God And Government

[Cameron]

After watching the swearing-in ceremony for Paul Martin and his cronies, I took note of the mention of god and to abide the rule and law of him ("so help me god" at the end of a declaration, for example).

I personally would like to put the notion forward that references to Christianity should not be mentioned in government practices. A government is there to rule under all peoples of a country, with a mix of religious backgrounds. Any reference to god or Christianity should be removed from government speeches and ceremonies to take into account all religions that are practiced in a country, and not to take sides with one.

[Galahad]

After watching the swearing-in ceremony for Paul Martin and his cronies, I took note of the mention of god and to abide the rule and law of him ("so help me god" at the end of a declaration, for example).

I personally would like to put the notion forward that references to Christianity should not be mentioned in government practices.

Well, I think it should be quite the opposite, high rannking politicians should ALWAYS back up their promises by swearing "So help me God".

I think it could be quite entertaining to see them trying to weasel out of that one.

[Mr Farrius]

Without a religion to back up its principles, government lacks the moral guidance required to remain just and fair. Without this moral guidance, important concepts such as all men are created equal, and human rights would not be enforced as they would have no meaning or necessity. Believe it or not, I feel that the American government by far the strongest and most stable in the world. As all of you know, it is probably because its Constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Even to this day, those Judeo-Christian principles serve as a guide and govern the American nation.

[Moderate Centrist]

"I personally would like to put the notion forward that references to Christianity should not be mentioned in government practices.'

Cameron

I wouldn't go this far. I don't think we have to assume God is an offense to everyone since most people regardless of faith believe in God - Christians, Jews and Muslims to name a few.

The call to remove references to God is coming from athiests and not other religious groups.

Having said that I don't need the government to guide my morality especially since most governments lack any.

Morality and values must come at the local level - family, religion and schools in the community. If you look for it beyond that I doubt you'll find it.

"Without this moral guidance, important concepts such as all men are created equal, and human rights would not be enforced as they would have no meaning or necessity. "

In the southern States Bible Belt there were many people who believed in God yet were firmly racist. How do you account for this?

"...the American government by far the strongest and most stable in the world. As all of you know, it is probably because its Constitution is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Mr. Farrius

I think this is assuming a bit much. Perhaps the American government sees itself as moral but I'm sure the American people would differ a bit on this. Was Clinton's behavior moral or how about Richard Nixon's foul mouth.

American society is amoung the most secular in the world and American pop culture is racing for the gutter.

Governments only speak of morality to get votes. In practice they have very little use for it.

[Mr Farrius]

Moderate Centrist, I merely said that a religious foundation would provide moral guidance. I never said anything about whether people would choose to follow them or not. Their choice is theirs alone. It is still beneficial that this moral guidance exists, so there can be a standard in which people may be judged and criticized.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hi Farrius,

I agree that moral guidence is important. Like many I just don't believe governments have much to offer in that regard.

And with regards to America, I see little in their pop culture that speaks of morality.

[Mr Farrius]

Indeed, little evidence of moral guidance lies on American pop culture. But culture is never regulated by government.

I agree that moral guidence is important. Like many I just don't believe governments have much to offer in that regard.

Well where does the concept of "all men are created equal" come from? Where does "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come from?

[logical1]

Mr Farrius, all men are in fact not created equal but none should be born indebted or to be sacrificed to another. Nobody needed God to establish that concept. The founding fathers had religious upbringings as did most during the period but the truly successful principles that they implemented were not primarily of Christian origin. The founding fathers were also followers or "students" if you will of the philosophy of John Locke which was in line with the philosophy of his predecessor Thomas Aquinas which was in line with the philosophy of his predecessor Aristotle.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not come out of the bible. These concepts are based on individual human rights. These are the things which we require for our existence as human beings. The things which we require for our existence as human beings are governed by our nature. No one needs God to establish a bird's right to fly nor do they need God to establish man's right to pursue the things that man requires to exist. It is self evident. Thus the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident".

God is not and never has been a necessary component in government.

[Elder]

I'm not sure you can very easily remove God from our culture, and that includes our government. I'm quite sure that I'm not alone when I thank God for the rights and freedoms which I enjoy today. No discredit to the politicians and freedom fighters who struggled, worked, fought and died for them. I hold them in very high esteem. However, I do believe that God helped guide these men somewhat. That's just me personally. I do agree that the day we rely on the Government for moral guidance is the day that we abandon all virtue. Moral guidance is best done in the home. My view is if the man being sworn in or what not believes in God, than there is no reason why he shouldn't swear in the name of God, since if he takes his beliefs seriously, it may help him honor the promise. If the official does not believe in God, than he shouldn't have to swear in the name of God, in fact he really has no business swearing in the name of God. To each his own.

[logical1]

Elder, although I am opposed to religious doctrine as the basis for policy, I am also strongly opposed to an individual being prohibited from holding and expressing personal beliefs. Generally, it is not the individual being sworn in that writes God into the text of a swearing in ceremony. If it were, I would support the gesture. The fact that it is the standard text implies that the individual is expected to be committed to serve a God.

Every God that I am aware of is connected to a religious doctrine of some sort. Every religious doctrine that I am aware of is endlessly irrational and contains numerous contradictions that are to be overlooked and accepted on the basis of faith. Will a policy maker, once having made this committment, be inclined to reject an essential endeavor or action simply because it does not appear to coincide with the doctrine associated with the God that the official has sworn to serve ? Will a socialist guilt the official into redistributing the wealth of his constituents to "those in need" as they have been doing for decades due to the fact that such an act is consistent with God's doctrine ? This is what I am opposed to. This is what must end.

Conservatives, religious or otherwise must adopt reason as their only guide in matters of policy if they ever intend to fend off socialist agendas and preserve freedom. God in government has done and will continue to do far more harm than good.

[Mr Farrius]

Nevertheless, there must be a standard in which people must be judged. That standard derives a lot of itself from God and the moral guidance in religion. Why are people made to swear on oath, before God? Because religion provides that moral guidance that people can be held accountable to.

[Lost in Manitoba]

How would the public view a politician who didn't want to be sworn in using the Bible? We have ethnic MP's in Canada, does anyone know of a case of any being sworn in on the Koran? What about a true atheist? It's pointless to get him to swear on a book of faith he doesn't believe in, that he'll uphold the laws of the land and do the job he's been charged with.

[logical1]

Ah, Mr. Farrius you have hit on the root of the issue. "The standard that people can be held accountable to", should be a standard that can be proven to be rational and demonstrable. It should be an objective standard not a religious one.

[Elder]

I can see both logical1's and Farrius' point. A standard that people can be held accountable too is very important. However, not everyone is going to have the same standard. I personally view the Bible an excellent resource for morality, as far as it is translated correctly. I also believe my conscience to be a good source. A Muslim may reserve that spot for the Koran. The Atheist will stick to his own conscience alone, unless they have something else I'm not aware of. A Christian Leader will probably govern by his morals, which will hopefully be Christian. The same goes for any other religious or atheist leader. They will govern by the morals that they have and that they were taught. God has as much a place in Government as there are officials who believe in him and follow him.

Questioning which morals are best is for a different discussion, and ultimately a pointless debate that will never be won until judgement day (if the believers are right, God will let them know, if the Atheists are right, there won't be a judgement day, and we won't ever stop arguing about it.)

As I said before, to each his own. I don't think God should automatically be written into swearing in. It should be the statesman's choice. If he or she doesn't believe, than it is a vain oath that mocks God's name to the Believers, and a lie to the Atheists.

[logical1]

Elder, conscience as a guide is no more or less so for an Atheist than it is for a Christian. A Christian has free will just as well as an Atheist. Some Christians experience no guilt for doing things that other Christians might feel very guilty about doing. Thus an individuals conscience, regardless of their philosophy, serves as their guide. The difference is the standard that the conscience adheres to and to what degree. An Atheist may have no standard whatsoever in which case he'd be better off being a Christian because than he would at least have some source of philosophical guidance which is essential for long term survival.

There is in fact something that you don't know about or recognize. It is a moral guide based on reason and individual rights. It is what I try to adhere to with the same dedication as the most devoted of Christians. Here are some examples. I do not sacrifice myself to others or accept the sacrifice of others to myself. Therefore, I do not steal and I do not kill or exercise physical force against others except, of course, in self defense. I recognize that everyone must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival therefore I do not lie as it is an attempt to distort the facts of reality. I recognize that if I violate the rights of another individual, I must sacrifice those same rights myself which I will not do. I do not do drugs etc. as it is not in my own rational self interest to do so.

It is a moral guide that holds that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of one's life and recognizes the right of the same to every individual. It is not pragmatic. It is not "anything goes". It is a "value for value" philosophy. It holds that one's own life and rational (rational being a key word) self interest are the highest of values. It acknowledges the "ownership" of one's own life. It recognizes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as essential, demonstrable principles born out of the facts of reality pertaining to human nature. It is consistent with the system of capitalism which has been the single most powerful component in the prosperity of humanity in the history of the world. It is an objective standard that can be supported by reason. It does not acknowledge the subjective or the unknown as factual. You would be hard pressed to present a moral issue that I am incapable of responding to using this standard.

