...from religion? I don't want other people's "spiritual" beliefs promoted or favored by the government, taught in schools, or guiding public policy in lieu of solid secular reasons for those policies.

force others to act in accordance with them.

In other words, your spiritual beliefs/religion ends where anybody else's body or property begins.

If my spiritual beliefs include the proposition that all people have a right to decent health care--which it does--then to push for the adoption of that proposition is going to mess with someone else's property rights. Human rights and property rights are often in conflict. No so-called spiritual belief means anything if it does not have some concrete application right here and now. To relegate spiritual thing to some frothy up there somewhere, is to misunderstand what the spiritual is all about. As some theologian said, "I never say a spirit without a piece of flesh attached to it."

Jesus talked about hunger,clothing, shelter, health justice, acceptance and a number of other very earthy thins.

I don't think most religions directly address the question of health care, so my guess is that the health care proposition falls under some larger umbrella. Even if your proposition about health care is ultimately based on spiritual beliefs, if you reached this proposition through reasoning about your spiritual beliefs, can you secularize the argument that leads to the proposition. I think that arguments made in secular terms, no matter what the argument is ultimately based on, are less divisive than arguments based on spiritual beliefs. To argue in favor of health-care as a human right based on, say, the Sermon on the Mount, is more divisive than to argue for it based on the requirements of a fair and just society, and I believe that fair and just society arguments will often suffice even when the ultimate reason is spiritual.

A fair and just society is a profound religious demand. That is how untold millions of us have come to that conclusion. I don't question where you got it, just feel thankful that you have.

There are both religious and non-religious people who come to an opposite conclusion. i guess it depends on the presuppositions from which you start.

on other people's spiritual beliefs, and to dismiss them as "so-called" and meaningless if they don't conform to YOUR standards. What the spiritual is all about to you (or your anonymous, and probably non-existent, "theologian&quot may be nothing whatsoever like what is all about to someone else.

Tell us what gives you the right to pass such arrogant judgement.

Last edited Sun Apr 1, 2012, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)

...force others to act in accordance with them.

In other words, your spiritual beliefs/religion ends where anybody else's body or property begins.

Okay, I've repeated what you said, only substituting "religious" for "spiritual" in one place. You already linked the words yourself in the second sentence.

So I don't see how any important distinction between "religious" and "spiritual" is being made here.

That is what my prior bit was all about.

I've no problem with a politician mentioning a *personal* religious belief or doctrine, or the lack of one for that matter. As a personal matter. It never bothered me that Jimmy Carter was a Baptist Sunday school teacher. Didn't see him blatantly making that a political issue. I admired JFK for addressing the point in blunt terms, clearly establishing a personal line between his Catholicism and his eventual Presidency. Those are examples of "free excercise thereof", imo.

When a politician advocates clearly faith-based legislation, though, it crosses the line. That is an example of the legislative "establishment of religion".

It's a two way street. And the Constitution often is...sometimes folks miss that point, I think.

between a politically active representative of the church and a lobbyist?

What is the difference between a politically active religious organization and a lobbyist organization?

Has there ever been a popular movement of any consequence that did not have a political objective?

or have you already assumed the answer and are you trying to set a linguistic trap?

Anyhow
Lobbyist it a formal term. it requires registration as such.
I don't think anyone ever called ML King a lobbyist. or Gandhi or Dali Lama, or hoards of others.
Lobbyists work for and are paid by somebodies who expect a return on their investment. Religious activists usually work for the nobodies (the society's left out and powerless) and never expect a return on investment.

It depends how you define political objective. Of course millions of Christians are involve in eradicating world hunger, for instance.. "Bread for the World" and the bunch I have worked for "Church World Service" and among the thousands of NPOs, many religious, that have no political agenda at all.

I'm still looking.

You just offered an evasive non answer.

Anyhow.

Surely you aren't, in a world where people make lucrative careers out of the most absurd public exposure, claiming that only people specifically paid to lobby are paid lobbyists. If Snookie can make a living being Snookie anybody who calls himself a "spiritual leader" can keep the rent paid by being seen advocating for something.

Are law enforcement and national defense important issues worthy of consederation by the body politic?

Is aid to the poor and disadvantaged worthy of the same consideration?

Is equal opportunity for all regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation worthy of consideration by the body politic?

Have religious organizations advocated for or published positions related to the above issues?

Have those organizations brought their concerns to the attention of elected officials?

There are many public places for religion:

I believe that the laws should be set up to allow people the freedom to persue their own happiness in life.
What I have seen, when the religious right tries to inject religious beliefs into the making of a law is that what they usually are asking is to limit the freedom of others to choose.
They have asked for contraception to be limited when there are others who would choose to use contraception and birth control.
I think that the chioce should be available to everyone and the people who choose not to use the service have the right not to use the service.

If we allow religious beliefs to limit people's chioce then I think it has gone too far.

If Sanatorium wants to tell people that he has religious odeals that means that he will appeal to the religious minded. BUT, when he says that if he is elected president that he will use his power to make laws that limit the choices of the American people then I say it would be an abuse of power.

I always say - If you want to make more restrictive laws - Go back to Europe!

The way to solve the issue you raise is to see that people like that are never elected.
When Santorum held that the Catholic hospital should deny contraception to its employees, he is just out of bounds. My religious belief cannot and should not limit you choices--nor yours mine.

Up until about 40 or so years ago, hardly a thought was given to the idea that Sectarianism has no valid place in offical govenrnment life. Our national icons are chock filled with Christian sysmbols and themes.

The better question is why is there no room for religion in public life anymore?

what is the legal role of religion in political campaigns? Does a candidate have the Constitutional right to insert his or her private religious convictions into public pronouncements or campaign literature?

Come on, now. Are you just being deliberately obtuse in even asking this question, trying to imply the straw man that mean old atheists and secularists have suggested that they don't? Of course they do, and you know that well, as well as you know that NO ONE and NO GROUP has ever suggested that the Constitution restricts what political candidates who are private individuals may say or write as part of their campaigns with regard to religion. The First Amendment is a restriction on laws and policies enacted by elected and appointed government officials, period.

On the other hand, there are those who decry the incursion of such issues into the national debate. Would they have tried to keep Martin Luther King Jr. out of the civil rights struggle because he was an avowed Christian who believed that what he stood for flowed from his faith? Had his voice been eliminated on that basis, we would never have had a voting rights law.

Is there an argument from any quarter that if a policy is promoted by anyone or any group motivated in any way by religion, then that policy must be bad and should be rejected? Of course not. Just another straw man. The argument, if you'd cared to state it accurately, is that if a policy wouldn't be considered or can't be justified without using religion or "religious values" (whatever those are), then it has no place in a Constitutionally mandated secular government. The policies that King and those with him tried to promote could be, while those that creationists try to promote can't be, so your analogy is bullshit.

And you, like so many others, weep and wail about religion being pushed out of the "public square", but you get your shorts in a knot when religious beliefs and convictions are held to the same standards of scrutiny and criticism that apply to all other ideas in the public square. If you want to keep your beliefs to yourself or among like-minded believers, fine and dandy. But if you're going to throw them out here, or into public policy debates, then they are fair game and not immune from the harshest criticism.

The only reason you're free to practice your brand of Christianity as you see fit is because you're free from having to practice someone else's religion as they see fit.

Confused?

Imagine the theocrats of the religious right win and institute their brand of fundamentalist Christianity as the national religion, mandate adherence, and ban other denominations.

In this hypothetical situation, would you be free to practice your religion as you see fit or would you first need to be free from the RR's religion in order to do so?

doesn't go away because you ignore it. This is the second time I've asked. The first time prompted this OP. You can't intelligently discuss the issue until you face the realities surrounding it.

See post #3.

You haven't offered a Thoughtful Post in response, or made any Great Points, so the substantive issues you've raised will not be addressed. Just more of the same hit-and-run by the OP.

But pheasant are so beautiful when they flush.

"When did i stop beating my wife?" "When will i face up to the realities so I can discuss intelligently?" You ought to know I just don't get involve in that sort of garbage that now a decreasing number of you try and throw on my lawn. Keep doing it and you will get what a couple of others get--no response.

Anybody can read what's written here and tell who's right and who's wrong, who's actually addressing the issue at hand and who's being evasive.

Not responding just makes it easy albeit somewhat less interesting for me.

"W" just hated those "gotcha" questions too. Can you guess why?