Oh, OK. College students say all sorts of stupid and ill-thought-out things. I know, because I was one once Of course, people who aren’t college students say all sorts of stupid and ill-thought-out things, too.
I’d say that it’s on the consciences of religious people to be able to tell the difference between religious laws that should only apply to members of their own religion and civil laws that apply to everyone in society. I keep kosher, but that doesn’t mean that I think it should be illegal for other people to eat pork or shellfish, for example. In general, I’m against laws that prohibit a behavior that doesn’t inherently and objectively harm anyone else- so I think prostitution, drugs, and same-sex marriage should be legal. Something like abortion is trickier, because the two sides disagree on whether it harms another person- the pro-choice side says the fetus is not yet a person, but the pro-life side says it is.
My point is, that decision of what should be law and what should stay as part of your own religion is one that every religious person or person with a personal code of ethics has to make for themselves when they vote. We shouldn’t be using laws to force them to make that decision in any particular way. Some people are going to make decisions that I don’t agree with, but people use their rights to do stuff I don’t like all the time. People use their freedom of speech to say things I don’t like, use their right to vote to vote for candidates I find repugnant, and so on and so forth. That’s completely legal, as it should be.
I’m not really sure how right you are about that. The vast majority will identify as Christian, but in my own experience, I’ve found that there are still a whole lot of Arians out there. I don’t think anyone has ever conducted a large-scale survey of religious attitudes and beliefs to find out what people really do believe.
There’s a difference, too, between “this is against my religion, and therefore I shouldn’t do it”, and “this is against my religion, and therefore no one should do it.”
The legislation of a vegetarian diet comes to mind as a non-Christian example.
Most religions have prohibitions against killing and theft, because killing and theft tend to make for an unstable society.
Where did I say I wanted to restrict your right to vote? Go right ahead and vote! I would, however, advise (not demand, but advise) that you consider that not everyone shares your religious beliefs, so when you vote, take the time to consider the impact on everyone.
For example-a politician voting for a no booze sold on Sunday law. Or restricting access to birth control because some pharmacists believe it’s wrong. I don’t believe people should be allowed to let their own personal beliefs impose restrictions on people who do not feel the same way, at least when it’s something that doesn’t harm YOU, personally. Murder, rape, etc-those all cause harm to someone else. Laws against birth control, booze, blue laws, etc. Those are all personal decisions.
Do you honestly NOT see the difference?
A constitutional government to a certain extent does throw away people’s votes. If 75% of the people in a state vote in a referendum to establish Christianity as the state religion, their votes will get tossed. That’s the way tyranny is prevented.
I should also point out that in the last election I didn’t hear anyone say Christians shouldn’t vote, but I did hear Catholics saying Catholics couldn’t vote against the church position and remain Catholic (or be eligible for communion.)
It appears to this non-participant that you folks may be arguing different points.
I agree that a legislator should refrain from voting to impose purely religious laws on the general public.
I disagree that a private voter should abstain from voting on an issue or vote against their own conscience simply because their conscience has been informed (even directly) by their religious beliefs.
In the matters of referenda, where voters are acting as legislators, the rule for legislators applies to the individual voter.
A Catholic should never vote to restrict divorce in the public sphere because it violates church rules. A Catholic may, indeed, vote to limit or prohibit abortion, based not on any edict from the Vatican that says “vote against abortion,” but because that person has accepted the arguments regarding the point at which human life commences. (Lots of Catholics may, indeed, vote every which way for all the right and wrong reasons, but it is false to claim that in a public vote a Catholic must either support abortion or abstain from voting simply because the church opposes abortion.)
I hope you didn’t think I was responding to anything you said. I was commenting on post # 15 where OtakuLoki said someone had suggested that to him. To me that kind of comment is every bit as idiotic as anything any fundie has ever suggested.
As far as your suggestion. Where is the line drawn? That’s my point and my question. The first amendment protects an elected officials right to worship. If he votes against abortion or gay marriage because he believes it’s wrong is that crossing the line? Isn’t he allowed to vote his conscience even if the foundation is his religious beliefs?
I see. I tend to agree. I’m against the seat belt laws myself. The point is we do make laws that are “moral” judgement calls. There’s a question over how much control local government has vs state, or state vs. federal. I tend to agree with you but then the question becomes what kind of law or attempted law do we call a violation of the establishment clause. Where’s the balance as we separate church and state and defend people’s rights to worship?
They consider the impact on re election too. If you’re a congressman and your district is heavily against gay marriage I applaud the one who has the courage to be vote for same knowing he’ll be out at the next election.
But we, and most other countries do make laws that are built on a moral judgement. If a guy wants to have sex with a goat in the public square should we let him because he’s not hurting anybody?
And yet, I’d have to say this wasn’t the response I heard today on the radio when the issue was discussed. The majority of callers said “Let them come & listen to their music & spend their money. It’s a concert, just like any other.” So, yes, some city supes are reactionary and some citizens are as well. Just like the rest of the country. Go figure.
No, they should not refer to themselves as tolerant and progressive. I’m not sure why the supes voted the way they did, and the paper you cited wasn’t the only one that called them a bunch of intolerant assholes.
Excellent. The SF Chronicle has its collective head screwed on straight. The Board of Supervisors is another matter altogether. After all, the resolution passed, which means a majority of them voted for it. When they go off spouting about other things, like the War, Nuclear Free Zones, Save the Whales, and Impeachment, what have you, why would any reasonable person listen to them?
Because people may have valid opinions about some subjects that make perfect sense for society as a whole while at the same time have their heads completely up their asses about other subjects? Not everyone can be right about everything. The supes were wrong this time. That doesn’t automatically invalidate their decisions about other matters. I’m pretty sure if we dig hard enough, we could find something our president’s said that I agree with…
Wow. And yet, you’re willing to support a president that started a war under false pretenses and gotten a bunch of my brothers in arms killed. I’m afraid that calls your opinion into doubt in my eyes, that support is just so blatantly wrong. In fact, it totally invalidates your opinion as it applies to just about anything all the way down to those nasty assed pants you decided to wear.
Is that pretty much how things work in Updike’s world of black and white?
Where’d you get that idea?
However.
a) They’re not my supes; SF is accross the bay. But this isn’t the first thing they’ve done this past year that’s struck me as a boneheaded move. It wouldn’t surprise me if a few of them weren’t around next year.
b) One particular Supe is trying to make a name for himself because Newsome only has one more mayoral term left, and politics are ramping up. :rolleyes: You get to recognizing the grandstanding for what it is. Same reason I don’t believe that Ahnolt is “mending his ways.” Bullshit. It’s an election year.
Of course, people who aren’t college students say all sorts of stupid and ill-thought-out things, too.