My problem comes when people in power feel it necessary to tell society what "God's" views are on an issue.

Last time I checked, God didn't really make reference to the sin of more than three people living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption".

Does this town have nursing homes?

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

I agree, Lil. Just as I feel that we should not intentionally remove God from our society, I also feel that we should not legislate "false morality". I like your example of nursing homes. In the town I referenced earlier, I found it amusing that we COULD have dorms where hundreds of girls lived together, but not houses where ten lived together. Like many laws, many of them are not well thought out.

I am a Christian, and I make no apologies for it. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus is the only way into Heaven, and that apart from Jesus, there is no other way into Heaven. And if asked, I am more than willing to tell anyone about it. But I can not and will not force it on anyone. It is their choice - I cannot make it for them. I will gladly show them the door. But they must walk through it. And I believe it is wrong for anyone to force their religion on anyone else. But I also think it is wrong for anyone to force their lack of religion on anyone else.

__________________
"Sex should be friendly. Otherwise, stick to mechanical toys; it's more sanitary". Lazarus Long in Robert Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love"

lack of religion does not equal lack of morals.

the original reasoning behind separation of church and state was to keep the state out of the church's business, but why is it now ok for the churches to get involved in the state's? we start making laws based on one religion's dogma and we enter into the one thing soundman said we should not do: forcing religious laws onto people who do not adhere to that dogma. the tenets mentioned in his post are not unique to any one religion or ism; they are universal ideas that ensure a safe and prosperous society. it's the other stuff, the stuff based on the sketchy prophecies and even sketchier translations of a book that was commissioned and edited by a group of men, politicians, with an agenda. their goals may have been noble to them at the time, but many of them no longer apply to modern times. to borrow a phrase, the road to hell...

the bible is, in many places, contradictory to itself and it's an individual followers prerogative to decide what they believe to have been the true word of their god, not a bunch of legislators and theocrats to duke it out in federal courts. an eye for an eye? turn the other cheek? generally applied, they are good concepts, but lets’ take a look at the doctrines of the prophet ezekiel (broken down into very general ideas) - should we begin a 1000 years of christian rule, incite the armageddon, just so that jesus may return to earth and we can have 1000 years of peace? and because it's diffucult to draw a line in the sand and say "do not cross", there would be those that say it's all or nothing, you either accept the dogma in its entirety or you accept none of it. can you imagine the debates that this would spark? it’s this kind of practical problem that has people worried about allowing any form of religion into the politics and foreign policy of one of the world’s superpowers. a superpower, i might add, that has no problems forcing their ideas of governance upon a people so why would we stop at governance? what’s to stop us from constituting a court that would, say, enforce certain legal restrictions on non-catholics or non-cristians? that’s been tried, it was called the spanish inquisition. and, sadly, there are those out there that would be all to happy to start another one; they have no place in government.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

I'm becomming more & more awed with wyndhy's posts, I couldn't have stated my views any better...



...well, ok, maybe I would have used a little more capitalization but the idea's all there...

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.

At least this was in MO and not Kansas.

I don't know if race really is or was an issue here but the man is black and the woman is white in this couple. If I know small town MO like I know small town KS there are a lot of trailers filled with unwed white trash. I don't see anyone kicking them out of town.

Gentlefolk,

Why the anti-religious remarks? As far as I can tell, religion was not the basis of the dispute. There was no reference to religion in the news article that Lilith posted. Perhaps I have overlooked something, but I don’t see the coercive power of the state enforcing any Divine preferences. I get the feeling that some unwarranted inferences are being made here.

If anyone is interested, here is the mayor’s statement about this development. There is no reference to religion in it.

As to the remarks about some impending American theocracy, the evidence does not support such a conclusion. Actually, the data supports the opposite conclusion. The U.S. is becoming more secular, not less. Refer to the second chart in this study published by Georgetown University last year. Mass attendance has been in a steady decline since a high in 1957. That’s the last two generations. Down. Not up.

The same holds for Canadian and English Catholics.

Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination, with more than a billion adherents. Still, for those who think that Catholic religious practices are unrepresentative of Christians in general (and there are those who do), consider the overall U.S. church attendance documented in January of this year. It also shows a negative year-on-year growth trend line, this one with a high in 1944. Here is the home page.

This decline in weekly church attendance holds true for most industrialized countries.

Further, even these attendance figures are overstated.

While insensitive behavior such as that displayed by the Black Jack City Council is unfortunate and distasteful, rather than waste too much time in complaining about a problem which when examined is only a mirage, permit me to suggest that a better investment of effort would be in electing those who more closely reflect the views of the citizens they represent. As windy and lakritze suggest, the answer lies in the ballot box, and that is within the reach of almost everyone who cares enough to want to make a difference.

__________________
Eudaimonia

just anti religion-in-our-government remarks. church attendance has nothing to do with the obvious (to me) trend our government has been following that is putting dogmatic laws into practice, or rather re-practice. it is hard for me to see that this description of "family" is not about morality and sin (i.e. religion) no matter what the mayor's statement says. i didn't see where he said it wasn't about religion either, so making either conclusion may be false. i just call 'em as i see 'em.

it's just a debate, jseal, and that's never a waste of time.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

wyndhy,

In some ways, I couldn’t agree with you more … any debate or discussion that proceeds civilly is not only not a waste of time, but is valuable – at least to the people involved.

In other ways … “just anti religion-in-our-government remarks”?

Perhaps statements such as the above do not appear anti-religious to you, but there are other reasonable points of view on that matter. Additionally, I note that Sugarsprinkles’, yours, and Lilith’s posts presume a religious agenda on the part of the authorities, although religion is mentioned in neither the original post nor the mayor’s statement.

I don’t contest that you call ‘em as you see ‘em. Respectfully, I suggest that in the absence of supporting evidence you are seeing what you want to see. If what Jude30 reports is correct, there is a depressingly familiar and equally likely explanation – racism.

Dogmas, those doctrines or codes of beliefs accepted as authoritative, come in many flavors.

I am surprised that you see no relevance of declining church attendance on the purported trend you refer to. I suggest it indicates that the current administration’s practice of utilizing faith based organizations to direct some federal aid money is a temporary one, which will be curtailed when a Democratic administration is elected. The reason it predicts such a change is because the fundamental support - attendance - these faith based organizations receive is declining over time.

If government is to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, then if those people have religious sentiments, it will be impossible to exclude religion from that government. Trying to do so is doomed to failure. The best you can achieve is to constrain and limit the States’ annoying tendencies to meddle in religious practices. This is what the First Amendment to the Constitution does reasonably well, I think.

__________________
Eudaimonia

-----zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz------------

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.

jseal, i love it when we agree to get valuably involved. but i spoke for myself in my previous post; not lakritze, or anyone else for that matter.

when i say debate, i don't mean the timed, formal, standardized kind we all learned in highschool, i mean an exchange of differing ideas and opinions...the key word there being opinion. and while i can respect, understand and welcome your penchant for finding documentation and statistics to support your ideas, they do not and will not sway me - it's just not how my mind works. but, if you’d like some footnotes, i suggest you check out the yurika report (it’s online) and some of what katherine yurika and her colleagues have to say: their opinions are chalk full of footnotes and documentation that support their ideas. then again, give me – or anyone - enough time and they could likely locate documents to support any idea - as the saying goes: figures lie and liars figure. i just like to go with my gut and i know you can appreciate my style as much as i can appreciate yours. heck, i'll even try to throw an honest to goodeness reference in this ... eh-hem ... rebuttal.

pointing out again that the mayor’s statement nor the article itself say that religious reasons were behind the splitting up of a family, although true, is wayward (although i still stick to my point that neither did it not say it.) this article is what led to this discussion, no need to wonder why or say it shouldn’t have or couldn’t have. it did.

