Why You Can't Live by the Bible

[puglover]

Naervod, I notice that all the verses you mention are in the Old Testament Law, the Law of Moses. Jesus' death has already freed us from such rules.

I know that this IS the humor and jokes forum but I felt that I had to share this.

 

[naervod]

But then in that case, Jesus, if you so believe has also freed us from the rule stating that homosexuality is an abomination.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

But then in that case, Jesus, if you so believe has also freed us from the rule stating that homosexuality is an abomination.

I've got one for you on that one...

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
(New Testament | Romans 1:27)

Or maybe

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 6:9)

Yup, Homosexuality remains a sin even after the Law of Moses was fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

 

[Uiler]

I've got one for you on that one...

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
(New Testament | Romans 1:27)

Or maybe

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 6:9)

Yup, Homosexuality remains a sin even after the Law of Moses was fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

But, anyway according to:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

about Corinthians 6:9:

This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:
effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.
homosexuals, described as:
"men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"sodomites," (NRSV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)
"they are perverts. They are homosexuals." (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

Liberals generally do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They believe that Paul was writing from his own knowledge and experience. During the 1st century CE, even an educated person like Paul would know very little about human sexuality, compared to present-day sexuality researchers . From the same forum:
J. Nelson: "Paul used the Greek word malakoi. They translate it as effeminate and so on. It could mean that; it might not. It can mean soft. Paul was a Jewish theologian. Someone from a Jewish background would consider that behavior unacceptable. Many Greeks did not."

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai."

Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."
Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."
Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.
It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

A liberal analysis of ROMANS 1:26-27 (which also mentions lesbian relationships) is here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm
They add at the end:

Human rights workers might reject Paul's belief that homosexuality is beyond the normal -- particularly when Paul's support for the oppression of women (1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35), and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16) are considered....Finally, some religious liberals may conclude that Paul is here declaring that, in his opinion, all homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural. However, many Christians have gone beyond Paul's teachings; they have deviated from those biblical teachings that denigrate women and considered them as property. They have rejected slavery. Modern-day Christians have evolved towards a new understanding of gender, human rights, and higher regard for woman. So too many Christians are now evolving towards a different regard and understanding of persons with homosexual orientation. Modern-day Christians are aided by recent findings of human sexuality research to which Paul did not have access. Thus, Romans 1 may accurately reflect Paul's beliefs; but they are beliefs that now have to be largely abandoned, as we have already abandoned slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, and the oppression of women.

 

[Uiler]

Just to mention, ROMANS 1:26-27 only really applies to people who act *against* the sexuality given to them by God. If it can be proved that homosexuality/bisexuality is actually something that people are born with, then Romans 1:26-27 does no longer apply, because then we are talking about people who are acting according to their nature (which God gave them) rather than contrary to the inclinations that God gave them. So whether the passage refers to a sin or not depends strongly on whether one accepts that homosexuality/bisexuality is something that you are born with or not.

Also as mentioned, Paul also supported the oppression of women and considered slavery normal. If we follow Paul literally we should also support the oppression of women and slavery. There no passages where Jesus himself condemns same-sex relations though he is recorded as condemning fornication, murder and blasphemy among other things. You'd think that if homosexuality was one of those mortal sins that would condemn you to hell, Jesus might have added it to his little list when talking...

And as I would like to stress, Corinthians 6:9 *used* to be translated as talking about *masturbation* (it was during the time of Martin Luther) until masturbation became socially acceptable. "The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967". I don't have much faith in that passage's supposed condemnation of homosexuality.

EDIT: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..."

Adultery, theft etc. are mortal sins according to Jesus himself. Why are on earth then are people so obsessed with homosexuality and are convinced they are going to go to hell when hardly anyone bats an eye when adultery and theft are going on...I'm thinking that this talks more about our culture and prejudices than what Jesus thinks (who never actually mentioned homosexuality at all. So obviously he didn't think it important enough to mention compared to the all-important sins of theft and adultery)

 

[Jack the Ripper]

You cannot judge one line in the bible by other lines in the bible. Look at the chapter Leviticus 18:22 is in. The chapter is all about forbidden sexual practices. Almost ALL of the sexual practices mentioned in that chapter are illegal today. It includes marrying relatives, selling children into prostitution, and having sexual relations with animals; all of which are (generally) illegal and punishable by jail time.

So now we come to the issue of gay marridge. MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS process. If you are not religious, so be it. DO NOT IMPOSE YOUR ATHIEST BELEIFS ON THOSE WHO DO BELEVE! If its all a game to you, let those who actually care play their game and do not interfere.

One of the big arguments i have been hearing in support of gay marriage is that partners cannot visit their partners in the hospital for legal reasons. Note the word 'legal'. Ever heard of the seperation of church and state? What is wrong with civil unions? You do not need a preist to get into the hospital, you need a marriage licence.

Im all for a legal unions, just do not corrupt the religious institution of marriage (that is recognised by christians, muslims, jews, hindus, buddists, and confusionists, i might add) if you are not religious and dont care.

Oh, and about that whole thing from Romans 1:27; that verse is used to describe the actions of people, not to say it is right or wrong.
But, if you read a little ahead of that, you will see that Romans 1:27 is in the context of: "23 instead of worshiping the immortal god, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 And so God has given those people over to do the FILTHY things their hearts desire, and they do SHAMEFUL things with each other"

So there you have it.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

@ Ulier: I also believe that the commandment forbidding Adultery (Exodus 20:14) applies to ALL forms of forbidden sexual expression (including, but not restricted to adultery, fornication, masturbation, homosexuality, incest, bestiality). If one Aetheist can force the supreme court to ban prayer in school, then one Christian should be allowed to force the Supreme Court to ban Gay Marriage...

 

[Jawz II]

i have no idea who Dr Laura is, that stuff was funny as heck

how come people decide to ignore many parts of the bible and still call themselves chrisitians and try to impose their values to everyone else as "the word of god"

which it isnt anyway

 

[Gnarfflinger]

i have no idea who Dr Laura is, that stuff was funny as heck

how come people decide to ignore many parts of the bible and still call themselves chrisitians and try to impose their values to everyone else as "the word of god"

which it isnt anyway

And are the aethiests any better for trying to cram their beliefs (or lack there of) down our throats? If they don't believe, that's their choice, but they were out of line to go to the supreme court to ban prayer in school. There is a passage in the New testament where Jesus Christ states that in him the Law of Moses was fulfilled (which included many of the laws that were mentioned in the original post). For that reason, most faiths have abandoned those teachings. Secondly, the Bible is so huge that many people can read a bit of it every day, and still not memorize all of it. My own knowledge is not complete. But I do my best to live what I know.

 

[mitsho]

Another interesting fact is that in the old hebrew version of the bible, it is nowhere written that Maria (Mary) was a virgin when she gave birht to Jesus Christ. It was just translated into that by the medieval Church. Otherwise, pre-marriage sex would be ok in the view of the bible!

That's what I was told, I never checked it, (because I don't speak Hebrew)... Does anyone know if this is true or just invented?

mfG mitsho

EDIT: @Gnarflinger The atheists were right when they wanted to ban prayer from school. I do believe in God, and therefore am against atheists. But I also do believe in Democracy and Human Rights. One of them is for Education. Education means no Propaganda, no doctrined education. And if we tell our kids only how Christianity works, we are not democratic. Because there are so many more 'believes' out there. We should treat them equally.

mfG mitsho

 

[Gnarfflinger]

But does this mean that we Christians have the right to ban teachings that directly oppose our views? Teachings that legitimize that which we consider highly offensive? The Aetheists used that to ban Prayer in Schools. We can use the same logic to keep other special interests groups from using the Classroom for their own propaganda.

