Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I believe it shouldn't be because I think government should be completely secular and not influenced by religious institutions or doctrines. So I strongly disagree with the thought that "God's law" should be the basis of our nation's law.
the only way to do that is to elect people that have been atheist all their lives and have never been exposed to religion ever
Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.
What think you?
Wrong. They wanted only to ensure the federal government didn't. The several states did exactly that since they were colonies, and the FF wanted to ensure each state could continue to do so without interference from each other.
They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.
This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.
The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.
Incorrect.
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution clearly documents it was the intent of the Framers that the laws passed by Congress and decisions by the Federal courts were supreme to the laws and courts of the states. That laws enacted by the states offensive to the Constitution are invalid, and that the states may not nullify Federal law nor ignore Federal court rulings. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that.
Not if such restrictions prohibit the practicing of a minority faith, or disallow political participation of any person based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation. Or seek to deny public accommodations to any person based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation; or if such a community seeks to codify into secular law subjective religious doctrine and dogma in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Americans are free to revel in their ignorance and hate in the context of their personal lives, but they may not seek to make such ignorance and hate official and sanctioned policy through the authority of the state.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-American/dp/0060560053]Amazon.com: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (9780060560058): Jeff Sharlet: Books[/ame]Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.
What think you?
Really. so who believes it, and where is the evidence that they're trying to make it the law of the land? Proposed legislation please. Quotes and links.
See this is a myth that gets circulated. It stirs people up so they will support restricts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In other words, it's propaganda.
Many who believe in the absolute truth of the Christian faith seem to believe that God's Laws should be the law or basis of the law in the US.
What think you?
Really. so who believes it, and where is the evidence that they're trying to make it the law of the land? Proposed legislation please. Quotes and links.
See this is a myth that gets circulated. It stirs people up so they will support restricts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In other words, it's propaganda.
Are you selling books? Is there something in particular I should be looking for?
Never mind. It's more propaganda. I rest my case.
The family is an firstly economic construct and secondly a social oneAre you selling books? Is there something in particular I should be looking for?
Never mind. It's more propaganda. I rest my case.
The idea is that the family unit itself is a religious construct.
Wrong. They wanted only to ensure the federal government didn't. The several states did exactly that since they were colonies, and the FF wanted to ensure each state could continue to do so without interference from each other.
They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.
This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.
The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.
So why all the rightwing fuss against Sharia Law? Isn't that just another form of "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community" as any other "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist Christian community"?
They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.
This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.
The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.
So why all the rightwing fuss against Sharia Law? Isn't that just another form of "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community" as any other "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist Christian community"?
Yes it is, and there is no Constitutional basis for denying the practice so long as it is confined to the community who adopts it. But just as narrow minded restricted Chrsitian theocracies in some of the colonies were still subject to the law of the land, federal and state, so are those who want Sharia law and neither are authorized to impose religious law on the non consenting anywhere else.
The point being is that nobody should be excused from requirements of federal law. Christians have not asked for any exemption from federal law or state law. Those promoting Sharia Law want to be subject ONLY to Sharia law and, when they have have the ability, achieve sufficient numbers, invariably force everybody in the country to be subject to those laws..
Christianity on the other hand, wherever it is the predominent religion in a country, has evolved to the point that it allows complete religious freedom for non Christians and non believers.
My point, however, though I will defend Chrsitianity when it is unfairly or dishonestly attacked, is that, in my opinion, God's Law, however we imperfectly understand or obey it, is ultimately the law of everything and nobody can escape the consequences of it. No human has authority or power to define it or enforce it, and no human power has ability to escape it.
The power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season. This will not change, but only weaken their power politically even more.
Where they have strength, they will be checked by the courts, such as North Dakota, when they violate others' rights.
Don't worry, Te.
How does North Dakota violate anybody's rights when the majority of the people vote for a particular policy that applies to all citizens equally and equitably and makes no distinctions between any group or demographic?
How are North Dakota people's rights not violated just because somebody somewhere else doesn't like a policy and demands that North Dakota not have it?
The power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season. This will not change, but only weaken their power politically even more.
Where they have strength, they will be checked by the courts, such as North Dakota, when they violate others' rights.
Don't worry, Te.
What actual evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that the "power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season"?
The power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season. This will not change, but only weaken their power politically even more.
Where they have strength, they will be checked by the courts, such as North Dakota, when they violate others' rights.
Don't worry, Te.
What actual evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that the "power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season"?
Check the voter numbers for 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. Do some research. The bad little evangelicals only cry and hiss; they have little power now.