[Elder]

On the contrary. I know all about moral's based on reason and individual rights. From my point of view, they don't clash at all with Christian values. Individual rights and reason is what taught me that my beliefs should not be forced down people's throats, although the Christian doctrine of "judge not" certainly did help. As I see it, God gave all men the abillity to choose what they wanted, and let them decide whether or not they wanted to follow him or not. If He gave them the right to choose, who am I to take it away. However, I knew these things before I applied God to them. I do go by my own reasoning, however, there are times when I don't trust my reasoning, where I don't always know what is right and what is wrong, and that's where I turn to Christianity, to Christ. I personally think (I'm not going to pass off as doctrine or anything like that, it's just my own speculation) that God wants to see if we can handle ourselves with these freedoms. I also believe that when he told us the things that are right and wrong, he left some things up to us, trusting that we were reasoning, intelligent beings who could tell right from wrong.

Many atheists call Christianity a crutch. I don't think you will disagree when I state that when I look around the world, I see many who are morally crippled. If you believe yourself not to need such a crutch, and stick it out on your own, judging by your own reasons, then that is your choice. Christianity is for those who believe themselves to be imperfect and long to be changed, for those who see themselves as dirty (anywhere from a smudge here or there, or just downright filthy) and want to be clean so they can see their Father in Heaven. People see themselves as imperfect by both Christian Doctrine and their own moral reasoning, and see themselves as. What I do in the name of Christianity, I do not do it out of guilt, but out of gratitude. If you don't believe this, if you don't believe in God, or you don't believe that you have such a need to be cleaned, if you don't feel grateful to God for anything that you have, if you don't believe Christianity, then it isn't for you. You should act by what you believe to be right, and if Christianity isn't what you believe to be right, than so be it.

When I wrote my last post, I didn't at all mean or believe that Christianity has some monopoly on morality. I believe that it's guidelines certainly help with morality, but so do many other philosophies. I know many morally strong atheists, and if you truly live by what you said in your last post, you would be one of them. I know many Christians who take their beliefs in ways that I see as flawed (although I'm really not much of one to talk, as I'm not always sure I understand God's meaning correctly) and do harm with it. I don't judge them for it, as for all I know, they were following their conscience, and they may know something about the issue that I don't. The same goes for any action I see anyone make. Often, when I make a mistake, I think I'm doing the right thing. I certainly have no jurisdiction over the actions of others to say what they do is right or wrong.

I believe the main difference in our two standards is what we want. You believe in looking out for your rational self interest. You believe in using your rational self interest. You believe in persuing your happiness in a way that does not get in the way of others persuing their happiness, realizing if their rights aren't upheld, neither are yours, (funny enough, it sounds kind of like the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.) Truly admirable sentiments, showing the same respect for others that you show for yourself, and I'm sure it gets you through your problems. This isn't enough for me though. I have a desire in me that surpasses all other desires. I have a desire to make a difference. I don't care if I get the glory, a reward, or anything like that, so long as I make a difference. In order to do this, focusing on myself will not help at all. My own well-being is certainly in the picture, and I personally believe that God can make a lot more out of my life than I can, but in order to make a difference, I'm going to have to look beyond myself, to try to make a difference in the lives of others.

Part of this comes from the Christian concept of gratitude and loving my neighbor. I am grateful for all I have, and thus I want to share it.

Another part of this is a deeper one. I see Christ as an example of perfection. That is my second deep desire, I want to be perfect. I obviously have a long way to go, and I'm sure I'll die first, but I can't deny this longing. Now looking at Christ's life, no one will deny that it was largely based on service, and in that he made a difference in the lives of many, and still makes differences. If Christ was the example of perfection, than by trying to be like him and trying to do what he did, I will come that much closer to perfection.

My morality is not out of any guilt or debt. Don't get me wrong, I believe that I was unclean, and that by Christ I am redeemed. However, that is not why I try to make a difference, why I try to be like him. If it was a matter of debt, I'd have lost by now, as there is now human way that it could ever be paid (how do pay for both existence and salvation.) It's a matter of caring about the people around me, wanting them to be happy more than I want my self to be happy. It's about wanting to make a significant difference, about wanting to be perfect. I certainly have my own ambitions.

