Obama: 1in 5 women have been raped in the US

[Elok]

Obviously, there's some balance to be struck here. On the one hand, theocracy is toxic; on the other, it is not healthy or right that we should absolve ourselves of all moral responsibility for our society or the world. And the present mentality concerning Christians in the American public square is a stacked deck. Suppose a Christian has a moral view which he would like to see reflected in law. If it is a moral view which is not shared by atheists (abortion, gay marriage), the Christian is immorally imposing his personal views on other people. If, on the other hand, it is something atheists also tend to believe in (gun control, education, healthcare), he would be considered immoral for not pushing for its passage into law. In effect, we are allowed to be politically active, provided our conscience does not differ from the unbeliever's.

(this is leaving aside the present obscene fusion we call the religious right, which has done little beyond breeding atheism while enriching plutocrats and war profiteers)

[Lorizael]

The difference I see, Elok, is that many moral views Christians might want to see reflected in law are moral only if you first accept the premise that God exists as described in whatever sect you follow. So, you know, a Christian can argue against the death penalty because he believes that's what his religion demands of him, but it's clearly very reasonable why a civil society looking out for the interests of its citizens might want to ban the death penalty. (The opposite case can be made as well, even if I disagree with it. The point is a particular religion being correct isn't required for either argument to be valid.) It's a lot harder to figure out why civil society would care to ban gay marriage, however, unless a god says they have to. So in the latter case, if a gay marriage ban becomes law, then that's a law respecting the establishment of a religion and that's unconstitutional.

[Elok]

The short answer (no time for my usual jeremiad here) is that all beliefs about right, wrong, law, etc. are grounded in metaphysical assumptions. My religion is not an irrelevant opinion to be shoved in a little box when it might inconvenience others; if it is, I'm doing it wrong. I'm aware that what you're describing is the philosophical status quo; I also believe that it was invented by a pack of Deists to further their interests, and Christians would be unwise to passively accept it.

[Lorizael]

I don't disagree that Christians shouldn't have to hide their beliefs from others, but I do think imposing those beliefs via law is not something our society is supposed to allow. You mention that theocracy is toxic, but I really think there's something to be said for only living with people who accept the same basic metaphysical assumptions that you do. You can argue that a pluralistic culture has some value in and of itself, but making that argument means you've already accepted some tenet that probably transcends your religion. And if you do that, then your religion is not the final arbiter of your moral values, in which case you probably need to rethink your life anyway...

[Kidlicious]

More like it was devised by modern secularists. Jefferson was not advocating the right to gay marriage.

[Lorizael]

(Btw, I think there's a good chunk of my insane beliefs it would not be appropriate/legal/constitutional to impose on Americans. It's just that the restriction on doing so isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution but implicitly understood based on what kind of society we live in.)

[DinoDoc]

I don't think that any of them, however, accept as valid the portions (like that Leviticus quote) that directly contradict what Jesus is supposed to have said.

You are aware that I quoted Luke as well, yes?

[grumbler]

The relationship between the OT and NT is complicated and varies widely from Church to Church. There is good Biblical precedent, largely rooted in Acts and Paul's epistles, for invalidating most of the Law, but not the entire OT. For example, the Council of Jerusalem decided that fornication of all kinds is still out, along with eating blood and idolatry. It's not just picking and choosing, there are very complex schools of exegesis, and you're being glib.

It is very convenient to atheists that we Xians "not judge," i.e. be doormats. If we stand up for any principle at all, we can be called hypocrites (unless we use the blandest and most timid language possible); if we do not, we can be ignored.

I don't think you understand the concept of judgement. Judgement isn't about standing up for principals, it is about deciding what value others have based on their principles.

It is very convenient for Xians to be able to claim that they aren't picking and choosing which portions of God's Contract with His People are still valid, they are just using "very complex schools of exegesis," which just happens to be indistinguishable from self-serving picking and choosing.

[grumbler]

You are aware that I quoted Luke as well, yes?

Well, since your Luke quote wasn't about judging others, i let you get away with it, yes?

[Kidlicious]

I don't think you understand the concept of judgement. Judgement isn't about standing up for principals, it is about deciding what value others have based on their principles.

It is very convenient for Xians to be able to claim that they aren't picking and choosing which portions of God's Contract with His People are still valid, they are just using "very complex schools of exegesis," which just happens to be indistinguishable from self-serving picking and choosing.

Doesn't have much to do with calling people liars who have lied about you.

[grumbler]

(Btw, I think there's a good chunk of my insane beliefs it would not be appropriate/legal/constitutional to impose on Americans. It's just that the restriction on doing so isn't explicitly spelled out in the Constitution but implicitly understood based on what kind of society we live in.)

The restrictions you refer to are pretty much the only valid restrictions in a society that isn't theocratic. I can understand, in a theoretical way, that there are people who believe that morality comes only from some extrinsic authority (either physical or metaphysical), but i can't really understand that type of thinking. People like that are like some people I know who are absolutely convinced that the moon landings were faked. They simply refuse to accept the idea that conclusions should follow from evidence, and that if evidence changes, conclusions should as well. Like the believers in metaphysical sources of morality, they just know what they know is true, and no facts seem to dissuade them. Note that I am commenting here on my reactions to such thinking; I am explicitly not saying that believers in gods are like believers in moon landing hoaxes.

I think that believers in metaphysical forces should be allowed to guide themselves by their concepts of such forces (barring harm to others), but shouldn't seek to guide others by what their metaphysical gods/forces/spirits say.

[grumbler]

Doesn't have much to do with calling people liars who have lied about you.

Who has lied about me?

[Kidlicious]

Who has lied about me?

You accused me of judging people, people that have called me a rape apologist etc...

[Kidlicious]

Who has lied about me?

You accused me of judging people, people that have called me a rape apologist etc...

[Jon Miller]

It's a lot harder to figure out why civil society would care to ban gay marriage, however, unless a god says they have to. So in the latter case, if a gay marriage ban becomes law, then that's a law respecting the establishment of a religion and that's unconstitutional.

Except that a casual perusal of nations and societies that ban/etc gay marriage shows no such correlation either with Christianity or with Religiosity.

The only correlation seems to be with a country or society not banning gay marriage and that the country or society being western based and existing after 1990 (which are actually primarily 'christian' countries or societies).

JM