NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to keep this civil. I have a serious question for Evangelical Christians.

Why do many Evangelicals seek to codify their religious beleifs into US law? If gay people marry, if stem cells are used to cure disease, if evolution is taught in schools it still doesn't prevent you from living according to your beleifs. Why must you force those beleifs on everyone else using the government and the law?

Drunk Commies for president!

Because...

...if gay marriage is legalised, the gays will rise up and eat us all.

...if evolution is taught as science, a bizarre race of monkey-men will rise up and eat us all.

...if stem cell research is encouraged, then we will all be strangled (and possibly eaten) by clones of ourselves that were created by evil atheist scientists.
I'm actually looking for serious answers from Christians. I don't mean to come off as a stuck up asshole, but I think sarcastic posts like this serve to keep them away.

I'm actually looking for serious answers from Christians. I don't mean to come off as a stuck up asshole, but I think sarcastic posts like this serve to keep them away.
soory, that wasn't meant as flamebait. just having fun

I'm going to keep this civil. I have a serious question for Evangelical Christians.

Why do many Evangelicals seek to codify their religious beleifs into US law? If gay people marry, if stem cells are used to cure disease, if evolution is taught in schools it still doesn't prevent you from living according to your beleifs. Why must you force those beleifs on everyone else using the government and the law?
Many believe that gays should not marry because it would damage the institution of marriage (which has already been pretty much damaged by hetros anyway if you ask me) some are in favor of civil unions though. (that would include me, I think homosexuality is wrong but as an American it is also wrong for me to deny them certain rights)

Most of my big problem with current stem cell research is that they are using embreyos. I believe that life starts at conception and they are killing many innocent children during research. If this were not the case I wouldn't be so upset about it (like if they used cord blood or something similar that didn't involve embreyos) In this I believe I am trying to protect others rights.

I personally have no problem with evolution being taught in schools as long as it is presented in a way that doesn't put down ID, I don't however think that public schools should be required to teach ID, I just wish they wouldn't put it down, they could say something along the lines of certain religions have other theorys and leave it at that.

I have stated in other threds but will state again for your benifit that I think it is an extreemly bad idea to try to force any belief on someone or to have a legislated religion. Chances are if the government chose a national religion it wouldn't be mine. and then I would be sad. :(

What a strange question? They're evangelical! (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=evangelical)

I'm going to keep this civil. I have a serious question for Evangelical Christians.

Why do many Evangelicals seek to codify their religious beleifs into US law? If gay people marry, if stem cells are used to cure disease, if evolution is taught in schools it still doesn't prevent you from living according to your beleifs. Why must you force those beleifs on everyone else using the government and the law?

With all due respect, *all* law is the forcing of beliefs upon someone else. Do you doubt me? Then why not advocate a repeal of the laws against rape and murder? Such laws represent a belief that rape and murder are wrong. BTW, how many legal homosexual marriages were performed before 2000? Do you really think that the judicial motions in favor of such weren't a forcing of opinion upon those who think homosexual marriages are wrong? For that matter do you really think that Roe V. Wade represented anything other than a forcing of "Abortion is a sacrement" upon those who thought that this was a matter for the states to decide?

Once again, *all* law represents an imposing of beliefs. The real question is how and whose beliefs will be imposed. You wish you beliefs to be prevalent no matter what and you favor the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy because you know that the population is against what you do. We wish our beliefs to be prevelant and prefer that the legislatures and the people should be the judge.

So if I were being evil I would say your question translates to, "Why don't you lay down and die for my faction's behalf?" and the proper answer to *that* is, "Why should we? See ya at the polls!". ;)

What a strange question? They're evangelical! (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=evangelical)
Silly me, it's right in the name.

Hmm...I'm new here, so that maybe be why I'm the first to answer, but I'll attempt to answer to the best of my ability.

Okay, if there was a movement to make murder legal, would you seek to stop it? Or, if someone someone tried to make it increadibly easy for terrorists to do what they do, actually saying that was their goal, wouldn't you try to stop them?

These are hyperbole and of course ridiculous, but it's what most christians are trying to do. We aren't trying to force our beliefs on others, we are trying to keep society moral. We aren't trying to hate on gays, we are trying to keep America a place that isn't hostile towards us. Most of us are just trying to keep America the great country that it is and has been. I suppose you could say this would constitute imposing our will. But most christians feel like the lefties are imposing their will.