Now, lets look at some of these attributes that Christianity helps incite at least in me. A desire to make a difference, to serve and placing needs of others before my own. Now would not these attributes help a politician? Would it not be nice if we knew that the people who represented us put our needs in front of their own? That they wanted to serve us the best way they could while in office, not just claw their way up the latter to power for themselves? What if we knew our politicians wanted to make a difference for the better? I'm not saying that these attributes are only held by Christians, or even that all Christians have these attributes, but Christianity helped give them to me. If Christianity could do that for public officials, wouldn't it be nice?

[logical1]

Elder, please read your last paragraph. It sounds like the stated motives of just about every liberal politician out there. I'll take those that wish to claw, thank you. My paycheck can not withstand anymore selfless consideration for "the greater good".

I feel far more comfortable with a policy maker who's primary concern is their own political ambition as opposed to a policy maker with an "agenda". Watch your back when a politician says he's in office to "make a difference and serve the people". You Christians really need to teach these guys the "collection plate" rules. They seem to think it's mandatory. Politicians that are only concerned with re-election tend to avoid any significant action lest that action be judged by the voters. Subsequently, they do less damage. Since when has a bureaucrat been the solution to anything anyway ? I don't need one to fix my life. Do you ? Laissez faire is the only government policy that I subscribe to.

[Elder]

Funny, I thought the liberals were more for clawing up the ladder (i.e. Al Gore.) They put out these charity taxes in order to gain the support of the usually less well-to-do masses. Logical1, I think you misunderstood me slightly. Despite my desire to make a difference, I want to do it myself, not with other people's money. Taxing people for the poor is not necessarily for the greater good. I was refering more to the protection of rights. I wasn't talking about putting the poor in front of the rich or fixing peoples lives. Only one person can fix your life, and that's you. My point is, a leader is supposed to serve the people he leads. He should see what he thinks is wrong with the situation, and be willing to reform it. He is supposed to do the people some good. Otherwise, what good is he?

I do agree, that the collection plate is the best policy. You do not force charity. When someone forces charity on me, I don't feel like I'm making a difference, as I'm being forced to do it. I doubt it pleases God either (for whatever that's worth to you) as I think he'd like for his children to choose to follow him, not be forced into it. Conscripts make excellent cannon fodder, but volunteers are the ones who make a difference. I equally agree that a laissez faire government is the way to go, however, there are ways to do good for your people and look out for their well-being without interfering in their rights. While I think we have the greatest government system on Earth, I think there are places where we could fix some things. At the very least, one could make the difference in the government to help eliminate some of these idiotic taxes which don't even help the greater good that much. They just make those who they support even more dependant. That's just my opinion though.

[logical1]

I think the problem lies in the premise that "serving the people" has to somehow be separate from serving one's self. There really is no such entity as "the people". There are only individual people. In our present culture, bureaucrats can and do use the motive of doing something for "the people" to get away with nearly anything they want. The fact that a certain number of "the people" may be opposed to contributing to partial birth abortions, subsidizing philosophies in public schools that they are opposed to, perpetuating the dependancy of entire segments of our society etc. etc. under threat of imprisonment is overlooked by liberals and conservatives as the lesser of evils.

The argument for a collective mentality is always that nothing would be accomplished if we didn't allow the government the latitude to trample the individual rights of "the minority"(an individual is the smallest minority of all). This is an enormous falsehood that has been allowed to remain prevalent by both liberals and conservatives. The liberals tend to lean toward a socialist type thinking where the ideal of "the greater good" is the people or the state (sound familiar). The conservatives "greater good" is God (which has been around a bit longer but produces the same result). Both motives have proven to be extremely dangerous throughout history.

The fact is, government produces nothing. Everything is produced by private industry which can remain regulated by a free market economy without government interference. If you don't think that things would get done without the government, take a look at the skyline in New York City. That was an endeavor funded by private citizens for their own profit which employs a countless number of people and benefits everyone. The government never has and never will do anything even remotely as significant for "the people". Politicians both liberal and conservative have lost sight of the only proper purpose of a government which is the protection of individual rights. The axioms of what both parties stand for can be reduced to how they "feel" about any particular issue. "Feelings" are an irrational non-objective standard. With that standard in place and accepted as valid, our individual rights and liberties will continue to be whittled away by a bureacrats "feelings" until either God or "the people" makes slaves of us all.

[udawg]

Whether a person is an atheist, a Muslim, or a member of any other religion other that Christianity is not the point. The reason that our leaders swear on a bible is that Christain beliefs are what this (and many other) countries are based on.

