Legislating morality?

[Values]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?

[DRS]

How are they running your life?

Are you being forced to practice as they do?

[WorldWatcher]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?



Let me point out two key phrases "legislate to the people as a whole" and "should we acquiesce our beliefs".


The first phrase confirms the idea that the idea is to legislate morality, even on those that disagree with you. The second phrase is an error in that it assumes by not legislating morality for everyone, that somehow it deprives you of living your life in a moral manner that you choose for yourself.


For example...


If someone finds it immoral to pick their nose. Not being able to pass legislation making it a $10,000 fine to pick your nose, in no way stops you from choosing not to pick your nose.



Morality** imposed by rule of law isn't really morality.







**Morality meaning those things where harm is not done to another so please no examples of "Well if laws aren't based on morality then murder must be OK right?". Thanks.



>>>>

[vir doctus]

For what purpose should I ask a non-Christian to behave like a Christian?

[Values]

For what purpose should I ask a non-Christian to behave like a Christian?

As a Christian are your morals only something you are to have held inside or are you to act with them always? In another manner, If you are called upon to vote, do/should you use your Faith to guide you?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?

For me, my Christian beliefs will stay within my family and my Methodist church (or others who show interest to me). Others can do what they want but I don't want any one's religious or secular beliefs dictating what I can or can't do. I'll take care of that for myself and my family.

[Values]

For me, my Christian beliefs will stay within my family and my Methodist church (or others who show interest to me). Others can do what they want but I don't want any one's religious or secular beliefs dictating what I can or can't do. I'll take care of that for myself and my family.

Is this what Jesus taught?
No offense meant here but how can one keep their Christian Faith within a boundary when we have a conmmission to do otherwise? I refer you to Matthew 28:16-20.

[Values]

Let me point out two key phrases "legislate to the people as a whole" and "should we acquiesce our beliefs".


The first phrase confirms the idea that the idea is to legislate morality, even on those that disagree with you. The second phrase is an error in that it assumes by not legislating morality for everyone, that somehow it deprives you of living your life in a moral manner that you choose for yourself.


For example...


If someone finds it immoral to pick their nose. Not being able to pass legislation making it a $10,000 fine to pick your nose, in no way stops you from choosing not to pick your nose.



Morality** imposed by rule of law isn't really morality.







**Morality meaning those things where harm is not done to another so please no examples of "Well if laws aren't based on morality then murder must be OK right?". Thanks.



>>>>

If one is a person of a Faith and they vote on any particular subject I would assume that they would vote according to their own morals. This vote is then taken into account to govern the population as a whole, the outcome of the vote determines how we will legislate on particular issues and, in that legislation, are determinations of how morals of citizens will be viewed and treated.

[meggers49]

How are they running your life?

Are you being forced to practice as they do?

in some manners, yes.

Working on Sunday, issues in health care are two things I can come up with on short notice.

If you don't use your morality when you vote, you are not being true to your faith. If you aren't being true to your faith and yourself, then don't claim faith.

[meggers49]

For me, my Christian beliefs will stay within my family and my Methodist church (or others who show interest to me). Others can do what they want but I don't want any one's religious or secular beliefs dictating what I can or can't do. I'll take care of that for myself and my family.

That can't work.

Secular laws are impinging on moral tenets all the time in this nation. We are having a huge struggle with the issue of "gay marriage". It is a moral debate which will absolutely impact your faith life.

Abortion and illegitimate pregnancy also are secular issues that touch on faith issues.

there are many things that the secular government is dealing with currently and is planning on dealing with in the future which will impact your faith life.


To say that what happens in the world outside of your church has no bearing on your faith life is naive.

[WorldWatcher]

If one is a person of a Faith and they vote on any particular subject I would assume that they would vote according to their own morals. This vote is then taken into account to govern the population as a whole, the outcome of the vote determines how we will legislate on particular issues and, in that legislation, are determinations of how morals of citizens will be viewed and treated.


Which is why, legally speaking, there is normally a "compelling state interest" test in the application of laws when those laws deprive citizens of rights or equal treatment.


For example...



Let's say the law says blind people can't received a Driver's License. Is there a compelling interest? Sure, operation of a 2.5 ton motor vehicle at 60 mph can be very dangerous and to minimize that danger a person needs to be able to see.

On the other hand, let's say that the people find that the operation of a motor vehicle by women is morally reprehensible and a law is passed that only males can operate motor vehicles. Under the application of Equal Treatment Under the Law provisions of the 14th Amendment (and repeated in most [if not all] State Constitutions) it becomes the requirement of the government to provide a compelling reason as to why females are discriminated against. If one is provided, the law is allowed to stand. If on the other hand the law is found to be invidious and discriminatory for no reason, then the law can be struck down. Typically the fact that a portion of the population finds something as "immoral" does not fly has a valid compelling reason.




>>>>

[JStasc08]

That can't work.

Secular laws are impinging on moral tenets all the time in this nation. We are having a huge struggle with the issue of "gay marriage". It is a moral debate which will absolutely impact your faith life.

Abortion and illegitimate pregnancy also are secular issues that touch on faith issues.

there are many things that the secular government is dealing with currently and is planning on dealing with in the future which will impact your faith life.


To say that what happens in the world outside of your church has no bearing on your faith life is naive.

These moral issues only impact your faith in that you may be exposed to them more often. Any sort of legislation of morality in no way compels you to take part in anything that conflicts with your religious beliefs.

[CID_0687]

Shouldn't this be in General Interests?

[Values]

Which is why, legally speaking, there is normally a "compelling state interest" test in the application of laws when those laws deprive citizens of rights or equal treatment.


For example...



Let's say the law says blind people can't received a Driver's License. Is there a compelling interest? Sure, operation of a 2.5 ton motor vehicle at 60 mph can be very dangerous and to minimize that danger a person needs to be able to see.

On the other hand, let's say that the people find that the operation of a motor vehicle by women is morally reprehensible and a law is passed that only males can operate motor vehicles. Under the application of Equal Treatment Under the Law provisions of the 14th Amendment (and repeated in most [if not all] State Constitutions) it becomes the requirement of the government to provide a compelling reason as to why females are discriminated against. If one is provided, the law is allowed to stand. If on the other hand the law is found to be invidious and discriminatory for no reason, then the law can be struck down. Typically the fact that a portion of the population finds something as "immoral" does not fly has a valid compelling reason.




>>>>


You faith in the goverment does not bear out when looked at with the lense of history.
Nor does it stand up even today, there are many injustices that happen daily within our legal framework that legally (and morally to some) Something as simple as senior citezen discounts into federally run establishments is age discrimination and is not an equitably used standard by our governing body yet we have deemed it morally obligatory to do so.
Our government should not be considered in any way some sort of great equalizer and protector of individual morals.
This is why I asked the original questions.

[Values]

Shouldn't this be in General Interests?

Is that where a discussion on those of Faith and how they view or think their morals should be used and interpreted in soiciety?

[Values]

These moral issues only impact your faith in that you may be exposed to them more often. Any sort of legislation of morality in no way compels you to take part in anything that conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Even if that were true today, you assume that laws cannot and will not be changed based on the morals of those who vote changing them.

[JStasc08]

Even if that were true today, you assume that laws cannot and will not be changed based on the morals of those who vote changing them.

I think it is true today. I would say that I would be in favor gay marriage while I'm sure a majority of Christians would be against it. Even if I vote based on my morals allowing same sex marriage, nobody would be forced into such a marriage, whether they agree with it or not.

[WorldWatcher]

You faith in the goverment does not bear out when looked at with the lense of history.

You assume I have a lot of faith in government why?

But to be honest, I have less faith in a social authoritarian form of government then I do in a Constitutional Republic.


Nor does it stand up even today, there are many injustices that happen daily within our legal framework that legally (and morally to some) Something as simple as senior citezen discounts into federally run establishments is age discrimination...


Possibly, has this practice been challenged in court so we can understand what the compelling reason is?


and is not an equitably used standard by our governing body yet we have deemed it morally obligatory to do so.


Let's say a movie theater provides a senior citizens discount and a state park provides a senior citizens discount for camping.


I as the owner of an Ice Cream store am under no "morally obligatory" requirement to given seniors a discount on ice cream.


Our government should not be considered in any way some sort of great equalizer and protector of individual morals.


I agree, it's called personal responsibility.


Yet from your OP you don't want people to be personally responsibile for their own morality. It appears as if you want Big Brother to step in and impose your morals on other people.


>>>>

[Values]

I think it is true today. I would say that I would be in favor gay marriage while I'm sure a majority of Christians would be against it. Even if I vote based on my morals allowing same sex marriage, nobody would be forced into such a marriage, whether they agree with it or not.

Fine, no-one would be forced to marry a member of the opposite sex, but will an employer be forced to do anything that may be against their morals because of this shift?
How about the teachings in a public school setting? Will a child be able to state that they are against homosexual behavior in a classroom? You see, morals are inherently involved in almost every law we have, it is the reason why have instigated laws in the first place.
As society changes it is important that people of Faith stand up for their beliefs and willingly put them on the line even if others see it as encroachment on their beliefs. We cannot control others, nor should we, but we must live by our Faith even in the face of retribution from others.
Either you live by your Faith or you risk not having one of value to you.

[vir doctus]

As a Christian are your morals only something you are to have held inside or are you to act with them always? In another manner, If you are called upon to vote, do/should you use your Faith to guide you?

Except that I am a miserable, rotten sinner, my faith is what I live. Many Christians would disagree that I live the Christian faith because I don't see things the way they do, but I just can't squeeze some nonsense into my morality.

[vir doctus]

Fine, no-one would be forced to marry a member of the opposite sex, but will an employer be forced to do anything that may be against their morals because of this shift?
How about the teachings in a public school setting? Will a child be able to state that they are against homosexual behavior in a classroom?

Why do you think you should have a right to be a business owner or dictate what the school teaches?

[Values]

You assume I have a lot of faith in government why?

But to be honest, I have less faith in a social authoritarian form of government then I do in a Constitutional Republic.





Possibly, has this practice been challenged in court so we can understand what the compelling reason is?





Let's say a movie theater provides a senior citizens discount and a state park provides a senior citizens discount for camping.


I as the owner of an Ice Cream store am under no "morally obligatory" requirement to given seniors a discount on ice cream.





I agree, it's called personal responsibility.


Yet from your OP you don't want people to be personally responsibile for their own morality. It appears as if you want Big Brother to step in and impose your morals on other people.


>>>>

I think you mis-understand my Op.
I want those of Faith to stand up and live their Faith.
Allowing others to impose their morality through governmntal controls is not being meek but instead, acting weak.
We live in a Rep Republic, we should represent ourselves.

[vir doctus]

I think it is true today. I would say that I would be in favor gay marriage while I'm sure a majority of Christians would be against it. Even if I vote based on my morals allowing same sex marriage, nobody would be forced into such a marriage, whether they agree with it or not.

Why should government be involved in any marriage?

[vir doctus]

Allowing others to impose their morality through governmntal controls is not being meek but instead, acting weak.


Nobody can force me to behave in a way that is counter to my faith.

[Values]

Except that I am a miserable, rotten sinner, my faith is what I live. Many Christians would disagree that I live the Christian faith because I don't see things the way they do, but I just can't squeeze some nonsense into my morality.

I would say live your life by your Faith, let the rest do as they would.

[Values]

Nobody can force me to behave in a way that is counter to my faith.

This may be true of you and your Faith, but what of others and theirs?
This may not be your concern but then neither would this Op.

[WorldWatcher]

I think you mis-understand my Op.

Possibly...


I want those of Faith to stand up and live their Faith.


OK, got no problem here.


Allowing others to impose their morality through governmntal controls is not being meek but instead, acting weak.


This is where I turned the coin over. You asked about people using "Faith to legislate to the people as a whole".


So I asked what difference is there between social authoritarians who want to legislate their faith and that which you seem to be concerned about.


The difference being personal responsibility. When you legislate morality to "people as a whole" your position is no better then the other sides.



We live in a Rep Republic, we should represent ourselves.


Which is a critical difference between a republican form of government and a pure democracy, we have protections in the system which are supposed to protect individual freedoms. Freedoms some others might object to because they violate **that** individual sense of morality.



>>>>

[vir doctus]

This may be true of you and your Faith, but what of others and theirs?


Your interest is in propping up the weak through legislation? :eh:

[DRS]

in some manners, yes.

Working on Sunday, issues in health care are two things I can come up with on short notice.

If you don't use your morality when you vote, you are not being true to your faith. If you aren't being true to your faith and yourself, then don't claim faith.