the point of the link to the reader entitled "dogmas and dreams", while interesting, was sorta lost on me. unless you only meant to point out that dogma can also mean a set of beliefs, not just religious beliefs. but i would have thought that what i was referring to when i referenced dogma was obvious because of how it related to what i was opining about. but to clarify the point, i meant it as this: - noun - the doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church (copied from dictionary.com) to put it in more bluntly and in my own words: the practice of certain churches to command that the rules set forth by the mortal leaders of the church automatically become religious law, accepted and upheld by their god, because that is a power that their god granted them as the chosen.

perhaps things will change when a new general assembly, president and local officials are elected, perhaps not. i don't mean to try and precict what will happen in the future, only what i see right now.

faith based initiatives have been around since, well since the beginning of faith, but they have never before been supported by a standing president, although i’m not sure if they have been attempted before. either way, they are now because…and i quote from the white house web site…” all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations. President Bush believes that besides being inherently unfair, such an approach can waste tax-payer dollars and cut off the poor from successful programs. Federal funds should be awarded to the most effective organizations—whether public or private, large or small, faith-based or secular—and all must be allowed to compete on a level playing field.” i.e. he has changed what the government - for almost two centuries - has done before him because it’s not fair. fair to whom, i wonder? the poor? there have always been places they could seek support. the churches? they receive money from private donors and if that has declined - as your statistics show - then so be it. if that latter is the reason for these monies, does that mean our government is subsidizing religion now? i have a personal problem with faith based initiatives taking money from our government but to take it a step further - what if they use this money to proselytize? is that o.k.? what if they already are? i suggest to you that it (FBCI) was begun as a personal expression of his own belief that churches must take a bigger role in the stabilization of our society and need money to do so.

the establishment clause of the first amendment is not as clear-cut to me. yes, it says that “the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. but that could be reasonably argued to mean any religious over any non-religious institution or philosophy in general.

respecting - trans. verb - relating to
establishment – noun - institution

so perhaps it means the congress shall make no law that has to do with an institution of religion, not the actual establishment (i.e. appointment) of any one religion as a state or national religion.

and perhaps the attempt to keep religion out of policy is doomed, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried or at the very least bitched about. especially when said pollicies, even if they are supported by the majority, are turning good people into criminals or second class citizens. an apropos quote that puts a nice literary point on my opinion (and this may be paraphrased, i can not remember the quote exactly) … "the majority *never* has right on its side. never, i say! that's one of the social lies that a free, thinking man should and will rebel against. who makes up the majority in any given country? is it the sage or the fool? we must agree that the fools are in a terrible overwhelming majority all the world over. damnit, it can never be right that the stupid should rule over the clever!" ~ henrik ibsen, "an enemy of the people."

i suppose i consider myself a freethinking woman and must rebel against any majority. not to mention the problem i have with the machiavellian nature of many religious leaders who are trying to take a bigger role in the forming of u.s. policy. if a person believes that what they are doing is right and good, then why try to hide the reasoning behind the actions? (please refer to the article titled “the despoiling of america” - it’s about a third of the way down the home page of the yurika report - for footnotes on why i believe this to be true.).

a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is such a beautiful phase and has come to be as representative of the american way of life as the bald eagle has but it is so vaque to me...what does that mean, anyway? i put these ideas to you: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would be a direct democracy not a combo liberal/representative democracy with the nebulous term republic thrown in to confuse us all. in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people 50456169 would not be more than 50996116. in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people a president wouldn’t make a mockery of the congress by attaching more signing statements to bills than the previous 42 presidents did before him combined. a government of the people, by the people, and for the people wouldn’t make judgements on a citizens’ choices as long as those choices were fairly harmless to a prosperous society, after all, no matter what one's choices are, one is still one of the people this government is supposed to be for.


(def went over my time on that^^^ )

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

wyndhy,

Wow! Gotta love it!

I’m pleased that you welcome honest debate. I do try to base my arguments on independently corroborated data, using them to warrant the inferences supporting my positions. I try to avoid shooting from the hip. I accept that this does limit how vivid my prose may be. An age related failing perhaps.

I read your paragraph in re the developments in Black Jack City as acknowledging that there is no reason to assume that these actions had a religious agenda.

Accepting your definition of dogma above, it is not immediately obvious to me what dogmas are being realized in law. If you are not referring to laws, but merely the enabling of faith based organizations to compete in the effort to direct federal aid, then, as you have said, the next administration will either return to tradition or it will not. It is, I suggest, the responsibility of those who care about the future to work to ensure that this experiment is not part of the set of beliefs implemented by the next administration.

I agree with you that this initiative began as a personal expression of his own belief that churches must take a bigger role in the stabilization of our society, though not that they needed money to do so, only that they are on occasion better adapted to do so than a federal bureaucracy. Yes I know that in doing so we are speculating about what goes on in GWB’s mind, but it is all in fun, no? It is also, I think a sop thrown to some of his voters.

Again, I suggest that this is transient and will pass away with many other unique and special features that he has graced our nation with over these last few years. I remember the huge brouhaha that surrounded GWB’s predecessor when it came to light that he was cheating on his wife – and on company time at that! This will pass also.

Yes, I am convinced that attempting to exclude the interior activity (religious beliefs) of the electorate from the external activity (politics) of the electorate is doomed to failure. I suggest that history supports that conclusion. If we can agree on that, then the question becomes one of “what is the best way to do so”, rather than “how shall we prevent it from happening”? Keep in mind that any policy, when implemented, turns the transgressors into criminals.

In re the attempts of religious leaders to influence policy: there’s nothing inherently wrong with doing so, insofar as that does not lead to the establishment of a state religion or towards suppression of another. Their voices are as valid a part of the national debate as are yours and mine.

__________________
Eudaimonia

as for there being nothing inherently wrong with religious leaders influencing policy as long as it does not lead to establishment of a state church, note from my previous post that i’m not sure i believe that the establishment of religion is what was intended by the so-called establishment clause. for religious leaders to have any say in the making of policy is, by my interpretation, very wrong…that being said…yes! everyone has a valid voice. and no-one should be expected to leave their faith at the door because, as you said, it’s part of who they are. to separate the two inside an individual is impossible. to separate the two in policy is trickier, but not unworkable: make sure that the laws made do not inherently exclude any moderate member of society from achieving the right to liberty based on any lifestyle choice or biological characteristic.

the problem i have with any voice that comes too close to implementing religious law as legislative law is much the same as what lil said: when their policies force religious tenets onto the people who may or may not adhere to said tenets. and i would also argue that if the government can not do as good a job as a church in re to social services, then it is time to start changing the bureaucracy, not throwing money at the churches. private and secular orgs. can do the job just as well. this opinion also comes from a person (me ) who thinks it’s a bunch of crap that our local school taxes are used to bus local kids to parochial schools. i am, i admit, a separationist.

a good and timely example of such legislation would be gay marriage. sacred is often a word bush - and others who oppose it - uses when defending his stance on the subject and furthering his push for an amendment to the constitution to limit the definition of marriage to mean a union between a man and a woman. we could argue that the definition of sacred could just mean venerable or exclusive, but we must admit that the connotation of the word and its generally accepted definition tie it to religion and faith immutably. if he meant exclusive or venerable, he should have said so. i think the use of the word sacred is very telling in and of itself. hence, we have legislation that has a root in religion.

and, yup, you are correct to assume that i have eschewed the original article in favor of a more general debate on religion in politics inclusively, but – to beat a dead horse - i could argue that whether the reason for the split-up of a family was for religious or bigoted reasons, the root cause is the same. religion, whether it was intended to or not, causes people to become intolerant: intolerant of other religions, intolerant of other races, intolerant of other lifestyles. many hatreds arise from religion and a zealot’s interpretation of that religion. religion is regularly used to incite war, terrorism, and genocide.

