government collecting fees for Focus on the Family - Page 5

OKgrannie · 03-30-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Are people also allowed to choose if they accept homosexuals, or homosexual marriage, or whether their children should go to school, or if global warming is a reality, or if seat belts should be mandatory, or if universal health care should be suppressed in favour of big insurance companies?

People are allowed to choose if they accept homosexuals or homosexual marriage in their own lives, but they aren't allowed to dictate their choices to the rest of society. They may choose to send their children to public school, private school, or homeschool, so long as the children are educated. Global warming is not a "choice". Society decides whether seat belts should be mandatory or if universal health care should be offered by government on the basis of what is considered best for society by a majority of the populace.

Quote:

Why do you think that religion should be subordinated to all these other special interest groups?

Freedom of conscience is not a matter for majority vote. The other items are. BTW, religion is not "subordinated" to other special interest groups. Religion is a matter for the individual, not the government.

garysher · 03-31-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

People are allowed to choose if they accept homosexuals or homosexual marriage in their own lives, but they aren't allowed to dictate their choices to the rest of society. They may choose to send their children to public school, private school, or homeschool, so long as the children are educated. Global warming is not a "choice". Society decides whether seat belts should be mandatory or if universal health care should be offered by government on the basis of what is considered best for society by a majority of the populace.

"Society" decides about seat belts and health care but is not allowed to decide if they want a state religion, or whether some of their taxes should go to support a religion?

Freedom of conscience is not a matter for majority vote. The other items are. BTW, religion is not "subordinated" to other special interest groups. Religion is a matter for the individual, not the government.

You're even slower than I thought

OKgrannie · 03-31-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

[quote=garysher;166548]"Society" decides about seat belts and health care but is not allowed to decide if they want a state religion, or whether some of their taxes should go to support a religion?

Exactly. A "state religion" or paying taxes to support a religion would interfere with an individual's freedom of conscience. Some things are matters for a majority vote, others things are not.

Quote:

You're even slower than I thought

Haven't seen any evidence here that you're qualified to judge.

garysher · 03-31-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Exactly. A "state religion" or paying taxes to support a religion would interfere with an individual's freedom of conscience. Some things are matters for a majority vote, others things are not.

Exactly.

And by making religion one of those "things" on which a majority view is irrelevant, you have effectively subordinated it compared to almost every other special interest.

Has the penny dropped yet?

Haven't seen any evidence here that you're qualified to judge.

Which is yet further proof of how slow you are.

OKgrannie · 03-31-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Which is yet further proof of how slow you are.

Exactly.

And by making religion one of those "things" on which a majority view is irrelevant, you have effectively subordinated it compared to almost every other special interest.

Making religion one of those things on which a majority view is irrelevant allows the individual to assign to religion whatever level of importance he/she chooses. OTOH, should government get involved in promoting or suppressing religion, it could be "subordinated" or perhaps "elevated" as officials chose, but individual freedom of conscience would disappear.

garysher · 03-31-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Making religion one of those things on which a majority view is irrelevant allows the individual to assign to religion whatever level of importance he/she chooses.

Apparently the individual is prevented from assigning their personal level of importance to other issues, such as gun availability or homosexual marriage. Especially in Massachussetts.

OTOH, should government get involved in promoting or suppressing religion, it could be "subordinated" or perhaps "elevated" as officials chose, but individual freedom of conscience would disappear.

Why?

Many countries have state religions but still permit complete freedom of religion.

Even Iraq has always allowed Christians to worship freely. Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz was a coptic Christian.

HM Queen Elizabeth is Head of state and Head of the Church of England yet complete freedom of religion has existed in Britain for centuries.

Infact there are several muslims in both Houses of Parlaiment.

How many muslims are there in the US Senate?

OKgrannie · 04-01-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie (government collecting fees for Focus on the Family)

Making religion one of those things on which a majority view is irrelevant allows the individual to assign to religion whatever level of importance he/she chooses.

Apparently the individual is prevented from assigning their personal level of importance to other issues, such as gun availability or homosexual marriage. Especially in Massachussetts.

An individual can assign his/her personal level of importance to other issues, but that level of importance is not necessarily the same as the whole of society. The whole of society doesn't mess with the level of importance of religion, it is neither supported nor suppressed by society.

Quote:

Why?

Quote:

Many countries have state religions but still permit complete freedom of religion.
Even Iraq has always allowed Christians to worship freely. Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz was a coptic Christian.
HM Queen Elizabeth is Head of state and Head of the Church of England yet complete freedom of religion has existed in Britain for centuries.
Infact there are several muslims in both Houses of Parlaiment.
How many muslims are there in the US Senate?

A state religion is supported by the state, meaning citizens pay taxes to support that religion. There is no freedom of conscience when you must pay to support a religion in which you may or may not believe. The so-called "complete freedom of religion" could disappear in an instant if the state is officially a "religion." Our constitution states that "no religious test for office" shall disqualify anyone from serving, so why would we even make note of what religion an elected official supports?

garysher · 04-01-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

An individual can assign his/her personal level of importance to other issues, but that level of importance is not necessarily the same as the whole of society. The whole of society doesn't mess with the level of importance of religion, it is neither supported nor suppressed by society.

Again, you are agreeing with me that religion takes second place to any other special interest group

A state religion is supported by the state, meaning citizens pay taxes to support that religion. There is no freedom of conscience when you must pay to support a religion in which you may or may not believe.

Nonsense. There are many things which you don't support but are obliged to support through taxation.

The so-called "complete freedom of religion" could disappear in an instant if the state is officially a "religion." Our constitution states that "no religious test for office" shall disqualify anyone from serving, so why would we even make note of what religion an elected official supports?

There is "no religious test for office" for the House of Lords either.

The difference is that there are Muslim Lords in the UK, a country which you would define as a theocracy, yet there are no Muslim Senators in the US which brags about its religious freedom and its separation of church and state!

Which blows a gaping hole through your entire argument.

waitingtables · 04-01-2008, 12:06 PM

Here is a quote from Sandra Day O'Connor:

Separation of Church and State

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

garysher · 04-01-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

Here is a quote from Sandra Day O'Connor:

Separation of Church and State

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the Ten Commandments ruling, June 27, 2005

That whole debacle about the Ten Commandments was a good example of how petty and wasteful the separation debate has become.

Rather disappointing that a former Supreme Court Justice would make such an unsubstantiated, subjective, self-congratulatory and populist statement

But then what else would we expect from an American.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode