A hypothetical comparison for you to consider:

[More Than A Feeling]

Suppose I am a congressman, and I want to offer a bill that says we must feed every hungry person in the United States. In every speech I give, I talk about my Christian faith, and how that has influenced me to offer this bill. Nothing in the bill says anything about religion, though. Would you support this bill that I have offered, when it is explicitly because of my faith?

Now contrast that to a similar situation on the other side, say Terri Schiavo or abortion bans. Are those actions unjustified specifically because they are offered based in one particular morality, that isn't shared by other Americans? If so, are they any different from the bill I mentioned above, as far as their justification goes? Is it right to propose to feed hungry people based in a religious vision, but wrong to ban abortion, or ban gay marriage based on a different religious vision?

If both justifications are equally wrong/offensive, then is it your view that a public official justifying their actions by faith a prima facie violation of the establishment clause?

[Vincardog]

1. There is a difference between helping people who are willing to be helped

and forcing your opinions and or beliefs on people who neither asked for nor want your interference.

Why put up your false choices?

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Nowhere did I imply that these were the only choices.

Nor have I stated what my opinion is. I merely am interested in the opinions of others.

[Vincardog]

6. The motives are not the question the advocated actions are

Feeding the hungry is a laudable goal
while
Interfering in private personnel choices
is not
How can you equate kindness (feeding the hungry)
with Big Brother interference (interfering with private medical decisions)?

The motives may be the same the actions are not.

[tocqueville]

5. agrees : motivation by religion is irrelevant

whatever the issue is. In a secular democracy, private considerations based on religion have nothing to do with the issue in state affairs, since religion can only be considered as a private choice.

You can feed the poor because it's your fucking duty as elected
and you could be against euthanasia because of plenty of legal and scientific aspects

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I would think that a non-Christian would be looking at the outcome

of the bill-if it calls for something that they feel is right, I don't think they would mind what the author's motivation was.

[beam me up scottie]

4. You're exactly right.

While I dislike politicians who drag Jesus into everything I would never reject a bill that would help the disadvantaged because of it.

[pnwmom]

7. I don't care whether you're offering the bill out of your Christian faith

or other faith, or not. I care only about what the specifics of the bill are.


People of faith are quite capable of making different ethically based decisions, so I would support the bills that are in accord with my own sense of ethics, without regard to the faith (or lack thereof) of the bills' writers.

I don't think the politician's faith justifies the contents of a bill, or condemns it.

[BattyDem]

8. Inserting your own religious beliefs into someone else's personal choices

can never be justified because you are trying to take away that person's freedom. Being inspired by your religious beliefs to help someone in need is an entirely different matter.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Well put!!!

:applause:

[arwalden]

10. First Of All, I'd Would Wonder Why My Congressman...

... felt the need to talk about HIS "Christian faith" and how it influenced him to offer the bill. I'd think that being a decent human being who cared about others would be sufficient enough reason.

It would appear to me that in offering such a bill, my congressman's first priority was to HIMSELF or about some good P.R. for Christianity... instead of doing the right thing for hungry people in need.

Regardless of the ends (feeding the hungry) I'd consider that congressman's actions that drew attention to himself and his religion, to be wholly inappropriate, very selfish and self-serving.

[Goblinmonger]

11. To put it into context of today

I would be opposed if the bill said that they would feed the hungry if they pledged their allegance to Christ and Shrub (in case Zebedeo is reading this, Shrub is a nickname for George W. Bush, our President) because that makes them good Americans.

I, as state above, would do a mental eye roll at the "I'm a good christian and that's why I'm doing this" crap that the politician said about the bill, but would have no problem with the bill if it was truly secular.

[beam me up scottie]

12. BWAHAHAHA !!!

:spray:
Are you idiot-proofing your posts now?

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

15. I knew you would get a laugh out of that.

Kind of a cheap shot, but still...who on DU doesn't know the big nicknames for Pissypants.

[arwalden]

14. Isn't That DISGUSTING??!!1!!!1!!

"Hello poor tsunami victim, we're here to feed you... BUT FIRST, you must give up your religion and accept JESUS CHRIST."

Know Jesus, Know Food.
NO Jesus, NO Food.

[Goblinmonger]

16. That's awesome

We have one of the original versions of that billboard just outside of town.

[khashka]

13. Doesn't bother me

I think if your religion inspires you to help other people and you want to share that.... please do so.

If you want to force your choices on others.... um, no.


I do feel a little uneasy when politicians go on and on about their "faith". Mostly it's like PR and an attempt to garner votes......

Khash.

[trotsky]

17. It would bother me either way.

Of course it would bother me more with the right-wing proposal, since the chances are much greater I wouldn't agree with the intent of it anyway.

But I don't think policy positions should EVER be justified by religious faith. Come up with a rational reason.

[NMMNG]

18. I would vote for the first bill, and against the other two

The first one is for the common good and harmful to none. The other two impose the specific religious beliefs of one group on private individuals who are harming nobody, and can harm them in the process.

As to talking up one's religious beliefs, I think that's a bunch of bunk. Most of the time it's for attention and piety. "Oooh, look at me and all the good I'm doing. I am such a good religious person, yes I am!", or "Look how devout I am, I oppose this horrible practice so much I proposed this bill against it!"

[moobu2]

19. The motivation for the action wouldn’t matter in the least.

Feeding hungry people -good
Forcing unwanted medical treatments upon someone -bad
Forced gestation -bad

It’s a little strange for you to think someone would base their support for a bill on the religious reasoning behind it. Although, I would be suspicious and read the bill carefully for any deceitful wording, because, I’ve learned through experience that anyone who flaunts their (usually Christian) religion, are more often than not, very devious individuals.

[greyl]

20. Justifying actions by faith alone is no justification

and has no place in a secular democracy that values education.

Even Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi justified their actions based primarily on rational secular ethics.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. A hypothetical comparison for you to consider:

I am going to re-word your scenario.

Suppose I am a congressman, and I want to offer a bill that says we must feed every hungry person in the United States. In every speech I give, I talk about my Pagan beliefs, and how that has influenced me to offer this bill. Nothing in the bill says anything about religion, though. Would you support this bill that I have offered, when it is explicitly because of my faith?

Now contrast that to a similar situation on the other side, say to legalize prostitution or approve medical marijuana. Are those actions unjustified specifically because they are offered based in one particular morality, that isn't shared by other Americans? If so, are they any different from the bill I mentioned above, as far as their justification goes? Is it right to propose to feed hungry people based in a religious vision, but wrong to to legalize prostitution, or approve medical marijuana based on a different religious vision?

If both justifications are equally wrong/offensive, then is it your view that a public official justifying their actions by faith a prima facie violation of the establishment clause?

There are some problems with the above argument. First, "feeding the hungry" and "legalizing prostitution and medical marijuana" are not similar situations, even if based on "faith." Second, the 'argument' ("If both justifications are equally wrong/offensive,...") relies on the false choice of "all or nothing." These are the same problems that exist with your argument.

"Feeding the hungry" serves all of us, as it eliminates starvation. Banning personal choice (abortion or gay marriage), serves only a select few. So, your premise is very flawed. No one chooses to starve or go hungry, however, people can (or should be able to) choose to terminate a pregnancy or marry someone of the same sex.

[greyl]

22. Nicely sliced. :) nt