[ Post a Response | The PX Barbershop ]
PLEASE READ THE BOARD REGULATIONS. Click here.
Posted by Gunny (1) I'm a firm believer in separation of Church and State. I do not believe that we are well served where public policy is distated by religious belief. I think that every single person ought to be allowed his or her religious belief and that that belief can properly motivate his/her politics. But, at the same time, I am appalled at those who would base their arguments in favor or in opposition to public policy solely on the basis of their belief. Even if your religion teaches you that one position is right or wrong, that is not a reason the state should adopt a policy. I expect religious folk (of which I consider myself one) to appeal only to rational, scientific and empirically verifiable facts when arguing for the setting of pulic policy. One of the perfect current debates is gay marriage. Marriage is first and foremost a secular ordering of society. Many choose to afford it religious significance. But I say they are free to do so in their churches and homes not in the public arena. Thus I expect religious folk to limit their opposition to arguements that gay marriage endangers the social welfare by limiting the number of new children, or by what I consider the fallacious argument that if you permit gays to marry it will have the pernicious consequence of undermining heterosexual unions. I expect religious folk not to make absurd claims such as "God created marriage" and that "He ordained it as male-female". That's for them to teach their children if they so believe it -- tell them the state is wrong. It is for them to observe as an article of faith in their various religious congregations. (2) I believe that a great deal of evil has is is perpetrated in the name of the various religions. But I also believe that other religious folk have done much good. For me the critical distinction is between the "Bible beliving" (read their Scriptural literalist) and those who allow reason into their discourse. The jihadists are of the former type. Don't know how you solve that problem because the Qu'ran is taken as the literal transciption of the words of Allah; it is the foundation of that faith. I don't believe that a Creator who set in motion the wonders that are evolutionary creation intervenes in the natural order of things on a daily basis reversing disease which is a part of that process, choosing sides in wars he told us not to fight, or as a nonsensical extreme deciding the outcome of football games. I think such a concept of God diminishes Him greatly. But to me in the 21st century folk who disavow evolution and who believe things like the world is about 5600 years old and God placed man here on the globe in more or less his current stage of physical and mental development is absolutely absurd and beyond help. Where Scripture is viewed as a progressive faith history and general guide to principles as opposed to a road map or question and answer book I believe religion becomes perverse. What every religion ought to be doing is looking to their Scriptures not as history, science or even an source of answers. If folk would look on their Scriptures as the crude attempts of primative peoples express their belief in the fact that a Creator exists and that tell the story of how that existence influenced their lives over time, we would go a long way. As a Christian my faith consists in asking what would Jesus do if he were alive today in the situation in which we find ourselves, at our stage of development and with our knowledge. I reject fundamentalism totally.
on 12/11/2006, 8:28:10, in reply to "Gunny,"
66.189.24.46
At the risk of boring everyone to death, I'll venture a couple thoughts.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread