Is it right for Christians to legislate biblical morality for a nation?

Question

Officials who vote for homosexual rights do so because that position is consistent with their own morality. Their vote imposes their conception of morality on everyone else, whether they agree or disagree.

Answer 1

We have two separate issues in America.

First, the nation was defined and started via Christian values.

Secondly, the liberal judges took that away with the separation of church and state, just because of one atheist who rocked the boat. This means our expression of Christian values at a government facility is actually against the law.

Answer 2

Like it or not this country was found on christian principles and has christianity all through the founding documents. Albeit from different religions all the founding father of this nation were christian and they agreed it would be wrong for the government to dictate a national religion, but other than that anything regarding religion is fair game, especially if the majority of people consider themselves christian and as a people don't want such a satanic ritual such as gay marriage to be a part of their country. Life is based on a man and a woman being married and procreating not two guys doing each other in the but or two women licking each other (although that does turn me on). Religion or not Nature requires male/female copulation for our species to survive, so even without religion a majority would be against an act that would eventually cause the extinction of the human race if it became commonplace.

Amendment I
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.
Now can any of who that cited seperation of curch and state show me where it is in the first amendment? Looks like it says congress will not establish a religion and that they will not prohibit our free exercise of religion. Seperation of church and state would prohibit the free exercise there of. And no you will nto find those words or any words implying that in the rest of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or The federalist Papers, which are the three founding documents of this country. The term came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a minister that was afraid of the way the constituiton was worded and Jefferson was trying to make the minister understand that government can't enact religion nor take away from it in any way shape or form, including all the things that the ACLU has gotten the Supreme Court to do over the years. this letter was circulated and misunderstood and instead of going back to the constituiton we somehow made that letter the text of the first amendment. Get a clue before you mislead others into your nrainwashed way of thinking.

Answer 3

Every law ever written, regardless of where in the world, is all derivatives of various religious ideas. Basically, every law in America can be traced back to the Ten Commandments. I'm not condoning that we live as it were in the old testament, nor am I condemning it either. I actually think that we need to enforce moral values in order to keep this country from being further corrupted and twisted.

For example, in the state I live in, there are only three laws on the books concerning adultery. That fault will not be taken into consideration for the division of property. The second being that if fault is found (i.e. adultery) in the divorce, that the party at fault shall not be awarded alimony. The third being that any child born after the alleged affair is subject to paternity tests to determine the parents of that child.

If there were laws stating that any person who commits adultery and is legally married, will lose all and any claims for child support, property distribution settlements, whatever. I think there will be a wide eye awakening when it comes to adulterous spouses. Also if there were more strict laws on the books concerning other aspects of moral values, there would be less problems in this world.

Answer 4

i do no longer think of so. yet see, the final public of the folk interior the final public of the states decide for the candidate that have self belief that their faith's morality is God's commandment to absolutely everyone (observe absolutely everyone devoid of exceptions). as a result the elected candidate is going directly to legislate,what he believes is God's commandment,to each and all the folk he controls (which interior the case of this u . s . isn't constrained to this u . s .) and says it is biblical morality and the inspiration of our u . s .. Then each and every christian identifies with him and not in any respect question if what he's doing is surely biblical, yet endorses it and have something of the rustic feeling like christians legislate biblical morality for the rustic!!! Now I hardly have self belief it is biblical morality to start with. however the final public of the folk chosen it, and that's what makes a democracy.

Answer 5

I don't go along with Christianity being the standard for laws but to say that most laws shouldn't/don't have origins in religion would be even more false.

There have to be standards of acceptable behaviour. Where are you going to draw the line? If you want to marry your German Shepard Dog should you be allowed to? After all you see nothing wrong with it? So why not?

My response is because it's just plain wrong. I'm not an advocate of the if it feels good do it as basis of morality. I could go scriptural but I won't. Even if your dog likes it (you can tell by the way she wags her tail) and you do to won't change my mind. Even if you "have proof" it's genetic.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. No single religion should be defining morality or codes of behavior. That's the entire purposes of the constitutional mandate that government "shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion".

{EDIT}

You misunderstand the two positions on homosexual rights.

The vast majority of politicians who support discrimination do so out of religious grounds, because their religions says homosexuality is immoral. That's improperly imposing religious doctrine on secular law.

Those who oppose discrimination do so because they oppose discrimination. Most are not making a moral comment one way or the other. They are saying that there is no valid non-religious reason to discriminate against people in their personal relationships, and that religious grounds are not a valid reason to enact secular law.

That's the boggling thing about the pro-discrimination argument. They are trying to claim that eliminating discrimination is somehow imposing beliefs that are contrary to their own. What they (and apparently you) don't understand is that nobody is telling you what to like or dislike, or what to participate in or not.

Those who oppose discrimination are just objecting to the government imposing religious doctrine as a matter of law. And because the govt should not be enforcing religious values, the govt must remain neutral -- which means no discrimination.

Answer 7

That depends on what you mean by Biblical morality. The great Common Law of England was rooted in Christian ethic and so is the Constitution of the united States.

Answer 8

A nation's "morality" should be determined by general consensus of the nation's people. In other words, rules/laws concerning "moral" issues should be put to a vote and enacted only after receiving approval from a majority of voters.

As far as Christians are concerned, it is okay for them to legislate "moral" issues, but they should not become laws for the nation without the approval of the majority.

Answer 9

What do you think Religious Leaders, do with Non-Christian people....they push their views based on their morality. Where homosexuality is concerned, it shouldnt matter what the laws are, if you dont want to engage in homosexuality, then dont, but dont stop other people from doing what they think is morally right.

Morality is a very individual thing. If you judge someone to be immoral, does that mean that the person is immoral, or is your idea of morality different to theirs?

Hitler, regardless of what people thought of him, thought he was a moral man. He wanted to make the perfect race, so he went about it in the way he thought was right. Doesnt make it right, but in his mind he was doing the right thing.

No-one thinks of themselves as immoral. I do things I think are right for me...I dont consider I am an immoral person, but I am sure someone would disagree with me because I believe in pre-marital sex. People have good reasons to do/say what they do and it is all based on their own ideas of morality.

The issue of morality raises a lot of questions. I suggest you look at the word in a philosophical sense and see that no body sets out to be immoral deliberately. Unless of course that person is a psychopath, but even then, the issue of morality doesnt even come into it because a psychopath lacks feelings of any kind, therefore morality is only a word to him/her.

God gave us free Will, to have free Will we have to be able to have logical thoughts....we have to learn to decide what is right for us, therefore it doesnt matter what the government imposes, we can agree or we can disagree, but I dont think it will ever change our own ideas of morality. It took a war and millions of people to be killed to stop Hitler...he had the power at that time, but did it make people believe what he was doing was right? I dont think so. We have free Will, so it doesnt matter what people in power do, it will never change our ideas on our own morality.

The only exception to this are religious people themselves, they dont seem to have free Will, they seem to blindly follow their religious leaders without any kind of individual thought, and if you do have individual thought, then your religious leader would probably exorcise you.

Answer 10

NO! First and foremost, it'd be most un Christlike...Judge not lest ye be judged. Secondly, the Constitution clearly calls for a separation of church and state...How fun was it to be in Merry 'Ol England during the reign of King George?
**
A note to all of those folks that are ignorant of the truth regarding the framing of the U.S. Constitution : Jefferson and Franklin were NOT Christians. They were Deists. (Look it up. You'll, hopefully, learn a new word.) They, being fantastic students of history, and very wise souls, knew full-well, the damage that would ensue should this vast "new world" become a theocracy.