Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Election 2012
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="justanotherpatriot" data-source="post: 1827026" data-attributes="member: 24587"><p>My views on Religion in government is that a CHURCH has no business attempting to further its own ends through legistlation or coercion any more than any other entity. The church has far to lofty a goal to stoop to politics anyway. That being said, a civilization without morality is dead already. A civilization that wishes to thrive past the first couple of generations MUST teach and pass on morals. </p><p></p><p>Several have posted in response to this comment and in some ways have been very enlightening. I appreciate the candid responses, however I do not think that the answer to my question has been satisfied.</p><p>I have several friends/coworkers who are not religious and I am aquainted with others who are not religious yet are very moral, upstanding citizens and in some cases I would even consider them patriots. Conversely I know of others, both friends and aquaintances, who claim to be religious and are moral only to a degree. It would be foolish for me or anyone to make a blanket statement about any group of people numbering more than 1. </p><p></p><p>Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). </p><p>In life, differences in morality is more often than not determined by the number of people involved in the relationship.</p><p>For example, in a familial group, you may have one set of morals or code of conduct within the group and another for relationships outside the group.</p><p>That same example can be extrapolated to a fraternity, a city, club, organization, region, nationality, sports club etc. The list goes on and on. </p><p>The obvious problem with that is when you have 2 distinctly different ideas about morality. What then determines acceptable behavior and unacceptable?</p><p>My premise is that in most religions, there exists at the core, common sense principles which have been used to promote interdependent relationships.</p><p>I cannot think of one civilization in history to ever go beyond day to day existence which did not have some form of religion and a well defined code of conduct. </p><p>I dont for one minute condone state sponsored religion or churches. Although several of the original charters for the various states did have a sponsored religion, that mindset did not last and by the time these united States became united, it was decidedly important to the majority of the founders and representatives that there be no favored or sponsored religion. Rather, that these newly united States would be a safe haven for citizens of any and all and no faiths. Giving preference to none and providing protection for all. Those founding fathers (athiest and religious alike) saw benefit in men who had religious faith because of the moral codes represented by those faiths.</p><p></p><p>The following is an excerpt from <a href="http://www.WallBuilders.com" target="_blank">www.WallBuilders.com</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="justanotherpatriot, post: 1827026, member: 24587"] My views on Religion in government is that a CHURCH has no business attempting to further its own ends through legistlation or coercion any more than any other entity. The church has far to lofty a goal to stoop to politics anyway. That being said, a civilization without morality is dead already. A civilization that wishes to thrive past the first couple of generations MUST teach and pass on morals. Several have posted in response to this comment and in some ways have been very enlightening. I appreciate the candid responses, however I do not think that the answer to my question has been satisfied. I have several friends/coworkers who are not religious and I am aquainted with others who are not religious yet are very moral, upstanding citizens and in some cases I would even consider them patriots. Conversely I know of others, both friends and aquaintances, who claim to be religious and are moral only to a degree. It would be foolish for me or anyone to make a blanket statement about any group of people numbering more than 1. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). In life, differences in morality is more often than not determined by the number of people involved in the relationship. For example, in a familial group, you may have one set of morals or code of conduct within the group and another for relationships outside the group. That same example can be extrapolated to a fraternity, a city, club, organization, region, nationality, sports club etc. The list goes on and on. The obvious problem with that is when you have 2 distinctly different ideas about morality. What then determines acceptable behavior and unacceptable? My premise is that in most religions, there exists at the core, common sense principles which have been used to promote interdependent relationships. I cannot think of one civilization in history to ever go beyond day to day existence which did not have some form of religion and a well defined code of conduct. I dont for one minute condone state sponsored religion or churches. Although several of the original charters for the various states did have a sponsored religion, that mindset did not last and by the time these united States became united, it was decidedly important to the majority of the founders and representatives that there be no favored or sponsored religion. Rather, that these newly united States would be a safe haven for citizens of any and all and no faiths. Giving preference to none and providing protection for all. Those founding fathers (athiest and religious alike) saw benefit in men who had religious faith because of the moral codes represented by those faiths. The following is an excerpt from [url]www.WallBuilders.com[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Election 2012
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom