• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Religious Roadblock?

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.

Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.

Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.



Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?
 
Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...

No. Separation prohibits and relationship between church and state, not religious belief and state.

and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?

No, you cannot claim all progress is good. Opposition is important to ensure a democratic process and that people don't get carried away by ideology.
 
No. Separation prohibits and relationship between church and state, not religious belief and state.



No, you cannot claim all progress is good. Opposition is important to ensure a democratic process and that people don't get carried away by ideology.

Please explain the differences between religious belief and the church in this context, in other words how attempting to legislate based on religious belief does not constitute "Church" interference in state (government) policy and law.

Progress is understood to be something that moves the society forward and is not an opinion based reality. Simply because someone does not like this change in society does not change the progression or momentum.
 
Please explain the differences between religious belief and the church in this context, in other words how attempting to legislate based on religious belief does not constitute "Church" interference in state (government) policy and law.

Progress is understood to be something that moves the society forward and is not an opinion based reality. Simply because someone does not like this change in society does not change the progression or momentum.

Is the drastic (about 10X) increase in out of wedlock childbirth since 1965 considered progress? We have come dangerously close to defining "access to" something to now mean that those that cannot afford it must be given it free or having its normal cost subsidized by others (by gov't mandtrate). Certainly one cannot claim that charity is a federal gov't function (enumerated power) but that it has a firmly religious basis instead - strangely, there is little objection to that function of a religion/church being adopted by the federal gov't.
 
The US Constitution doesn't ban religion or religious beliefs. It doesn't even ban religious persons from bring involved in the government. It bans the establishment of a specific State Religion as was prevent in Europe at that time and still exists in certain places to this day.
 
Is the drastic (about 10X) increase in out of wedlock childbirth since 1965 considered progress? We have come dangerously close to defining "access to" something to now mean that those that cannot afford it must be given it free or having its normal cost subsidized by others (by gov't mandtrate). Certainly one cannot claim that charity is a federal gov't function (enumerated power) but that it has a firmly religious basis instead - strangely, there is little objection to that function of a religion/church being adopted by the federal gov't.

I fail to see how ANY of that which you have posted addresses the OP in some way.

Out of wedlock childbirth is not related to Religious interference in society or societal progress....people have kids, and do not get married....period.
Government safety net issues are also unrelated to religious legislation, and charitable actions are not government related in any way....though I certainly applaud the efforts, religious or otherwise.
 
The US Constitution doesn't ban religion or religious beliefs. It doesn't even ban religious persons from bring involved in the government. It bans the establishment of a specific State Religion as was prevent in Europe at that time and still exists in certain places to this day.

Not exactly, while the 1st Amendment bans an Established Religion like the Church of England, the language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Not just to protect the state from religion, but to protect religion from the state by not engaging in preferential treatment by remaining secular. Just ask the Danbury Baptists.
 
I fail to see how ANY of that which you have posted addresses the OP in some way.

Out of wedlock childbirth is not related to Religious interference in society or societal progress....people have kids, and do not get married....period.
Government safety net issues are also unrelated to religious legislation, and charitable actions are not government related in any way....though I certainly applaud the efforts, religious or otherwise.

What you seem unable to see is that subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth creates more of it and that charity is based on religion. It appears that you see adopting some religious ideas as gov't policy is OK yet those that have religious objections to gov't policy are in the wrong. What constitutional basis do you see for the 70+ federal gov't "safety net" programs?
 
What you seem unable to see is that subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth creates more of it and that charity is based on religion. It appears that you see adopting some religious ideas as gov't policy is OK yet those that have religious objections to gov't policy are in the wrong. What constitutional basis do you see for the 70+ federal gov't "safety net" programs?

There is no point is helping you hijack this thread....so I will pass.
 
Is the drastic (about 10X) increase in out of wedlock childbirth since 1965 considered progress?
Prior to 1965, societies ostracization of out-of-wedlock pregnant young girls and women would have led to a lot of illegal unsterile abortions by unlicensed quacks and there would have been little or no data on the abortion rate to compare. But it would be interesting to know if the death and suicide rate of young women went down as the abortion rate went up.


We have come dangerously close to defining "access to" something to now mean that those that cannot afford it must be given it free or having its normal cost subsidized by others (by gov't mandtrate). Certainly one cannot claim that charity is a federal gov't function (enumerated power) but that it has a firmly religious basis instead - strangely, there is little objection to that function of a religion/church being adopted by the federal gov't.
Are you referring to the Faith Based Initiatives?
 


While I can appreciate your humor....I reject the implication contained in it. That you fail to understand the position taken is not very important to me, that you see the need to debase me however, makes the limitations of your mental prowess relatively clear.

I will simply repeat myself:
Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah

There is no point is helping you hijack this thread....so I will pass.
 
While I can appreciate your humor....I reject the implication contained in it. That you fail to understand the position taken is not very important to me, that you see the need to debase me however, makes the limitations of your mental prowess relatively clear.

You posted the OP putting forth a position, and ttwtt78640 responded with a post that pretty much destroys your position. Rather than respond in any intelligent way to ttwtt78640's post, you simply said…

There is no point is helping you hijack this thread....so I will pass.

