NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I the only one getting sick and tired of Religion and Politics getting mixed in together? It just seems like the Christian Rights are concern less with respecting other people, loving thy neighbor, humility, love, kindness and more about "Well this nation is going to Hell unless we save it from the darkies, fags, and those ebil Muslim!" Ever since I started paying attention to politics (which was around 2000), the stuff the Christian Rights put out just get worse and worse.

One of my friend drag me to this Baptist Church and I went because apparently my parents thinks I need to learn how to be nice, and I got handed this paper about where the candidate stand on issuses important to them. Apparently scientific progress and treating homosexuals and lesbians as equal to straight people is anfront to Jesus.

I do not want these people in charge. Religion should be a private and personal matter, not a way for you to abuse and exploit so that you can get more votes, or use it to discriminate against a group of people.

I may take my friend to Mass on Saturday night.

http://www.blueherald.com/uploads/Buck/jesus.jpg

because apparently my parents thinks I need to learn how to be nice

You need to learn? :confused: Never Wilgrove.

You know what I am sick and tired of everybody using a few individual churches or preachers and using that as evidence that ALL christians are like that. Or using things that happened in the past or the way things used to be as how things are now.

You...you mean that people who believe in something might try to influence government in favor of that belief?

The hell you say...

You...you mean that people who believe in something might try to influence government in favor of that belief?

The hell you say...

I'm guessing seperation of Church and State doesn't apply here?

"Well this nation is going to Hell unless we save it from the darkies, fags, and those ebil Muslim!"

Don't forget the dark-skinned gay Muslims. I'm willing to bet just thinking about a black, homosexual Muslim is enough to make these guys crap their pants in fear.


Apparently scientific progress and treating homosexuals and lesbians as equal to straight people is anfront to Jesus.

Churches =/= Jesus

Never trust a man who claims to be speaking on behalf of God or Jesus.

Don't forget the dark-skinned gay Muslims. I'm willing to bet just thinking about a black, homosexual Muslim is enough to make these guys crap their pants in fear.


Churches =/= Jesus

Never trust a man who claims to be speaking on behalf of God or Jesus.

Oh, we musn't forget about the Pagans and Witches, who fills the children's thoughts with evil thoughts such as disobeying their parents and listening to Rock and Roll music!

*turns up Dethklok*

I'm guessing seperation of Church and State doesn't apply here?

not as much as you seem to thing. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion, or becoming entangled in religion, or from promoting any one religion as "true", or more valid than the rest.

It does NOT however prevent the government from enacting legislation that falls in line with religious morals. If it did, that whole "thou shalt not kill" bit would make criminalizing homicide very very tricky.

A legislature can not make Christianity a state religion, that's in violation of the 1st amendment. However if the legislature feels that gay marriage is a sin, based on their own, personal religious beliefs, and votes to outlaw gay marriage based on their own, personal religious beliefs, this doesn't violate the first amendment. A legislator may vote on laws for whatever reason he or she feels appropriate, that's their job, and voting to ban gay marriage because you, personally, don't like gay marriage because of your religious teachings, doesn't violate the first amendment.

It may violate the 5th and 14th amendments, but that's a whole other story.

not as much as you seem to thing. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion, or becoming entangled in religion, or from promoting any one religion as "true", or more valid than the rest.

It does NOT however prevent the government from enacting legislation that falls in line with religious morals. If it did, that whole "thou shalt not kill" bit would make criminalizing homicide very very tricky.

A legislature can not make Christianity a state religion, that's in violation of the 1st amendment. However if the legislature feels that gay marriage is a sin, based on their own, personal religious beliefs, and votes to outlaw gay marriage based on their own, personal religious beliefs, this doesn't violate the first amendment. A legislator may vote on laws for whatever reason he or she feels appropriate, that's their job, and voting to ban gay marriage because you, personally, don't like gay marriage because of your religious teachings, doesn't violate the first amendment.