Niether of those is forced upon the person unless the court tries to make the person go against their belief

How many here who know my faith want it to be the way of life for you?

[Values]

Niether of those is forced upon the person unless the court tries to make the person go against their belief

How many here who know my faith want it to be the way of life for you?

I actually do not know your Faith, yet I think you should vote your own morals.

[DRS]

I actually do not know your Faith, yet I think you should vote your own morals.

I do vote my morals and the only candidate that measures up is Jesus

[CID_0687]

Is that where a discussion on those of Faith and how they view or think their morals should be used and interpreted in soiciety?
No, but that is where social issues and political views belong, not RF.

[Values]

No, but that is where social issues and political views belong, not RF.

Then this being an issue of those of Faith, you agree that it does belong here?!?:confused:

[CID_0687]

Then this being an issue of those of Faith, you agree that it does belong here?!?:confused:
I've asked the mods to take a look...this thread could go political real quick...parts of it already are.

[Values]

I do vote my morals and the only candidate that measures up is Jesus

Totally agree, now if we could only get His name on the ballot!:razz:

[Values]

I've asked the mods to take a look...this thread could go political real quick...parts of it already are.

Why have you chose to take this as a politcal discussion rather than the one of questions of Faith and morality that it is?

[CID_0687]

Why have you chose to take this as a politcal discussion rather than the one of questions of Faith and morality that it is?
Your thread title for one.."Legislating Morality". umm...hello?

[DRS]

Totally agree, now if we could only get His name on the ballot!:razz:

When he comes he won't worry what ballot says

[Values]

Possibly...





OK, got no problem here.





This is where I turned the coin over. You asked about people using "Faith to legislate to the people as a whole".


So I asked what difference is there between social authoritarians who want to legislate their faith and that which you seem to be concerned about.


The difference being personal responsibility. When you legislate morality to "people as a whole" your position is no better then the other sides.






Which is a critical difference between a republican form of government and a pure democracy, we have protections in the system which are supposed to protect individual freedoms. Freedoms some others might object to because they violate **that** individual sense of morality.



>>>>

I advocate that people of Faith choose not to be kowtowed into not voting their own morals.
Our government today is less a represent republic as it is media driven society.

[Values]

Your thread title for one.."Legislating Morality". umm...hello?

So?
Read the context...get deeper, join the discussion.

[captusa]

As a Christian are your morals only something you are to have held inside or are you to act with them always? In another manner, If you are called upon to vote, do/should you use your Faith to guide you?


Catholic Christians believe that divorce is immoral.
Should Catholics seek to make all divorce illegal ?
Buddhists and Hindus believe killing animals is immoral.
Should Buddhists and Hindus seek to make any killing of animals illegal ?
As far as using your faith to guide you, why would that encourage you to impose your morality on others?
Would you wish people of other faiths impose their morality on you.
IOW Would imposing your morality onto others that which you would like to be done unto you ?'
Would you be doing unto others that what you wish to be done unto you ?

[Values]

When he comes he won't worry what ballot says

I often wonder, when He comes how those that do not believe will see Him. I understand that some will still deny to know Him and this seems rather odd to me.

[captusa]

Totally agree, now if we could only get His name on the ballot!:razz:

As far as president is concerned, I do not believe he was born an American citizen.

[meggers49]

Why should government be involved in any marriage?

Technically, they don't need to be, but you know as well as I do that they are. States license marriage. Personally, I think it's a means to make a little money BUT it is much more necessary in the divorce prone society in which we live.

Rules of divorce and distribution of marital assets is a civil function, not the function of the church.

[Values]

Catholic Christians believe that divorce is immoral.
Should Catholics seek to make all divorce illegal ?
Buddhists and Hindus do not believe killing animals is immoral.
Should Buddhists and Hindus seek to make any killing of animals illegal ?
As far as using your faith to guide you, why would that encourage you to impose your morality on others?
Would you wish people of other faiths impose their morality on you.
IOW Would imposing your morality onto others that which you would like to be done unto you ?'
Would you be doing unto others that what you wish to be done unto you ?

Why would anyone vote against their own morals?
You wish to impose your own moral standards on others, why is this not ok for others to do as well?

[Values]

As far as president is concerned, I do not believe he was born an American citizen.

We are all citizens of the World....embrace it Cap.:razz:

[captusa]

........Our government should not be considered in any way some sort of great equalizer and protector of individual morals.
This is why I asked the original questions.
If you believe that "Our government should not be considered in any way some sort of great equalizer and protector of individual morals" why would voting for a government official based on you opinion on how he would impliment your morality be consistant with that idea ?

[Values]

If you believe that "Our government should not be considered in any way some sort of great equalizer and protector of individual morals" why would voting for a government official based on you opinion on how he would impliment your morality be consistant with that idea ?

What I am saying is that we have the obligation to vote using our morals and not expect that the gov. will protect us and our values without our imput.

[Czhorat]

What I am saying is that we have the obligation to vote using our morals and not expect that the gov. will protect us and our values without our imput.

So is what you're saying that the Taliban in Afghanistan had it right? They saw it as immoral for women to be educated, so they forbade it by statute throughout the country. They saw the giant Buddha statues as morally offensive, so they dynamited them.

If this does not fit what you mean by wanting government to enforce religious morality, can you explain the difference to me?

[Czhorat]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?

I'll directly answer this original post:

Refraining from the use of legislation to impose your morals is not "allowing others' moralities to run your life"; it's acknowledging that in a religiously pluralistic society you don't have the right to use your morality to run their lives. Passing laws for no reason other than a religious rule is too close to the establishment of a church for my taste. As an atheist, I have no problem if you want your beliefs and wish to adhere to your religious tabboos. I want my right to not live by your religious belief respected, along with the rights of others to live by their beliefs so long as those beliefs aren't harmful.

A question for you: are you unhappy living in a religiously pluralistic society? Would you have felt happier in pre-colonial England, for instance, with an official state Church?

[Values]

So is what you're saying that the Taliban in Afghanistan had it right? They saw it as immoral for women to be educated, so they forbade it by statute throughout the country. They saw the giant Buddha statues as morally offensive, so they dynamited them.

If this does not fit what you mean by wanting government to enforce religious morality, can you explain the difference to me?

Afghanistan is not a representative republic where an individual has a voice and a vote.
As a voter you have the right to vote your morals, as a person of Faith you should vote accordingly.
Btw, just as you find the taliban's actions offensive one may find yours just as offensive.
Your morals do not supercede nor overshadow another's just because you find theirs reprehensible. Hence, the OP and discussion on those of Faith not allowing others to kowtow them into not voting with their morals in a country such as we have set up.

[Values]

I'll directly answer this original post:

Refraining from the use of legislation to impose your morals is not "allowing others' moralities to run your life"; it's acknowledging that in a religiously pluralistic society you don't have the right to use your morality to run their lives. Passing laws for no reason other than a religious rule is too close to the establishment of a church for my taste. As an atheist, I have no problem if you want your beliefs and wish to adhere to your religious tabboos. I want my right to not live by your religious belief respected, along with the rights of others to live by their beliefs so long as those beliefs aren't harmful.

A question for you: are you unhappy living in a religiously pluralistic society? Would you have felt happier in pre-colonial England, for instance, with an official state Church?

Is passing laws for non-religious rules any better? Your atheistic values are not mine, why should you be allowed to legislate from your beliefs but not me mine?
I want my right to not live by your non-religious beliefs to be respected as well.
You see, what you view as harmful is not neccessarily a universally held belief, you seem to want your beliefs but expect others to give up theirs. Why? Yours can be and are viewed as just as destructive and controling as you view mine.

You question is irrelevent to the OP, we are discussing what people of Faith should do in our RR government that we live in.

[vir doctus]

Is passing laws for non-religious rules any better? Your atheistic values are not mine, why should you be allowed to legislate from your beliefs but not me mine?
I want my right to not live by your non-religious beliefs to be respected as well.
You see, what you view as harmful is not neccessarily a universally held belief, you seem to want your beliefs but expect others to give up theirs. Why? Yours can be and are viewed as just as destructive and controling as you view mine.

You question is irrelevent to the OP, we are discussing what people of Faith should do in our RR government that we live in.

Where does God call you to live the way you want to?

[Values]

Where does God call you to live the way you want to?

And there is the reason for the OP.
God calls us to do more than just think nice thoughts about Him and others on Sunday mornings.

[Czhorat]

Afghanistan is not a representative republic where an individual has a voice and a vote.
As a voter you have the right to vote your morals, as a person of Faith you should vote accordingly.

The issue of faith-based ideas being forced on the populace by the force of government is the same. Would you accept, for example, a law that you couldn't eat pork or bacon if people of the Jewish and Muslim faiths had enough political clout to enact them?

Hence, the OP and discussion on those of Faith not allowing others to kowtow them into not voting with their morals in a country such as we have set up.

I don't understand how acknowledging that others have different beliefs than yours is kowtowing. I don't even see respecting those beliefs as "kowtowing".


Is passing laws for non-religious rules any better? Your atheistic values are not mine, why should you be allowed to legislate from your beliefs but not me mine?
I want my right to not live by your non-religious beliefs to be respected as well.
You see, what you view as harmful is not neccessarily a universally held belief, you seem to want your beliefs but expect others to give up theirs. Why?

I don't want to take away your beliefs. I don't agree with them, but I understand their importance to you. What I don't understand is your wanting to force others to follow them. This is wandering away from the idea of "religion" and towards "politics", and I think we're starting to just go back and forth here. I'll answer with how I see religion in America and the world today:

As I said, I see the world as religiously pluralistic. There are scores of different faiths, sects, and smaller sub-groups. There's also a small but, I suspect, growing portion of the population with no faith. Among all of these groups, there are some principles that are or should be nearly universal:

The right to life.
The right to basic freedoms, so long as they don't interfere with the freedoms of others.
The right to equal justice under the law.
The right to be treated with basic human dignity.

There are other restrictions that I see as religious taboos; things not held universally, but rules for how the faithful live their lives. I hesitate to even classify these as "morals" as they don't deal with objective right or wrong in any definable way but are agreed-upon rules. Not that both secular and religious society don't need both: for example, "thou shalt not kill" and a law agaisnt murder would both be an example of something that is wrong for a clear reason: it violates another person's right to life. "Don't eat pork" or "drive on the right side of the street" are just rules and conventions; there's a certain arbitrariness about the choice, and one could imagine a world working just as well with "don't eat fish" and "drive only on the left".

If both sets of rules line up, I'm more than happy with that. We should uphold morality in the sense of widely held standards of behaviour. When it comes to items purely a function of religious beliefs, I don't see any reason not to leave that to individual faiths. If your holy book says you have to marry within your faith, not eat certain animals, or not engage in certain sexual behavior that's fine. I don't see why you need the state to push that onto people of other faiths.

I'll repeat the question a bit differntly: how do you feel about the rights of others who believe differently than you to worship differently? Would you restrict it even if the difference in worship were the only difference?

[vir doctus]

And there is the reason for the OP.
God calls us to do more than just think nice thoughts about Him and others on Sunday mornings.

But He doesn't call you to live comfortably or to tell others to live according to your ways.

[jwil59]

Is this what Jesus taught?
No offense meant here but how can one keep their Christian Faith within a boundary when we have a conmmission to do otherwise? I refer you to Matthew 28:16-20.

That nis the Great Commsiion and It says nothing about forcing anyone to make disiples through law does It?

here's what I have been asking since my frist day at hannity. What is in all this for God? All this politics/Gov mix has been great for the GOP but what is ij it for God? The answer is nothing. The political hypocracy turns people off to the Gospel which is contrary to the Great Commission. Of course we cannot leave our faith behind when we go vote, that isn't what I am saying.

So what's in it for God? My opinion is that His Glory should be our first priority in life. The hypocracy surronding politics makes that impossible.

[vir doctus]

here's what I have been asking since my frist day at hannity. What is in all this for God? All this politics/Gov mix has been great for the GOP but what is ij it for God? The answer is nothing. The political hypocracy turns people off to the Gospel which is contrary to the Great Commission.

Exactly. When our politics interfere with taking care of the orphan, the widow, the lost, and the destitute, our politics interfere with God's calling for our lives.

[Eireanninion]

I think you mis-understand my Op.
I want those of Faith to stand up and live their Faith.
Allowing others to impose their morality through governmntal controls is not being meek but instead, acting weak. We live in a Rep Republic, we should represent ourselves.


Values, why do you assume that faithful people are not standing up and living their faith?

