Should marriage be seen for what it is, a religious ceremony, and not need recognition from the government? Should we let our leaders legislate our morality by having the ability to make our laws, especially when they all have their own problems and they all claim to be Christians?
2007-09-27 05:07:59 · 28 answers · asked by Ktcyan 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe in the separation of church and state, but also realize that the country was founded on Christian values. You put three questions into one, so I will answer one by one.
1. Would I vote for an Atheist. Absolutely, if he or she was the best candidate then it wouldn't really matter. I do not believe that religious affiliation and competence go hand in hand.
2. Should marriage be seen as a religious ceremony,not needed for government recognition? I'm not quite sure about this one. I agree that marriage is a spiritual matter that the government should not endorse or deny, but there is also an advantage to supporting a two income family.
3. Should we let our leaders legislate our morality ? I do not believe so, but that is what these people do. We give them so much power and they are bound to interject there own beliefs, its human nature.
2007-09-27 05:17:10 · answer #1 · answered by Big Dave 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think, in a country founded on a basis of the separation of church and state, an atheist candidate should be ideal.
But our democracy does not work that way. When approx. 90% of the population believes in a God/religion, an atheist candidate doesn't stand a chance.
People relate religion to morality for some unsubstantiated reason.
Marriage is seen as a religious ceremony, but the government also gives tax breaks to married people. So it does receive recognition from the government, and anyone who is married appreciates it.
As far as our leaders legisating morality through laws, I am not sure that there is a better way.
Laws have to be passed one way or another, otherwise we just have anarchy. Besides, everyone has problems, and another system of legislation wouldn't change that.
They aren't all Christian either, Lieberman is a Jew.
2007-09-27 05:31:12 · answer #2 · answered by Cold Hard Fact 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sort of, to the first question. I believe that the expression "a wall of separation between church and state" is a relevant phrase when attempting to understand the meaning of the first religion clause of the First Amendment. I do not interpret that phrase the same you do, perhaps, but I do believe that the phrase has relevance.
Yes, I might vote for anybody irregardless of their belief -- or lack thereof.
No, marriage is, as it always has been, a ceremony that both religion and government recognize.
Yes, our leaders should legislate our morality -- theirs and that of their constituents. If you do not want your legislate to do that, then you let your legislator know how you feel. But the rest of us want for morality to be relevant to how they make law. And do not let the occasional display of hypocrisy from some leaders ("they all have their own problems ...") be a reason to become so cynical that you talk as if morality ought to be ignored. The problem of some leaders not practicing what they preach is a recognition of the problem in what they are practicing, not as a problem in what they are preaching.
2007-09-27 05:17:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Separation of church and state is good, of course I'd vote for an atheist. Marriage is a Christian sacrament, so I don't see how the state has any right to redefine it. They can create a separate form of marriage for gays if they feel the need, just don't call it marriage! All laws concern morality, murder being viewed as a crime could just as easily have been "If you murder someone, they deserved it".
Not all politicians claim to be Christians, and being a Christian won't make you absolutely moral. Every human struggles at being moral, it's human nature. I think it's unfair to target Christians for being immoral when we all strive to be moral and occasionally slip. Why should Christians be held to higher moral standards when this problem is systemic across all people?
2007-09-27 05:26:55 · answer #4 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Marriage is not wholy religious. If it were, then ministers would not have to be certified by the state. Marriage is for social/gov't reasons as much as religious. There are essentially two weddings going on in a religious wedding ceremony, one for God and one for the state.
No, leaders have no right to legislate morality. You cannot force your morals on another person. Even if they live by them you have not made them a moral person, youve just taken away their freedom to choose to do the right thing. Christians believe God gave people free will, why then do they promote gov't taking it away?
Yes, I am a bit supported of the separation, it is one of the most fundamental aspects of our country and our freedom. Without it we turn into a theocracy-we're already headed that way.
And yes, Id vote for an atheist for any office, but only if he's the best person for the job. Were I to ever run for office I do not think that my being an atheist should really have any bearing on the matter.
2007-09-27 05:24:48 · answer #5 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I believe in the separation of church and state, because it's established by the First Amendment and its existence is confirmed by the Treaty of Tripoli. Also, not all marriages are religious ceremonies. (There are civil ceremonies.) Regarding the legislation of morality, I do think that some bad deeds should be illegal. (Murder and theft automatically come to mind.) That being said, though, I don't think that the government belongs in the bedrooms of Americans. And yes, I would vote for an atheist if I liked his/her ideas. A candidate's religious affiliation (or lack thereof) isn't important to me just as long as he/she has no plans to force his/her ideas down our throats.
2007-09-27 05:13:29 · answer #6 · answered by tangerine 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes and yes. And marriage should not be recognized by the government. It seems to have given religious people an inflated sense of self-entitlement. They seem to think they should be rewarded for breeding or just for being in a relation where they might breed.
2007-09-27 05:46:23 · answer #7 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It may never have appeared in our Constitution, but Thomas Jefferson made his intent clear.
Marriage can be either a religious or a civil ceremony. I believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry, just as man-woman couples do.
And considering I'm agnostic, I would be delighted to be able to cast my vote for a nontheist.
2007-09-27 05:16:58 · answer #8 · answered by VeggieTart -- Let's Go Caps! 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Uhh, that's the start of the modern societies. Renaissance blah blah....
Or else we talk about Iran.
I would never vote for a religious man, because even if he is, I shouldn't know it, it should be kept a secret.
To vote for an atheist...I've done it already many times.
2007-09-27 05:17:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I believe one's religion should be a personal matter - between him or her and his or her god. I believe everyone is free to practice whatever religion they want, and we're also free to avoid religion, and shouldn't have forced prayer and other religious rites forced upon us.
Marriage is both a religious and a civil ceremony, more of one than the other depending on where and how it's performed. It is a legal contract, and seems less religous than you paint it to be.
Nobody should be legislating morality, especially hypocrites.
2007-09-27 05:19:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