It may violate the 5th and 14th amendments, but that's a whole other story.

Let's face it Neo a lot of laws are based on personal beliefs, not always religious in nature.

Let's face it Neo a lot of laws are based on personal beliefs, not always religious in nature.

A lot of law is based on personal beliefs? No. ALL law is based on personal beliefs. It has to be. Law is created by people. People decide what law is best, based on their own belief as to which is best, based on their education, their religion, their morality, their ethics, and their opinion

As long as law is written and enacted by people it will always be based on personal beliefs

not as much as you seem to thing. The first amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion, or becoming entangled in religion, or from promoting any one religion as "true", or more valid than the rest.

It does NOT however prevent the government from enacting legislation that falls in line with religious morals. If it did, that whole "thou shalt not kill" bit would make criminalizing homicide very very tricky.

A legislature can not make Christianity a state religion, that's in violation of the 1st amendment. However if the legislature feels that gay marriage is a sin, based on their own, personal religious beliefs, and votes to outlaw gay marriage based on their own, personal religious beliefs, this doesn't violate the first amendment. A legislator may vote on laws for whatever reason he or she feels appropriate, that's their job, and voting to ban gay marriage because you, personally, don't like gay marriage because of your religious teachings, doesn't violate the first amendment.

It may violate the 5th and 14th amendments, but that's a whole other story.

I will now use the 7 weeks of legal education that I've received at the law school I'm about to drop out of to refute Neo Art.

Ahem...

While I agree that a law that happens to be parallel to a religious belief doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I have some concern with this principle that legislators can establish laws based on personal religious beliefs without risk of a de facto violation.

If the sole impetus of a given bill and its content is religious, or even if its motivated just principally by the personal religious doctrine of the elected official, it still results in a statute which forces all to abide by the religious edict of some. If this were to happen with any frequency, the combined theme of law would reflect, in a broad and enforced way, the tenets of one religion. These seems like a de facto establishment of that religion, on the installment plan.

Further, I worry this would violate the rights of those who wish to freely practice religions incompatible with those that have been given weight of law by legislators who enact into law their "own, personal religious belief".

I amplify my opinion here by pointing out that I've had almost 2 full months of contracts, civil procedure, and lawyering process, as well as 0 months of constitutional law.

QED, Amalek haters!

I will now use the 7 weeks of legal education that I've received at the law school I'm about to drop out of to refute Neo Art.

Ahem...

While I agree that a law that happens to be parallel to a religious belief doesn't violate the Establishment Clause, I have some concern with this principle that legislators can establish laws based on personal religious beliefs without risk of a de facto violation.

If the sole impetus of a given bill and its content is religious, or even if its motivated just principally by the personal religious doctrine of the elected official, it still results in a statute which forces all to abide by the religious edict of some. If this were to happen with any frequency, the combined theme of law would reflect, in a broad and enforced way, the tenets of one religion. These seems like a de facto establishment of that religion, on the installment plan.

Further, I worry this would violate the rights of those who wish to freely practice religions incompatible with those that have been given weight of law by legislators who enact into law their "own, personal religious belief".

I amplify my opinion here by pointing out that I've had almost 2 full months of contracts, civil procedure, and lawyering process, as well as 0 months of constitutional law.

QED, Amalek haters!

An interesting question, which, if I am reading correctly, is basically saying that if a series of laws were passed all in line with a particular religious basis, then this would, taken in totality, essentially force the population to conform to a specific religion. To my knowledge it hasn't come up, largely because that certain laws would violate OTHER amendments as well. The first does not exist in a vacuum, and a law that says, for example "you can't eat meat on Friday" without any particular reference to religion, would still run foul of other amendments, largely the 14th. Additionally, it's one of those you have a hard time justifying from a secular rationale, which the law must have to at least SOME extent. Or, to use an example we're all familiar with, abortion. While someone might WANT to outlaw abortion, based on his own personal religious belief, and there's no 1st amendment violation if he votes for a law outlawing abortion, based on his personal religious belief, said law would still be unconstitutional REGARDLESS of the motivation for it.

