Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[nhboy]

"St. Louis - What is Christianity's proper role in American presidential politics? This question has gripped the 2008 campaign. From the dispute over the acceptability of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, to Mike Huckabee's musings about conforming the US Constitution more to the Bible and the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, the spiritual and secular realms have collided fiercely. Just this week, Senator Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fielded questions from US religious leaders at a special forum broadcast on CNN.

More broadly, arguments over public policies – from war to illegal immigration – are increasingly being infused with scriptural justifications.

The media, of course, relish such controversy. So do many religious leaders, who use the occasion to offer the "real" interpretation of what Scripture says about a particular issue. As a result, religion and politics aren't just mingling – they're being wedded to the same goal: redeeming America's body politic.

A largely Protestant nation that can trace its theological taproot to Martin Luther ought to know better. As the original Reformer, Luther understood how critical it was to separate church and state and, in a more important sense, the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the secular realm where God reigns in a hidden way through humans using reason as a guide."

Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

 

[PsyOps]

"St. Louis - What is Christianity's proper role in American presidential politics? This question has gripped the 2008 campaign. From the dispute over the acceptability of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, to Mike Huckabee's musings about conforming the US Constitution more to the Bible and the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, the spiritual and secular realms have collided fiercely. Just this week, Senator Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fielded questions from US religious leaders at a special forum broadcast on CNN.

More broadly, arguments over public policies – from war to illegal immigration – are increasingly being infused with scriptural justifications.

The media, of course, relish such controversy. So do many religious leaders, who use the occasion to offer the "real" interpretation of what Scripture says about a particular issue. As a result, religion and politics aren't just mingling – they're being wedded to the same goal: redeeming America's body politic.

A largely Protestant nation that can trace its theological taproot to Martin Luther ought to know better. As the original Reformer, Luther understood how critical it was to separate church and state and, in a more important sense, the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the secular realm where God reigns in a hidden way through humans using reason as a guide."

Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

Christians or pastors/ministers? As a Christian it is my right to exercise my faith in any capacity as well as my right to free speech.

A minister that engages in political speech at the pulpit risks their tax-exempt status.

 

[Patch]

Luther lived in a time and place where the Church and State where united. In fact, the Church was actually above the State. And I am not aware of anything he wrote or did that would indicate he ever conceived of a world that did not include a Church-State system. His argument was with the theology of the Church, not it's area of political influence. His argument was with the Church's teaching on how a person is saved from hell, not it’s influence in the decisions on civil matters. Luther was a Doctor of Christian Theology and his main point was “Sola Scriptura!”—Scripture alone as the sole authority for Christian doctrine. He fought the church over the belief that Scripture was our sole authority, not Church traditions, and teachings of Popes. He argued that a person was saved by faith, not through buying indulgences. At the same time, he held that government must enforce God's moral rules, but could not make rules relating to the redemption of the soul. So, his idea of separation of church and state was this—let the Church do theology (i.e. Biblical theology), and let the government be righteous and enforce righteousness. This is very different from what is being promoted today, that religion and government can have nothing to do with one another.

John Adams, founding father of our country, leader in it's independence, drafter and signer of the Declaration of Independence, first U.S. Vice President, and second U.S. President said, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is wholly unsuited for the governance of any other."

It's interesting to hear liberals trying to rewrite history, and putting forth arguments that the authors of the Constitution never intended religion to have anything to do with Government, yet we have Bible verses carved in stone on Government buildings all over the country.

 

[This_person]

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society

Thus, that wall is well defined by saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The state may not use it's governmental power to force views, or support the religion itself.

 

[PsyOps]

You missed a part in your selective Underline

How does this establish a religion? Which one? And, how successful have they been in forcing their beliefs on you?

 

[This_person]

You missed a part in your selective Underline

So, are you suggesting that secular philosophies are just as wrong to teach as religious ones, as that would force "no faith" concepts on people?

 

[This_person]

No because it states (once again)



It doesnt say to force "No Faith" onto anyone, its says to force a view onto those of "No Faith".

In otherwords, by removing religion from the Government your not pushing for the Government to remove Faith, this is the concept some dont understand.

But, atheism is a view of religion - a non-diest view. Secular, proven concepts are one thing, theories are another. If something's not proven nor provable, I would think it should have no bearing on what we do in government by this standard. Therefore, economists, meterologists, evolutionists, etc., should not be allowed to teach their philosophies at government funded schools without equal time to each and every conflicting idea. Or, is that just dumb?

The Founding Fathers also recognized this. What you are doing is removing any possiblity of either Faith or NON-Faith, or influence of either, from the Government. Thats not removing Religion (as in the USSR), it just keeps the Government free from that (particular) corruption.

But, forcing concepts of no faith (which is what I said, not forcing no faith, but the concepts of no faith) on someone would be equally protected against, thus wrong to do, and influencing to governmental leaders.

 

[PsyOps]

Secularism is the absence of belief and is not the same thing.

Your exactly right, Government and Government funded schools, should not be in the practice of approving/relying/teaching/espousing any religion.
Removing Faith from Government is not teaching or forcing No Faith onto anyone. You see it as the same thing, but its not.