i am beginning to sound like an atheist, although i’m not that extreme.

but when people start doing things in the name of or on behalf of religion or ethnicity, i can’t help but think of the crusades, the massacres in rwanda, the bombing and assassination of abortion clinics and their doctors, the hate-drunk westboro church, the ongoing fight between isreal and the palestinians, darfur, the fighting in northern ireland, al qaeda, bosnia…the list is endless.
so seeing a trend in this country that seems to be moving toward more religious policy, i worry. can it be reversed? if laws ar changed, the constitution changed, will we be able to change it back? how fast? one believer, one church … not usually a problem, they do much good for this world, but get a lot of like-minded people together with righteous credence on their side, and you get a mob. or one religious zealot with the power to mold men's minds and you have another jim jones.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

wyndhy,

Thank you. I shall consider your decision to move consideration of the purported religious agenda of the Black Jack City Council towards Mr. Loving and Ms. Shelltrack to the hypothetical as resolution of the original dispute.

I trust you will not take it amiss if I revert to form and use data to substantiate a few details in this post. I'll try to not overdo it.

The tenor of your comments suggests to me that you would find the writings of James Madison appealing. As a staunch separationist, you may find some of his quotes engaging.

As for legislation with roots in religion, there is much of it, not all of which are bad. Here are examples from the Koran and the Bible (verses 13 & 1).

Some contemporary history may call into question some assumptions about what happened when.

The federal government's Defense of Marriage Act affirmed that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. Congress passed DOMA in 1996 during the Clinton Administration.

During GWB’s administration, Vermont became the first state in the U.S. to allow same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of homosexual marriage. Massachusetts became the first state in America to legally permit homosexual marriage.

As for the general impression that George W. Bush is unusual in his avowed religious perspectives - a disturbing aberration, why has the hand God played in Woodrow Wilson’s idealism and Harry Truman’s Cold War crusade been so easily forgotten? Surely you are aware of the religious sentiments of Jimmy Carter?

In 1911, a year before he entered the White House, Wilson (the son and grandson of Presbyterian ministers) declared that the U.S. was born a Christian nation “to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture”. He also referred to the “Covenant (a carefully selected biblical word) of the League of Nations”.

After FDR’s death in 1945, Harry Truman took the oath of office on a closed bible, but in his 1949 inauguration, it was opened to the Ten Commandments. Twice, in 1947 and the early 1950s, he enlisted the aid of the Vatican to combat and contain communism. Here is the conclusion of his 1949 inaugural address”… Steadfast in our faith in the Almighty we will advance toward a world where man’s freedom is secure. To that end we will devote our strength, our resources, and our firmness of resolve. With God’s help, the future of mankind will be assured in a world of justice, harmony and peace”.

Who do these statements, and foreign policy initiatives from previous presidents remind you of?

There are three tests employed by Federal judges to measure a law against the Establishment Clause. Chief Justice Burger's 1971 opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, contains them. These tests are, of course, not inviolate, nor are all always applied.

Religion is not ethnicity. Religion is also not as lethal as the policies realized by Nazi Germany (20 million), the Soviet Union during the late 1930s (8 – 9 million) and the People’s Republic of China (14 million).

__________________
Eudaimonia

wyndhy,

Sorry, that would be verrses 13 & 15.