I cannot speak as a Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist or any other kind of believer, but as a believer in Jesus, I read the words of Jesus and look to those words and his actions before all else. Then I go and read the rest of the Bible the way he told me to in Luke 10:26-28 (and read further about what it means to love my neighbor in Luke 10: 29-37).

When Jesus tells me that the two most important commandments, the two that are the heart of all the rest, are Love God AND Love your neighbor as yourself, I believe Him. (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-28)

I read the Bible to find that Loving God means obeying his Laws, the LETTER of which are, as Jesus tells us by his exchanges with the Pharisees, to be followed up to the point that they break the two most important commandments. When the Letter of the Law comes into conflict with these two commandments, these two trump all else. This is the distinction Jesus makes with the Pharisees. They have followed all the Laws word for word... but they have done so to the point of not treating their neighbors with kindness and compassion (see the Samaritan parable).

1 John 4:21 reiterates that by telling me that there IS no way for me to love God, even when I obey his commandments word for word, Unless I show kindness and compassion to my neighbor as well. (1 John 4:7-21 shows you that this is in line with the complete message here.)

So, basically, in order for me to love God, I will ALWAYS have to take into account how my actions affect my neighbors. This means that loving my neighbor as myself must be central to everything I do in order to follow both commandments and all commandments that they are the heart of.

When I vote, loving my neighbor as myself is central since I can't show love to God without it. Loving my neighbor as myself happens to follow the principle of equality that the founding fathers set forth in our Constitution as well. So when I vote I think, am I showing my neighbors kindness and allowing the same access to or denial of freedoms, choices, opportunities that I allow myself?

In recent voting issues, am I being kind and allowing the same freedom to everyone to define their relationships that I allow myself? And if I even once were to have the sort of thought that someone whom I disagreed with defining their marriage as "marriage" was taking away something precious from me as a Christian, all I have to do is look to the whole section of Matthew 5 - 7, the Sermon on the Mount. I see Matthew 5:42 and I know what my reaction should be.

Loving God keeps me in line in my own life.
Loving my neighbor as myself tells me what my actions should be towards others and how important it is to God that I do my best to act with reverence and compassion towards his gifts of Creation.

I do my best to live my faith as I believe that Jesus instructs me to do and I try to follow the whole package, including Matthew 5 through 7.

[Values]

I'll repeat the question a bit differntly: how do you feel about the rights of others who believe differently than you to worship differently? Would you restrict it even if the difference in worship were the only difference?


I would and do advocate rules and laws that reflect my morals and values. You do the same.
The challenge that seems to face us in this is that you seem to think that because mine are of a more religious nature they should be viewed as squashing the beliefs of others. Is this not exactly you would have done with your own morals? You state that we should not be allowed to harm others with our legislations, yet asa a Christian I can tell you that legislation is being passed all the time that harms the values and morals that I hold dear.

[Harmonious]

Fine, no-one would be forced to marry a member of the opposite sex, but will an employer be forced to do anything that may be against their morals because of this shift?Like what? I'm not sure that a doctor can be forced to perform an abortion, but that doesn't mean that the patient can't find a different doctor.

How about the teachings in a public school setting? Will a child be able to state that they are against homosexual behavior in a classroom? Always. I imagine, though, that a teacher would be interested in how such a statement is made.

If you think that students DON'T, you have clearly never been in a public school classroom wherein a student, who isn't thrilled with an assignment, or an idea mentioned in class, hurls the epithet, "That is so gay."

Within the comment is the underlying premise that "being gay" is not acceptable and is worthy of scorn. While a teacher may say that such language is not permitted in the classroom, that does nothing to stop the rude child in question from holding that belief.

What other general classroom discussion can you think of where homosexual behavior would be discussed? I do recall observing a biology class where the teacher explained the human reproduction system, and was up to explaining pregnancies and STDs, and besides informing the class that abstinence works 100% percent of the time, she realized that not everyone would care about that, whereby she proceeded to explain what can be done, and how such things can be spread. Before the class began, she warned the students that she might blush a lot, but there was nothing they couldn't ask her.

She is a very brave woman, my friend, the Jewish Orthodox biology teacher.

If people asked about homosexual behavior, then she answered questions about that.

Where else would it show up?

The story "Heather Has Two Mommies" is meant for small children, but it isn't to present the morality of the homosexual couple or the sexuality of the parents at all, but to understand the shape of a recombined family.

Are you referring to reading literature that involves homosexual involvement? What exactly are you referring to, when you speak of children referring to objecting to homosexual behavior in a classroom? When would such statement of objection be appropriate in a classroom setting?

You see, morals are inherently involved in almost every law we have, it is the reason why have instigated laws in the first place.Sometimes. I still think it is ridiculous that there are some places that if I chose to buy alcohol on Sunday, I can't do it, because YOUR religion says I can't. My religion says nothing about Sunday as being special.

Where is the "morality" involved there?

As society changes it is important that people of Faith stand up for their beliefs and willingly put them on the line even if others see it as encroachment on their beliefs. We cannot control others, nor should we, but we must live by our Faith even in the face of retribution from others.:think:

Values, I am an Orthodox Jew. I have no idea what you are referring to when you, in America, are referring to being worried about living by your faith in the face of retribution from others. I don't have such worries, and I'm pretty sure that many of my observances are more visually obvious than yours.
Either you live by your Faith or you risk not having one of value to you.
Okay...

[Values]

That nis the Great Commsiion and It says nothing about forcing anyone to make disiples through law does It?

here's what I have been asking since my frist day at hannity. What is in all this for God? All this politics/Gov mix has been great for the GOP but what is ij it for God? The answer is nothing. The political hypocracy turns people off to the Gospel which is contrary to the Great Commission. Of course we cannot leave our faith behind when we go vote, that isn't what I am saying.

So what's in it for God? My opinion is that His Glory should be our first priority in life. The hypocracy surronding politics makes that impossible.

Ok, let's look at what is in it for God.
Is standing by and allowing the degredation of our children and family structure in His best interest?
Should we bear witness to the growing secularism of fellow Christians and just sit idly by?
We are given standards to live our lives by and we have taken them up and should hold them in very high esteem. Making your voice heard for the morals that God has given us seems to me to be a very real example of giving Him His Glory.

[jwil59]

Ok, let's look at what is in it for God.
Is standing by and allowing the degredation of our children and family structure in His best interest?

No parent should allow that. But it should be up to parents and not the Gov. or the law or politicians.

Should we bear witness to the growing secularism of fellow Christians and just sit idly by?
We are given standards to live our lives by and we have taken them up and should hold them in very high esteem. Making your voice heard for the morals that God has given us seems to me to be a very real example of giving Him His Glory.

The best way to make your morals known is through example, living a Godly life. Too many people think they actually do that through their politics. They are lying to themsleves IMO. That way they can ignore all of God's Holy precepts and concentrate on their politics and whatever else they want to. Human beings lead by example or don't lead at all, it's been that way since day one. I fear there will be many people that will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ with nothing to show except their public condemnation of gay marriage and abortion.

[vir doctus]

Ok, let's look at what is in it for God.
Is standing by and allowing the degredation of our children and family structure in His best interest?


Romans 1-3

[Finality]

I am interested in what kinds of morals religious folks think should be legislated that are not.

Obviously, for some that would be outlawing abortion; but, what else?

So much of our law is about administrative function, which is amoral in nature.

The federal government shouldn't be legislating any morality. The federal government is strictly bound by the Constitution (in theory). It's an operational manual, not a guidebook to a better life.

[vir doctus]

You state that we should not be allowed to harm others with our legislations, yet asa a Christian I can tell you that legislation is being passed all the time that harms the values and morals that I hold dear.

You are not required to live under this system.

[Eireanninion]

Ok, let's look at what is in it for God.
Is standing by and allowing the degredation of our children and family structure in His best interest?
Should we bear witness to the growing secularism of fellow Christians and just sit idly by?
We are given standards to live our lives by and we have taken them up and should hold them in very high esteem. Making your voice heard for the morals that God has given us seems to me to be a very real example of giving Him His Glory.

What is in it for God, Values, if we force Christian Law on people against their will? Even God allows people free will in their confrontation of sin. But we step in, take away that freedom of choice with Christian morality based laws and now you get a lot of people, forced to follow something they haven't been convinced of or believe in, who now have a negative stereotype and reaction towards anything having to do with Christianity and perhaps even God (sound familiar?). You've also possibly blocked any beautiful thing that any teacher of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other God fearing religion may have been able to teach or instill in someone. For certain you end up with a lot of people who are now going to close their ears and hearts against any message of God, Jesus, or Christianity, not because they don't believe it but simply out of anger and spite.

What happens now? The day of Judgment comes, God has a whole lot of people who hate Him and haven't allowed themselves to come to know or understand Him because Christians forced them to obey rules that they had no heart or love for. They won't accept Him and He has no choice but to turn them away, even if they were good people.

Yes, Values. What is in it for God indeed...

[vir doctus]

I am interested in what kinds of morals religious folks think should be legislated that are not.

Obviously, for some that would be outlawing abortion; but, what else?

So much of our law is about administrative function, which is amoral in nature.

The federal government shouldn't be legislating any morality. The federal government is strictly bound by the Constitution (in theory). It's an operational manual, not a guidebook to a better life.

As the mother of a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, I would like to see a cultural and legislative shift towards protecting the unborn child from abuse. However, this is not strictly a faith issue but one that matters for the entire life of the child and the pocketbook of all taxpayers.

[jwil59]

Exactly. When our politics interfere with taking care of the orphan, the widow, the lost, and the destitute, our politics interfere with God's calling for our lives.

What kills the most is the judgement involved in 2009 politics. That unrighteous judgement has no place in the Christian faith. I have seen it many times on this board. People actually judge the salvation of their brothers and sisters in Christ because they might vote differently. I think there probably is righteous judgement but there is qa huge difference in righteous judgement and being judgemental and crossing the line into the "log in your own eye" thing.

[Values]

Like what? I'm not sure that a doctor can be forced to perform an abortion, but that doesn't mean that the patient can't find a different doctor.

Pharmacists are being required to issue birth control as we speak

Always. I imagine, though, that a teacher would be interested in how such a statement is made.

If you think that students DON'T, you have clearly never been in a public school classroom wherein a student, who isn't thrilled with an assignment, or an idea mentioned in class, hurls the epithet, "That is so gay."

This particular verbage can land your child in jail in the state of Washington due to the anti-bullying laws recently enacted. So you might want to brush up on what is allowable anymore

Within the comment is the underlying premise that "being gay" is not acceptable and is worthy of scorn. While a teacher may say that such language is not permitted in the classroom, that does nothing to stop the rude child in question from holding that belief.

What other general classroom discussion can you think of where homosexual behavior would be discussed? I do recall observing a biology class where the teacher explained the human reproduction system, and was up to explaining pregnancies and STDs, and besides informing the class that abstinence works 100% percent of the time, she realized that not everyone would care about that, whereby she proceeded to explain what can be done, and how such things can be spread. Before the class began, she warned the students that she might blush a lot, but there was nothing they couldn't ask her.

In Wash. State planned parenthood is invited in the schools but they have chose not to take federal monies so that they can preclude abstinence only info

She is a very brave woman, my friend, the Jewish Orthodox biology teacher.

If people asked about homosexual behavior, then she answered questions about that.

Where else would it show up?

The story "Heather Has Two Mommies" is meant for small children, but it isn't to present the morality of the homosexual couple or the sexuality of the parents at all, but to understand the shape of a recombined family.

Of course it is a morality message

Are you referring to reading literature that involves homosexual involvement? What exactly are you referring to, when you speak of children referring to objecting to homosexual behavior in a classroom? When would such statement of objection be appropriate in a classroom setting?

Sometimes. I still think it is ridiculous that there are some places that if I chose to buy alcohol on Sunday, I can't do it, because YOUR religion says I can't. My religion says nothing about Sunday as being special.

My religion??? The government says no on Sundays

Where is the "morality" involved there?

:think:

Values, I am an Orthodox Jew. I have no idea what you are referring to when you, in America, are referring to being worried about living by your faith in the face of retribution from others. I don't have such worries, and I'm pretty sure that many of my observances are more visually obvious than yours.

As an Orthodox Jew my OP also includes you. The call to vote and live based on your morals is equally as urgent for you.

Okay...

:confused:

[jwil59]

I didn't see anyone asnwer the question (unless I missed it).

What's in it for God?

If we force God's morality through law that is pretty much opposite of what He has taught.

Obidence to God is a result of salvation, salvation is not a result of obidence. We obey God cause we love Hin, not because the law says we have to.

[vir doctus]

:confused:

Pharmacists don't have to work where they work and they don't have to be pharmacists. We don't have a Christian right to an occupation.