No where does it state to teach secularism/atheism/nofaithism, what it does state is to keep Government and Religion seperate.

In Science class its totally acceptable to teach the Theories of Science. Just as its acceptable in a theology class to teach the Theories of beliefs. As much as you want to argue differently, they are not the same thing.

The Constitution never intended to keep religion out of politics. The intent of the 1st is to prevent our government (specifically Congress) from establishing an official religion. It's just that simple.

So teaching about religion in our schools and about creationism in the science classrooms by no means violates this. It forces no one to adhere to any particular religious doctrine.

Now, mind you, we could get a William Ayers or a Ward Churchill that have an agenda to indoctrinate our kids but this still doesn't constitute a state-sponsored religion.

I’m just about what you and so many others are really that worried about.

 

[This_person]

The Constitution never intended to keep religion out of politics. The intent of the 1st is to prevent our government (specifically Congress) from establishing an official religion. It's just that simple.

So teaching about religion in our schools and about creationism in the science classrooms by no means violates this. It forces no one to adhere to any particular religious doctrine.

Teach any theory, and you must teach all theories (isn't that what's been said before about religions?)

 

[This_person]

And your attempts are an example of why Religion should be taught in Theology class, and not Science class. Creationism is not a Scientific theory, it is a theological one.

You keep trying to equate the 2 when they arent similiar

ID has as much proof and tangible evidence for the formation of life on this planet as any scientific theory out there. I equate them, because they're both equally proven, and provable.

 

[This_person]

That is your interpretation, the words of the Founding Fathers show their is disagreement about the Seperation of Church and State.

Teaching Religion in school belongs in the correct context, in a theological discussion. Science and Scientific Theory and Creationism are not similiar, one is a Scientific Theory and one is a Theological belief.

Creationism would fall under Theology class, because its One Belief of One Faith (ok maybe more than one) but it is not the ONLY belief (just the one you agree with). Other Faiths have different Origin events, Theology class is the setting to discuss them.

That is where the "worry" comes from, You and T_P are trying to equate (one particular) Creationism event with Scientific Theory. Besides the fact that they arent mutually like issues, your not asking for other faiths Creation events to be discussed, you want your particular flavor discussed.

:shrug: I'd be happy if ANY of them were discussable besides one theory.

 

[This_person]

Doesnt matter, its a Science class, its perfectly understandable for a Science class to discuss a Science theory.

Why is the unprovable, untestable, unfeasible theory of one person science, and another person theology?

 

[This_person]

I'm starting to believe your being purposely obtuse

Because one is based on the principles of Scientific Theory, and the other is based on a mythical story (don't be offended).

When it's untestable and unprovable, what scientific theory does the highly unlikely theory follow? How is it different from a myth when there's no scientific justification for the highly unfeasible story touted by "science"? (No offence, I was trying to lure you in to say just that )

 

[PsyOps]

That is your interpretation, the words of the Founding Fathers show their is disagreement about the Seperation of Church and State.

Teaching Religion in school belongs in the correct context, in a theological discussion. Science and Scientific Theory and Creationism are not similiar, one is a Scientific Theory and one is a Theological belief.

Then put it in the correct context. Theory also demands a belief. “Theory” means it has not been proven; therefore relies on one’s belief that the theory is true.

Do you believe there are black holes?

Yes.

Really? Have you ever seen one?

Well, no.

Then how do you know they exist.

A really smart scientist used some really complex math and told me they exist.

Did that scientist ever see these black holes?

No.

I see, so you believe in something you’ve never seen and what you were told existed?

From this context it’s no different than a belief in God. Just because you are applying math to it doesn’t make it any more believable. And because it can’t be proven by some ambiguous mathematical computation doesn’t mean it should be excluded from the classroom.

Creationism would fall under Theology class, because its One Belief of One Faith (ok maybe more than one) but it is not the ONLY belief (just the one you agree with). Other Faiths have different Origin events, Theology class is the setting to discuss them.

I’m not proposing any faith be excluded. Perhaps creationism could be taught in history courses or anthropology courses. What difference does it make what the forum is? There is no violation of the 1st amendment by teaching creationism or religion.

That is where the "worry" comes from, You and T_P are trying to equate (one particular) Creationism event with Scientific Theory. Besides the fact that they arent mutually like issues, your not asking for other faiths Creation events to be discussed, you want your particular flavor discussed.

No I’m not. I think it’s fair to discuss them all. We don’t narrow our history lessons to just one culture. It’s pretty disingenuous to assume because I am a Christian that this is where learning about faith should begin and end in the classroom. I am discussing this strictly from a constitutional standpoint. My specific faith does not come into play here.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm starting to believe your being purposely obtuse

Because one is based on the principles of Scientific Theory, and the other is based on a mythical story (don't be offended).

And who created these scientific principles and theories?

Who created these mytical stories?

Why is any of what you are contending a reason to keep creationism or religion out of the classroom?

 

[wildsage]

disscuss them ALL equally

:shrug: I'd be happy if ANY of them were discussable besides one theory.

Maybe that's what frustrates so many of us non-religionists: we are bombarded with continued efforts to convince us that someone's preferred religious flavor is the right & only one. In our country it is predominantly the Christian belief -- though when it is convenient they include "Judeo-" in with it.
Perhaps the you, along with the other 3 or 4 substantial posters on this thread, truly would like to learn about all the other religious beliefs. Would they all really get equal time? I suspect that most of the Christians would only accept that -- teaching all the other beliefs -- if they were prefaced and appended with a statement about how ridiculous and unbelievable those (other) myths are.
There have been hundreds if not thousands of successive and concurrent cultures with their own beliefs and all of the theisms have distinct similarities with some of the others (which raises the hypothesis that Man created God and not the other way around): good & evil, living right & punishment for transgression, supplication & answered prayers, spirit & afterlife, etc. Which creation story rings truer: the belief that man was made out of mud then wood and finally maize, or that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then made Eve from a rib bone? The first made sense to the Incans...
IMO, the biggest difference between the extinct religions, along with the existing tribal ones, and the current Big Three groups (Abrahamic, Indian, Far Eastern -- remember, you aren't alone in "knowing" that your choice is the right one) is the written word which allowed the “modern” theisms to propagate, institutionalize and endure.

 

[wildsage]

just don't teach myths as fact

Then put it in the correct context. Theory also demands a belief. “Theory” means it has not been proven; therefore relies on one’s belief that the theory is true.
Do you believe there are black holes? [...]

Black holes were postulated, and their effects were observed, and though they themselves have not been seen, everyone who reviews the facts about them agrees that they exist. There are numerous theories about various aspects of them but to dispute the existence of black holes in the face of the gathered factual data is ludicrous.
Science is a rigid process where a hypothesis (belief) is tested and supporting evidence establishes it as a theory; a theory must be predictive and logical and consistent and stand up to the scrutiny of unbiased individuals. Religion is none of those things. Every major theism disputes the validity of the others (and sects dispute teachings of other believers within their own theology) and none of them can provide evidence to the contrary. By definition, Christian theism requires acceptance of claims that are inconsistent with natural, observable laws.<o></o><o></o>
The established church fervently embraced geocentrism once (thank the FSM that it is no longer accepted as "fact"). Though science "proved" heliocentrism, it was centuries before it was directly observed but that does not make it any less true today than it was in Galileo's time or even King Tut's.
<o></o>Modern theists chuckle that primitive people believed that their god(s) caused X, because science has since proved that Y causes X and everyone knows that God created Y. So when scientific advancement proves that Y is caused by Z, the believers claim that God created Z.
Stated another way, “we don’t know, so I choose to accept on faith the myths of my religious doctrine.” And that’s fine if you need faith in the supernatural; some of us choose more tangible evidence on which to base our beliefs.

 

[This_person]

Maybe that's what frustrates so many of us non-religionists: we are bombarded with continued efforts to convince us that someone's preferred religious flavor is the right & only one. In our country it is predominantly the Christian belief -- though when it is convenient they include "Judeo-" in with it.
Perhaps the you, along with the other 3 or 4 substantial posters on this thread, truly would like to learn about all the other religious beliefs. Would they all really get equal time? I suspect that most of the Christians would only accept that -- teaching all the other beliefs -- if they were prefaced and appended with a statement about how ridiculous and unbelievable those (other) myths are.
There have been hundreds if not thousands of successive and concurrent cultures with their own beliefs and all of the theisms have distinct similarities with some of the others (which raises the hypothesis that Man created God and not the other way around): good & evil, living right & punishment for transgression, supplication & answered prayers, spirit & afterlife, etc. Which creation story rings truer: the belief that man was made out of mud then wood and finally maize, or that God made Adam from the dust of the earth and then made Eve from a rib bone? The first made sense to the Incans...
IMO, the biggest difference between the extinct religions, along with the existing tribal ones, and the current Big Three groups (Abrahamic, Indian, Far Eastern -- remember, you aren't alone in "knowing" that your choice is the right one) is the written word which allowed the “modern” theisms to propagate, institutionalize and endure.

Today's scientific myths and gradious stories are no more plausible, no more provable, no more testable, no more feasible than any of the religious stories. So, if you begin the lectures on that with "y'all ain't heard nothin' yet! Yuck yuck" just like you want the religious stories taught, I'd be okay with that.

 

[This_person]

Stated another way, “we don’t know, so I choose to accept on faith the myths of my religious doctrine.” And that’s fine if you need faith in the supernatural; some of us choose more tangible evidence on which to base our beliefs.

What is the tangible evidence on which you base your beliefs of the origins of life from a scientific, provable, testable, repeatable (ie, scientific method) point of view?

 

[This_person]

What i have stated is Creationism is not equal to Science, no matter your argument. Creationism is a Theological belief as such belongs in a Theological class. Evolution is a Scientific Theory and belongs in a Science class.

I've asked, and no one seems to be able to answer - What part of the scientific method does any theory of the origin of life, or of human evolution from other species is out there?