 

[Uiler]

Not really. I believe what the Aetheists used was the principle of separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to any use of state funds which could be construed as promating a religion or even a particular sect of one religion.

As the "Father of the Constitution." James Madison wrote,

Veto Message, Feb 21, 1811 By James Madison, to the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'

...Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the system. The anticipation of such a one led to the omission in ours; the visitors being merely authorized to open a public hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish theological schools so near that the students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville, also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them.

A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.

On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

I think James Madison would have been quite happy with voluntary prayer by individual students or the promotion of religion used private funds but any attempt for public funds to be used to be even seen to promote a religion or any sect of a religion would be wrong according to him. It is not a matter of suppressing or not suppressing a POV, it is the use of government funds to be seen as promoting religion. What private citizens do individually with their own money is something else entirely.

But does this mean that we Christians have the right to ban teachings that directly oppose our views? Teachings that legitimize that which we consider highly offensive? The Aetheists used that to ban Prayer in Schools. We can use the same logic to keep other special interests groups from using the Classroom for their own propaganda.

 

[Uiler]

It is interesting to note that the account of Jesus' birth in the Koran is very different from the New Testament. The most noteable difference is there is no mention of Joseph or anything about the line of David. In fact the main focus is on Mary.

Remember the words of Imran's wife [Imran is the name given in the Koran to Mary's father]. 'Lord,' she said, 'I dedicate to Your service that which is in my womb. Accept if from me. You alone hear all and know all.'

And when she was delivered of the child, she said: 'Lord, I have given birth to a daughter' – God well knew of what she was delivered: the male is not like the female – 'and have called her Mary. Protect her and all her descendents from Satan – the Accursed One.'

Her Lord graciously accepted her. He made her grow a goodly child and entrusted her to the care of Zacharias.

And remember the angels' words to Mary. They said: 'God has chosen you. He has made you pure and exalted you above womankind. Mary, be obedient to your Lord; bow down and worship with the worshippers.'

This is an account of a divine secret. We reveal it to you. You were not present when they case lots to see which of them should have charge of Mary; nor were you present when they argued about her.

The angels said to Mary: 'God bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary. He should be noble to this world and in the world to come, and shall be one of those who are favoured. He shall preach to men in his cradle and in the prime of manhood, and shall lead a righteous life.'

'Lord,' she said, 'how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?'

He replied: 'Even thus. God creates whom He will. When he decrees a thing He need only say: “Be,” and it is. He will instruct him in the Scriptures and in wisdom, in the Torah and in the Gospel, and send him forth as an apostle to the Isrealites. He will say: “I bring you a sign from your Lord. From clay I will make for you the likeness of a bird. I shall breathe into it and, by God's leave, it shall become a living bird. By God's leave I shall heal the blind man and the leper, and raise the dead to life. I shall tell you what to eat and what to store up in your houses. Surely that will be a sign for you, if you are true believers. I come to confirm the Torah which preceded me and to make lawful for you some of the things you are forbidden. I bring you a sign from your Lord: therefore fear God and obey me. God is my Lord and your Lord: therefore serve Him. That is a straight path.

And you shall recount in the Book the story of Mary: how she left her people and betook herself to a solitary place in the east.

About the birth:

And when she felt the throes of childbirth she lay down by the trunk of a palm-tree, crying: 'Oh, would that I had died before this and passed into oblivion!'

The Lord then provides for her a brook at her feet and fresh ripe dates from the palm tree.

The people accuse Mary because she arrives back with a child (and no husband). She points to Jesus in the cradle and he speaks:

Whereupon he spoke and said: 'I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is upon me wherever I go, and He has exhorted me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honour my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. Blessed was I on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised to life.'

Such was Jesus son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees such a thing He need only say: 'Be,' and it is.”

Though the Koran also claims that Jesus foretold the coming of Mohammad:

And of Jesus son of Mary, who said to the Israelites: 'I am sent forth to you from God to confirm the Torah already revealed, and to give news of an apostle that will come after me whose name is Ahmad.

