# Should religious people be allowed to hold public office?



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

I saw a question upstairs that asked if "Atheist should be allowed to marry?" 
Everytime I read that question it kind of shocks a little. Hard to believe folks would try to decide what two other grown folks should do. 
My first thought was the question in the title. Would we be a freer, happier, society with a secular government?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Yes. They're people just like us. No equivocation.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes. They're people just like us. No equivocation.



Hmmmm. 
People, yes. Just like me, no. I don't have any wish to legislate morality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Hmmmm.
> People, yes. Just like me, no. I don't have any wish to legislate morality.



You have your own beliefs, you just know that they don't always extend to other people. So yes, a unique snowflake, just like everyone else.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Hmmmm.
> People, yes. Just like me, no. I don't have any wish to legislate morality.


 
I hear this a lot.
Perhaps the bigger question then is, where then is the line drawn?
"Thou shall not kill" is all about morality, and right there in our 'secular' lawbooks also.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> I hear this a lot.
> Perhaps the bigger question then is, where then is the line drawn?
> "Thou shall not kill" is all about morality, and right there in our 'secular' lawbooks also.



For me it's when an actual victim is introduced. If the only one harmed in the course of their actions is themselves then I say let them do it, and also let them suffer the consequences. Killing someone else violates someone else, hence it is wrong and thus illegal. 

Getting stupidly drunk on a Sunday morning harms no one but the consumer. DUI on the other hand, which is where this is sure to go, has the potential to harm someone else and hence is both wrong and illegal.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

> Perhaps the bigger question then is, where then is the line drawn?



Actually a very easy answer.(see below)  No public office for you. 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For me it's when an actual victim is introduced.



This. ^^^


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 8, 2014)

StriperAddict said:


> I hear this a lot.
> Perhaps the bigger question then is, where then is the line drawn?
> "Thou shall not kill" is all about morality, and right there in our 'secular' lawbooks also.


 Always the point I like to bring up when I hear that as well.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> For me it's when an actual victim is introduced. If the only one harmed in the course of their actions is themselves then I say let them do it, and also let them suffer the consequences. Killing someone else violates someone else, hence it is wrong and thus illegal.
> 
> Getting stupidly drunk on a Sunday morning harms no one but the consumer. DUI on the other hand, which is where this is sure to go, has the potential to harm someone else and hence is both wrong and illegal.



That's just where you decide to draw the line on legislating morality.

Bob is a nihilist that thinks you are no different than dirt on the ground...... and he wants you to stop legislating your morality.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Always the point I like to bring up when I hear that as well.



Hate to burst your bubble but, murder is not all about morality, it is also about rights and preservation of mankind.  
Killing is endorsed by the federal government. Some folks need killing.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Bob is a nihilist that thinks you are no different than dirt on the ground...... and he wants you to stop legislating your morality.



Bob can think whatever he wants. Just don't create victims.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Always the point I like to bring up when I hear that as well.
> 
> 
> That's just where you decide to draw the line on legislating morality.
> ...




Your logic is faulty. It's possible he wants that, not certain, because he's nihilistic. Just because he holds that there is no _intrinsic_ value doesn't mean that he holds that there's NO value. He may give it value in some other way. There's no way of telling, although we could ponder on this forever. 

Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the most logical is where it begins to infringe on someone else. So Bob could be nihilistic all he wants, but that doesn't give him the right to kill me. Only to treat his own life with no value.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

Likewise, it's silly to think that, because you think it's a sin to drink on Sunday, that you should be able to prevent me from drinking. If you look at it dispassionately, that is.

Just like it's silly to think that Bob's nihilism invalidates the value of your life, to you, it's silly to project your morality on someone else, when there is no victim involved.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Hate to burst your bubble but, murder is not all about morality, it is also about rights and preservation of mankind.
> Killing is endorsed by the federal government. Some folks need killing.



Of course murder has everything to do with morality.

BTW, killing and murdering are two different things.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Your logic is faulty. It's possible he wants that, not certain, because he's nihilistic. Just because he holds that there is no _intrinsic_ value doesn't mean that he holds that there's NO value. He may give it value in some other way. There's no way of telling, although we could ponder on this forever.


For the sake of discussion, he thinks nothing has any meaning. 



> Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and the most logical is where it begins to infringe on someone else. So Bob could be nihilistic all he wants, but that doesn't give him the right to kill me. Only to treat his own life with no value.



Yes, it does. 

Adding in the qualifier of not involving a victim doesn't mean that you're still not legislating morality. You think it's wrong to murder someone, Bob doesn't and he's tired of you voting for people that continue that law.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Likewise, it's silly to think that, because you think it's a sin to drink on Sunday, that you should be able to prevent me from drinking. If you look at it dispassionately, that is.


I think you should be able to drink whenever you want, for the record. I'm playing a little bit of devils avdocate here to show how silly it is when people say "I'm tired of you Christians legislating morality."



> Just like it's silly to think that Bob's nihilism invalidates the value of your life, to you, it's silly to project your morality on someone else, when there is no victim involved.