This is where conflict happens. Because the America I see is probably pretty different that the America you see. We want the same thing: to keep\make America great, it's just the details that we'll stumble on. There are lots of people that want to run this country and shape it, that's what makes Democracy great. We all get to have our voices heard, and ultimately change things without the need for blood.

*edit* I was the first to answer when I started typing this, hehe. Sorry.

Ok, so far I've got this

1) Homosexual marriage would damage the institution of marriage.

I don't understand how that works.

2) Stem cell therapy destroys embryos, and evangelicals beleive that life starts at conception.

The embryos used for stem cell treatment come from excess embryos that will be discarded anyway, and I think the "life starts at conception" argument is more of a religious doctrine than anything else.

3) Evolution should be taught alongside ID

But evolution is science, and ID is a religious doctrine. If we start teaching religion in science class what's next? Teaching sex ed in math class?

Ok, so far I've got this

1) Homosexual marriage would damage the institution of marriage.

I don't understand how that works.

2) Stem cell therapy destroys embryos, and evangelicals beleive that life starts at conception.

The embryos used for stem cell treatment come from excess embryos that will be discarded anyway, and I think the "life starts at conception" argument is more of a religious doctrine than anything else.

3) Evolution should be taught alongside ID

But evolution is science, and ID is a religious doctrine. If we start teaching religion in science class what's next? Teaching sex ed in math class?
1) Marriage is a religious institution people who aren't religious could damage it. It is already damaged enough. People no longer understand that marriage is a life long commitment.

2) I am also against any action that would create an embreyo that would be discarded. You don't throw people away that is just wrong.

3) I believe I said that I didn't think that schools should be forced to teach ID , if you really wanted to be argumentative instead of really just wondering why you should have said that.
btw I could argue that evolution is a theory of the humanist and therefore a religious doctrine.

1) Homosexual marriage would damage the institution of marriage.

I don't understand how that works.

From Merriam Webster's 1996 Dictionary.

"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law"

That is what Evangelicals believe - a uniting of a Man and a Woman, not a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman.

Another explanation of evangelical.

ev-a suffix of Semetic root(or is it Greek?) meaning good.

angel-another Semetic (or Greek) word meaning word.

Evangelius therefore meant a person who spread the 'good word.' When it spread to Germanic-speaking areas, the word became God-Spell. Eventually, English shortened it into gospel.
I know that really didn't answer anything, but I thought it was nifty to know.

1) Marriage is a religious institution people who aren't religious could damage it. It is already damaged enough. People no longer understand that marriage is a life long commitment.

2) I am also against any action that would create an embreyo that would be discarded. You don't throw people away that is just wrong.

3) I believe I said that I didn't think that schools should be forced to teach ID , if you really wanted to be argumentative instead of really just wondering why you should have said that.
btw I could argue that evolution is a theory of the humanist and therefore a religious doctrine.
1) I agree. I'd like to get government out of the business of marriage becasue it's interfering in religious beleif. Violates the establishment clause. Let each church decide separately on who can get married. Government should have civil unions for all.

2) Depends on how one defines a person.

3) Sorry I misread your original post.

2) Depends on how one defines a person.

How would you define a person?

Sorry, but with your history what intelligent person would take your question seriously? Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Maybe you do want serious answers this time, but who is going to believe you at this point? My suggestion is that you ask Jesussaves.

1) Marriage is a religious institution people who aren't religious could damage it. It is already damaged enough. People no longer understand that marriage is a life long commitment.

2) I am also against any action that would create an embreyo that would be discarded. You don't throw people away that is just wrong.

3) I believe I said that I didn't think that schools should be forced to teach ID , if you really wanted to be argumentative instead of really just wondering why you should have said that.
btw I could argue that evolution is a theory of the humanist and therefore a religious doctrine.
1) Marriage was a secular institution before being a religious one. I see no problem with the state retaking their institution.

2) You are agianst artificial insemination? (Just to be clear on your stance) because that's where they come from.

3) I say teach evolution in religion classes. Less time or religion that way ;)

How would you define a person?
I would base personhood on a certain ability to think and feel emotion. A mass of stem cells, which don't have a brain yet, are totally incapable of having the higher mental functions that define personhood for me. Also a braindead person who's heart is still beating is no more a person to me than a corpse is.

I actually know an evangelical who doesn't have a problem with any of those three things u cited. If u think about it though, a lot of America's laws are influenced by values found in the Ten Commandments.

Sorry, but with your history what intelligent person would take your question seriously? Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Maybe you do want serious answers this time, but who is going to believe you at this point? My suggestion is that you ask Jesussaves.
You're entitiled to your opinion.

I actually know an evangelical who doesn't have a problem with any of those three things u cited. If u think about it though, a lot of America's laws are influenced by values found in the Ten Commandments.
such as?

Having only one god?

As far as I know, the only two commandments found in the law are about murder and stealing. That's 2 out of 10. I think it is more likely to find correlation between English Common Law, Hammurabi's Code or even the law of China than in the Ten Commandments.

1) Marriage was a secular institution before being a religious one. I see no problem with the state retaking their institution.

2) You are agianst artificial insemination? (Just to be clear on your stance) because that's where they come from.

3) I say teach evolution in religion classes. Less time or religion that way ;)
1) can you prove that? if you can, I guess you sort of have a point but I agree with Drunk commies deleted that civil unions should be available to people who aren't interested in a church style marriage.
2) I am.

3) that is just argumentative.

I actually know an evangelical who doesn't have a problem with any of those three things u just cited. If u think about it though, a lot of America's laws are influenced by values found in the Ten Commandments.
I disagree there. We're allowed to make graven images, worship any god or none, work on the sabbath day, covet, even commit adultery as far as the constitution is concerned.

I would base personhood on a certain ability to think and feel emotion. A mass of stem cells, which don't have a brain yet, are totally incapable of having the higher mental functions that define personhood for me. Also a braindead person who's heart is still beating is no more a person to me than a corpse is.
just curious, what constitutes higher mental functions? I have a cousin with mental retardation is she not a person? and what about my 2 year old? is she a person? what about premature babies? are they people? sociopaths are sometimes described as unable to feel emotion as are some types of autistic people. are these not people either?
your definition of a person is somewhat flawed I think.

1) can you prove that? if you can, I guess you sort of have a point but I agree with Drunk commies deleted that civil unions should be available to people who aren't interested in a church style marriage.
2) I am.

3) that is just argumentative.
1) I cannot on the top of my head. But it has been argumented many times in these forums. A marriage-type ceremony existed before religion started doing it. In fact, Christinaity started getting in the marriage business in the dark ages when only the clergy kept records and was educated enough to read. So it fell unto them to officiate such ceremonies and keep a record of them.

2) Then I can understand your position.

3) Agreed ;) but it is as much logical as teaching ID in science class.

1) I cannot on the top of my head. But it has been argumented many times in these forums. A marriage-type ceremony existed before religion started doing it. In fact, Christinaity started getting in the marriage business in the dark ages when only the clergy kept records and was educated enough to read. So it fell unto them to officiate such ceremonies and keep a record of them.

2) Then I can understand your position.

3) Agreed ;) but it is as much logical as teaching ID in science class.
1) work on that. I will try to research it, I am curious.
2) thank you for being understanding, though I take it you don't agree,and that's okay too.
3) true. but I have to point back to my original post (and the second one where I addressed this) I don't think they should teach ID in public schools.

just curious, what constitutes higher mental functions? I have a cousin with mental retardation is she not a person? and what about my 2 year old? is she a person? what about premature babies? are they people? sociopaths are sometimes described as unable to feel emotion as are some types of autistic people. are these not people either?
your definition of a person is somewhat flawed I think.
If he or she can problemsolve and imagine. A two year old can do that, so can a mentally retarded person. I think many premature babies have sufficient brain development to be considered alife. I just don't know when during the development of the brain it happens. Anyway, clearly a mass of stem cells with no brain cannot possibly think or feel. What do you base personhood on?

From Merriam Webster's 1996 Dictionary.

"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law"

That is what Evangelicals believe - a uniting of a Man and a Woman, not a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman.
We know what they think but why must they force that viewpoint on others?

1) work on that. I will try to research it, I am curious.
2) thank you for being understanding, though I take it you don't agree,and that's okay too.
3) true. but I have to point back to my original post (and the second one where I addressed this) I don't think they should teach ID in public schools.
1) I'm about to go offline for a while. It will take some time to find the relevant information.

2) Your perception is quite accurate.

3) I know. It's just that the 1-2-3 system was working well. So I kept the 3) for the ID discussion. Sorry if it was misleading to be a respond to your comments.

If he or she can problemsolve and imagine. A two year old can do that, so can a mentally retarded person. I think many premature babies have sufficient brain development to be considered alife. I just don't know when during the development of the brain it happens. Anyway, clearly a mass of stem cells with no brain cannot possibly think or feel. What do you base personhood on?

