It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should people who quote the bible as legitimate political argument be taken seriously?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:50 PM
The bible is kind of like aesops fables, stories but with a deeper meaning.
If people get good out of the bible, i don't knock it, but to quote it as the word of god or as a historical document is ludicrous and irrational.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by spines

Neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights say that a government official cannot be guided by his or her religious beliefs when performing their duties. They cannot be prevented from making their choices based upon those beliefs.

The phrase 'freedom from religion' never appears in the Constitution.

Again, the Constitution (specifically the 1st amendment) only prevents the establishment of a state religion and provides for freedom of religion. It does not prevent the active practice of religion by government officials, nor does it prevent them from being guided by principles of that religion, or even making decisions on that basis.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by vor78]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:22 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
What is worst to strip people in politics from using their bias to influence their version and interpretation of religious views or to allow this self righteous appointees to dictate what by law should be the way to worship religion.

To tell the truth this a very dangerous precedent and either way somebody or groups in the population are going to be oppressed.

Neither one is better or worse. Its just reality in a democratic government. There are a great many issues where a significant group of people feel that they are having their rights stepped on by what someone else believes. Smokers and gun owners are two examples.

IMO, this is why we need to go back to the original intent of the Constitution where the states had far more power to make their own laws than they do now. It would make it much easier to keep everyone happy, allowing states to make laws based upon the beliefs of their individual populations. Instead, we get a one-size-fits-no-one federal government system passing laws that virtually everyone hates.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by spines
Should people who quote the bible as a basis for political argument, be taken seriously?

The short answer is no, but for the sake of argument:

When I refer to quoting, it is in regards to: x is evil because bible passage z says so.

The ‘moral issues’, which were so touted as being a cornerstone for the republican party’s absolute majority of government until recently, are not political issues. They are social issues which are only issues because religion says they are (i.e.: gay’s right to marriage).

(I feel it is important to clarify that the current republican mainstream of neo-con talking heads is a relatively recent phenomenon. The same could be said for the Democratic Party as well, albeit with different players)

Using the word ‘moral’, doesn’t allow you to push religious views as policy. In example:

insisting that the definition of marriage is y; y states that gays can not marry; and therefore, gays can not marry, is a pitiful attempt to front a non-religious facet to the argument. This is an insulting attempt to camouflage the true [religious] nature of the argument: “The bible says so”.

If this was a legitimate argument, then the very women pushing it (neo-cons such as Anne Coulter) are going to have to give up that right to vote on it…

…oh wait, it’s not a legitimate argument after all. Of course we change the definitions as we go; it’s called growing up. Or are blacks still not counted as a whole people?

Bigotry bread by religion is bigotry just the same. Why do we allow it to be argued as a matter religious fact and take it seriously? The fact that is was written in an old religious text gives it no bearing on political debate...

The second it becomes clear –although it is often not hidden at all—that a religious text is the basis for a political policys argument, the offending individual(s) should be shuffled out the door and put back on the pulpit.

You want to openly support and encourage bigotry? Fine. But don’t bring your religion into the political realm.

The separation of church and state has recently been walked all over, from the local level to the president himself.

You do realize that the reason our rights were held as sacrosanct by the founding fathers is that they considered them to rights GIVEN TO THEM BY GOD, right?

My personal objection to "gay marriage" is in using the word marriage. By it's very definition, the word "marriage" implies at least 2 people of the opposite sex. Having "gay marriage" is like saying you have "dehydrated water". The very definition of the words preclude the thing.

Read the writings of the founding fathers if you think religion has no place in politics. They will disagree with you. The "seperation of church and state" is a ONE WAY DOOR. That is, religion is (or rather, used to be) free to interfere with politics, but politics was prevented from interfering with religion.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in