religion but are avoiding sponsering one.

I would gladly discuss with your professoer the history of religion in our early Constitution (both Federal and State) and the meaning of the phrases dealing with religion in the First Amendment.

His view was that by actively removing any mention of God from any public arena, the government was actually enforcing a human secularism...which he considered just as much a religion.

As for discussing with my professor. I would guess he's long since retired ;-).
 
Top