Whatever the individual's personal beliefs, they can still be held to the standard that we decided on, as a nation back in 1867. The point is not what THEY believe in, the point is that they lead our country with OUR beliefs guiding them.

[Elder]

udawg, is it really fair to someone to hold them to a standard that they don't believe in? I do agree we need to be a little more tolerant and dare I say it, objective, in this area. People are governed by the moral standard that they themselves hold them too. If a leader wants to hold himself to a Christian Standard, wonderful, and the fact that I believe in a Christian Standard has nothing to do with it. If he wants to hold himself to a more objective standard, that's his choice, and it's none of my business to stop him, and he can probably do plenty of good as well. If a man wants to hold himself to a Muslim standard, good for him. So long as he does not try to force it (as many muslim governments have done in the past,) he can probably do a great deal of good up there. It is wrong to force a man to live by a standard that he doesn't believe in, and that includes political leaders, who have (or at least should have) the same rights we do, are just as much human beings as we are.

Like I said earlier, I don't think that it pleases God at all to have people swear by his name when they don't believe in him (please see 10 commandments: thou shalt not take the Lords name in vain.)

Atheists like to point out that just about every time a religion has had serious political power, it turned into oppression and mass murder (i.e. Inquisitions, the Taliban, Oliver Cromwell's Puritan regime in the British Isles, etc.) Sadly, this is true. Do you know why this happened? Because the religious leaders decided to force their religious convictions on to others who didn't share them. I'm sick of atheists holding that over our heads. I'd like to think that Christians have learned better. I think having good Christian men write the Constitution and including religious freedom was a step in the right direction. Let's not not lapse back into trying to force our way on others. I have no issues with using quiet methods of persuasion to spread the gospel, proselyting to actually bring someone to believe, but forcing it is wrong.

I agree with logical1 that we should try to remember the individual . When we try to do good for others, we should do it for everyone, not just the majority, although certainly not just for the minority. We should try to meet everyones needs. Rich, poor, believer, atheist, man woman, majority, minority, all still have their rights. God loves all his children, right? not Just the majority. The main difference we have ist that I think that a leader will be able to do more good if he worries more about the people he represents than worrying about the next election, while logical1 believes that a leader will do best if he is more concerned with his own political career, thus not wanting to do anything seriously damaging and loosing popular support. Both systems have their merits and their weaknesses, and a leader has the right to choose what he wants.

[udawg]

I just think there's no point in holding our leaders to a standard that the people don't believe in. If it's a standard of the politician's choosing, it undermines the complete idea of democracy.

Democracy is an idea in which representatives do what we want them to. In other words, they must meet OUR standards, not theirs.

[Elder]

And just what is this standard that the people believe in. Read around on this forum. It's very clear that we, the people, have different oppinions on both this and many matters. Our leaders our held by our standards to the point that we impeach them if they step to far out of line, and we may or may not reelect them if we think that they have been doing a bad job. The Constitution contains the base standard that our leaders are held to, which while it may have Christian roots, is not necessarily Christian. Beyond what is entailed there, a leader has the moral responsibility of any man. To hold himself accountable to the standard of his choosing. To do what he or she believes is right. I do think that leaders could get far if they did hold themselves to a Christian standard, although I'm sure other standards have their merits as well. That is their choice however. I vote to elect the people who I think will do the best job, the ones who I think hold themselves to a good enough standard. That's where the Republic elements come in. Hate to break it to you, but we don't live in a Democracy (not enough power to individuals, and just way to slow to get anything done, the minority just being left out to dry.) We live in a Republic, where EVERYONE does get fair representation by whom they elect.

The main point of what I said is that we can't force our morality onto others. We can convince others of it (which I highly endorse) and we can elect officials who have that morality, or who will at least defend that morality, but we can't force it. That would be to go against every freedom we hold dear. If we take away ones freedom to act by his morality, we forfeit our own. We show serious disrespect we show for their own morality, their own standards, their own integrity, and their beliefs. Does this sound like Christian behaviour? (I do mean true, charitable, kind, non-judgemental Christianity, not the historical kill 'em if they don't believe Christianity, in case the local atheists are wondering.) It's persecution, something that both Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians have been on both ends of, and I would think with our extensive experience in this field, we'd know better!

[logical1]

Good post Elder.

[udawg]

Great post.

I was looking at it as though the people were agreed on the standard they want. If we can't agree, I suppose we can't hold anyone to that standard.

You win.

.... this time