Can most Christians be negotiable...

[bluegreenearth]

When the majority of Christians and non-theists are not debating each other in various forums, their day-to-day discourse is relatively civil and cooperative. This is, in part, because most Christians and non-theists share common goals which require collaboration in order to achieve those goals. However, when it comes to issues involving the separation of church and state, many Christians would like and often attempt to impose their religious doctrines on non-theists through government legislation. Apparently, it is not enough that Christians in America enjoy the freedom to make important decisions for themselves based on their personal religious faith because many of them are actively seeking the freedom to make those personal decisions for everyone else as well.

The theocratic ambitions of many Christians are routinely manifested in the government legislation they support. For example, same-sex couples finally acquired the right to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples but only after a long and unnecessarily difficult legislative battle with the Christian majority in America. Even so, these and other civil rights of the LGBTQ community remain under threat from the Christian majority. Where secular reasons to limit or restrict the rights of people to be married or adopt children can be demonstrated, there is already reasonable government legislation established to limit or restrict marriage and adoption rights in those specific circumstances. However, there is no demonstrable reason to limit or restrict the rights of consenting same-sex adults from receiving marriage benefits or adopting children. In fact, the prohibition of same-sex marriage between consenting adults or their ability to adopt children has not only been demonstrated to detracted from the well-being of most people but has actually led to increased unnecessary harm. Meanwhile, there are only non-demonstrable theological reasons for encouraging such anti-LGBTQ legislation. Despite the strength of their religious convictions, why can't Christian theocrats understand that supporting anti-LGBTQ legislation does not function to maximize well-being and is actually demonstrably harmful to society? Do these Christians realize that rejecting anti-LGBTQ legislation is not the same thing as endorsing the LGBTQ lifestyle but actually functions to support the religious freedoms of everyone including themselves?

Similarly, a woman's right to choose whether she will maintain an unwanted pregnancy within a few weeks of conception is under constant threat from the Christian majority in America. In most circumstances, the only reasons given to oppose the "pro-choice" position are based on non-demonstrable theological claims. Where secular reasons to oppose an abortion can be demonstrated, there is already reasonable government legislation established to limit the abortion option in those specific circumstances. However, there is no demonstrable reason to limit or restrict a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy when the fetus has only existed for less than a few weeks. In fact, the prohibition of these types of abortions has not only been demonstrated to detract from the well-being of most people but has actually led to increased unnecessary harm. Meanwhile, there are only non-demonstrable theological reasons for discouraging family planning in this way. As such, the government cannot and should not endorse legislation that inhibits anyone's reproductive rights based entirely on theological grounds. Nevertheless, we regularly observe Christian theocrats pushing for "pro-life" legislation which would clearly function as an unconstitutional government endorsement of theism over non-theism. Despite the strength of their religious convictions, why can't many of these Christians understand that supporting theologically based "pro-life" legislation does not function to maximize well-being and is actually harmful to society? Do these Christians realize that rejecting "pro-life" legislation is not the same thing as endorsing abortion but actually functions to support the religious freedoms of everyone including themselves?

Note: While I have initiated this new thread, it is my intention for other members of this forum to engage in most of the debate here because there are other things which require most of my attention at the moment. However, I am interested in following the dialogue that will transpire from this topic and will try to post my thoughts when time permits. Thanks in advance for your understanding and patience.

[Divine Insight]

However, when it comes to issues involving the separation of church and state, many Christians would like and often attempt to impose their religious doctrines on non-theists through government legislation.

I highlighted the above words from the OP in bold blue because I think this issue is the greatest mistake that Christian theists make.

They think of laws as being about morality. No doubt because their religion has tied "God's laws" with morality. If you disobey the law you are committing a sin which has been deemed in their religion to be immoral.

So they mistakenly thinks that laws in a free democracy should also be rules of morality. This is absolutely wrong. Laws in a free democracy have absolutely nothing at all to do with moral judgements or concepts of morality.

The laws of a free democracy are supposed to be based on what is best for society as a whole without trampling on the rights of individuals.

Laws in a free democracy are not intended to be used to push our moral values onto fellow citizens.

But many Christian can't seem to understand this. They continue to view laws in a free democracy as being all about moral values.

And that's a large part of the source of the problem right there. Christians think their moral values (or the moral values attributed to their Biblical God) should be put into "Law" just like they are in their Bible. They don't recognize the difference between Biblical laws (which are decrees made by an authoritarian dictator named "God") , versus laws created by humans in a free democracy.

Laws in a free democracy are not supposed to be about morality. They are supposed to be based on what's best for society as a while while preserving the freedom of individual citizens as much as possible.

So the problem stems from the fact that many Christians simply aren't able to recognize the difference between a free democracy and the totalitarian dictatorship of their favor God character.

[Elijah John]

.

What exactly are "bisexual" rights? The "B" in LGBT? Who is advocating for bi-sexual marriage? What would that look like?

Why do you care what a bi-sexual marriage would look like?

Shall we grant approval of marriages by what they look like to outsiders?

One of my points is that there are no legally recognized bi-sexual marraiges. And I don't see anyone advocating for them, so it makes me wonder why the "B" in LGBT rights? Unless we're talking about basic human rights. And a bi-sexual marriage would look like a triad or a quartet. How far do we extend the definition of marriage?

Does heterosexual marriage provide a mother and a father role models for children?

Yes. In many, if not most cases.

Are we not aware of high divorce rates and of single parent households? Almost a quarter of U.S. children under the age of 18 live with one parent and no other adults (23%) www.pewresearch.org

Irrelevant. Many divorced parents still provide the other role model for their children. My father was still an active role in our lives. And there are many other divorced parents (mother or father) who continue to be guiding forces in their children's lives even after the divorce.

If we are actually concerned about children having male and female role models, it might be wise to attend to the primary cause for its lack rather than playing to personal opinions or prejudices.

That's a valid point, but another subject. Can you conceive of other reasons to be concerned about homosexual's adoption other than "personal opinions or prejudices"?

Not saying it should never be done, or that homosexuals cannot be good parents, but only that priority should be given to heterosexual couples, given the desirability of balance in role modeling. All other things being equal, assuming the people in question would be good parents all the way around.

[Divine Insight]

How far do we extend the definition of marriage?

We can extend it as far as we want. Many people would argue that consensual polygamy should be legal. What's wrong with groups of people choosing to live their lives together as a dedicated family?

One potential secular problem with allowing polygamous marriage is that this can potentially allow rich men to hoard all the women leaving the poor men with little left to choose from.

However in reality, that can actually be done without marriage and quite often is done. After all, people can live together in "open relationships" even within the current laws. So in this sense a group of people can live together in a polygamous fashion. The only difference is that they may not get tax breaks offered to married couples.

Non-married people can even deal with inheritance by simple drafting up a will. You can leave ownership of your property to whoever you want. Again, the only problem that arises has to do with taxation. If you leave your estate to someone you aren't married to they may be charged high taxes for the inheritance.

The whole institution of marriage in most current governments is really about TAX LAWS and doesn't really have anything to do with morality at all.

There's nothing in the law that prevents large groups of people from living together. So in terms of the law, marriage has absolutely nothing to do with who you live with. All it has to do with is how you'll pay taxes.

In fact, some people who have broken up and are living with someone else remain legally married to the person they originally married. So marriage has nothing to do with who a person lives with, or has sex with. It's really all about MONEY, not morality.

[William]

[yt][/yt]

Imagine a place humans can potentially be as a social species and then go through the steps necessary to get to that place.

Politics and law are largely responsible for the reason humanity is in its present predicament. What most theists and non-theists have in common - and there is surprisingly a lot that they do have in common - is that they accept without question the role-model of possession and ownership and systems of disparity that these create, chaining their minds to ideas which are shown not to work, but since they have invested all their energy into these systems, they see no option but to continue on with that, and hope things will improve. [Sunk cost fallacy]

The video touches on the idea of a system of parity where the old is replaced by something far more appropriate and workable than the current systems have proved to be.

[1213]

...why can't many of these Christians understand that supporting theologically based "pro-life" legislation does not function to maximize well-being and is actually harmful to society? Do these Christians realize that rejecting "pro-life" legislation is not the same thing as endorsing abortion but actually functions to support the religious freedoms of everyone including themselves?....

For me defending the life of those people who cant do it by themselves is not a religious question. I just think that those who are according to atheists innocent, dont deserve death penalty because of what their parents have done. But, I have no doubt, selling baby body parts is lucrative business and I dont wonder why it is accepted and supported by nany. Perhaps the parents should get the profits for what they have produced?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 14 by 1213]

For me defending the life of those people who cant do it by themselves is not a religious question. I just think that those who are according to atheists innocent, dont deserve death penalty because of what their parents have done.

Countless people desperately want children but have their hopes dashed as a result of miscarriages. Given that up to three quarters of all conceptions fail to come to term without any human intervention, God would appear to be the greatest abortionist of all time. That, or his intelligent design is not so intelligent after all.

[1213]

God would appear to be the greatest abortionist of all time...

The difference is, God can give eternal life. So, if some innocent/righteous baby dies because of God, He can take care of him and the baby can have eternal life with God. In Biblical point of view this life is not all and so death here is not necessary the end. People cant give eternal life, and they dont have right to murder anyone.

[Overcomer]

bluegreenearth wrote:

However, when it comes to issues involving the separation of church and state, many Christians would like and often attempt to impose their religious doctrines on non-theists through government legislation.

Perhaps it would help to understand what the legislation re: church and state means historically. As a history major at a secular university, I was taught that people came to the North American continent to escape religious persecution and to practice their religion freely. The purpose of separating church and state wasn't to keep theists from influencing government. It was to keep government from interfering in religious affairs.

Somewhere along the road, non-theists/atheists have twisted this to make it sound like Christians should have NO influence on government legislation. Implicit in this is the idea that non-theists, on the other hand, should be allowed to influence politics. The idea that a secular worldview is somehow neutral, without biases of its own (it has many, including some very unhealthy ones such as the belief that a baby still in the womb can be murdered with impunity) and should be the ONLY influence on legislation is nonsense.

Here's the thing: You want to shut one group up in favour of another. Where is democracy in action with that? Where is freedom of speech? And what gives you the right to say who should be heard and who shouldn't?

So my question is -- why can't non-theists and atheists be negotiable? Why should they have the right to influence legislation while denying that right to others just because they don't happen to agree with them?

[Zzyzx]

.

So my question is -- why can't non-theists and atheists be negotiable?

What, exactly, would you like to negotiate? List the items.

[Zzyzx]

.

Perhaps it would help to understand what the legislation re: church and state means historically. As a history major at a secular university, I was taught that people came to the North American continent to escape religious persecution and to practice their religion freely.

Does this deny that there were MANY reasons for immigrating to America.

Does this deny that about a third of a million slaves (a third of all immigrants) were brought into the colonies / states? Were they seeking religious freedom?

Immigrants before 1790
Africa 360,000
England 230,000
Scots-Irish 135,000
Germany 103,000
Scotland 48,500
Ireland 8,000
Netherlands 6,000
Wales 4,000
France 3,000
Jewish 1,000
Sweden 1,000
Other 50,000

Total 950,000

The purpose of separating church and state wasn't to keep theists from influencing government. It was to keep government from interfering in religious affairs.

If Theists control the government, they can (if unchecked) interfere with the affairs of competing belief systems, including Non-Theism.

Somewhere along the road, non-theists/atheists have twisted this to make it sound like Christians should have NO influence on government legislation.

Correction: Christian doctrine and dogma should not be infused into legislation. Individual Christians have the right to vote their conscience.

Implicit in this is the idea that non-theists, on the other hand, should be allowed to influence politics.

By what measure are Non-Theists (supposedly) given preferential treatment in politics?

The idea that a secular worldview is somehow neutral, without biases of its own

Has someone in this debate taken that position?

(it has many, including some very unhealthy ones such as the belief that a baby still in the womb can be murdered with impunity)

Correction: Murder is defined as illegal killing. Perhaps it has not sunk in yet that abortion is legal.

and should be the ONLY influence on legislation is nonsense.

Who, exactly, has taken that position? Where is it specified?

Is this just something you imagine or make up in your head?

Here's the thing: You want to shut one group up in favour of another.

Who has taken that position in this debate?

Religionists have long had loud voice in national, state, and local affairs. When they sense that their position of privilege / superiority is threatened, they may feel oppressed. "When accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

Where is democracy in action with that?

Has your right to vote been taken away?

Where is freedom of speech?

Where and how has freedom of speech been infringed?

And what gives you the right to say who should be heard and who shouldn't?

Do you have the right to say who should be heard and who shouldn't?