Moreover I question whether the results of something de facto are really relevant when discussing constitutional limitations, considering the question is whether it amounts to a violation of the establishment clause de jure

A lot of law is based on personal beliefs? No. ALL law is based on personal beliefs. It has to be. Law is created by people. People decide what law is best, based on their own belief as to which is best, based on their education, their religion, their morality, their ethics, and their opinion

As long as law is written and enacted by people it will always be based on personal beliefs

Good.

However, I was saying this on these forums for awhile, but somebody brought up that the law stating you need to indicate when turning was a law not based on personal belief. I disagreed, saying that it was brought into law because people believe that people should tell other people when they are about to change direction. This was counter claimed I wish I could remember what exactly but are you saying that there cannot be any law passed that is not based on belief? If so I am going to save your post as the argument you posted is far more succinct and tighter than what I could do. (But I suppose that is why you are a lawyer and I am just a uni student:p)

An interesting question, which, if I am reading correctly, is basically saying that if a series of laws were passed all in line with a particular religious basis, then this would, taken in totality, essentially force the population to conform to a specific religion. To my knowledge it hasn't come up, largely because that certain laws would violate OTHER amendments as well. The first does not exist in a vacuum, and a law that says, for example "you can't eat meat on Friday" without any particular reference to religion, would still run foul of other amendments, largely the 14th. Additionally, it's one of those you have a hard time justifying from a secular rationale, which the law must have to at least SOME extent. Or, to use an example we're all familiar with, abortion. While someone might WANT to outlaw abortion, based on his own personal religious belief, and there's no 1st amendment violation if he votes for a law outlawing abortion, based on his personal religious belief, said law would still be unconstitutional REGARDLESS of the motivation for it.

That bolded part is very important, and I think serves to balance this premise that legislators can enact things based solely on personal beliefs.


Moreover I question whether the results of something de facto are really relevant when discussing constitutional limitations, considering the question is whether it amounts to a violation of the establishment clause de jure

Really? If no one particular law by itself "establishes" a religion, but a large portion of them, in concert, result in a frame of statutes that make one religion's practices legally compulsory, that couldn't be challeneged as the de facto establishment of a religion?

Or would it still be a de jure argument, since its still the laws, albeit in their aggregate, that is examined?

I'm asking, not telling.

Mixing politics and religion is like summoning a fire elemental to guard your dynamite warehouse.

Mixing politics and religion is like summoning a fire elemental to guard your dynamite warehouse.

Geek. :p

I'm nitpicking your use of the phrases de facto and de jure. They mean, respectively, what is true in fact, and what is true in law.

For example, the speed limit on the highway might be a de jure limit of 65 MPH but a de facto limit of 80. Meaning the law says you can't do more than 65 MPH, but everyone, in fact, does 80 MPH.

De facto means that which is in reality, as opposed to what that which is in law (de jure). Since there's no such thing as a violation of the constitution that is not "in law", the only violations of the constitution are de jure ones. The idea of a de facto violation of the constitution is a meaningless concept. The Constitution is a legal document. It is a law. Something is either in violation of the constitution as a matter of law, or it is not. It's either a de jure violation of the Constitution (violation as a matter of law) or it's no violation at all.

A philosophical question. If you're a Christian, and believe in what the Bible says. If you pass laws about how a person should live according to your religious belief, then wouldn't you also be in violation of God's given Free Will?

A philosophical question. If you're a Christian, and believe in what the Bible says. If you pass laws about how a person should live according to your religious belief, then wouldn't you also be in violation of God's given Free Will?

Wait...what?

I think your logic train went off the rails somewhere there.

I'm nitpicking your use of the phrases de facto and de jure. They mean, respectively, what is true in fact, and what is true in law.