[Eireanninion]

(snip)...You state that we should not be allowed to harm others with our legislations, yet asa a Christian I can tell you that legislation is being passed all the time that harms the values and morals that I hold dear.

(Sorry, never mind. You gave examples already)

[DRS]

I often wonder, when He comes how those that do not believe will see Him. I understand that some will still deny to know Him and this seems rather odd to me.

We already deny him at time though we may I know him but do we prove it by how we live

[WorldWatcher]

Pharmacists are being required to issue birth control as we speak


By who? The government or their employers?



In Wash. State planned parenthood is invited in the schools but they have chose not to take federal monies so that they can preclude abstinence only info


If you mean they have refused to take money because strings were attached that precluded an explanation of various birth control methods such as condomes, birth control pills, patches, etc... A scientific explanation of what STD's are and how to prevent them...


Then good.


However I firmly believe that parents have the right to opt their children out of such discussions and to keep them ignorant. However they do not have the right to restrict an other families children access to the information.


My religion??? The government says no on Sundays


Actually government restriction on alcohol sales on Sundays are one of the remaining remnants of "Blue Laws" and yes there were originally an outgrowth of religous social authoritarianism. Instead of saying "I'm religious I will not drink or buy alchohol on the Sabbath" - social authoritarians say "I'm religious, therefore laws should exist so that no one can buy alcohol on the Sabbath".


Puritan church members in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and later, Congregationalists elsewhere in New England, believed that their contractual relationship with God required them to enforce proper behavior in their communities. This perceived requirement resulted in the enactment of a variety of laws designed to regulate the conduct of all members of society.

In its strictest sense, “blue law”* refers to an edict designed to regulate public activities on the Sabbath, which meant Sunday to the Congregationalists of that day.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1164.html


>>>>

[Values]

No parent should allow that. But it should be up to parents and not the Gov. or the law or politicians.



The best way to make your morals known is through example, living a Godly life. Too many people think they actually do that through their politics. They are lying to themsleves IMO. That way they can ignore all of God's Holy precepts and concentrate on their politics and whatever else they want to. Human beings lead by example or don't lead at all, it's been that way since day one. I fear there will be many people that will stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ with nothing to show except their public condemnation of gay marriage and abortion.

One does not preclude the other.
You can effectivley live your life and show your morals AND issue declarations and edicts by voting those very same morals in the public or political arena.
You seem to want to pigeon hole other Christians based on what you perceive to be a limited view when they condemn gay lifestyles or abortion. Just as you are not the sum of a few of your beliefs neither are they a sum of theirs. Someone could easily turn your own table against you and justify their condemnation of you based on your unwillingness to politically attack a secular believing government.
We all have our hot buttons and are trying to follow Christ in all manners of our lives.

[Values]

I didn't see anyone asnwer the question (unless I missed it).

What's in it for God?

If we force God's morality through law that is pretty much opposite of what He has taught.

Obidence to God is a result of salvation, salvation is not a result of obidence. We obey God cause we love Hin, not because the law says we have to.

If you vote in this country I would imagine that you vote based on your value set and the morals that you have. Since you are a follower of Christ you set a political table that carries with it a certain inescabable direction toward those moralistic values you hold dear. Thereby, creating a position that carries the weight of your beliefs into the political arena.
This puts God's morality as you see it into our legislative government and helps to create laws and rules that are in line with your religious beliefs.

[Harmonious]

Like what? I'm not sure that a doctor can be forced to perform an abortion, but that doesn't mean that the patient can't find a different doctor.Pharmacists are being required to issue birth control as we speakCan the government force an individual employee to issue it? If the company is required to provide it... Are you sure the government can compel any pharmacy to carry any particular drug?

Always. I imagine, though, that a teacher would be interested in how such a statement is made.

If you think that students DON'T, you have clearly never been in a public school classroom wherein a student, who isn't thrilled with an assignment, or an idea mentioned in class, hurls the epithet, "That is so gay."This particular verbage can land your child in jail in the state of Washington due to the anti-bullying laws recently enacted. So you might want to brush up on what is allowable anymoreCan it really? That isn't the way it is in New York State.

Regardless, it isn't an appropriate thing to be said, and it is correct for a teacher to stop such verbiage. Even if no harm is intended, and even if the teacher agrees with the student's assessment of the scorn deserving by a homosexual, it is still insanely inappropriate to encourage such hurtful language.

Within the comment is the underlying premise that "being gay" is not acceptable and is worthy of scorn. While a teacher may say that such language is not permitted in the classroom, that does nothing to stop the rude child in question from holding that belief.

What other general classroom discussion can you think of where homosexual behavior would be discussed? I do recall observing a biology class where the teacher explained the human reproduction system, and was up to explaining pregnancies and STDs, and besides informing the class that abstinence works 100% percent of the time, she realized that not everyone would care about that, whereby she proceeded to explain what can be done, and how such things can be spread. Before the class began, she warned the students that she might blush a lot, but there was nothing they couldn't ask her.In Wash. State planned parenthood is invited in the schools but they have chose not to take federal monies so that they can preclude abstinence only infoPublic schools have the right to turn down public monies like that?

Interesting.


She is a very brave woman, my friend, the Jewish Orthodox biology teacher.

If people asked about homosexual behavior, then she answered questions about that.

Where else would it show up?

The story "Heather Has Two Mommies" is meant for small children, but it isn't to present the morality of the homosexual couple or the sexuality of the parents at all, but to understand the shape of a recombined family.Of course it is a morality messageIn what way? Saying that it is inappropriate to tease Heather because her parents are as they are? I guess you are right...

Not teasing children is a good moral to have.

Are you referring to reading literature that involves homosexual involvement? What exactly are you referring to, when you speak of children referring to objecting to homosexual behavior in a classroom? When would such statement of objection be appropriate in a classroom setting?

Sometimes. I still think it is ridiculous that there are some places that if I chose to buy alcohol on Sunday, I can't do it, because YOUR religion says I can't. My religion says nothing about Sunday as being special.My religion??? The government says no on SundaysYou are right. But it only says it (in some states) because some Christian denomination decided that Sundays were not meant for peddling vices, particularly alcohol, and the government decided to legislate religious morality.

I find it fascinating that you see nothing wrong with this throw-back law that is distinctly tied to Christianity and how it legislates against the buying and selling to non-Christians by non-Christians (or even to Christians from a denomination that doesn't mind buying alcohol and whatnot on Sunday).

Yes, it is a law on the books. But it is because a measure of Christianity has been legislated. I'm glad that many states have done away with the Blue Laws.

Where is the "morality" involved there?

:think:

Values, I am an Orthodox Jew. I have no idea what you are referring to when you, in America, are referring to being worried about living by your faith in the face of retribution from others. I don't have such worries, and I'm pretty sure that many of my observances are more visually obvious than yours.As an Orthodox Jew my OP also includes you. The call to vote and live based on your morals is equally as urgent for you.I would vote according to my morals, true. But I would also vote according to what would grant me freedom of religion.

I recognize that the freedom of religion that allows me to practice as an Orthodox Jew and not as some form of Christian without persecution is the same freedom of religion that I imagine that someone who is neither a Jew nor a Christian should have the right to indulge in.

And if they, in indulging in their own religion (or lack thereof) do things differently or do things I would find morally repugnant, but isn't actively hurting me or my family, I really don't see how I could justify legislating morality, particularly when the only real objection I might have is religious in nature.

[Values]

By who? The government or their employers?

Government by court order

If you mean they have refused to take money because strings were attached that precluded an explanation of various birth control methods such as condomes, birth control pills, patches, etc... A scientific explanation of what STD's are and how to prevent them...


Then good.

This would be your moral value set taking porecedence over anothers...something that you state you do not want others to do to you

However I firmly believe that parents have the right to opt their children out of such discussions and to keep them ignorant. However they do not have the right to restrict an other families children access to the information.




Actually government restriction on alcohol sales on Sundays are one of the remaining remnants of "Blue Laws" and yes there were originally an outgrowth of religous social authoritarianism. Instead of saying "I'm religious I will not drink or buy alchohol on the Sabbath" - social authoritarians say "I'm religious, therefore laws should exist so that no one can buy alcohol on the Sabbath".

You said it yourself "government restriction"

Puritan church members in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and later, Congregationalists elsewhere in New England, believed that their contractual relationship with God required them to enforce proper behavior in their communities. This perceived requirement resulted in the enactment of a variety of laws designed to regulate the conduct of all members of society.

This could easily read "Secularists in modern day San Fransisco believe their hedonistic lifestyles should allow them to enforce their morals on their communities.

In its strictest sense, “blue law”* refers to an edict designed to regulate public activities on the Sabbath, which meant Sunday to the Congregationalists of that day.


http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1164.html


>>>>

:confused:

[DRS]

If you vote in this country I would imagine that you vote based on your value set and the morals that you have. Since you are a follower of Christ you set a political table that carries with it a certain inescabable direction toward those moralistic values you hold dear. Thereby, creating a position that carries the weight of your beliefs into the political arena.
This puts God's morality as you see it into our legislative government and helps to create laws and rules that are in line with your religious beliefs.

Fine you tell me who to vote for based on what I read in the bible

Who helps the poor?

Feeds the hungry?

Looks after wido and orphans?

Turns the other cheek?

Regards all life as a gift from God?

Is free from the love of money?

Does not show favouritim to the rich?

[Values]

Fine you tell me who to vote for based on what I read in the bible

Who helps the poor?

Feeds the hungry?

Looks after wido and orphans?

Turns the other cheek?

Regards all life as a gift from God?

Is free from the love of money?

Does not show favouritim to the rich?

Seems to me your choices would be self explanatory.
Should you vote for someone that makes the government do these thigs, or for someone who does these things themself and leads by example.

Btw...where did you get your last bullet?
The others I have seen in some fashion from the Bible but not the last.
Interesting that you put it there.

[vir doctus]

Btw...where did you get your last bullet?
The others I have seen in some fashion from the Bible but not the last.
Interesting that you put it there.

Job 34

[WorldWatcher]

Government by court order


1. If it was a court order issued to a private business, then I disagree with it.

2. If it was an order issued to a government employee, then the government is the employer and sets the rules.


This would be your moral value set taking porecedence over anothers...something that you state you do not want others to do to you


Here again you seem to want to ignore the hypocrisies of your position.

Not only to you want "Abstinence Only" for YOUR children. You want to mandate it for OTHER peoples children. I guess you missed the part about supporting an "opt out" for parents to make the choice for their family.


You said it yourself "government restriction"


Guess you missed the part where it was "Puritan church members in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and later, Congregationalists elsewhere in New England, believed that their contractual relationship with God required them to enforce proper behavior in their communities." They were the government in those communities as the government leaders and the Church leaders were often the same.


This could easily read "Secularists in modern day San Fransisco believe their hedonistic lifestyles should allow them to enforce their morals on their communities.


I wouldn't support secularists forcing their morals on the unwilling. If you choose to be "hedonistic" thats your choice, however, that doesn't mean that because you don't want to be "hedonistic" that you get to tell others they can't be (within the realm of no harm to others of course).


Freedom and liberty truly exists when you defend that which you disagree with.


*******************************


BTW - Learning to use the "Quote" tags will make your posts much more legible and easier to understand.

>>>>

[DRS]

Seems to me your choices would be self explanatory.
Should you vote for someone that makes the government do these thigs, or for someone who does these things themself and leads by example.

Btw...where did you get your last bullet?
The others I have seen in some fashion from the Bible but not the last.
Interesting that you put it there.

Some of those were part of the laws given to Israel, but who embodies all of that with no downside that I have to swallow and support?

[DRS]

Job 34

James wrote about it in in chapter 2 and there are many Proverbs on it also

[captusa]

Pharmacists don't have to work where they work and they don't have to be pharmacists. We don't have a Christian right to an occupation.

Correct!
If you don't want to fill prescriptions for customers, perhaps pharmacy is not the right profession for you.

I don't think surgery would be an appropriate occupation for a Christian Scientist.

An Orthodox Jew should not seek employment in an establishment that is only open on Saturdays.

[WorldWatcher]

[COLOR="Orange"]Correct!
If you don't want to fill prescriptions for customers, perhaps pharmacy is not the right profession for you.


Actually I don't have an issue with a pharmacist that does not want to dispense birth control pills.


That should be between the individual and the employer and not really an issue for the government.


If the employer says dispense them or find another job, so be it. Find another position or open your own pharmacy and set your own rules.



>>>>

[Values]

Job 34

Ah, I read your statement as he never favors the rich, not that the rich a favored over the poor. I recind my question.