I have already said that I believe that life starts at conception, anyone who is alive is a person.

Defining personhood on the basis of brain development results in several problems. Brain development is controlled by the DNA, and so, is programmed to occur in a continuous progression of virtually indistinguishable events. There is no point at which the brain suddenly becomes functional. In fact, many aspects of brain development occur after birth. Most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. Therefore, a definition of personhood on the basis of brain development would allow for infanticide - at least through the first month.
hope that helps you out.

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

1) I'm about to go offline for a while. It will take some time to find the relevant information.

2) Your perception is quite accurate.

3) I know. It's just that the 1-2-3 system was working well. So I kept the 3) for the ID discussion. Sorry if it was misleading to be a respond to your comments.
that's okay I just hope that I am not confusing people about what I believe. My pet peeve number 4 is being stereotyped because I am a fundamentalist Christain. (there are a lot of fundie nutjobs around, and I ain't one of 'em)

We know what they think but why must they force that viewpoint on others?
One could argue that by passing some of these laws you all are forcing your veiw point on us. (Evangelicals that is)

We know what they think but why must they force that viewpoint on others?

They believe that Marriage should remain as it has always been over the past history of human civilisation. Only a man and a woman could have babies, and therefore a family, which was the main reason why people married. Evangelicals are just trying to keep the status quo of thousands of years.

Could someone reply

Could someone reply
OK

Could someone reply
repy to?

I like how this hasn't turned into a flame war yet, you all deserve medals

here's my 2 cents: I think that if you must institute prayer in school you must represent every religion in prayer (wicca,buddhism,hinduism and satanism)

I like how this hasn't turned into a flame war yet, you all deserve medals

here's my 2 cents: I think that if you must institute prayer in school you must represent every religion in prayer (wicca,buddhism,hinduism and satanism)
I would agree but, I think it would be a bad idea to institute prayer in school and what I mean institute is like when they force people to pray (like they used to with the pledge of allegiance)
I do believe that induviduals should be able to pray in school (how are they really gonna stop us anyway?)
and btw I do not have a problem with the pledge, I just think it is wrong to force someone to do it if they don't want to. it takes some of the meaning out when people have to do it instead of want to.

At the risk of teeing off the devout Orwell followers (if there ever was an oxymoron), what exactly is wrong with altering language a little to suit the needs of an unfairly treated minority? I'm not suggesting we insist "2 + 2 = 5" but inclusively broadening the definition of marriage is hardly the end of civilization. Political correcntess? So be it. Thanks to "political correctnes", women are no longer told to "love, honour and obey" in their wedding vows and black people are no longer referred to as "negros" and Chinese people are not labelled "chinks". Lets not pretend that our society isn't already saturated with it, if nothing else, it would be hypocritical NOT to apply it universally.

With all due respect, *all* law is the forcing of beliefs upon someone else. Do you doubt me? Then why not advocate a repeal of the laws against rape and murder? Such laws represent a belief that rape and murder are wrong. BTW, how many legal homosexual marriages were performed before 2000? Do you really think that the judicial motions in favor of such weren't a forcing of opinion upon those who think homosexual marriages are wrong? For that matter do you really think that Roe V. Wade represented anything other than a forcing of "Abortion is a sacrement" upon those who thought that this was a matter for the states to decide?

Once again, *all* law represents an imposing of beliefs. The real question is how and whose beliefs will be imposed. You wish you beliefs to be prevalent no matter what and you favor the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy because you know that the population is against what you do. We wish our beliefs to be prevelant and prefer that the legislatures and the people should be the judge.

So if I were being evil I would say your question translates to, "Why don't you lay down and die for my faction's behalf?" and the proper answer to *that* is, "Why should we? See ya at the polls!". ;)


I disagree, only unjust laws represents an imposing of beliefs. The point of the law is to protect people and their rights, and to ensure fairness in society. If murder is legal then people die, if gay marriage is legal then nothing bad happens to anyone. The only laws that impose beliefs are the ones which restrict peoples civil rights. We don't have speed limits because people believe that going fast is wrong, we have them to prevent deaths. The population may be against gay marriage or any number of things, but unless an action has a detrimental effect on others then their is no reason to have laws against it.

(quote)Originally Posted by UpwardThrust
We know what they think but why must they force that viewpoint on others?

What gives the secular Government the right to force their viewpoint on Christians?