For example, the speed limit on the highway might be a de jure limit of 65 MPH but a de facto limit of 80. Meaning the law says you can't do more than 65 MPH, but everyone, in fact, does 80 MPH.

De facto means that which is in reality, as opposed to what that which is in law (de jure). Since there's no such thing as a violation of the constitution that is not "in law", the only violations of the constitution are de jure ones. The idea of a de facto violation of the constitution is a meaningless concept. The Constitution is a legal document. It is a law. Something is either in violation of the constitution as a matter of law, or it is not. It's either a de jure violation of the Constitution (violation as a matter of law) or it's no violation at all.

So, a claim that many laws combine to essentially establish a religion, even if no particular bill or act does so, is still a claim of "de jure" violation, since even if its many laws acting in collusion to establish the religion, its still laws doing it?

Wait...what?

I think your logic train went off the rails somewhere there.

In the Book of Genesis, God gives us free will.

If laws are passes which governs lives to one belief or faith, then wouldn't that violate free will, which was given to us by God?

A philosophical question. If you're a Christian, and believe in what the Bible says. If you pass laws about how a person should live according to your religious belief, then wouldn't you also be in violation of God's given Free Will?

I think there may be some distinction between "Free Will" and "Actions Have Consequences".

I still think there is a need for secular reasoning behind laws, so that people can abide by those laws without having a religion (or part thereof) enforced on them, but I don't think anything in Free Will claims that actions don't have consequences.

Near as I can tell, much of the Bible seems to consists of "You can do this or that, but if you do the other thing, I will fuck your shit up, and you've already fucked up anyway, so we'll fuck this guy up, and accept that".

So, a claim that many laws combine to essentially establish a religion, even if no particular bill or act does so, is still a claim of "de jure" violation, since even if its many laws acting in collusion to establish the religion, its still laws doing it?

not exactly. You can violate the constitution without passing any law (putting 10 commandments on the courthouse for example). What I mean is, since the constitution is a legal document, any violation of that constitution must be a legal violation. A violation [I]de jure[/I.]

In the Book of Genesis, God gives us free will.

If laws are passes which governs lives to one belief or faith, then wouldn't that violate free will, which was given to us by God?

um....no. No it would not. "free will" means only the ability to chose your actions yourself, without having them dictated. The law does not dictate what you do, it applies consequences to certain actions. It doesn't STOP you from murdering, it punishes you if you do.

not exactly. You can violate the constitution without passing any law (putting 10 commandments on the courthouse for example). What I mean is, since the constitution is a legal document, any violation of that constitution must be a legal violation. A violation [I]de jure[/I.]

Hmm...could there be the de facto establishment of a religion? For instance, if no law was passed declaring "we are Christian", but the government began to enforce Christian religious tenets, could that be "de facto" establishment of religion?

If I'm understanding correctly, that would still be a de jure violation of the 1st Amendment, since its a law that says you can't establish religion?

It's an interesting question, can laws, taken in the aggregate, essentially establish a religion as official, even though no one law is sufficient.

Honestly, I don't know. It's never been answered as far as I know, or even really asked. The standing issue alone would be a bitch.

It's an interesting question, can laws, taken in the aggregate, essentially establish a religion as official, even though no one law is sufficient.

Honestly, I don't know. It's never been answered as far as I know, or even really asked. The standing issue alone would be a bitch.

But even if it happened, the establishment of itself could (maybe) be described as de facto, but the violation is de jure, the "jure" being the Establishment Clause?

But even if it happened, the establishment of itself could (maybe) be described as de facto, but the violation is de jure, the "jure" being the Establishment Clause?

OK, I see what you mean, yeah I guess you could look at it that way. An establishment "in fact" even if not done in law.

OK, I see what you mean, yeah I guess you could look at it that way. An establishment "in fact" even if not done in law.

Well, I have to admit, the original premise was just a lot of laws nickel and diming the religion into power, so its still pretty "de jure"....you got me, jewttorney.

A legislature can not make Christianity a state religion, that's in violation of the 1st amendment. However if the legislature feels that gay marriage is a sin, based on their own, personal religious beliefs, and votes to outlaw gay marriage based on their own, personal religious beliefs, this doesn't violate the first amendment. A legislator may vote on laws for whatever reason he or she feels appropriate, that's their job, and voting to ban gay marriage because you, personally, don't like gay marriage because of your religious teachings, doesn't violate the first amendment.

Seems to me it violates the first amendment rights of every priest, priestess, houngon, pope, or what have you, whos religion allows gay marriage.

Peanut gallery: But what about marrying goats/children/kitchen appliances?

The government has solid reasons to ban bestiality/child molestation it has no such case with homosexuality and therefor homosexual marriage is a different case than child marriage or animal marriage.

Kitchen appliance marriage . . . as I can see no reason one would need the privileges provided to them by marriage in a relationship with their egg beater the only reason I can see for trying to marry one is the tax benefits. That boarders on tax fraud. However, I have no reason to object to human/object relationships as long as it's YOUR object and not one I have to use. And if your beloved object is a kitchen appliance/utensil don't expect me to eat anything you cook.

Seems to me it violates the first amendment rights of every priest, priestess, houngon, pope, or what have you, whos religion allows gay marriage.

What about laws criminalizing consumption of peyote, and native american religious that advocate consumption of peyote as part of religious ritual?

What about laws criminalizing consumption of peyote, and native american religious that advocate consumption of peyote as part of religious ritual?

You mentioned before that law has to have some secular aspect, so if we can find some secular reason for banning these substances (or some secular reason for banning gay marriage) or whatever, we're still cool?

What about laws criminalizing consumption of peyote, and native american religious that advocate consumption of peyote as part of religious ritual?

Personally I'm for legalizing peyote period. As for the Native American religions that hold it sacred I feel that they SHOULD be allowed to use it for sacramental purposes, this goes for Rastafarians and sacramental ganja as well. IIRC the Catholic church was allowed sacramental wine during prohibition . . .

Now, no one should use heavy machinery, or go to work while such substances are still effecting their system . . .

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13369901&postcount=1

Don't know if this has been referenced yet, but I thought that blogger had it spot on.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13369901&postcount=1

Don't know if this has been referenced yet, but I thought that blogger had it spot on.

YOU DISGUSTING PIG! HOW DARE YOU POST A LINK TO THAT KIND OF FOUL, PUTRID, FILE, MONSTROUS PORNOGRAPHY!

THERE ARE KIDS ON THIS BOARD, YOU PIECE OF-----

Oh, wait, no, hang on, that wasn't your link, that was another window I already had open, sorry, hang on.






Oh, okay, yeah....no, yeah, I agree, totally.

From a British point of view, what has always amused me is which issues are framed as "moral" issues in which religious values are accepted be important and where its unfair for party leaderships to impose their view on the parliamentary party. Theres always been a tendency to allow parliamentary members to have a free vote on things like abortion, civil partnerships, euthanasia, cloning and suchlike. Yet on issues such as poverty and war, this is not the case, despite these being far more important "moral" issues. The fact that this ludicrous distinction exists and gone widely accepted and unquestioned even by the Church leadership suggests to me that many Christians have their priorities drastically wrong.

What about laws criminalizing consumption of peyote, and native american religious that advocate consumption of peyote as part of religious ritual?
Native American peyote churches already do have an exemption to use peyote in religious rituals, the last time I checked.

And in reference to the OP, I have a question: Does the separation of church and state go both ways?

In other words, if the state is prohibited from interfering in religious matters, are churches similarly prohibited from interfering in state matters?

I know that there has been a lot of debate about this recently -- and I happen to believe that the wall should be a two-way barrier, and that churches that involve themselves directly in politics (such as campaigning, donating to campagins, or issuing orders about who their worshippers should vote for) should lose their recognition as religious organizations (together with their tax exemptions). But I do not know if this is actually how the law works.