[jwil59]

One does not preclude the other.
You can effectivley live your life and show your morals AND issue declarations and edicts by voting those very same morals in the public or political arena.
You seem to want to pigeon hole other Christians based on what you perceive to be a limited view when they condemn gay lifestyles or abortion. Just as you are not the sum of a few of your beliefs neither are they a sum of theirs. Someone could easily turn your own table against you and justify their condemnation of you based on your unwillingness to politically attack a secular believing government.
We all have our hot buttons and are trying to follow Christ in all manners of our lives.

I am not pigeon holing anyone or anything. You started a thread and I replied with my opinion., that's all my friend.

But since you said it let me ask you buddy. Why is my opioion pigeonholing and your's isn't? Looks like you are the one trying to force morality through law, not me.

They can attack me all they want but the truth is they have no Biblical basis to do that, just like you have no Biblical basis to force morality through law IMO.

Again I sak, what's in it for God if we do things your way? Forcing morality and God's precpets through law is the opposite of grace.

[vir doctus]

They can attack me all they want but the truth is they have no Biblical basis to do that, just like you have no Biblical basis to force morality through law.

Verily.

[jwil59]

Bottom line, we obey God because we love Him, not because the law says we have to.

[Values]

1.
Here again you seem to want to ignore the hypocrisies of your position.

Not only to you want "Abstinence Only" for YOUR children. You want to mandate it for OTHER peoples children. I guess you missed the part about supporting an "opt out" for parents to make the choice for their family.

Why is it that you think it is the school's job to teach you kids about how to have sex?
The only message should be TALK TO YOUR PARENTS.




Guess you missed the part where it was "Puritan church members in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and later, Congregationalists elsewhere in New England, believed that their contractual relationship with God required them to enforce proper behavior in their communities." They were the government in those communities as the government leaders and the Church leaders were often the same.


I wouldn't support secularists forcing their morals on the unwilling. If you choose to be "hedonistic" thats your choice, however, that doesn't mean that because you don't want to be "hedonistic" that you get to tell others they can't be (within the realm of no harm to others of course).


"harm" is subjective wouldn't you say?
There is emotional harm, physicall, psychological etc.


Freedom and liberty truly exists when you defend that which you disagree with.

???????????????

*******************************


BTW - Learning to use the "Quote" tags will make your posts much more legible and easier to understand.

>>>>[/QUOTE]
thanks

[vir doctus]

Bottom line, we obey God because we love Him, not because the law says we have to.

And when we force others to act according to our interpretation of what God expects, we can be a stumbling block to helping those most in need.

[Values]

I am not pigeon holing anyone or anything. You started a thread and I replied with my opinion., that's all my friend.

But since you said it let me ask you buddy. Why is my opioion pigeonholing and your's isn't? Looks like you are the one trying to force morality through law, not me.

They can attack me all they want but the truth is they have no Biblical basis to do that, just like you have no Biblical basis to force morality through law IMO.

Again I sak, what's in it for God if we do things your way? Forcing morality and God's precpets through law is the opposite of grace.

I answered you on this subject.
Rather than force morality through law it might be better to see it as morally engaging in the political process that you have obligations to.

[jwil59]

And when we force others to act according to our interpretation of what God expects, we can be a stumbling block to helping those most in need.

That's my whole point.

legislating morality is not what the Great Commission is all about.

That argument is hypocritical, unless of course the one making the argument is Jesus Himslef.

[jwil59]

I answered you on this subject.
Rather than force morality through law it might be better to see it as morally engaging in the political process that you have obligations to.

I think we can meet in the middle with that maybe :lol:

I am not saying Christians should leave God out of the voting booth. What I am saying is that when we form huge political action groups to help legislate our morality then we ourselves must follow that to the letter, which our sin nature makes impossible. We wind upo looking like hypocrites, rather we are or not (Haggard and company), and that damages our efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. Question for you buddy. Have you actually been out in the community trying to share Christ with people? If you have then I am quite certain you have seen the exact thing I am talking about.

[Values]

I think we can meet in the middle with that maybe :lol:

I am not saying Christians should leave God out of the voting booth. What I am saying is that when we form huge political action groups to help legislate our morality then we ourselves must follow that to the letter, which our sin nature makes impossible. We wind upo looking like hypocrites, rather we are or not, and that damages our efforts to fulfill the Great Commission. Question for you buddy. Have you actually been out in the community trying to share Christ with people? If you have then I am quite certain you have seen the exact thing I am talking about.


I am speaking only to the persoanl aspects of acting and living like we value our morals.
I personally take mine from Jesus and I find that when I vote or speak on a political level I cannot and will not take those morals out of my conversations. This often means people willingly look at me through lenses that they have created for those they veiw as religious.
Now, whether they view me as the hypocrite I am is up to them, I will always fail to be the light that Jesus is, hence why I follow Him not vice versa.:razz: The damage that comes from my not being perfect will always be there and I do not try to hide it nor run from it as it is who I am. If I wait to share my story and Jesus' with others until I am worthy or perfectI will never do anything.
One of my favorite ways to look at a congregation of Christians is to view them as a bunch of hypocrites trying their best to follow the only One who never was.

[Harmonious]

Bottom line, we obey God because we love Him, not because the law says we have to.I was going to object, but then I remembered: Torah law is not American law.

We obey God because we love Him, and because Torah law says we have to. Not because American law says we have to.

[Values]

Bottom line, we obey God because we love Him, not because the law says we have to.

I think this speaks volumes as to what (at least people of the Christian Faith) we should be doing.
You are absolutely right J., and in doing what God wants when we go to vote and add our morals to the fray of government it seems a little at odds with our beliefs that we would even contemplate a governmental law that in any way establishes that everyone needs to worship Jesus. That goes against how we see redemption and God's willingness to take us into the fold so it seems pretty clear that we would not establish a law saying who and how people should believe or worship.
As a Christian I go into the political arena not to make others do what I wish but to lead by example and fight for the very morals that I believe in and pray that others would do the same. If God commands me to live my life by example it means in all areas, and to show others what exactly I stand for means that I cannot lower my morals because someone else feels threatened by them.

[jwil59]

I am speaking only to the persoanl aspects of acting and living like we value our morals.
I personally take mine from Jesus and I find that when I vote or speak on a political level I cannot and will not take those morals out of my conversations. This often means people willingly look at me through lenses that they have created for those they veiw as religious.
Now, whether they view me as the hypocrite I am is up to them, I will always fail to be the light that Jesus is, hence why I follow Him not vice versa.:razz: The damage that comes from my not being perfect will always be there and I do not try to hide it nor run from it as it is who I am. If I wait to share my story and Jesus' with others until I am worthy or perfectI will never do anything.
One of my favorite ways to look at a congregation of Christians is to view them as a bunch of hypocrites trying their best to follow the only One who never was.

Sharing Jesus' love with others and forcing His precepts by law are two totally different things. I thought were talkinf about legislation morality.

I do not view Christians as hypicrites for the most part. At least not the ones that are secure enough in their salvation and walk with Christ that they don't have to force their morality on others through law.

Since you seem to want to legislate moraity, can you tell me what is in that for God? How does it glorify God to make someone else live by His precepts through law? I say again, obedience is a result of loving God

[Values]

Sharing Jesus' love with others and forcing His precepts by law are two totally different things.

I do not view Christians as hypicrites for the most part. At least not the ones that are secure enough in their salvation and walk with Christ that they don't have to force their morality on others through law.

This seems rhetorical but I need to ask....do you vote?

[Mobulis]

Why is it that you think it is the school's job to teach you kids about how to have sex?
The only message should be TALK TO YOUR PARENTS.





"harm" is subjective wouldn't you say?
There is emotional harm, physicall, psychological etc.



???????????????

*******************************


BTW - Learning to use the "Quote" tags will make your posts much more legible and easier to understand.

>>>>
thanks[/QUOTE]


And if the parents won't talk to their kids about sex?

[Values]

And if the parents won't talk to their kids about sex?

I'll tell you what, you can set up your very own privately funded workshops dedicated to helping explain your version of healthy sex for school age children in which all those poor uninformed kids can go there to learn all about it.
This way you get to give out your free advice and school can get back to teaching appropriate info.

[WorldWatcher]

Why is it that you think it is the school's job to teach you kids about how to have sex?
The only message should be TALK TO YOUR PARENTS.


So you don't have a problem mandating morality, as long as it's morality you support.


But to answer your question, reproduction is a natural biological function. Why should you get to hide biology from the children of another family when you can opt your children out. Answer? It's about dictating to others.



"harm" is subjective wouldn't you say?
There is emotional harm, physicall, psychological etc.


Don't forget financial, like denying equal treatment under the law based on gender.




thanks


In their simplest form quote tags have two parts: Opening and Closing. The opening quote tag is and the closing tag is . When you use colored responses inside someone else's quote, and that post is then quoted your statements are not brought forward.


>>>>

[Values]

So you don't have a problem mandating morality, as long as it's morality you support.

>>>>

Why should your morality take precedence?
I vote with my morals and so do you, why do you try to make me stop voting mine?

[vir doctus]

Why should your morality take precedence?
I vote with my morals and so do you, why do you try to make me stop voting mine?

Don't legislate. Public education is an entitlement; instead of demanding it suit your needs find a teacher who will teach what you want your child to learn.

[Values]

Don't legislate. Public education is an entitlement; instead of demanding it suit your needs find a teacher who will teach what you want your child to learn.

Fine, give me my money back and I will go about my way.

[vir doctus]

Fine, give me my money back and I will go about my way.

You have options - some more godly than others.

[jwil59]

This seems rhetorical but I need to ask....do you vote?

yes I do. I normally vote for the Republicans

[jwil59]

Fine, give me my money back and I will go about my way.

Too bad Bush lied about those vouchers, huh. That was one of the main reasons I voted for him the first time.

We don't get our money back when we don't like how it is spent, it don't work that way. I am thankfull too cause we would probably not have much of a military if it worked that way, too many people would want to opt out.

[WorldWatcher]

Why should your morality take precedence?
I vote with my morals and so do you, why do you try to make me stop voting mine?


Mine doesn't. Every school system I know allows parents to opt out of Sex Ed classes for their children. You get to make that decision for your children. When you attempt to mandate that schools (which I also help pay for) cannot teach biological reproduction and methods that are proven to work on reducing unwanted pregnancy and STD's you take that same choice away from others.

I never said you couldn't vote your morals, as a voting citizen you have that right. I may disagree with some of your positions, that does not mean I won't defend your right to have them. I simply pointed out that in our Constitutional Republic there are protections built into the system (i.e. three branches of government) which attempt to protect the rights of individuals from imposed morality like you appear to support. Those protections of course being three branches of government each with some power over the other [Presidential Veto, Congressional Lawmakers, Judaical Review]) and the Constitutional right to bring grievance against the government to force it to demonstrate a compelling state interest in cases involving the rights of citizens.


>>>>

[WorldWatcher]

Fine, give me my money back and I will go about my way.

Why? Education, which is mostly required by the Constitutions of each individual state and are the price we pay for living in an educated society.

People benefit from an educated society...

Whenever they get their car serviced and the repair person was educated in a public school.

Whenever they get ill and go to the Doctor and the Doctor was educated in a public school.

Whenever they get injured an accident the Paramedic that responds was educated in a public school.

Whenever you are wrongly accused of a crime and the Lawyer defending you was educated in a public school.

Whenever you don't feel like cooking and go out to eat and the Chef was educated in a pubic school.

Whenever your internet connection goes down and the Cable Guy that comes to your house was educated in a public school.

Whenever in the sweltering heat of summer and the HVAC Technician who comes to your house was educated in a public school.

Whenever you exercise your freedoms protected by that sailor/soldier/marine who was educated in a public school.

Whenever you call the Fire Department because your house is on fire and those who respond were educated in the public school.

When you read the newspaper and the reporter who wrote the article was educated in the public school.

When the Police come to your house after a break-in was educated in public schools.

When you toilet plugs and you have to get a Plumber to the house who was educated in public schools.

When the teacher in the Private School was educated in the public schools.

When they turn on the water and it is delivered by the water system maintained by those with public school education.

When they talk on the telephone on systems maintained by those with a public school education.

When they call their Congressman who may have been educated in the public school system.

etc...

.........etc...



********************************


I'd be happy to make you a deal. I'd support paying back your taxes that have gone toward education. You pay back the cost of educating all those people who have helped you live in an educated society and from the time funds are exchanged after that you never purchase goods or services from anyone who was educated in public schools. Deal?



