Posted: 5/3/2009 1:02:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They're an Endangered Species who's numbers have dwindled to an alarmingly small number
I don't agree i think the majority of U.S. citizens are conservative we are just leaderless at the moment!
Americans see the word "conservative" and think "Republican". They're just as fed up with the Republicans as the Democrats.
Not to mention the conservative stance on gays and abortion. I don't want to debate whether abortion or gay marriage/civil unions should be legal or not, that's not my point.
Americans are getting tired of religion in government. Frankly we are headed towards becoming or are already are a very secular country.
This is not intended to start another religion debate, but thats how I'm seeing it.
the interesting thing is we didn't have religion in the government until the 50's or 60's, "under god" wasn't originally in the pledge of allegiance, most the founding fathers when they created this great nation weren't a part of organized religions and practiced on their own, religion has been used in history to keep people down, but so was forced atheism. The founding fathers used religion to put down in witting that God or your god/nature/life gives you rights that cannot and should not be taken from you. While the constitution was created on religious ideas, it was set up so well that it would function in a world where religion doesn't matter, it's only when the system is tweaked and altered it becomes a problem. My point is we can have a limited, well functioning government that works without religion, but as a society, we need to decide on what is morally right or wrong to better shape our selves. This is where religion comes in, we shouldn't let the religion tell us how our government should run, but only tell us how to live our lives.
Religions roll is to shape an individual's view of right and wrong, not the government's
I disagree, all governments requires a moral order, a social contract if you will.
Ok then what religion should we pick? Satanism, Wicca, Mormon, Islam, Pastafarian, the 12 Gods of Kobol, or one of the countless others? Oh wait there is that whole shall make not establishment of religion thing to get around.
Catering to the religious right is a cancer that conservatives need to cut out and they need to do it now.
Who says morals have anything to do with religion? Are you saying agnostic and atheists have no morals?
If we remove ethics and morals from the equation, why have government at all?
You did
There are several rolls for government that have NOTHING to do with a moral code.
WTFWhere did I say anything even remotely close to what you said there
No you claimed that shaping morality was the sole role of religion not government.
I disagreed., you went on to ask which religion should government follow, I simply asked that if one doesn't follow any religion really, do they have no morals?
Government clearly has a role in shaping morals, all governments do, both free ones and tyrannical ones. That is what a moral order is all about, respect for the rule of law. You can start on what are considered moral truths which tend to have strict punishments associated with them like civil (say contract law) and criminal law (murder, rape, etc).
This does not require 100% enforcement of all things which are considered moral by some group but not of others. In these gray areas government has the ability to create laws which encourage a moral life should the people wish to have this as long as it doesn't violate natural human rights (creating a moral paradox in itself). This is what that whole 'provide for the general welfare' clause in the constitution comes from. This moral governance should be more of a layered approach as there are different levels of morality. The inner layers being the hard moral truths having the strictest and most controlled while the outer layers like say some victimless crimes being more lax. The key to keeping a free society is to properly place which 'layer' such moral violations belong under.
I did not say that
I will ignore you from this point on, talking to you is like having a conversation with a guy that talks to himself.
|
|