Of course, merely stating where the various candidates fall on the moral spectrum of a given church is not necessarily a violation of the separation, but things like refusing communion or threatening to excommunicate people if they vote for one candidate rather than another should be violations, imo. Also, I do not believe religious groups have any business officially endorsing political candidates in the US, or letting their leaders express any opinion one way or another in public, as if representing the group as a whole.

yer...a major problem in the Christian church today is we have become known for our hate instead of our love...I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe gluttony is a sin, and not giving money to help the poor/fatherless/widows etc...but does that mean I treat gluttons/homosexuals/misers like idiots and yell at them that there going to hell? no...Jesus died for them as much as for me...and I need to show them his love, not my hate.

That bolded part is very important, and I think serves to balance this premise that legislators can enact things based solely on personal beliefs.

Of course, that "some extent" is sometimes stretched pretty thin. Laws based primarily or even wholly in religious views end up getting allowed because a few people come up with a secular reason that has nothing at all to do with why the law was actually passed, but that suddenly makes it ok because there could possibly maybe be a secular reasoning.

Everyone is well aware that blue laws banning alcohol sales on Sunday are religious in nature. But because they can come up with a different basis that they call secular ("People just need a break from alcohol! The Sunday thing is totally a coincidence!" :rolleyes:), they can get away with it.

From a British point of view, what has always amused me is which issues are framed as "moral" issues in which religious values are accepted be important and where its unfair for party leaderships to impose their view on the parliamentary party. Theres always been a tendency to allow parliamentary members to have a free vote on things like abortion, civil partnerships, euthanasia, cloning and suchlike. Yet on issues such as poverty and war, this is not the case, despite these being far more important "moral" issues. The fact that this ludicrous distinction exists and gone widely accepted and unquestioned even by the Church leadership suggests to me that many Christians have their priorities drastically wrong.
The reasoning behind that is to maintain Cabinet cohesion. Take the recent vote on embryonic stem cell research and abortion, for example: two important Cabinet ministers, Des Browne and Ruth Kelly are both devout Catholics and do not support either abortion or stem cell research and aren't prepared to compramise as usually happens. If they were whipped into voting with the party line, they would have to resign from the Cabinet to vote against the government. A free vote gives them that get out of jail free card and saves Brown the hassle of a challenge to his authority.

On the other hand, issues of poverty and non-religious moral issues are settled by finding a Cabinet consensus, as far as I'm aware.

What about laws criminalizing consumption of peyote, and native american religious that advocate consumption of peyote as part of religious ritual?

As long as the laws criminalizing peyote are religion-neutral, I don't see how such a law would violate the Constitution.

In fact, I would say that laws which make an exception to a ban on peyote specifically for religious use are much more likely to be in violation of it.

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that I don't see why peyote should be illegal in the first place...


Personally I'm for legalizing peyote period. As for the Native American religions that hold it sacred I feel that they SHOULD be allowed to use it for sacramental purposes, this goes for Rastafarians and sacramental ganja as well. IIRC the Catholic church was allowed sacramental wine during prohibition . . .

Couldn't exceptions like that be seen as government endorsement (and thus, perhaps, establishment) of these religions?

Not to mention the potential for abuse. Who decides what religions are "real" religions, after all? If I start a religion that says I have to take LSD on a regular basis, does that mean I get an exception in the law, too? And, if not, does that amount to discrimination on the basis of religion?

It's better just to make it legal across the board.

The reasoning behind that is to maintain Cabinet cohesion. Take the recent vote on embryonic stem cell research and abortion, for example: two important Cabinet ministers, Des Browne and Ruth Kelly are both devout Catholics and do not support either abortion or stem cell research and aren't prepared to compramise as usually happens. If they were whipped into voting with the party line, they would have to resign from the Cabinet to vote against the government. A free vote gives them that get out of jail free card and saves Brown the hassle of a challenge to his authority.