>>>>

[Values]

yes I do. I normally vote for the Republicans

Since you vote on the issues and one can assume you vote based on your morals couldn't it be said that you are legislating your morals on others?
Incidentally, I believe we all legislate with our votes based on ou morals.

[jwil59]

Since you vote on the issues and one can assume you vote based on your morals couldn't it be said that you are legislating your morals on others?
Incidentally, I believe we all legislate with our votes based on ou morals.

Not really..........

I am pro-life but could care less about gay marriage. I just think the Democrats are off the charts left right now, which I think we are seeing with Obama.

Again, I never said a Christian should check his faith at the voting booth. It the judgemental crap that I don't like.

I also know many Chrsit filled Christians that vote for the Democrats

[Values]

Why? Education, which is mostly required by the Constitutions of each individual state and are the price we pay for living in an educated society.

People benefit from an educated society...

Whenever they get their car serviced and the repair person was educated in a public school.

Whenever they get ill and go to the Doctor and the Doctor was educated in a public school.

Whenever they get injured an accident the Paramedic that responds was educated in a public school.

Whenever you are wrongly accused of a crime and the Lawyer defending you was educated in a public school.

Whenever you don't feel like cooking and go out to eat and the Chef was educated in a pubic school.

Whenever your internet connection goes down and the Cable Guy that comes to your house was educated in a public school.

Whenever in the sweltering heat of summer and the HVAC Technician who comes to your house was educated in a public school.

Whenever you exercise your freedoms protected by that sailor/soldier/marine who was educated in a public school.

Whenever you call the Fire Department because your house is on fire and those who respond were educated in the public school.

When you read the newspaper and the reporter who wrote the article was educated in the public school.

When the Police come to your house after a break-in was educated in public schools.

When you toilet plugs and you have to get a Plumber to the house who was educated in public schools.

When the teacher in the Private School was educated in the public schools.

When they turn on the water and it is delivered by the water system maintained by those with public school education.

When they talk on the telephone on systems maintained by those with a public school education.

When they call their Congressman who may have been educated in the public school system.

etc...

.........etc...



********************************


I'd be happy to make you a deal. I'd support paying back your taxes that have gone toward education. You pay back the cost of educating all those people who have helped you live in an educated society and from the time funds are exchanged after that you never purchase goods or services from anyone who was educated in public schools. Deal?



>>>>

Your premise is faulty in that you admonish me for even questioning what the education system provides or teaches.
It is a government for and of the people and being so I have a direct input to what it does.
If no-one gets to question the governments motives and direction where does that lead us.
No, your premise is faulty and I have every right to vote my morals and try and change the direction of this country.

[vir doctus]

It is a government for and of the people and being so I have a direct input to what it does.


Not so much.

[Values]

Not really..........

I am pro-life but could care less about gay marriage. I just think the Democrats are off the charts left right now, which I think we are seeing with Obama.

Again, I never said a Christian should check his faith at the voting booth. It the judgemental crap that I don't like.

I also know many Chrsit filled Christians that vote for the Democrats

I actually agree with you in this manner and I too do not really care about gays getting married and having bennys. (abortions are a totally diferent issue with me) In fact, I think that if Christians actually vote their morals most people who are not of our Faith would be pleasantly suprised how little we actually desire to change them as much as we desire not to have our values trampled on.
I am not too sure what you mean by judgementalism in the moral following aspects of this discussion. Maybe you could elaborate?

[doodle5]

Legislating morality can't be done!! Inside job by THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Carlene

[biggles53]

Legislating morality can't be done!! Inside job by THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Carlene

And, for those of us who pay no heed to this supposed entity?.....immoral?

[Eireanninion]

I'm repeating a post by Finality (hope you don't mind, Finality).

Finality wrote: "I am interested in what kinds of morals religious folks think should be legislated that are not.

Obviously, for some that would be outlawing abortion; but, what else?

So much of our law is about administrative function, which is amoral in nature.

The federal government shouldn't be legislating any morality. The federal government is strictly bound by the Constitution (in theory). It's an operational manual, not a guidebook to a better life."

Anyone have any comments on this, especially the first two lines?

[LeroyBrown]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?

I know I am jumping into this discussion a little late so this may have been asked and answered and if so I appologize.

What belief are you acquiescing? Do the tomes of your faith mandate that you change others behavior by writ instead of by changing their heart?

[LeroyBrown]

As a Christian are your morals only something you are to have held inside or are you to act with them always?

Unfortunately I do not act on them always.



In another manner, If you are called upon to vote, do/should you use your Faith to guide you?

Yes. There is however a difference between voting by my faith and forcing someone else to live my faith by legislating it.

For a faith that believes Christ set us free from the Law Christians by in large seem to want to enslave people with the law.

[LeroyBrown]

Niether of those is forced upon the person unless the court tries to make the person go against their belief

How many here who know my faith want it to be the way of life for you?

Your level of faith, yes, your particular flavor, not so much.

[NJConservative]

Assuming you mean Christian morals, since over 75% of the US population identifies themselves as Christian, I'd say the laws already broadly represent what Christians feel should be legislated, other than what's been deemed unconstitutional.
And FYI the makeup of the Supreme Court is majority Christian, and has always been. There have been some Jews, and interestingly enough, there has only been one justice who did not identify himself as a member of any church or religion, and he served in the latter 1800's.

Schools were mentioned. You have choices. If don't like what the public schools teach, you can spend time with your kids and supplement that teaching, you can home school, or send them to a private school.

[WorldWatcher]

Your premise is faulty in that you admonish me for even questioning what the education system provides or teaches.

I didn't admonish you for questioning the education system.

I admonished you for a hypocritical position. You don't want people doing things you find morally reprehensible, yet you advocate using the government to do that which you are complaining about.

Using this as an example we have:

You can opt your children out of Sex Education classes,
However, you want to exercise, what you feel is moral superiority, and deny others that same choice by removing all but Abstinence Only education.



It is a government for and of the people and being so I have a direct input to what it does.


Never said you didn't.


If no-one gets to question the governments motives and direction where does that lead us.


Which is why we should question the governments motives and directions, and which is also why many of us question the motives and directions of social authoritarians who think they can use the government to impose their standards of morality on others.


No, your premise is faulty and I have every right to vote my morals and try and change the direction of this country.


So which premise is faulty?


1. You do have the right to attempt to use your vote to impose your morality on others.
2. I have my right to vote against the expansion of government into becoming "morality police".
or
3. There are 3-branches of government which are intended to balance each other out and so that no one becomes to powerful.



So which one of those premises is faulty?



>>>>

[DRS]

Your level of faith, yes, your particular flavor, not so much.

Exactly kind of hard to have a country, with no army, no national symbols or anthems, no government, and so many other changes

[Values]

I'm repeating a post by Finality (hope you don't mind, Finality).

Finality wrote: "I am interested in what kinds of morals religious folks think should be legislated that are not.

Obviously, for some that would be outlawing abortion; but, what else?

So much of our law is about administrative function, which is amoral in nature.

The federal government shouldn't be legislating any morality. The federal government is strictly bound by the Constitution (in theory). It's an operational manual, not a guidebook to a better life."

Anyone have any comments on this, especially the first two lines?

I think the answer is obvious; you want your morals upheld do you not?
The religious want theirs. Why has there been a constatnt theme in this thread that people of Faith should not be allowed their morals and have the opportunity to vote those morals.

[Values]

Unfortunately I do not act on them always.




Yes. There is however a difference between voting by my faith and forcing someone else to live my faith by legislating it.

For a faith that believes Christ set us free from the Law Christians by in large seem to want to enslave people with the law.

Leroy you are the first to approach this as I meant it.
I totally agree that as a Christian I do not have the right to force another to believe the way I do.
Yet, I also have the obligation to vote on issues and people in the manner that my beliefs and morals are upheld. I see this as the way we all legislate our particular brands of morality and I think think some people of Faith often throw there morals out when voting.
I just don't understand why.

[Values]

Assuming you mean Christian morals, since over 75% of the US population identifies themselves as Christian, I'd say the laws already broadly represent what Christians feel should be legislated, other than what's been deemed unconstitutional.
And FYI the makeup of the Supreme Court is majority Christian, and has always been. There have been some Jews, and interestingly enough, there has only been one justice who did not identify himself as a member of any church or religion, and he served in the latter 1800's.

Schools were mentioned. You have choices. If don't like what the public schools teach, you can spend time with your kids and supplement that teaching, you can home school, or send them to a private school.

I actually meant this for all Faiths.
Your answer to finding alternatives to the school system we are obligated to pay for, where will it stop if you do not have your morals heard?
Should we not stand up for what we believe and actually begin to make a difference instead of allow others who have different morals teach our children?

[vir doctus]

I see this as the way we all legislate our particular brands of morality and I think think some people of Faith often throw there morals out when voting.
I just don't understand why.

I must have missed the perfect candidate.

When a candidate holds one view you support and one view that is counter to your beliefs, what do you do? When an issue seems like a good Christian ideal to uphold but there is no constitutional basis for it, what do you do?

[Values]

I didn't admonish you for questioning the education system.

I admonished you for a hypocritical position. You don't want people doing things you find morally reprehensible, yet you advocate using the government to do that which you are complaining about.

Using this as an example we have:

You can opt your children out of Sex Education classes,
However, you want to exercise, what you feel is moral superiority, and deny others that same choice by removing all but Abstinence Only education.






Never said you didn't.





Which is why we should question the governments motives and directions, and which is also why many of us question the motives and directions of social authoritarians who think they can use the government to impose their standards of morality on others.





So which premise is faulty?


1. You do have the right to attempt to use your vote to impose your morality on others.
2. I have my right to vote against the expansion of government into becoming "morality police".
or
3. There are 3-branches of government which are intended to balance each other out and so that no one becomes to powerful.



So which one of those premises is faulty?



>>>>

Do you vote with your own morality?

[Values]

I must have missed the perfect candidate.

When a candidate holds one view you support and one view that is counter to your beliefs, what do you do? When an issue seems like a good Christian ideal to uphold but there is no constitutional basis for it, what do you do?

You vote using your values and morals ,sometimes they say don't don't vote for either one as they do not uphold your convictions. voting for the lesser of two evils just gets you a little evil.

[vir doctus]

Your answer to finding alternatives to the school system we are obligated to pay for, where will it stop if you do not have your morals heard?


:)) Taxes used to be used to pay for the local preacher. Taxes still go for Chaplains...

[vir doctus]

You vote using your values and morals ,sometimes they say don't don't vote for either one as they do not uphold your convictions. voting for the lesser of two evils just gets you a little evil.

You have found a candidate that upholds 100% of your values? :eek:

[WorldWatcher]

Do you vote with your own morality?


Depends, I examine the issue and then ask myself is this a matter of personal responsibility or is this a function of government. I may find an issue violates my personal morality but yet is not a function of government.


For example, let's go back to Blue Laws implemented by Church members through the government as a way to enforce morality by requiring everyone to hold the Sabbath holy (or at least as a day of non-work) and to prevent the sale of certain items.


The choice to work on Sunday is an issue between the individual and their religious organization, it is none of the governments business. Same thing with restricting the sale of alcohol on Sunday while it is readily available for sale every other day of the week, none of the governments business.


>>>>

[NJConservative]

I actually meant this for all Faiths.
Your answer to finding alternatives to the school system we are obligated to pay for, where will it stop if you do not have your morals heard?


My morals were heard where really it mattered. Regardless of what my kids were taught in public schools, they always heard where I agreed or disagreed, along with why. It's foolish to allow anyone else to teach your kids anything without discussing it with your kids and presenting them with what you believe and why. And, by the way, that doesn't cost anything.


Should we not stand up for what we believe and actually begin to make a difference instead of allow others who have different morals teach our children?

It sounds like it's an all or nothing thing in your view. Take responsibility for being an integral part of your children's education and religious upbringing instead of getting so upset over what schools teach. Any parent who lets the public school system do all of the teaching and upbringing is neglecting their children in some very important ways.

If you disagree with what's taught in the schools, present your kids with an alternative view and teach them how to make their decisions on their own. If you can't do that, then yes, you have to pay for an alternative.

I happen to believe it's a good thing to expose kids to the kinds of knowedge and beliefs they're going to find in the real world, and then give them the tools to make the right choices.

[Values]

Depends, I examine the issue and then ask myself is this a matter of personal responsibility or is this a function of government.


For example, let's go back to Blue Laws implemented by Church members through the government as a way to enforce morality by requiring everyone to hold the Sabbath holy (or at least as a day of non-work) and to prevent the sale of certain items.


