The absence of "God" from the democratic party platform

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

They all Claim it...in there own words. Still Different views.

and everyone has individuals that have there own interpretation which doesn't jive with the religion.

All religions are practiced by folks who are far from perfect. However, only one religion currently has hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of followers who support the notion of slaughtering innocent women and children.

Our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. In my opinion, those principles are a pretty sure-fire way (though not the only way) to lead a good life, and to help others to lead a good life. If we stick to those principles, we will be OK. If we stray from those principles, we are at risk.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

All religions are practiced by folks who are far from perfect. However, only one religion currently has hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of followers who support the notion of slaughtering innocent women and children.

Our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. In my opinion, those principles are a pretty sure-fire way (though not the only way) to lead a good life, and to help others to lead a good life. If we stick to those principles, we will be OK. If we stray from those principles, we are at risk.

But should our Country's Laws and Policies be driven by a religious principle...or should they be driven by the Contitution, And whether they interfere with the 3 core values of the declaration of Independence........Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

But should our Country's Laws and Policies be driven by a religious principle...or should they be driven by the Contitution, And whether they interfere with the 3 core values of the declaration of Independence.......Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

That's a great, deep, profound question. And I'd say, if the constitution and a religious doctrine are at odds, we have to use the constitution as a guide. I'd hate to see a law that says you have to say the rosary, for example.

Although...there was a time when our laws allowed for slavery and segregation...the people leading the charge against those evil institutions, were motivated by Christianity.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Although...there was a time when our laws allowed for slavery and segregation...the people leading the charge against those evil institutions, were motivated by Christianity.

I believe Christianity has also been used to defend both those institutions as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe Christianity has also been used to defend both those institutions as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, Christianity, as you say, has been USED to defend both institutions. Which is why fundamentals, foundations, principles, especially original ones, must be adhered to, otherwise religions and governments will be "USED" to achieve ends which oppose the original intentions and subvert those original foundations and principles into the very thing that destroys them from within.

This is what progressives, similar to those who bastardized Christianity, have done to the constitution. They have illegitimately "interpreted" it and USED the bastard version to fundamentally transform a federal system of sovereign States beholden to sovereign individuals who agreed to "a more perfect union" with one another for mutual protection and a common commercial market and consented to a limited central government to bind that union and wrote a Constitution that laid out the foundations and principles by which that central government would be constrained against violating the unalienable rights of the people . . . have illegitimately "interpreted" that Constitution so that individual rights are no longer unalienable, but exist only as granted by government. They have transformed the fundamental relation between the government and the people. The government is now sovereign and basically unconstrained. The people are limited by government regulation and consent to less and less of that regulation. The people are divided into conflicting classes that require government to define what must be consented to.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

But should our Country's Laws and Policies be driven by a religious principle...or should they be driven by the Contitution, And whether they interfere with the 3 core values of the declaration of Independence........Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

beginning-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

end-

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.




our country's laws and policies are created through government, our rights are natural "self-evident" rights endowed by our Creator .. the Constitution was written to protect the individual from governement's inevitable infringement on those rights through it's laws and policies...we instituted a govenrment to secure our Constitutional rights and that government is supposed to be limited to and by the enumerated powers ...our country's laws and policies are only "religeously driven" to the extent that those creating laws and policies are "religeously guided"...whether or not they are religeously guided or driven or otherwise, they should not infringe on the rights endowed by our Creator and secured through our Constitution and protected by our government

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

But should our Country's Laws and Policies be driven by a religious principle...or should they be driven by the Contitution, And whether they interfere with the 3 core values of the declaration of Independence........Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Our country's laws and principles should be driven by the people. The constitution sets a framework, but doesn't dictate. We have the right to make laws. Those laws could conform with a religion or go against, it's irrelevant. Many peoples moral code is influenced by religion, so it would follow that our laws are. But it doesn't have to be and we shouldn't have a problem if it is or isnt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

There are certainly extremists in all religions. Although they claim to have good intentions, they make me nervous regardless of their origins.It is great to have religious freedoms in this country but some choose this platform to assault the rights of others whom they disagree with.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

There are certainly extremists in all religions.

there are extremists in every area of belief, as Detbuch pointed out, extremists pervert or bastardize the belief that they claim to represent on order to attain goals that have nothing to do with the fundamentals, foundations and principles of the original beliefs, the founders secured religeous liberty because the felt that government imposed "established" religeous belief leads to extemism and perversion of religeous belief by those in power in government for purposes that have nothing to do with the fundamentals of religeous belief...they were right, which is why "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religeon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....it follows that those who do not necessarily have "religeous" beliefs do believe in something, that something is generally some form of government or organization that replaces "religeon" or in essence becomes a religeon of sorts, unions, political organizations and "cause" oriented organizations with charismatic leaders (these are the people that can wax eloquent and ad nausaeum with talking points and soundbites and twisted logic to sway sentiment but can barely muster a coherent thought when it comes to the fundamentals) or binding messages tend to follow similar paths and similar consequences when perverted or bastardized or when "some choose their platform to assault the rights of others whom they disagree with." ....

"rights of others" is an interesting phrase because "rights" seem to multiply as politicians bastardize and pervert the original intent, many "rights" that are assumed today are nothing more than promises made by people in government for their own benefit and have nothing to do with the original intent of the government that they represent...the progressives have turned this concept upside down, bastardized it to the point that many now believe that their various assumed rights are to be guaranteed and delivered by government, each group "pseudo-religeon" battling for previously non-existent government created rights used as wedges to divide us