On the other hand, issues of poverty and non-religious moral issues are settled by finding a Cabinet consensus, as far as I'm aware.

My point is: why do the religious members and their churches believe that issues such as stem cell research or abortion are "religious" moral issues where they cannot compromise? What grants these issues this special status as opposed to "ordinary" moral issues?

I'll admit my biblical knowledge is sketchy at best, but, according to their holy texts, I'd think poverty, disease, war and suchlike are regarded as least as important if not more so than the other issues mentioned above. Why would a Catholic compromise on these issues, then?

Where I become confused is here: why do religious members of parliament and church leaders believe stem cell research, abortion and suchlike are "religious" moral issues whereas questions of war, disease and poverty are issues that they must support their party and abide by the decision of the Cabinet majority?

I know that there has been a lot of debate about this recently -- and I happen to believe that the wall should be a two-way barrier, and that churches that involve themselves directly in politics (such as campaigning, donating to campagins, or issuing orders about who their worshippers should vote for) should lose their recognition as religious organizations (together with their tax exemptions). But I do not know if this is actually how the law works.

IIRC, actually using church money for campaigning or campaign contributions does cause a church to lose tax exempt status, as it is now seen as a political organization. It's the reason that some politically active religious leaders run separate organizations - one political and one as a church.

The debatable instances are those in which a church leader essentially makes ultimatums about who to vote for. From a personal point of view, I think religious leaders should actually be careful not to put too much pressure on their congregations. They're supposed to be guides, not taskmasters.

Of course, merely stating where the various candidates fall on the moral spectrum of a given church is not necessarily a violation of the separation, but things like refusing communion or threatening to excommunicate people if they vote for one candidate rather than another should be violations, imo.

I think this would be difficult to enforce by law. First of all, a church can refuse communion or excommunicate on any basis they like. I don't think it's really a proper government duty to limit that. Second of all, they could always cite a different reason for the refusal or excommunication and thus get around any such law.

Of course, personally, I wouldn't want to be part of a church that would deny me participation in their services because of how I voted.

My point is: why do the religious members and their churches believe that issues such as stem cell research or abortion are "religious" moral issues where they cannot compromise? What grants these issues this special status as opposed to "ordinary" moral issues?

I'll admit my biblical knowledge is sketchy at best, but, according to their holy texts, I'd think poverty, disease, war and suchlike are regarded as least as important if not more so than the other issues mentioned above

More so, actually. You'll find precious few references to abortion or related issues in Scripture, but there is quite a bit about poverty, disease, and war.

Where I become confused is here: why do religious members of parliament and church leaders believe stem cell research, abortion and suchlike are "religious" moral issues whereas questions of war, disease and poverty are issues that they must support their party and abide by the decision of the party?

*shrug* Because those are the "hot-button" issues.

My point is: why do the religious members and their churches believe that issues such as stem cell research or abortion are "religious" moral issues where they cannot compromise? What grants these issues this special status as opposed to "ordinary" moral issues?


Because they feel that unlike other issues, the apparent 'horrors' in these issues are being ignored by the secular world.

YOU DISGUSTING PIG! HOW DARE YOU POST A LINK TO THAT KIND OF FOUL, PUTRID, FILE, MONSTROUS PORNOGRAPHY!

THERE ARE KIDS ON THIS BOARD, YOU PIECE OF-----

Oh, wait, no, hang on, that wasn't your link, that was another window I already had open, sorry, hang on.






Oh, okay, yeah....no, yeah, I agree, totally.

You win an internet :hail:

You know what I am sick and tired of everybody using a few individual churches or preachers and using that as evidence that ALL christians are like that.
Not ALL Christians, but unfortunately, a strong majority in my state.
Or using things that happened in the past or the way things used to be as how things are now.
And not a long time ago: right now.

I'm tired of politics and anything mixing together.

You know what's an affront to everything?

You not getting a fucking LiveJournal.

You know what's an affront to everything?

You not getting a fucking LiveJournal.

This.