The choice to work on the Sunday is an issue between the individual and their religious organization, it is none of the governments business. Same thing with restricting the sale of alcohol on Sunday while it is readily available for sale every other day of the week, non of the governments business.


>>>>

You are still voting with your morals. You deem it not the gov's business and vote accordingly. You didn't vote against what you believe. You legislate by voting your morals.

Yet, you are demanding that we vote against what we believe. Why?

[WorldWatcher]

You are still voting with your morals. You deem it not the gov's business and vote accordingly. You didn't vote against what you believe. You legislate by voting your morals.

Yet, you are demanding that we vote against what we believe. Why?


Feel free to quote me where I demanded for you to vote against your morals.


I'll wait...




As a matter of fact I've repeatedly stated you are free to vote your morals and would defend your right to do that. I may disagree with your vote, I may vote a different way on a specific issue and if your vote causes laws to be created that violate the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the Various States I may support the finding that such laws violate higher laws, but that is not saying you don't have a right to vote as you choose or to voice your opinion as you choose.




>>>>

[Values]

My morals were heard where really it mattered. Regardless of what my kids were taught in public schools, they always heard where I agreed or disagreed, along with why. It's foolish to allow anyone else to teach your kids anything without discussing it with your kids and presenting them with what you believe and why. And, by the way, that doesn't cost anything.



It sounds like it's an all or nothing thing in your view. Take responsibility for being an integral part of your children's education and religious upbringing instead of getting so upset over what schools teach. Any parent who lets the public school system do all of the teaching and upbringing is neglecting their children in some very important ways.

If you disagree with what's taught in the schools, present your kids with an alternative view and teach them how to make their decisions on their own. If you can't do that, then yes, you have to pay for an alternative.

I happen to believe it's a good thing to expose kids to the kinds of knowedge and beliefs they're going to find in the real world, and then give them the tools to make the right choices.


You have made an assumption that I do not do all of that you suggest and more. You are wrong in that assumption.

I happen to believe that in being a good parent I just don't rail from the sidelines but get involved in the fray as well. The public school setting is not real life and you find many restrictions and ifdeologies expressed that your seldom if ever have to deal with in adult life.
When was the last time you were forced to be somewhere and told what you were to believe? Please do not use the you can put your kids in private ed, not everyone can pay taxes AND tuition.

[vir doctus]

Please do not use the you can put your kids in private ed, not everyone can pay taxes AND tuition.

Your children are entitled to an education. They are entitled to the education of your choice only if you pay for it.

[Eireanninion]

I think the answer is obvious; you want your morals upheld do you not?
The religious want theirs. Why has there been a constatnt theme in this thread that people of Faith should not be allowed their morals and have the opportunity to vote those morals.

No, Values, it's not obvious. I AM religious. I AM faithful. I spelled out my religious belief in Jesus and my morality as dictated by Him (I guess you didn't read that but that's all right). I DO have my morality upheld. The only person responsible for that is Me and I Do it.

So why do you keep asserting that there is a constant theme in this thread that people of Faith are Not being allowed their morals or the opportunity to vote those morals? Who is stopping them? No one has stopped Me. The only thing I've seen in this thread are people who are disagreeing with you and are voicing their opinions.

The reason I reposted Finality's question is because it is Not obvious to me what morality you think people of Faith should be standing up on. Jesus tells me that I have rules to follow in my life, that I should give people information about Christianity so they can choose whether or not to follow, and, with regards to how I treat others, I am to treat them with equal love and respect that I show myself. Anyone who does this IS following All the Laws (Rom 13: 8-10). When I vote, I realize that these laws do not just affect me, they affect my neighbor as well and I must take that into consideration. So I Do.

Your thread seems to be some sort of rallying call to the faithful since you said you want people of faith to stand up and vote their faith. Because of this, I ask again... what makes you think people of Faith are NOT voting their faith?

Since you apparently don't think they are, what specific morals are you seeing that aren't being upheld by people of faith by due to their lack of "stand up for your faith" voting?

[CMike11]

Your children are entitled to an education. They are entitled to the education of your choice only if you pay for it.

We are paying for it via taxes.

[vir doctus]

We are paying for it via taxes.

That was already acknowledged, guess I should have said 'more'.

[NJConservative]

You have made an assumption that I do not do all of that you suggest and more. You are wrong in that assumption.


I happen to believe that in being a good parent I just don't rail from the sidelines but get involved in the fray as well. The public school setting is not real life and you find many restrictions and ifdeologies expressed that your seldom if ever have to deal with in adult life.


Then I don't understand where your objection is and why you think people should be forced to learn your particular view of morality. Personally, I don't want a government agency deciding which prayers are required in a public school. And I don't want to teach one particular religion's creation myth as scence in a science classroom, and I don't want the bible used as a science book.

Public schools are not the right venue for religious education.


When was the last time you were forced to be somewhere and told what you were to believe? Please do not use the you can put your kids in private ed, not everyone can pay taxes AND tuition.

If it's that important to you, you'd find a way to pay for it or just home school your kids. If it's only important enough that you come to a forum like this and complain about it, well, that's another thing entirely.

Most of what you seem to be complaining about has been constitutionally setlled for now, whether you agree with it or not. It's not likely that your vote will make any difference whatsoever. Either you'll need a constitutional ammendment nullifying the first ammendment, or you'll need an activist supreme court to overturn over 200 years of supporting decisions, Neither is likely.

[Values]

Your children are entitled to an education. They are entitled to the education of your choice only if you pay for it.

No, our children are entitled to the best education we can provide as a nation. We owe it to them and ourselves to do our best; as educators, administrators, parents etc.
It is a complete cop-out to allow things to degrade just because they aren't doing what we want done. This is exactly why our public education is in the dumps that it is. Good people letting things be done by others rather than standing up and making a stand.
We should be proud of our efforts to educate our children as a country not continually make it the butt of our sad jokes. Making excuses for our ineptitude just continues the spiral downward.

[Values]

Then I don't understand where your objection is and why you think people should be forced to learn your particular view of morality. Personally, I don't want a government agency deciding which prayers are required in a public school. And I don't want to teach one particular religion's creation myth as scence in a science classroom, and I don't want the bible used as a science book.

Public schools are not the right venue for religious education.



If it's that important to you, you'd find a way to pay for it or just home school your kids. If it's only important enough that you come to a forum like this and complain about it, well, that's another thing entirely.

Most of what you seem to be complaining about has been constitutionally setlled for now, whether you agree with it or not. It's not likely that your vote will make any difference whatsoever. Either you'll need a constitutional ammendment nullifying the first ammendment, or you'll need an activist supreme court to overturn over 200 years of supporting decisions, Neither is likely.

You assumptions are running amok.
Why do you assume I would want any mandate as to which prayer should be allowed in schools?
Why do you assume that I would want any one creation ideology taught???
Public schools are not taught the right venue period.
It is the duty of every citizen to set up an appropriate system that educates and does not nanny our children. we have fallen into a sticky trap of governmental intrusion and allowed the state to take over for where parents fail. It is not the government's job to raise our children but the lazy and unwilling among us let them out of sheer stupidity.

[Eireanninion]

No, our children are entitled to the best education we can provide as a nation. We owe it to them and ourselves to do our best; as educators, administrators, parents etc.
It is a complete cop-out to allow things to degrade just because they aren't doing what we want done. This is exactly why our public education is in the dumps that it is. Good people letting things be done by others rather than standing up and making a stand.
We should be proud of our efforts to educate our children as a country not continually make it the butt of our sad jokes. Making excuses for our ineptitude just continues the spiral downward.

Do you think voting your faith is going to change the quality of the education system in the US?

How is voting your faith going to convince people that it is going to take more of their time (when many are already stretched to the max trying to make ends meet), less corruption (when all anyone cares about is achieving the "american dream" for themselves and their family), more interest in making real, hard core investments in their society as a whole (when people don't want to compromise their individualism for that) and more resources (when people are already screaming about the amount of tax they pay and can't agree on where it should go)?

Have you had a look at some of the best school systems in the world and how they are run? Because I can tell you that voting your faith is not going to be the answer to our public school problem. Only a societal shift in recognizing what is important and what is worth the compromise, work and investment will do that.

[Values]

Do you think voting your faith is going to change the quality of the education system in the US?

How is voting your faith going to convince people that it is going to take more of their time (when many are already stretched to the max trying to make ends meet), less corruption (when all anyone cares about is achieving the "american dream" for themselves and their family), more interest in making real, hard core investments in their society as a whole (when people don't want to compromise their individualism for that) and more resources (when people are already screaming about the amount of tax they pay and can't agree on where it should go)?

Have you had a look at some of the best school systems in the world and how they are run? Because I can tell you that voting your faith is not going to be the answer to our public school problem. Only a societal shift in recognizing what is important and what is worth the compromise, work and investment will do that.


Ah, but that is voting my Faith and morals. Is it not yours?

[Eireanninion]

Feel free to quote me where I demanded for you to vote against your morals.


I'll wait...




As a matter of fact I've repeatedly stated you are free to vote your morals and would defend your right to do that. I may disagree with your vote, I may vote a different way on a specific issue and if your vote causes laws to be created that violate the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the Various States I may support the finding that such laws violate higher laws, but that is not saying you don't have a right to vote as you choose or to voice your opinion as you choose.




>>>>

--- That's all I've seen you do too!


--- +1 :clap:

[vir doctus]

No, our children are entitled to the best education we can provide as a nation.

You base this on what?

[NJConservative]

You assumptions are running amok.
Why do you assume I would want any mandate as to which prayer should be allowed in schools?
Why do you assume that I would want any one creation ideology taught???


I just gave examples of morality and ideology that I don't want taught. I didn't say you in particular wanted those things taught.


Public schools are not taught the right venue period.


You're going to need to explain this. It doesn't make any sense to me.


It is the duty of every citizen to set up an appropriate system that educates and does not nanny our children.


Nobody's stopping you from doing so for your own kids. It's called home schooling.


we have fallen into a sticky trap of governmental intrusion and allowed the state to take over for where parents fail. It is not the government's job to raise our children but the lazy and unwilling among us let them out of sheer stupidity.

It's one thing to do so for your own children. If one thinks they know better than the other parents and know what their kids need, then it's no different than what the government is doing. One would be advocating the same level of intrusion, only with a different set of beliefs to indoctrinate other peoples' kids with.

[DRS]

No, our children are entitled to the best education we can provide as a nation. We owe it to them and ourselves to do our best; as educators, administrators, parents etc.
It is a complete cop-out to allow things to degrade just because they aren't doing what we want done. This is exactly why our public education is in the dumps that it is. Good people letting things be done by others rather than standing up and making a stand.
We should be proud of our efforts to educate our children as a country not continually make it the butt of our sad jokes. Making excuses for our ineptitude just continues the spiral downward.

So now you are advocating getting computers for all kids and making post secondary education part of the public system?

[LeroyBrown]

I think you mis-understand my Op.
I want those of Faith to stand up and live their Faith.
Allowing others to impose their morality through governmntal controls is not being meek but instead, acting weak.
We live in a Rep Republic, we should represent ourselves.

And how did Christ tell us we should represent ourselves? Are we to be known a Christians by our voting record? Our desire to let the profane define and defend the sacred and have government define and defend the God ordained institution of marriage?

[Sketch]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?

Can you be a little more specific on what “morality” you mean?

Should sexuality be legislated?

Should alcohol be made illegal?

What about nude paintings, or photographs.

How about cursing?

I notice that only 2 of the Ten commandments are against the law (Murder and stealing) – should this be changed?

[Values]

So now you are advocating getting computers for all kids and making post secondary education part of the public system?

This is YOUR opinion of the best education possible not mine.

[Values]

Can you be a little more specific on what “morality” you mean?

Should sexuality be legislated?

Should alcohol be made illegal?

What about nude paintings, or photographs.

How about cursing?

I notice that only 2 of the Ten commandments are against the law (Murder and stealing) – should this be changed?


If everyone voted based on their moral values would the outcome be good enough fro you?

[NJConservative]

If everyone voted based on their moral values would the outcome be good enough fro you?

What makes you think they haven't, and what makes you think that what we have today isn't the exact representation of that?

[Sketch]

If everyone voted based on their moral values would the outcome be good enough fro you?

I don't know what you mean when you say "moral values" can you give some examples. like: should pork be outlawed.

[WorldWatcher]

Can you be a little more specific on what “morality” you mean?

Should sexuality be legislated?

Should alcohol be made illegal?

What about nude paintings, or photographs.

How about cursing?

I notice that only 2 of the Ten commandments are against the law (Murder and stealing) – should this be changed?
If everyone voted based on their moral values would the outcome be good enough fro you?



