Skip to main content

View Diary: The encroachment of religion on our secular government (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is confusion here... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    The founders did nto want to create a government-ordered religion or absence of religion. The effort was to prevent society from forcing folks to go against their religious beliefs. By imposing social values on someone who does not follow them in their religion, is the same as forcing  a religion (social and moral values) on them.

    The examples of murder, etc. as accepted as crime by everyone does not equate with contraception, which is not accepted by everyone.

    This is not a black and white issue, but reveals how folks want to impose their "values" on others - much like the people in a California town who want to ban smoking on your own property, outside your house.

    •  Strongly disagree (8+ / 0-)

      Your argument that "The examples of murder, etc. as accepted as crime by everyone does not equate with contraception, which is not accepted by everyone."

      If laws only apply when "Accepted by everyone," then they never will apply.

      My first quote from the Supreme Court case Reynolds v. US, on the Mormon practice of polygamy, completely refutes your assertion.  

    •  Freedom.. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, eps62, skrekk

      Freedom OF religion includes freedom FROM religion.
      Some people had some serious reservations about the JFK presidency, which is why he made the speech quoted in the above article. And as we know, his governance did not bow to the church.
      Santorum WANTS his religious views to be the basis for government. Nevermind that there are millions who don't share his religion.
      Santorum is in with the Neo-Cons who fantasize that they are fighting another installment of The Crusades in the middle east. That's just insane, IMO. If he gets elected we are headed straight for Iran, do not pass go, do not collect $200.......

      •  The sheer audacity of this mindset--that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orlbucfan, eps62

        "the American Public" wants Rick Santorum's particular religious views to be an intregal part of governing this country just drives me mad.

        I hope he keeps it up, though.  The more he talks, the crazier he sounds.  And his skin can be "gotten under."  I've seen flashes of it, and if someone can do it on live television, it will be interesting to watch.

        His silence says everything we need to know.

        by livjack on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 10:34:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sanctomoron is not the issue... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eps62

        He is just as wrong to try and force his religious views on others as others are to force their secular views on him.

        •  No one is forcing their secular views on Santorum, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          adrianrf

          all they're saying is that he can't use our secular government to enforce his Catholic Canon law.   For example, Santorum wants the government to treat some Americans as second class citizens simply because they don't follow the tenets of his faith.

    •  Conscientious Objector status (0+ / 0-)

      which grants exemption from - or accommodation to - religious scruples is an example.

      Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

      by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 10:12:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, skrekk
      The founders did nto want to create a government-ordered religion or absence of religion. The effort was to prevent society from forcing folks to go against their religious beliefs. By imposing social values on someone who does not follow them in their religion, is the same as forcing  a religion (social and moral values) on them.
      The founders clearly saw a division between democratically-created legislation of social values/natural law and the mysterious "revealed" creeds and dogmas of organized religion. This is evident in virtually any discussion of the topic by the founders. Using "the founders" as an obscuring shibboleth to confuse the two is dishonest.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 10:26:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site