(Another name of Muhammad's, meaning 'The Praised One'.)

Who's version is correct? Hmmm...well, I guess as the Koran says:

The Jews say the Christians are misguided, and the Christians say it is the Jews who are misguided. Yet they both read the Scriptures. And the ignorant say the same of both. God will on the Day of Resurrection judge their disputes.

I guess we'll know after we die!

Another interesting fact is that in the old hebrew version of the bible, it is nowhere written that Maria (Mary) was a virgin when she gave birht to Jesus Christ. It was just translated into that by the medieval Church. Otherwise, pre-marriage sex would be ok in the view of the bible!

That's what I was told, I never checked it, (because I don't speak Hebrew)... Does anyone know if this is true or just invented?

mfG mitsho

EDIT: @Gnarflinger The atheists were right when they wanted to ban prayer from school. I do believe in God, and therefore am against atheists. But I also do believe in Democracy and Human Rights. One of them is for Education. Education means no Propaganda, no doctrined education. And if we tell our kids only how Christianity works, we are not democratic. Because there are so many more 'believes' out there. We should treat them equally.

mfG mitsho

 

[YNCS]

And are the aethiests any better for trying to cram their beliefs (or lack there of) down our throats? If they don't believe, that's their choice, but they were out of line to go to the supreme court to ban prayer in school. There is a passage in the New testament where Jesus Christ states that in him the Law of Moses was fulfilled (which included many of the laws that were mentioned in the original post). For that reason, most faiths have abandoned those teachings. Secondly, the Bible is so huge that many people can read a bit of it every day, and still not memorize all of it. My own knowledge is not complete. But I do my best to live what I know.

The separation of Church and State dates back to Friedrich Barbarossa's Drang nach Südden and his struggles with Pope Alexander III over primacy in Europe. Effectively, the post-Roman collapse Europeans had been trying since Charlemagne to re-establish a Christian empire, Roman-style, in Europe but hadn't quite got it right. One of the major questions about this empire was who should ultimately be supreme ruler of it, the secular emperor who achieved his position through conquest and blood lines, or the Pope? In other words, should ultimate power rest with the church or the state? Should there be a difference between the two? With Friedrich's failed attempts to bring Italy under his sway, the two remained separate. The Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries led to two centuries of warfare between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the big finale of the Thirty Years War, leaving a lot of people in Europe wondering if religion was all it's cracked up to be.

This was the mindset of the first English settlers to the Americas. The English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell's tyranny, and the so-called "Bloodless Revolution" of 1688 left a deep impression on English colonists, who created a movement called "Deism" in the Enlightenment. American Deists' beliefs were simply that though they believed strongly in God, they distrusted religions as imperfect human attempts to define and understand God. They looked at the Catholic Church of their day as a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy that wanted power and Earthly wealth. They were committed Protestants who believed Henry VIII's separation from the Catholic Church was absolutely necessary but they also saw the resulting Church of England, the Anglicans, as having become just as corrupt as the Catholics had been. The lesson they drew from the Anglican experience was that when religion is mixed with government, the inevitable result is corruption of both. This is a source of confusion for many modern American religious extremists, who can't seem to bridge that understanding between the American Founding Fathers being quite devoted to God (except for atheists like Ben Franklin) but yet distrusting religion. Modern American Christian fundamentalists love to quote ad nauseum religious citations from the Founding Fathers without reading the context in which those remarks were made.

The American Constitution was framed therefore with a strict division between state and religion, quite simply. It was not intended to be anti-religious, but it was saying simply that while religion has its place in society, that place is not in the government. Anyone can practice whatever religion they want in the country, but they do not have the right to force anyone else to practice that religion, and especially commensurate with that aspect the government is not allowed to endorse or in any way support any particular religion. This is why, for instance, putting a religious monument on government property in the U.S. is unconstitutional. One can erect a monument to the Ten Commandments on private property, on a church, on a private organization's property, anywhere except government property. This is an aspect of American society that mystifies me; American religious zealots have this convoluted logic that says they should be able to put their religious symbols anywhere and everywhere they want, disregarding the Constitution and local laws, and if they can't impose their religious views in this way on others then it is an abridgement of their religious rights. Since their religion says they must prosyletize, any attempt to stop them from doing so, all laws be damned, is against their rights. That's circular logic.

The aspect of Separation of Church and State that seems to be missing is that it is not about majorities, it's about all of society. Clearly, even if they are a minority, there are some people who do not want religious symbols on their public property, and it is their public property as much as it is those who want it there. This would be a clear case of a majority enforcing their religious beliefs on a community against the will of some in that community. The law is universal within the United States and is clear: a government cannot support or endorse any religion. Putting a religious monument on government property is a de facto tacit endorsement for that religion. Again, the Constitution is not anti-religion, it simply makes a clear distinction between the public (government) and private (non-government) practice of it.

 

[mitsho]

@uiler Why did you quote my post and then answer nothing?

mfG mithso

 

[Gnarfflinger]

Okay, so the church and state are separate, but does this mean that the Christians can't be considered a special interest group under the same rules as the Aetheists and the Homosexuals? Don't we have the right to stand up for what we believe in? If the Aetheists can lobby for their agenda, and the Homosexuals can lobby for their agenda, can't we Christians do the same?

 

[Uiler]

Okay, so the church and state are separate, but does this mean that the Christians can't be considered a special interest group under the same rules as the Aetheists and the Homosexuals? Don't we have the right to stand up for what we believe in? If the Aetheists can lobby for their agenda, and the Homosexuals can lobby for their agenda, can't we Christians do the same?

Christians can lobby for their agenda and they do. Why do you think the religious right has so much power over the Republican party. However, as it has been stressed many times, the constitution does not allow public monies to be used to support religion. I've read letters by the founding fathers. They are of the opinion that if a religion cannot maintain its followers by itself without backing from a government authority and its diety does not help it through divine intervention, then said religion does not deserve to exist.

The founding fathers pointed out that if a government authority can favour one religion over another - say Christianity, there is absolutely nothing stopping it from favouring one *sect* of Christianity over another. Let's say that the government says it is OK to push Christian teachings using public money. Then what is there to stop the government from pushing Protestant beliefs over Roman Catholic? Or even specific Protestant churches over another? How happy will Pentecoastal followers be if the governor of their state suddenly decides that all public schools should be pushing Southern Baptist. How happy will Boston Roman Catholics be if the federal government decides that all public schools receiving federal support should declare that Roman Catholicism is wrong and that worshipping the virgin Mary is idoltry. Or what if a Roman Catholic (like Kennedy) becomes President and decides to use public money to push Roman Catholicism over the Protestant majority? So all schools receiving federal money have to say that Martin Luther was a heretic and put statues up to the virgin Mary and crucifixes. Do you really want to get into a situation where public money is basically used in sectarian warfare? Where publically funded schools basically become a duelling ground between different Christian sects. Where, whatever religion is pushed in schools depends on who is governor?

Also, not all Christians even in the same churches think alike. Who speaks for "Christians" anyway? The Catholic church? The Southern Baptist? Also many Christians favour homosexual rights. Many Christians favour abortion. Many Christians do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible. The Roman Catholic church does not favour the death penalty but many hard-core Protestant fundamentalists do. Many Protestants have no problems with birth control and condoms but the Roman Catholic church does. What about churches that take their authority from overseas? For example Greek immigrants who follow the Greek Orthodox church, Roman Catholics who follow the Pope, Russians who follow the Russian Orthodox Church etc. Should we exclude them from the "Christian" policy of public schools because they are foreign influenced? Should we allow people who follow these "foreign" Christian sects to even take public office? What if they use public money to push the agenda of say Moscow or the Vatican? (This was in fact the main reason why Roman Catholic presidents are rare. People used to distrust whether they were more loyal to the US or to Rome). Come to think about it, what's to stop a weird cult who call themselves Christians from insisting that public money should be used to promote *their* religion in local schools? How do we define which religions are allowed to be promoted? Do we set up a federal register of "officially" allowed religions and sects?