You dodged his question.



>>>>

[Values]

You dodged his question.



>>>>

Nope just answered in a manner you don't like.
I could ask you to line item out each vote that you or anyone else would make but that is not what is in the OP.
Instead, we each should be voting our values and morals and letting others do the same without telling them how they shouldn't allow their morals to effect us.

[Values]

I don't know what you mean when you say "moral values" can you give some examples. like: should pork be outlawed.

If you value outlawing pork then you should promote that value, should I tell you how to vote or what your morals should be? Should you be allowed to tell others that they cannot support a particular moral set?

[WorldWatcher]

Nope just answered in a manner you don't like.
I could ask you to line item out each vote that you or anyone else would make but that is not what is in the OP.
Instead, we each should be voting our values and morals and letting others do the same without telling them how they shouldn't allow their morals to effect us.


Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why you would want to run away from answering a specific question as it would show (a) your real intent or (b) that you wouldn't practice what you preach.


For example let's take the first one, "Should sexuality be legislated?".


If you answer "Yes" then you show yourself to be no better then those you claim are trying to legislate your morality. You want to do the same thing be reaching into other people bedrooms.

If on the other hand if you answer "No" then you show that you aren't really voting your morality (unless you don't think there is any morality attached to sex, i.e. marriage out of wedlock, adultery, homosexual relations etc...).


To answer these types of questions honestly you either back yourself into a corner or show you don't really mean what you say you just are trying to fill posts with generalities and platitudes.






But feel free to ask me an item by item list if you want, I'll be honest enough to answer them.


"Should sexuality be legislated?" My answer is no, what two consenting, legal age adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of the governments business.




>>>>

[Voxpopuli]

If you value outlawing pork then you should promote that value, should I tell you how to vote or what your morals should be? Should you be allowed to tell others that they cannot support a particular moral set?

It appears that you are simply advocating the tyranny of the majority. Why continue to run in circles when you should just say "majority rules."

[WorldWatcher]

It appears that you are simply advocating the tyranny of the majority. Why continue to run in circles when you should just say "majority rules."


Maybe because there are no provisions made in the United States Constitution for a simple "majority rules". As a matter of fact I don't think there are any provisions in the Constitution for the direct voting on laws. Even if a law is passed by a simple majority, the President still has veto power. If the President veto's a bill it then takes a super majority (2/3) to override the veto. Let alone the difficult requirements laid out in Article V for amending the Constitution.



>>>>

[Voxpopuli]

Maybe because there are no provisions made in the United States Constitution for a simple "majority rules". As a matter of fact I don't think there are any provisions in the Constitution for the direct voting on laws. Even if a law is passed by a simple majority, the President still has veto power. If the President veto's a bill it then takes a super majority (2/3) to override the veto. Let alone the difficult requirements laid out in Article V for amending the Constitution.



>>>>

If I disagreed I would argue with you. :razz:

[Values]

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand why you would want to run away from answering a specific question as it would show (a) your real intent or (b) that you wouldn't practice what you preach.


For example let's take the first one, "Should sexuality be legislated?".


If you answer "Yes" then you show yourself to be no better then those you claim are trying to legislate your morality. You want to do the same thing be reaching into other people bedrooms.

If on the other hand if you answer "No" then you show that you aren't really voting your morality (unless you don't think there is any morality attached to sex, i.e. marriage out of wedlock, adultery, homosexual relations etc...).

Got it all figured do ya?
Sexuality is already legislated and you are in full agreement with most of that moral legislation. Think, sexual predation, pedaphilia, sexual acts in public, etc
Whether you and I agree with all moral legislation in this area is up for discussion but you and I agree on much more than we disagree on. We both morally are opposed to certain behaviors that we wish to keep illegal. You just think that because I may disagree with you on some issues I should give up my morals on those to better fit with yours. Again, why?



To answer these types of questions honestly you either back yourself into a corner or show you don't really mean what you say you just are trying to fill posts with generalities and platitudes.

Condescention noted, please see afore mentioned moral stance you already take yourself.



But feel free to ask me an item by item list if you want, I'll be honest enough to answer them.


MMMMK.......(this is all rhetorical of course as we already know that you have morals around sexual legislation)
What is your stance on bestiality?
Pedophilia?
Child molestation?
Rape?
Gang Bangs?
Etc.


"Should sexuality be legislated?" My answer is no, what two consenting, legal age adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of the governments business.



What does sexual legislation have to do with only consenting adults?
You have purposefully ignored all the sexual legislation you DO agree with.
HMMMMMMM

[WorldWatcher]

If I disagreed I would argue with you. :razz:


The post was directed more at those that think they can impose morality through votes, so it really wasn't in response to your comments. Sorry. ;)



>>>>

[Values]

It appears that you are simply advocating the tyranny of the majority. Why continue to run in circles when you should just say "majority rules."

I live in Washington and have the opportunity to purchase liquor on Sunday, now, those in Utah may not find a store open on that day.
How is something like this possible if majority rules??????

[WorldWatcher]

Got it all figured do ya?


Not in the least.


Sexuality is already legislated and you are in full agreement with most of that moral legislation.


Really? Please site some laws that restrict the actions between consenting adults in their bedrooms.


Think, sexual predation,


Predation implies non-consenting. Forced sex is not two **CONSENTING** adults.


pedaphilia,


Pedaphila is raping a child, again not two **CONSENTING** adults.


sexual acts in public, etc


I said in their bedrooms, not in public.


Whether you and I agree with all moral legislation in this area is up for discussion but you and I agree on much more than we disagree on.


Not really, your solution is the same as liberals - more government.

My opinion is that in many cases it's none of the governments business unless they can show a compelling reason.

Different method of approaching the issues.


We both morally are opposed to certain behaviors that we wish to keep illegal.


Again there is a difference, you want to make things illegal because you find behaviors of OTHERS as immoral and want to exercise the power of government through social authoritarianism.

I claim the only time when the government should interfere with behavior is when they can demonstrate a compelling interest, not just because some people find it morally wrong. You appear to be advocating for bigger government, I believe in smaller government.

I believe that moral behavior is the responsibility of the individual and not government unless there is a reason.


You just think that because I may disagree with you on some issues I should give up my morals on those to better fit with yours. Again, why?


Again, please cite anywhere in this thread where I've said you should give up your morals.

You made a statement like this before and I asked for such a quote, I'm still waiting.

Again, you are entitled to conduct your behavior under whatever moral guidelines you choose. However because you choose certain guidelines does not automatically give you the right to expect **OTHERS** to have to abide by those decisions.


Condescention noted, please see afore mentioned moral stance you already take yourself.


No condescension at all, anyone reading the thread can tell pretty easily that you attempted to dodge the question because you couldn't give a straight answer.


MMMMK.......(this is all rhetorical of course as we already know that you have morals around sexual legislation)

What is your stance on bestiality?

Morally wrong.

Shouldn't be illegal if you own the animal.

What bestiality laws mean is that if someone owns a sheep I can take it out behind the house, blow it's brains out, skin it, and serve it up for dinner but they can't have sex with it. Makes no sense to me.


Pedophilia?

Rape of a non-consenting, non-adult (since it is a child).

Morally wrong.

Should be illegal as rape harms another person.

Child molestation?

Rape of a non-consenting, non-adult (since it is a child).

Morally wrong.

Should be illegal as rape harms another person.

Rape?

Rape of a non-consenting adult.

Morally wrong.

Should be illegal as rape harms another person.


Gang Bangs?

Can be morally wrong for some people, can be just dandy for others. Depends on their individual opinion.

Should not be illegal as it is none of the governments business.


What does sexual legislation have to do with only consenting adults?
You have purposefully ignored all the sexual legislation you DO agree with.
HMMMMMMM


Because once you remove the "consenting adults" from the picture (who the government has no business trying to legislate) you are left with child molesters and rapists. (See your examples above) in a blatant attempt to use the Emotionalism Fallacy to solicite a response and it combines the Strawman Fallacy in there as well as I specifically stated "consenting adults" in my previous statements.



>>>>

[Values]

Rather than continue this tit for tat dailogue I think we should agree to disagree on this. I can talk circles with you and I think we would get nowhere.
I am disapointed that a thread on morals and Faith would be taken out of the RF but I do not run the show.

[WorldWatcher]

Rather than continue this tit for tat dailogue I think we should agree to disagree on this. I can talk circles with you and I think we would get nowhere.


:shrug: OK


I am disapointed that a thread on morals and Faith would be taken out of the RF but I do not run the show.


Actually your OP was about legislation and morality.



>>>>

[captusa]

Maybe because there are no provisions made in the United States Constitution for a simple "majority rules". As a matter of fact I don't think there are any provisions in the Constitution for the direct voting on laws. Even if a law is passed by a simple majority, the President still has veto power. If the President veto's a bill it then takes a super majority (2/3) to override the veto. Let alone the difficult requirements laid out in Article V for amending the Constitution.



>>>>

Agreed but you omitted the fact that the specific reason for the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of minorites rom the simple will of the majority.
The Bill of Rights limits the power of the majority from using their power to infringe on everyones rights.
Other democracies and democratic republics do not have that protection.

[captusa]

You assumptions are running amok.
Why do you assume I would want any mandate as to which prayer should be allowed in schools?
Why do you assume that I would want any one creation ideology taught???
Public schools are not taught the right venue period.

You haven't given any example of any specific issue that your "voting your morality" would be a problem.
What aspect of your morality would you compell others to obey that does not have a compelling reason (as WW emphasized) other than your morality ?
And what do you mean by "Public schools are not taught the right venue" ?

It is the duty of every citizen to set up an appropriate system that educates and does not nanny our children. we have fallen into a sticky trap of governmental intrusion and allowed the state to take over for where parents fail. It is not the government's job to raise our children but the lazy and unwilling among us let them out of sheer stupidity.
Whose job is it to raise the children of the lazy and unwilling among us ?
Making laziness and stupidity illegal would be appropiate but I doubt if it would work.
That's why we have compulsory education laws.
That's also why we have departments of domestic services to protect children from negligence and abuse.

[captusa]

.....
I am disapointed that a thread on morals and Faith would be taken out of the RF but I do not run the show.

Are you assuming that only the religious are concerned with morality and legislation ?

[WorldWatcher]

Agreed but you omitted the fact that the specific reason for the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of minorites rom the simple will of the majority.
The Bill of Rights limits the power of the majority from using their power to infringe on everyones rights.
Other democracies and democratic republics do not have that protection.


I agree I think there is a danger in the "simple majority", one that people commonly ignore but which, if I understand correctly is currently being played out in California.

California has a fairly easy process for a ballot initiative. IIRC it only take signatures equal to 5% of the last gubernatorial election voters to get a direct initiative on the ballot. (Not talking State Constitutional Amendments here, talking about Statutory Law.) On top of that, Constitutionally speaking, once something is passed by ballot initiative the Legislature cannot make changes without another general vote on the ballot.

This has resulted in many areas of the budget which were passed by iniative, but which during hard economic times, the Legislature cannot change as they attempt to manage the States budget. So in essence the "morality" of the majority has placed the State in a very dangerous economic position.


>>>>

[blackcatrun]

It has been brought up often that those who have a Faith should not use that Faith to legislate to the people as a whole.
My question is; should we acquiesce our beliefs in this manner and if we do so are we allowing others moralties to then run our lives?


The manor faith is personal.

However several diffrent kinds of morality exist today.
Some have fiath in God some have faith in relations with the same sex other practice witchcraft,athists, ect...ones belief should be held at the door if anouther cares nothing for them.

All try and provide a resoan to exist to the other in moral conflict will never really end and is only made worse by those in power thinking they have a right to define the human experiance in their terms not of the indivdual.


Laws in protection of liberty should never go beyond crimes against others. AS is the duty of any law makers.
Which has not been heeded as of late and is why the law makers have over stepped bounds so many times in the past in efforts to control morality leaving only a mess for humans to live within.

[Sketch]

If everyone voted based on their moral values would the outcome be good enough fro you?

Your premise is literally and intentionally, it seems to me, ill defined.

[WorldWatcher]

Can you be a little more specific on what “morality” you mean?

Should sexuality be legislated?

Should alcohol be made illegal?

What about nude paintings, or photographs.

How about cursing?

I notice that only 2 of the Ten commandments are against the law (Murder and stealing) – should this be changed?
If everyone voted based on their moral values would the outcome be good enough fro you?
Your premise is literally and intentionally, it seems to me, ill defined.


Did you notice that he declined to answer the specifics of your questions.


>>>>