Like the great Brave Sir Robin, when faced with a challenge, you “…bravely ran away, away!”
 
Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.

Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.

Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.



Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?
As to your first question, does any of the activity you've listed constitute a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

No, it clearly does not.

People are free, constitutionally, to associate with those they choose, and when people choose to associate for the purpose of creating what is in effect a PAC, to address issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and contraception, like any other special interest group, they have every constitutional right to do so, no matter what the religious or lack thereof makeup of the people in the PAC.

As to your second question, let's take a foundationally accurate look at the three issues you mentioned.

Abortion always takes the life of a prenatal human, and the right to life of those humans we do know nowadays to be alive rightly takes precedence over the right to freedom of action of another to take that life when their own life is not at stake. So true progress is found in putting an end to such unjustified killing of humans.

As to the oxymoronic "homosexual marriage", requiring that the domestic partnership civil unions of homarried (or appropriately relevant termed) people (same-sex partners) not be ludicrously included in the definition of married people (a man and a woman as husband and wife) is, like not allowing the definition of dog to include cats, a mentally intelligent respect of words and their true meaning and an emotionally intelligent respect of humanity's time honored institutions and those people who partake in them. So true progress is not allowing the mentally and emotionally regressively violational "gay/homosexual/same-sex marriage", but in preventing it, and, additionally, creating in every state a domestic partnership civil union for same-sex partners called "homarriage" or the like.

And, as to contraception, most regular "birth control pills" used today contain progestin, a synthetic hormone that functions to prevent implantation of a newly created human into the uterine wall, thus killing that human, and, in addition, all Plan B, "morning-after" pills, and the like, also function to kill the prenatal human. Thus all of these products are abortifacients, meaning they cause chemical abortions. So opposition to the indiscriminate use of these products is simply part of the opposition to the unjustified abortion of humans, a good thing with respect to human rights. The only regressive aspect of Catholic (or Muslim, or whatever) opposition to the use of non-abortifacient birth control such as condoms, diaphragms, and others, requiring that all sex never "spill seed" in any way, is that such opposition contributes to the rampant over-population of our planet at a time in our history where over-population threatens to exterminate all of humanity in more than one way, so the progressive thing to do would be to support such non-abortifacient birth control methods.

So, for the most part, with the singular exception of opposition to non-abortifacient birth control, the behavior of the people you're complaining about is good and progressive behavior itself. Thus the answer to your question about are they creating a societal roadblock to progress is for the most part "no".
 
About what "religion" actually means.

Seems that this article is at least a little relevant.
It promotes a premise somewhat opposed to the theory in the OP.

The article argues that the influence Christianity is the inspiration for the egalitarianism of American culture including our propensity to accept the idea of "gay marriage"


How Christianity gave us gay marriage - The Week
Just flip through the opening pages of everyone's favorite work of secular prophesy — Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835–1840) — and you'll find a provocative alternative interpretation of Christianity's indispensable role in the creation of the revolutionary ideal of human equality. The stunningly rapid rise of support for gay marriage over the past two decades is just the latest in a very long line of victories for that consummately Christian ideal — and it's unlikely to be the last.


For Tocqueville, the march of equality was upending age-old institutions and moral habits "in all the Christian world." It was a "providential fact," by which he meant that there was nothing anybody could do to stop it.

The ultimate source of the democratic revolution — the motor behind its inexorable unfolding — is the figure of Jesus Christ, who taught the equal dignity of all persons, and declared in the Sermon on the Mount that the last shall be first and the first shall be last, and that the meek shall inherit the earth.

These are among the most subversive teachings ever uttered — and according to Tocqueville, Western civilization has been working out their logic for the better part of two millennia, as political communities have applied Christ's egalitarian teachings in stricter and stricter terms.​



I hope it is enjoyed.
 
What you seem unable to see is that subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth creates more of it and that charity is based on religion. It appears that you see adopting some religious ideas as gov't policy is OK yet those that have religious objections to gov't policy are in the wrong. What constitutional basis do you see for the 70+ federal gov't "safety net" programs?


Fine....rather than be labeled a coward, I will help with the hijack and let this thread become something completely different than the OP intended.

I fully understand that government support of a thing may lead to increased use of it, and also that many charities are religion based. I do not however, see where these things are religious in origin....unless you are stating that religion created marriage, and legislation created charity. The idea behind "safety net programs", is to protect the lowest rung of society and thus the society in whole and is not constitutionally based. I suppose one could place it loosely under a few aspects of the document.
I do not see religious "Objection" to legislation as wrong...I do however see religion based discrimination (actually any) as reversing a trend of freedom and liberty in the population, thus the opinions and questions contained in the OP.
 
Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.

Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.

Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.



Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?

Funny that you explain progression toward rights and freedom by arguing against freedom of expression and the 1st amendment. Separation between church and state is meant to keep the state (government) from encroaching upon people's right to freely exercise their religion, not the other way around.
 
Funny that you explain progression toward rights and freedom by arguing against freedom of expression and the 1st amendment. Separation between church and state is meant to keep the state (government) from encroaching upon people's right to freely exercise their religion, not the other way around.

I did no such thing....in no way do I not support the rights to practice whatever religion someone follows, I instead stated a wish to not see our government impose these "expressions" upon those not following said faith. Religious people have every right to do as the faith dictates....they do not have the right to force everyone else to do so.
 
I did no such thing....in no way do I not support the rights to practice whatever religion someone follows, I instead stated a wish to not see our government impose these "expressions" upon those not following said faith. Religious people have every right to do as the faith dictates....they do not have the right to force everyone else to do so.

I am unaware that religion is preventing abortions from taking place, preventing contraception from being manufactured and used, preventing gays from slowly changing public opinion in favor. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten me with examples.
 
I am unaware that religion is preventing abortions from taking place, preventing contraception from being manufactured and used, preventing gays from slowly changing public opinion in favor. That is, of course, unless you can enlighten me with examples.

Happy to oblige:

"(Reuters) - Arizona lawmakers gave final approval on Thursday to a bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to customers when such work would violate their religious beliefs, in a move critics describe as a license to discriminate against gays and others."
Arizona lawmakers pass bill to allow faith-based refusal of services | Reuters


"The tenuous state of women’s basic right to make their own childbearing decisions was made clear on Monday when a federal appeals court in New Orleans heard arguments on a new abortion restriction enacted in July in Texas — one that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

In October, a federal district judge, Lee Yeakel, ruled that the requirement serves no medical purpose and improperly infringes on women’s reproductive rights. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned his injunction on the rule’s enforcement, and the Supreme Court, in an alarming 5-to-4 opinion in November, declined to upset the panel’s ruling. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/opinion/abortion-restrictions-in-texas-and-beyond.html?_r=0

I anticipate your pointing out these do not state religion is in play.....but one would need be very naïve to avoid seeing it.
 
Happy to oblige:

1"(Reuters) - Arizona lawmakers gave final approval on Thursday to a bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to customers when such work would violate their religious beliefs, in a move critics describe as a license to discriminate against gays and others."
Arizona lawmakers pass bill to allow faith-based refusal of services | Reuters


2"The tenuous state of women’s basic right to make their own childbearing decisions was made clear on Monday when a federal appeals court in New Orleans heard arguments on a new abortion restriction enacted in July in Texas — one that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

In October, a federal district judge, Lee Yeakel, ruled that the requirement serves no medical purpose and improperly infringes on women’s reproductive rights. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned his injunction on the rule’s enforcement, and the Supreme Court, in an alarming 5-to-4 opinion in November, declined to upset the panel’s ruling. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/opinion/abortion-restrictions-in-texas-and-beyond.html?_r=0

I anticipate your pointing out these do not state religion is in play.....but one would need be very naïve to avoid seeing it.

1. This is in keeping with the first amendment. Bad policy, you can argue, but it gives freedom for businesses to exercise their religious views which is fine. If it is unpopular, then those businesses will fail. Don't forget that being born gay is not a proven fact, though you probably believe it which is fine. If it can't be proven, then I don't think you can define it as an inalienable right one way or the other. I think people should be free to marry whoever they want, and that businesses can serve whoever they want with respect to that decision. I anticipate you will liken this to race discrimination, but I think that is a false analogy given my above argument.

2. You anticipated correctly with regard to this one. Regulating abortion is well within the state's right. I wouldn't put up a fuss if my neighbor practiced medicine from his house and was shut down for not complying with basic facility requirements and licensing. It's not the responsibility of government to ensure that everyone has easy access to abortion. It is their mandate to regulate such services. Let's get to your real idea which is that religion hampers abortion and contraception by not being required to cover it in their insurance plans. This is within their constitutional rights, and again, doesn't ultimately prevent people from independently seeking out these services. Again, it is not the responsibility of religious institutions or government to make access to these services and products easy as going to McDonalds. Just because you think it should be isn't a convincing argument.
 
Society in the United States is always evolving, generally trending toward equality and advancing personal freedom and liberty. Since the founding of America, we have seen great movements toward the goals and rights our constitution inspires, at times dramatic and others quiet and slow. I have noticed a current reversal of this trend based almost exclusively on religious belief being pushed onto the citizenry.
Christians find abortion to be sinful....and so fight against it in often sinister and backdoor ways, chipping away at the freedoms of others to use their lawful rights.

Christians find homosexuality to be sinful....and fight against the choice of others to love who they want, marry, and enjoy the rights given to everyone else who happen to be heterosexual.

Catholics find contraception to be sinful....and so fight against the use of it by denying those not wishing to become pregnant easy access.



Does this go against the separation clause of our Constitution...and more importantly, are these things (and many others) a roadblock to societal progress?

Please re-read the OP, as it may not say what you think it does.
 
Please explain the differences between religious belief and the church in this context, in other words how attempting to legislate based on religious belief does not constitute "Church" interference in state (government) policy and law.

Progress is understood to be something that moves the society forward and is not an opinion based reality. Simply because someone does not like this change in society does not change the progression or momentum.

Forward where? How does one know if one is going forward or not? The Nazis thought they were going forward.
 
Back
Top Bottom