which religion do you mix with the government in US? christianity? islam? confucianism? if you pick any one of them, the rest are not going to be happy.
ahhh!!! now we're talking!!! here's my soapbox on this: (please take with a grain of salt since i know you don't believe this freaky stuff! ) i reject any notion of a division between the sacred and the secular. i believe it all belongs to God. i look at the stories in the Bible and see broken, fallen, deeply sinful men who are championed as "heroes." It's laughable that the church from the 19th century on took that view, in my mind. the only hero of that overarching story is God. so the CHURCH has created this idea that there are these people over here who go to church and tithe..and their crap smells just a little bit better than those people you sit next to at baseball games who cuss and drink too much. and they've created a world/God veiw that suggests that God lives very far away and we live here...and everything here is bad. It's dualism. That's the essence of Taoism. BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE GOD OF JUDAISM OR CHRISTIANITY. And, in my view, that's had awful ramifications on how the church and, more importantly, how God is perceived by those who believe and by those who don't believe. That He's some old man in a robe sitting in some ethereal Florida retirement community reigning down judgment on us all is just beyond me. And yet, I think that's exactly the vision of God that has been communicated. We all live surrounded by violence, sex and corruption. The sex part isn't bad. He came up with the idea. I think He suggests that it's a lot more meaningful than what we've reduced it to. And that we're missing out on that. Violence and corruption?? Well...it seems the call from God is to join Him in bringing heaven to earth. To bring justice to the oppressed (which is echoed over and over and over again as being "true religion" in the Old and New Testaments). To be his agents here. Because the process of all of this is every bit as important as the end result...because it's transformative. Redemption started for this world, I believe, on the cross. And it will continue to be redeemed by Him through us. Here's a little video link (only about 2:30 minutes long) that's kinda sorta about this subject of "them and us" that seems so prevalent in the church. It's from a friend of mine who is a pastor here in Houston at a great church called Ecclesia. At the foundation of the church is the concept that there is no division between sacred and secular. Even if you didn't buy into the message, you'd love the coffee there (Taft Street Coffee House) and I think you'd be able to appreciate the music, the art and the beauty. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hq9NNjpr1Zs Sorry for the rant....this stuff just really moves me.
I like the max soapbox. Thought provoking stuff. You absolutely nailed it. I always used to laugh to myself when I was a kid at church back when my mom made me go and we would read the story about the pharisee and the tax collector. And I would look around and all I would see is the pharisee reincarnate. It sickens me that a philosophy so heavy on pacifism, on tolerance, on mutual respect for the common trait of "sin" is so warped and jaded that it's nothing more than a social club - a collectivist ideology of "seperate and therefore better". I think it could be argued that such a god is the god of the old testament. Regardless, I think a lot of people find comfort in that kind of simplified right/wrong god who is ambivalent to one's character, struggles, and personal spirituality. It coincides perfectly with your aforementioned notion that somehow going to church or being a "christian" makes you better prepared for some inevitable and terrible judgement. That video rocks. Thanks for the commentary too.
James Madison might not be cool with Gay marriage but since he didn't bother to mention marriage in the Constitution it wasn't an issue of concern. And to head off the argument that Gay marriage wasn't an issue then there was a host of marriage issues in the 18th C. like marriage between different religions, citizens of different countries, different races, and even different classes yet none of that is mentioned in the Constitution.
Good soapbox rant but I would disagree on your take on Taoism. Taoism says that the sacred is everything, or for that matter nothing is sacred. Since there isn't a supreme being in Taoism there is no duality between humanity and God.
it could be argued that from the 21st century looking back. but i can assure that was not what the Jews thought of God. and it's not what they thought of him in the first century when Jesus was walking around. and it's not what they think of Him, now.
As far as the government should be concerned, it's a contract between two people to share stuff. As long as those two people are old enough and of right mind to enter into that contract, government should let them and offer a way of breaking it off. But the Constitution is certainly silent (other than the what happens in Massachusetts should be honored in Texas thing) on whether or not that should be allowed.
Sure, it's opinion insofar as it's not a hard science, and it breaks down at the margins. But that doesn't mean there are things that are plainly unconstituional and things that are plainly constitutional according to any logical, rational interpretation. For example, I don't think any logical person would disagree that it's constituional for Congress to fund an army or a navy - it's spelled out. Likewise I don't think any logical person would disagree that if you're on trial for capital murder, you have the right to trial by jury. In the same vein, relevant ot this thread, if Congress passed a bill that said "the official state religion of the united states of america is christianity," and prescribed criminal penalties for failure to adhere to it, that would be unconstitutional. I suppose you could say it's just my opinion, but then the bar gets lowered to the point where any logical discussion is meaningless.
The thread title is a little misleading, as the original post is about election politics more than government. My take is that government shouldn't advocate any particular religion or religion in general over irreligion. I mean, it's in the Constitution. However, I think religion (as opposed to religious affiliation) can play a valubale role in politics. Not as in, "Candidate X shares my religion, I'll vote for him!" but more as in, "Candidate X advocates _______. Is this in accordance with my values as a _______." I know that my values and priorities have been greatly shaped, and I think strengthened, by my religion. Thus, my religion will affect whom I vote for. Likewise, the decisions made by lawmakers will be affected by their religious identities. As long as no particular religion is promoted by government, I think religion can play a healthy role in our political system.
i agree..there are certainly some things that, on their face, are so blatantly unconstitutional that you'd get 99% agreement or more.
