A Christian Nation?

[Rooster7]

 

GB,

 

Saying that laws against murder, rape and incest are examples of Christian values is akin to saying that eating healthy is a Christian value.

 

You missed my point. In fact, if you view these examples as something other than Christian values, youre proving my point. Just like one cannot say laws against incest is exclusively a Christian value, one cannot say laws against homosexual marriage and abortion are exclusively Christian values. So if the majority votes for such laws, the courts should not overturn the law by claiming the impetus for such legislation is religious.

 

Merlyn,

 

I would argue that the law you referenced violated the constitutional protection afforded African-Americans and others, which assures us all men are created equal. That is, discrimination based on racial makeup is wrong and unlawful.

 

Regardless, my point is not that every law created or endorsed by the majority is a good law. But the courts should not force their idea of morality (rightly or wrongly) on the public when the will of the majority has been expressed into law. Of course, the law must pass the constitutionality test but jurists need to restrict their interpretations to the text of the Constitution and stop expanding the meaning beyond what is reasonable. The Constitution was not written for lawyers but for the people of the United States. While I understand that sometimes the majority makes bad choices, Id rather live in a country where their voice is heard and adhered to than a country which allows the minority to have dominion - or worse, where judges dictate their agenda.

 

I wasnt born yesterday. I appreciate the civil rights movement. But it was a movement - and eventually the majority of Americans climbed on board.

[Rooster7]

Society can make things miserable for women who want the choice.

 

Thats one way of viewing it. Society should do everything possible to protect innocent babies. Thats another way to view it.

 

But the choice will be there nevertheless.

 

True - the choice between right and wrong is always available, but thats not limited to abortion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

I would argue that the law you referenced violated the constitutional protection afforded African-Americans and others, which assures us all men are created equal. That is, discrimination based on racial makeup is wrong and unlawful.

 

The laws against interracial marriage did treat everyone equally based on race. Everyone, no matter what race they were, had to marry someone of the same race. This argument was actually used before the supreme court in support of Virginia's law.

 

And, as before, a quite large majority wanted such a law. I'm pretty sure even a majority of black citizens were in favor of such a law at the time. I can't see how your position could allow for a popular law like that to be ruled unconstitutional.

[Beavah]

Well, except that the Quaker exemption to the draft was based on belief, not practice.

 

Oh, I dont know. The few Quakers I know would say dat nonviolence is a practice of the community of Friends. The beliefs that underlie it are much more complex.

 

On what basis does society regulate marriage, if not the morality of the majority? There is no benefit to society to prohibit polygamy, other than to satisfy the morals of the majority.

 

I would use the norms of the community rather than the morality of the majority, but whatever, eh? All communities establish standards of behavior, through laws and social pressures. The benefit is that you create a community a group of people who share some sense of identity, and give up some of themselves for the common good.

 

As to the prohibition of polygamy, I would suggest that it values women as equal to men, rather than subservient property. I believe that benefits society. Long-term marriage between a man and a woman creates a home environment most likely to yield the best upbringing for children. That has a huge benefit to society.

 

I guess to me, it is more a matter of personal responsiblity; I choose to act in a certain way towards others because I personally feel it is the right thing to do, not because my gods have commanded me to do so. I choose to strive to be closer to my gods because I feel their calling, not because I fear retribution if I don't.

 

What a bizarre prejudice you must have against Christianity to believe it is any different for us. We choose personal relationships with God because we feel Gods calling (indeed, the notion of calling is a Judeo-Christian one). We strive to act justly because doing so is part of our relationship with God, and because its the right thing to do, and because we recognize that the consequences of sin are harm to ourselves and our friends and the world. I dont see any difference between that and your notion that selfish or wicked acts rebound on the person threefold.

 

It is possible to feel very strongly about the inherent worth of all life, to care about the ills of our society, to want to uphold love and partnerships between any consenting adults, for reasons other than "because the Bible tells me so".

 

Because the Bible tells me so is never the real reason for any Christian doing anything. The real reason is because of the persons relationship with Jesus. The Bible is just a common reference point for the community. Much like Guide to Safe Scouting. We as scouters want to keep our kids safe and having fun, by exercising good judgment; G2SS is just a common reference point for the community as we discuss how to do that in different cases. In some cases a guide, in other cases, more of an authority. But never the Principle.

 

The only arrogance I see is that come Christians think they have a monopoly on being ethical, caring, moral people.

 

Well, certainly we do when confronted by anyone who thinks sticking an icepick in the brain of a partially-delivered baby is just a medical procedure. But again, thats not strictly a Christian issue, its a view common to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, many secular humanists, etc. In other words, the pro-life position is the worldwide multicultural majority. So thats not a Christian monopoly.

 

The essence of this thread, though, was just to say that the morality of Christendom is deeply embedded in the social structure, culture, and laws of the United States.

 

[GernBlansten]

Rooster - Of course, the law must pass the constitutionality test but jurists need to restrict their interpretations to the text of the Constitution and stop expanding the meaning beyond what is reasonable.

 

The problem with Gay Marriage bans is that they currently don't pass the constitutionality test. Conservatives know this. They need an ammendment to the constitution to be able to do this. You want to change the rules.

 

Would it have been OK for congress to pass an ammendment to allow Interracial Marriage bans, because it didn't pass the constitutionality test?

[packsaddle]

Actually we do condone and legally sanction polygamy. It just happens to be sequential. One ASM is working on his 4th wifey, gotta wonder what she was thinking though. There's no way to estimate the number of 'free trials' that preceeded....

 

Kind of like my grandma who married my grandfather after having 'killed off' three priors (What a woman!). Didn't he see the trend? And sure enough, he didn't make it past age 45 himself. But no one else was dumb enough to take the plunge after that, I guess.

[DanKroh]

Beavah writes: "Oh, I dont know. The few Quakers I know would say dat nonviolence is a practice of the community of Friends. The beliefs that underlie it are much more complex."

 

Well, the Quakers I went to school with (at a Quaker school in PA) would say that the belief is pretty simple, but at this point, this is becoming an argument of semantics, not substance.

 

Beavah also writes: "As to the prohibition of polygamy, I would suggest that it values women as equal to men, rather than subservient property. I believe that benefits society. Long-term marriage between a man and a woman creates a home environment most likely to yield the best upbringing for children. That has a huge benefit to society."

 

Actually, there is a movement being started to decriminalize polygamy, and it is being spearheaded by... a woman. BTW, polygamy can also be the practice of a woman having multiple husbands, so it doesn't necessarily devalue women (polygyny is the specific practice of multiple wives to one husband). And how do we know that a polygamous household isn't good for raising children? Can you cite any studies?

 

Beavah also writes: "What a bizarre prejudice you must have against Christianity to believe it is any different for us."

 

Actually, my point was that it is not any different. I was responding to the seeming prejudice of your implication ("Christian values of positive duty to self and others") that I cannot be charitable, self-sacrificing, have a duty to others, etc., because I am not a Christian. Non-Christians CAN be all those things, and just as ethical, caring, and moral as the most righteous Christian, just that our reasons for being those things are different (but no less valid).

 

Beavah also writes: "Well, certainly we do when confronted by anyone who thinks sticking an icepick in the brain of a partially-delivered baby is just a medical procedure."

 

Why do those opposed to abortion always bring out the late-term abortion as an example? Honestly, none of the pro-choice people that I know think that late term abortions (other to prevent the death of the mother...possibly) are acceptable. I'm sure that they must exist out there somewhere, but my experience tells me that they are a vast minority of the pro-choice group, and the rest believe that there should be *some* limits on abortion. But we don't all agree on what those limits should be, hence the position that it is a decision that must be made based on one's personal beliefs.

 

But you also never answered my question based on your definition of the beginning of life. Is abortion before the heart is beating (before 5 weeks) acceptable? What about the "morning after" pill? What about "birth control" devices that do not prevent fertilization (conception) but prevent implantation, such as IUDs and even hormone-based contraception (which is intended to prevent ovulation, but can also prevent implantation should ovulation "break through")?

[Rooster7]

Merlyn,

 

And, as before, a quite large majority wanted such a law. I'm pretty sure even a majority of black citizens were in favor of such a law at the time. I can't see how your position could allow for a popular law like that to be ruled unconstitutional.

 

If so, then reference the second portion of my last post, which said:

 

Regardless, my point is not that every law created or endorsed by the majority is a good law. But the courts should not force their idea of morality (rightly or wrongly) on the public when the will of the majority has been expressed into law.

 

Im not saying that I liked that particular law. I am saying - when the majority of voters become educated and/or enlightened, and reflect the same by voting for the appropriate representatives and/or referendums, that is when the law should be changed.

 

You will win a lot of support from folks who see the injustices and the ignorance mirrored by these kinds of laws. I understand that. And I am happy that many such laws no longer exist. However, if we allow courts to rewrite laws to their own liking, eventually we wind up with just as many stupid laws. Except these laws with be determined by a handful of suedo-intellectuals who claim to speak for all of us. I prefer majority rule, with a strict interpretation of the Constitution for minority and/or individual rights.

 

GB,

 

The answer to your last question is above.

 

In regard to - You want to change the rules - I could well say the same thing. I believe jurists who support your view of the Constitution have changed the rules. They have interpreted the Constitution so to reflect their personal agendas rather than the hearts and minds of the original framers of the document. The framers wanted to empower voters and the legislative branch to make such determinations.

 

JD,

 

History shows the majority isn't trustworthy enough to be the final arbiter of law.

 

I disagree at least to this point. Majority rule is as trustworthy as any other means if not more so. Did Hitler and Stalin do better? Consolidating power to a few does not assure tranquility. It only hastens corruption, providing a vehicle for a few to serve their own interests as opposed to the interests of the majority.

 

Christian Nation? I don't think there's a very large number of Americans who would like to see the USA be a Democratic Theocracy.

 

If labeling our country a Christian nation, means we must become a theocracy, then I agree. I think most Christians would agree only God is qualified to run our nation as a theocracy. I look at that label in the same way Id look at India being labeled a Hindu nation. As someone mentioned earlier its a generalization. It doesnt mean we need to establish Christianity as a state religion.

[Beavah]

but at this point, this is becoming an argument of semantics, not substance.

 

The substance of the argument was that voters naturally vote their beliefs, religious or otherwise, and that laws resulting from the beliefs and opinions of the majority of voters are a natural consequence of democratic freedom. The alternative is appointing an elite monarch, nobility, appointed judiciary, whatever to make laws for everybody. Been there, done that, much worse in the long run.

 

Actually, there is a movement being started to decriminalize polygamy, and it is being spearheaded by... a woman.

 

Theres always a movement to do almost anything. The movement will succeed when and if the majority no longer vote according to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

 

Actually, my point was that it is not any different. I was responding to the seeming prejudice of your implication ("Christian values of positive duty to self and others") that I cannot be charitable, self-sacrificing, have a duty to others, etc., because I am not a Christian.

 

Easy, there, DanKroh. What I actually said was that your one and only commandment of do no harm did not imply any mechanism for charity. You added a notion of threefold return which incorporates what you call a Christian notion of punishment for bad behavior, and an enlightened self interest argument for charity; also a dont stand by while others are harmed notion. Im curious how within your belief system you would justify going out of your way to help others, to the point of laying down your life for your friends. Threefold return wouldnt apply, unless you believe in an afterlife. Do no harm wouldnt apply, the loss of your life would harm you and others.

 

How do you get to "no greater love hath man than this, to lay down his life for his friends"?

 

Non-Christians CAN be just as ethical, caring, and moral as the most righteous Christian, just that our reasons for being those things are different (but no less valid).

 

Its funny how the notion of ethical and caring you are proposing is a Christian one, though you dont recognize it. Modern Wicca is really a fairly recent development which has grown up in a Christian environment and culture. It has a whole host of Christian ethics deeply embedded. As you point out, all that is lost/changed are the reasons for such ethics. This doesnt affect any settled issues, but shows up when confronting new challenges like modern sexual issues.

 

Why do those opposed to abortion always bring out the late-term abortion as an example?

 

Because it is the most egregious and viscerally hideous manifestation of the consequences of such choices and arguments. It throws into stark relief the way human life is devalued.

 

Honestly, none of the pro-choice people that I know think that late term abortions (other to prevent the death of the mother...possibly) are acceptable.

 

Why not? If the fetus is just tissue or property or part of the mothers body then why not late term abortion if someones personal beliefs are that ending a pregnancy at any time is better than the social inconvenience of adoption?

 

When do you believe life begins? There really are very few logical choices. Conception, heartbeat, neural activity, or birth. The large worldwide multicultural majority believes the most ethical, logical choice is conception not just for the baby, but for society; our respect for each other and all life. Im one of those.

 

Sounds like you want to choose heartbeat or neural activity (?). Either of those would eliminate a large majority of the abortions currently performed. Seems strange for a Wiccan, though. Is there no life in a seed?

 

[DanKroh]

Beavah writes: "Im curious how within your belief system you would justify going out of your way to help others, to the point of laying down your life for your friends. Threefold return wouldnt apply, unless you believe in an afterlife. Do no harm wouldnt apply, the loss of your life would harm you and others. How do you get to "no greater love hath man than this, to lay down his life for his friends"?"

 

The only honest answer is that I don't get that out of my religion. Being the sole support for two children, I would have a great deal of difficulty rationalizing sacrificing my life for someone else's. The only time I could see myself doing this would be to save my children, and I do that out of love for them, not out of a command from my religion. I would have done it for my spouse, again, out of love, and because I would not have then been the sole support for my children. Any other urges to help others come solely from my own internal set of ethical values.

 

My other set of guiding principles come from the Unitarian Universalist church, which also include an acknowledgement that we should help others as part of recognizing the inherent worth of all human beings.

 

I find it interesting that you want to attribute everything that is ethical and caring as being Christian based. There were ethical, caring religions around before Christianity, you know. I actually feel that I draw many of my personal ethical stances from Buddhism....

 

You also seem to think that Wicca means that I must have an absolute sanctity for all living things. Uh, no. There is life in a seed, but that's not going to stop me from eating them if they provide me with nourishment. I'm also not a Vegan, so while I do not believe that animals should be killed brutally or wastefully, I still enjoy a good steak. "Do no harm" is not a black-and-white, soundbite philosophy. For three words, it is an astonishingly complex concept, one which I strive to understand better and struggle to live by every day.

 

Beavah also writes: "When do you believe life begins? There really are very few logical choices. Conception, heartbeat, neural activity, or birth."

 

Actually, my best answer would be when consciousness develops. But I admit that I don't know when that is. However, from my ignorance, I choose to take the position of not to try to tell others how to make that decision. I can only make that decision for myself. I don't feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else.

 

Beavah writes: "Because it is the most egregious and viscerally hideous manifestation of the consequences of such choices and arguments. It throws into stark relief the way human life is devalued."

 

So, by analogy then, I would be justified in bringing up the hate spewed by Reverend Fred Phelps anytime someone stated a Christian position? After all, he is a Christian, and represents "the most egregious and viscerally hideous manifestation" of hate that Christian doctrine represents, no? (And just for the record, I don't believe that Christian doctrine encourages hate, even though the likes of Phelps obviously do.) Don't be so quick to lump everyone with a pro-choice stance as supporting late-term abortions, and I won't lump all Christians in with Fred Phelps (or Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robinson, or... hmmm... I could start developing quite a list here)

 

[packsaddle]

beavah mentioned life in a seed and I agree. The line that must be drawn is subjective and left to the greatest number of agreeing personal opinions. The unfertilized egg and the sperm are certainly alive although they are haploid. To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them? It amounts to the same thing - more government intrusion into personal lives. The inability to draw a clear line (viability, whatever) underscores the fact that there is no other good way to make this decision. Either ban all abortions and birth control and criminalize anyone who violates that ban, or continue to disagree.....or let people make their own private reproductive decisions. Butt out.

[Rooster7]

To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them?

 

Interestinglyand ironically, you seem oblivious to the life of the child when you pose this question. In other words, your bias is apparent. You dont believe the unborn represents a human life worth defending, only the mother.

 

While I am all for "women's rights", I don't support their right to kill an unborn child, even one that they might be carrying. The right of the child to live should take priority. And if were going to err on the side of prudence, we should be seeking to prevent the taking of an innocent life, not the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy at will.

 

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, why do you insist on telling others what they think when you could just ask and get a better answer from them? You have not been fair in your rendition of what I think. What you wrote is what you choose to believe that I think. And you are wrong.

I am saying that I am willing to trust the judgment of the individual who must bear the responsibility of that private reproductive decision. They may not make the decision that I would make but then, I don't have to make it do I?

If the pro-life reasoning is strong enough then its persuasive power should cause those individuals with whom the responsibility to make the decision rests to make a decision that is agreeable to you. If that reasoning is not sufficient then perhaps you should improve it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rooster7 writes:

Im not saying that I liked that particular law. I am saying - when the majority of voters become educated and/or enlightened, and reflect the same by voting for the appropriate representatives and/or referendums, that is when the law should be changed.

 

You realize that both of the Lovings would've spent a year in jail for violating this law if it hadn't been overturned. Plus, even if the supreme court hadn't declared marriage to be a civil right, one justice pointed out that it couldn't possibly be constitutional for an act to be a crime solely due to the races of the actors. That's what the Virginia law did.

[Rooster7]

Okay packsaddle, I apologize for mischaracterizing your position. Allow me to answer your question.

 

To me the question is less about viability than when do you want to make the decision for another individual, take that responsibility away from them, and dictate their life for them?

 

When the said individual decides killing her child is an option that she wishes to pursue. It should not be available as a legal option. Now, ask yourself the same question, but make the child the object of concern as opposed to the mother. Could you tell me when you step in to protect the child? Is partial birth abortion acceptable? Would you look the other way if a mother decided to kill her five year-old child because its her private reproductive decision? Oh a little late in the game for that? I agree.

 

If the pro-life reasoning is strong enough then its persuasive power should cause those individuals with whom the responsibility to make the decision rests to make a decision that is agreeable to you. If that reasoning is not sufficient then perhaps you should improve it.

 

If you want compelling evidence that a fetus is a child...a life worth protecting, then watch a video of the procedure. Watch as a living child is torn apart inside his mother's womb by probing instruments. Perhaps when youre confronted with the persuasive power of those images, you will recant your position. And if youve already seen such videos, then may God have mercy on you for defending a "mother's right" to this choice.