John

__________________
Eudaimonia

of course i don’t mind; i can appreciate discussion in all its forms…don’t hold back on my account. and thank you, i enjoyed some of madison’s quotes very much.

i do agree entirely that not all religious influence upon law is negative, indeed much of it is not. but i maintain that the tenets adopted were not adopted because of their ties to religion, but instead because of their universal applications that help ensure a safe and prosperous society.

yes, the state may institute same sex marriages as legal. however, the federal government does not recognize them as such and therefore does not grant them the same rights as other marriages/civil unions in regards to tax benefits and laws, medical benefits, etc.

the defense of marriage act (a ridiculous term in itself - as if marriage is under attack somehow) in re to federal benefits usurps any law from the states and instead puts federal law above it in precedence. i realize that gays and lesbians who marry are not considered criminal by the federal government and therefore the defense of marriage act’s preeminence does not violate the constitution, but it’s still curious to me – as is the title of the act: it casts moral judgement where none should be cast. i do not imply that religion in politics is singular to republican politics - doesn’t matter whether a democratic or republican controlled congress enacted it, i am a non-partisan separationist. as it currently stands though, if the push to amend the constitution by the current administration is successful, then the states’ rights will be usurped.

federal marriage amendment version 2004
1.Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

again, i find this all or nothing approach odd. it writes discrimination directly into the constitution. it usurps state’s rights to regulate marriage. if ohio law could be used as precedent here, it could conceivably downgrade domestic abuse in same sex households from a felony to a misdemeanor. aclu claims that the second sentence of the amendment is superfluous and will only lay the ground work for the supreme court to begin re-interpreting all kinds of marriage laws. it would also deny the opportunity for religions which approve of same-sex marriage to perform legally binding same-sex marriages: a much more clear violation of separation of church and state.

i am not ignorant of the roll that religion has played in any of the presidents you mention, or many other politicians for that matter. (i wasn’t around then, or i would have bitched about that, too.) all but three presidents (lincoln, jefferson and johnson) considered themselves followers of a certain denomination, and even those three were spiritually connected to their god, if not specifically affiliated. but most were just as happy to leave it behind in re to politics. some examples of early polititans who did so: ben franklin, thomas paine, thomas jefferson, james madison, john adams. even hamilton, who played with the idea of forming a christian commonwealth came to the conclusion that “neither philosophy nor religion, reason nor faith, love nor grace, can be relied upon to influence human conduct.” hamilton and madison compared religious sects to political factions in their tendency to fanaticism. franklin believed religion to be something better left to the middle ages. i remember learning in poli-sci 101 that four of america’s foundational documents (common sense, paine; declaration, jefferson; federalist, hamilton and madison: defense(of the constitution), adams) drew upon philosophers such as locke, hume, and adam smith, who cautioned against using scripture as a source of law. it is my opinion that if founding politicians wanted to make a stronger case for religion in america’s political culture, they would have done so clearly and concisely. the role of the state was - is - not to carry out god’s will but simply to protect life and property.

besides, religion and democratic politics are incongruous: if there is one idea central to most religions, it is that the eternal leads to the spiritual, but any politician who thinks beyond the immediate tenor of the nation – and their chances for election or re-election - would not be a politician.

certainly your mention of the climate then reminds me of the political climate today, but perhaps wilson (et al) truly did have the majority on his side. allow me to go back to another of your postulations a few posts back in regards to the clinton scandal: if - as many believe - the majority of the people today hold that religious morality is essential to our society then why were the people praising clinton for the u.s.’s economical state at the same time he was busted for having sex in the oval office? if i recall, it was the republicans who cried outrage and tried to get the country to follow suit. is it just coincidence that they were members of the minority party? i suggest politicians want religious morality to prevail only if it in some way compliments their own quest for personal/political satisfaction.

carter was indeed a born again christain, but i believe he said so during an interview with playboy. the fact that he even allowed himself to be interviewed by such a magazine, and many of the things he said during that interview, prove that he was tolerant of behaviors that did not jive with his own religious beliefs.



in re to the latter two, no, not inherently religious. i did not intend to say that genocide is mutually exclusive to religion, but much of it is inspired by religion. as for the first you mention… hitler believed he was furthering the prosperity of his god’s chosen people with his nazi politics.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose