[newtome]

I am sure that some Law Makers decided that killing wasn't something they wanted in society.

The religious nuts also say "Thou shalt not kill"

Does that make the laws regarding killing "religious" and therefore they should be repealed??

Most western societies were formed on the backdrop of religious morals, or however you want to describe it. Societies change over time. Luckily the Amish don't have followers in the Government or you wouldn't have a forum on which to put your point of view, or a car, tain or bus to get to work, or a lift to climb that building.

But why stop with the Amish. China do plenty of censoring of ideas and they aren't even religious.

Politics is about getting a message across to the people. Some of the best political speaches are almost evangelical. The politicians preach to the people, appealing for the understanding of the voters, asking voters to put faith in their vision of the future.

If you want less of one type of politician and more of another I suggest you do a better job of selling your message. After all, aren't voters often called followers just like those who follow Jesus. In political terms this is called democracy.

How many people are following you?

[Eyedears]

So, OP, it's OK for the likes of MLK to use all kinds of "Biblical" arguments, but not for Conservatives (or are you saying that Blacks have some sort of special privileges in this regard)? And under the 3rd Reich, the pastors and priests who didn't speak up are now condemned for complicity, yet you no doubt are amongst the admirers of Bonhoeffer et al.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Quett To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The difference is that churches generally can't lock you up in jail or shoot you in the head for breaking their laws. You are free to ignore what churches tell you, you aren't really free to ignore the guys at your door with guns and badges.

Hear, hear! That sums it up.

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This has nothing to do with minorities fairing [sic---love that pun!] better under the current system or the one I suggest. My point is that religion, Christianity in particular, has proven that it does not want to abide by the Constitution and maintain the separation of church and state as intended.

First, carefully review the documents: the constitutional concern is for making sure that your and my religious rights are protected from the State's meddling; it is not a recipe for making secularism the regnant (stealth) state religion.

Secondly, "Christianity" in the US is very diverse: you've got the extremely Leftist mainline "churches;" the RCC, which is a curious mix of anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, but pro-Socialist economics; then there are the "moderates" (most of the Reformed) who don't believe that the church is called to be involved in politics in any way (so they wouldn't support MLK, but also not Falwell, either), and then there are churches who believe that Christ's calling His disciples to be salt and light applies to all domains of life, not just the private sphere. And contrary to your perceptions, they think that the Leftists are the ones who've been systematically undermining the true meaning/application of the Constitution.

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They pay taxes, why shouldn't they have a voice?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fairness speaking.

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Heh, they outnumber people like you and me.

That's debatable, but even if it were true, the fact remains that all the major organs of influence (ed. system, media [and by that I mean TV, movies, publishing houses, major newspapers, music industry], judiciary, mainline churches, etc.) are dominated by those with your persuasion, OP. In Russia, the Bolsheviks were a minority, but look at the massive extent of their slaughterings and tortures of innocents. It is not numbers of bodies that control the outcome of politics, it's money and influence.

Consider also that whenever a gov't. condemns something, it is exercising an implicit theology (read Spinoza's treatise on politics and theology for more on that). No government is "value-free." When you say "X is execrable and Y is desirable," or "X is wrong and Y is right," you are working from a set of presuppositions, which in turn are part of a paradigm, which is ultimately part of a certain type of cosmology.

	The Perennial Question: not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" (David Mamet) my emphasis

The fact that there are disagreements on proper Constitutional interpretation indicates that it is not a self-interpreting document; the interpretation depends on a pre-existing structure of belief (the Soviet constitution wasn't that bad a document, but the people who supposedly ruled by that document...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
).

Which of course then brings us to the Ultimate Question: which set of beliefs is The Right One? If you say there is no such thing, then you're basically saying, might is right: whoever has power at any given moment has the authority to determine what is right and wrong. In that case, though, you can't condemn those who, for example, discriminate against non-Whites, or persecute Jews or kill homosexuals. Only if there are Absolutes can we say defnitively that something is categorically right or wrong.

[raimius]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And, actually, the US government can't modify the tax status; additionally, campaign contributions can't be limited, in any effective manner in the post-Citizens United world.

What is preventing the Congress from modifying the US tax code? It is one of their powers, as explicitly stated in the US Constitution.

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Someone, please point out to me where I suggested banning religion; suggested that they no longer be able to congregate; suggested that they can't believe whatever their Sky Daddy tells them to.

When you remove the one part of the highest law of the land that prohibits those things, you open up a lot of possibilities. You need to remember that it took years of legal fighting before the the right to keep arms was even acknowledged as a right AT ALL...even when the Constitution says that right "shall not be infringed." People read between the lines. When you say you want to "Rescind the Freedom of Religion," that implies a lot of things!

Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're misreading my point. I'm not banning religion; I'm saying that religion ought not serve a special and protected place in our legal system, which it currently does. I haven't suggesting shutting down a single church, or telling anyone what they can or cannot choose to believe. What I am suggesting is that collectively Christians have broken the implicit agreement of the First Amendment - that there ought to be a wall between the church and state; the state doesn't tell the church what to do, and vice versa. My solution is fine, if they don't want to abide by that, then the government doesn't have to. Strip them of any special protections based on their religion, and pass laws to specifically limit their ability to attempt to legislate Christian (or any other religious) morality.

You are suggesting that freedom of religion no longer be protected and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" be struck out of US law. What do you think will happen?!
I think you misrepresent the situation. "Christianity" is not telling the state what to do. "Christianity" can barely figure out what "Christianity" should do, considering the large number of various denominations. Large numbers of people who vote and write to their representatives are telling the state what to do. When large groups of people believe in something, their opinions will reflect that belief. THAT is a large part of the reason FOR the 1st Amendment. We should not want that majority to crush the rights of a minority. When Congress decides to write legislation as a theocratic organization, it will be the First Amendment that will force the Supreme Court to find that law unconstitutional.

The "wall" was from Jefferson's private letters. It was not part of the Bill of Rights. Now, I, along with many others, think it is a good idea. However, it does not hold the force of law.

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So without special allowances the Christian church will be "stomped out"?

Without specific protections, any religion faces the very real possibility of being abused by those wielding the power of government.

[plotthickens]

	Originally Posted by raimius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Without specific protections, any religion faces the very real possibility of being abused by those wielding the power of government.

Affirmative Action for religion.

[curiousgeorge01]

I didn't read through this whole thing but I feel like paleoeco's problem is more with religion influencing politics rather than with religion itself.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Affirmative Action for religion.

The constitution does explicitly ban slavery (13th Amendment). Just as it explicitly protects religious freedom (1st Amendment).