Again, adding that qualifier doesn't mean that you're not legislating morality. You think murdering people is wrong and you vote accordingly.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> BTW, killing and murdering are two different things.



Does that mean as long as you have a good reason  it's not murder, it's just killing???


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Bob can think whatever he wants. Just don't create victims.



I agree with you about victims... but It's all because we don't think that it's moral for one person to make someone else become a victim of something....


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> For the sake of discussion, he thinks nothing has any meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, Bob is free to leave, in this example if he doesn't like his opinion being shot down in the representative republic. His represents an extreme and uncompromising view, I know a lot of people hate that word but compromise is healthy up to a point, that results in the harm of others. I respect his opinion as his own, but think that it would result in very bad consequences for everyone.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I think you should be able to drink whenever you want, for the record. I'm playing a little bit of devils avdocate here to show how silly it is when people say "I'm tired of you Christians legislating morality."
> 
> 
> Again, adding that qualifier doesn't mean that you're not legislating morality. You think murdering people is wrong and you vote accordingly.



And we've been all over this. My morality comes from logical conclusions and not a booming voice from the sky. We agree on a good bit of the laws even given those disparate geneses. 

There will always be outliers, but instead of legislating to them, let's find the common ground and go from there, with an eye to not regulating someone else's choices if they impact no one but themselves. It's what you and I are already talking about, after all.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I think you should be able to drink whenever you want, for the record. I'm playing a little bit of devils avdocate here to show how silly it is when people say "I'm tired of you Christians legislating morality."
> 
> 
> Again, adding that qualifier doesn't mean that you're not legislating morality. You think murdering people is wrong and you vote accordingly.



Maybe the definition of "legislating morality" is the problem.  When I say that you can't legislate morality, I'm not saying that morals and ethics cannot be utilized in the construction of laws.

Legislating morality, to me, is attempting to make people attain a highly moral and ethical character through laws.  Simply not violating a certain law due to fear of punishment does not in any way replace an internal moral and ethical motivation to do the right thing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 8, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Maybe the definition of "legislating morality" is the problem.  When I say that you can't legislate morality, I'm not saying that morals and ethics cannot be utilized in the construction of laws.
> 
> Legislating morality, to me, is attempting to make people attain a highly moral and ethical character through laws.  Simply not violating a certain law due to fear of punishment does not in any way replace an internal moral and ethical motivation to do the right thing.



To me, legislating morality occurs when there is anything other than the infringements of the rights of another being considered as motivating factors. 

In other words, legislating victimless situations.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 8, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Maybe the definition of "legislating morality" is the problem.  When I say that you can't legislate morality, I'm not saying that morals and ethics cannot be utilized in the construction of laws.
> 
> Legislating morality, to me, is attempting to make people attain a highly moral and ethical character through laws.  Simply not violating a certain law due to fear of punishment does not in any way replace an internal moral and ethical motivation to do the right thing.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To me, legislating morality occurs when there is anything other than the infringements of the rights of another being considered as motivating factors.
> 
> In other words, legislating victimless situations.



I understand what you're saying.

The reason I focus on the difference between genuinely desiring to do what is moral and ethical and simply obeying the law out of fear of punishment is the way it relates to New Testament Christianity as opposed to Old Testament Mosaic Law.  If a Christian believes that what matters is what is in the heart of the person and the person's motivation for the act determines whether it is a sin or not, then they must accept that making laws to curtail sin does not serve the same purpose as converting people to accept Christian morals and ethics.

You can't make a Christian nation with laws, so what is the point?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

> BTW, killing and murdering are two different things.



I know. That is why I seperated the two. The bible doesn't. 

"Thou shalt not kill." Well, we know killing is acceptable in some situations. Murder, never is.

And, I realize some will take this to the extremes and the absurd, which has already been demonstrated. 

Legislating that businesses can't sell alcohol on Sundays is an example of Christian legislation. I am sure they would like more if allowed. Men must get hair cuts every 2 weeks. All businesses must close on Sundays, etc.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> Men must get hair cuts every 2 weeks.



Where in the world did this come from? My girlfriend used to expect something like that from me....


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 9, 2014)

Of all major religious groups in the world, Muslims hold the greatest belief that the government should be more involved in "protecting morality".

Do you believe the religious-based laws in the Middle East are a positive thing?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I understand what you're saying.
> 
> The reason I focus on the difference between genuinely desiring to do what is moral and ethical and simply obeying the law out of fear of punishment is the way it relates to New Testament Christianity as opposed to Old Testament Mosaic Law.  If a Christian believes that what matters is what is in the heart of the person and the person's motivation for the act determines whether it is a sin or not, then they must accept that making laws to curtail sin does not serve the same purpose as converting people to accept Christian morals and ethics.
> 
> You can't make a Christian nation with laws, so what is the point?



Because it pleases them that the rest of the nation exists in accordance with their rules for life. It's, for lack of a better phrase, an ego stroking venture.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

TripleXBullies said:


> Where in the world did this come from? My girlfriend used to expect something like that from me....



 Corinthians 11:14,15, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> Corinthians 11:14,15, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?



But I want to be strong, like Samson.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> But I want to be strong, like Samson.



I wanna fly like Superman, but have the willpower and uncompromising morality of Batman.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I wanna fly like Superman, but have the willpower and uncompromising morality of Batman.



I never liked DC Comics.  Marvel rules!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I never liked DC Comics.  Marvel rules!



I like Marvel, as well, but those two DC stick out to me. 

Batman has no superpowers beyond wealth and extreme willpower. 

I just said fly like Superman because it would seem weird for a dude to say he wants to fly like Rogue. 

I always liked Wolverine the best, though.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I like Marvel, as well, but those two DC stick out to me.
> 
> Batman has no superpowers beyond wealth and extreme willpower.
> 
> ...



Why would Superman ever walk?

Would that indicate that it takes more effort to fly than walk?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Why would Superman ever walk?
> 
> Would that indicate that it takes more effort to fly than walk?



What's with people asking me to qualify supernatural, not to mention of dubious existence, people lately? 

I would presume that it creates a lot of attention to fly, and since one of his main goals is anonymity when going as Clark Kent that it would be hurtful. 

Everyone remember the opening scene of Superman Returns? That awful one with Brandon Routh? 

So let me get this straight, Superman can spend 5 YEARS in space travelling to Krypton, presumably without food, air, and water the whole time; but he has to work at the Daily Planet, why?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I always liked Wolverine the best, though.



Wolverine TOTALLY rules!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Wolverine TOTALLY rules!



Kinda. I agree that I like him the best, but I don't think he's the best superhero. 

Think about it, Flash can outrun him, Superman can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes, and there are other stronger, smarter, and less limited heroes out there. Rogue, as an example, can absorb all of their powers, minus Logans metal, and be the best of all. Similar to how Deadpool was portrayed. 

The only thing Logan has is an ability to heal, an adamantium skeleton, and apparent immortality with some animal character traits. 

There are heroes that would totally dominate Wolverine in any objective comparison, but he does get the top spot on my list.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Kinda. I agree that I like him the best, but I don't think he's the best superhero.
> 
> Think about it, Flash can outrun him, Superman can fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes, and there are other stronger, smarter, and less limited heroes out there. Rogue, as an example, can absorb all of their powers, minus Logans metal, and be the best of all. Similar to how Deadpool was portrayed.
> 
> ...



He's just the coolest.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What's with people asking me to qualify supernatural, not to mention of dubious existence, people lately?
> 
> I would presume that it creates a lot of attention to fly, and since one of his main goals is anonymity when going as Clark Kent that it would be hurtful.
> 
> ...



I know.  He IS flying all the time. Just imperceptibly close to the ground to give the appearance of walking.  That's the only logical conclusion to make.  "Limited Free-floating".  Gotta love logic.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> He's just the coolest.



Like I said, subjective. Objectively he gets his rear handed to him every time. He could survive a lot, sure, but Superman could fling him into a star. Then it's game over, unless he's like Durge from Star Wars lore. Even then Durge couldn't survive cremation in a star...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I know.  He IS flying all the time. Just imperceptibly close to the ground to give the appearance of walking.  That's the only logical conclusion to make.  "Limited Free-floating".  Gotta love logic.



That would take a lot of brain power so as to not notice the difference between the velocity of his feet and the velocity of the ground underneath. 

Play any car video game where a slow-mo shot of the vehicle is done in profile. The car is only moving an inch/second, for example, but the tires are moving over it fast enough to look like they're greased. 

Maybe real tires do this and we can't see it, but I think that's what Superman would look like trying to make low altitude flight look like walking. 

Wow, this thread got off waaaaaay in the deep grass. Out with the heavily armed vegetables, even.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That would take a lot of brain power so as to not notice the difference between the velocity of his feet and the velocity of the ground underneath.
> 
> Play any car video game where a slow-mo shot of the vehicle is done in profile. The car is only moving an inch/second, for example, but the tires are moving over it fast enough to look like they're greased.
> 
> ...




Shall we kick it back onto the fairway?  

After one more:  Well, Superman's ways aren't our ways.  He can do whatever he wants.  If he wants to look like he's walking he can.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2014)

If there were no characters mentioned in the last few posts I would have been convinced it was just another biblical discussion.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If there were no characters mentioned in the last few posts I would have been convinced it was just another biblical discussion.



 Amen.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Shall we kick it back onto the fairway?
> 
> After one more:  Well, Superman's ways aren't our ways.  He can do whatever he wants.  If he wants to look like he's walking he can.



My head hurts...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If there were no characters mentioned in the last few posts I would have been convinced it was just another biblical discussion.



Ya think?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2014)

Let us read from the First Book, of the Alternate Earths gospel:

"And, lo, Magneto comes, like a thief in the night, fight him we shall." So sayeth the Wolverine.


----------