People who say they are lobbying for a "Christian" agenda are being disenguous. They are lobbying for the agenda of their specific church. The Roman Catholic agenda is not the same as the Protestant. The Mormon agenda is not the same as the Southern Baptist. The agenda of moderate Christians who support abortion, evolution etc. is totally different from the agenda of fundamentalists. Which one is the "Christian" agenda? Which is the "true" Church? The one which has the largest population? Isn't it then a tyranny of the majority?

I bet you anything that if the "Christian" groups manage to achieve their agenda on things they do generally agree on in public schools, the next thing that will happen is that public schools will explode into sectarian conflict. The Roman Catholics will insist that the schools will be anti-death penalty. The protestants will insist that they be pro-Death penalty. The Mormons will try to push whatever their beliefs are into public schools in Utah, leading to an outcry from both Roman Catholics and Protestants who consider Mormons to be a heretical cult. The Proestants will then start a smear campaign against the Roman Catholics, spreading rumours that they want the government to back worship of the virgin Mary in public schools in heavily Roman Catholic areas and to talk about loyalty to the Vatican (conflicting with loyalty to the US).

Meanwhile areas with large Islamic/Russian/Greek populations, insist that public schools in their areas should push whatever religion is popular amongst their groups. Then the Islamists will get into an argument between Shi'ites and Sunnis. Then maybe different Sunni sects. Then the Roman Catholic/Protestant people living in those areas will protest that why should their money be spent on promoting an Islamic/Russian/Greek agenda esp. the Islamic agenda. In which point the argument will devolve into one over which religion/sect should have control over public monies in which school. Should it be decided on a local level? State level? Federal level?

At this point moderate Christians will be alarmed that their money is being used to push a fundamentalist agenda in public schools to their kids.

At this point the only reasonable thing to do is to simply segragate public schools along sectarian lines. Meanwhile everyone will be protesting that their tax moneys are being used to promote Roman Catholic/Southern Baptist/Mormon/Islamic/Russian Orthodox Church/whatver religion/sect is not yours agenda and how that isn't damn fair. And how come X religion is getting more money than mine? Religions left off the "official" list will declare they are being discriminated against. Moderate Christians will be pissed off with everyone because they don't want their kids to be taught whatever religion forms a majority in their area.

The point is the founding fathers saw how the religious wars in Europe started (between different Christian sects no less) and wanted none of that in the US. They saw the most sensible solution was, if you want your kids to be taught a specific religious agenda, you can pay for it yourself.

 

[YNCS]

Okay, so the church and state are separate, but does this mean that the Christians can't be considered a special interest group under the same rules as the Aetheists and the Homosexuals? Don't we have the right to stand up for what we believe in? If the Aetheists can lobby for their agenda, and the Homosexuals can lobby for their agenda, can't we Christians do the same?

One thing I find quite annoying is the Christians who claim they're victims of a great, anti-Christian conspiracy. Over 80% of all Americans call themselves Christians and over 40% attend church regularly (once per month or more frequently). It would appear the anti-Christian conspiracy is failing miserably in the U.S.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

Christianity only has political power when there is significant unity in regards to an issue. The "Christian" faiths that have allowed Homosexuals to be ministers have seen some of their members split off towards less liberal values. But the portions of those faiths, united with the groups that have not wavered on their stance on this issue have had enough clout to be a significant voice in this debate. On issues like the Death Penalty, there is not sufficient unity, therefore they don't have as much of a voice.

Religion is kept out of school, but not out of the lives of the people. Those who choose to believe and actually try to live the teachings can have a loud voice when they need to...

 

[Fruit-Smack]

Even if you're a Christian, you still can't live by the Bible.
Jesus saves.
Drugs kill.