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.

[DavidLeon]

I have mixed feelings on this subject. First I should give some personal information that is relevant to my position. I'm a Bible believer who abandoned a homosexual lifestyle due to my beliefs. As a former atheist I was heavily influenced by the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) since they had provided literature to family which I implemented in my study which led me to become a believer. I am not, however, nor have I ever been nor will I ever be a part of any organized religion, including the Watchtower.

This puts me in a unique position. An apolitical position but with a personal history of homosexuality. I am a non practicing or, if you will, inactive, homosexual.

The separation of church and state is very important to me. I believe that there should be total unapologetic separation in this case. No prayer in school, no nativity scene or 10 commandments at the courthouse, no mention of God on money or pledge of allegiance. No tax exemptions et cetera, and on the part of Christians, no meddling in worldly affairs; no political or legislative influence, no voting, no fighting in wars et cetera.

This is from the perspective of a believer, for the best interest of the teachings and beliefs of the Bible, which is an example to us (believers) on how to conduct ourselves. Jesus was no part of the world and said his followers should imitate him in this regard. Having said that, and keeping in mind that my interpretation is my personal responsibility and subject to error just as anyone else's interpretation is, I would add the reasons for my aforementioned mixed feelings.

Very simply put, aside from the Bible, what reason could anyone give for Christians not being allowed to influence the society they live in through political and legislative means any more than anyone else?

Separation of church and state ought to be just that. The Christian should be allowed to incorporate prohibitions within their congregations as they see fit so long as they are within the law, so long as those laws do not conflict with God's law, but even that wouldn't put them in a position of self appointed moral police of the earth. Again, this is all a fairly pointless exercise on my part because it's my own personal opinion, which is all my position as an apolitical citizen will allow.

[DavidLeon]

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.

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.

Two problems I have with this are 1) What exactly is a free democracy and 2) a democracy (ideally) establishes the rights of a majority whereas a republic (ideally) protects the rights of an individual without recourse of group identity. In other words, in a democracy the rights of the majority are protected and in a republic the rights of all are protected. In a democracy where Muslim or Christian are the majority the atheist is subjected to the possible repression of the majority whereas in a republic they would have equal rights.