Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump: 'In America we don't worship government, we worship God'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well yes, that's what I mean.

    We do it in reverse - we don't want to religion the meddle in the affairs of man.

    ...

    Basically your constitution prevents government from interfering in matters of religion, ours prevents religious institutions from interfering in matters of state.

    There's a second objection of course, if you write God into the declaration of rights, you are obliged to define God or risk difficult questions by lawyers.

    .
    I find your post interesting. It's true "endowed by the creator" is in the US constitution, but does that really mean anything in the strict sense of giving religious institutions political power? Can you give an example of a religious institution in the U.S. having some power to interfere in the affairs of state occurring in the U.S. that would not be allowed in Belgium? Could a Belgium church be sanctioned for endorsing a political party, for example?

    Endorsing political parties by religious organizations isn't even technically allowed in the US as those organizations could lose their charity status for doing so in the US, and Trump might try to change that. So perhaps that's even a bad example, perhaps you can give me a better one?

    In Canada we have a preamble to our constitution stating " in the very first line "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law", but the mention of "God" in the preamble has been determined to have no legal meaning or "dead letter" In fact, it was only put in there as a compromise to people who did not want a "godless constitution" I am at a loss to think any religious group having special powers to influence politics here.

    What I think it might come down to is not constitutional considerations but rather culture. The legal framework is very similar but it would be very difficult in the US to get elected as an atheist. I doubt that a politician in Canada would suffer much at the polls if he announced he/she was an atheist, in fact there are a number who have done so, mostly from Quebec, to no apparent repercussions. In the US that would be more difficult.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
      Ok, a belief in the supernatural. It's all the same really.
      Big differences in the details. See Islamic Jihad for one glaring and current example.

      Concept I advanced is that we are all "God", or "God" is all of us. Puts a different spin on the "Us" versus "Them" dogma of some religions.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
        (...) Can you give an example of a religious institution in the U.S. having some power to interfere in the affairs of state occurring in the U.S. that would not be allowed in Belgium ?
        Well I'm not all that familiar with the religious institutions of the US.

        We have an article 20 for instance stating that no person can be forced to participate in any religious service, or observe any religious obligations.

        That rules out things like starting a class with a prayer, swearing on bible in a courtroom, having to affirm your belief before assuming a public function, etc..

        Obviously I have no idea how common these things are in the US these days, but for sure the constitution doesn't rule them out.

        While art. 20 would not strictly make the quote from Trump in OP illegal, coming from a president, in the Belgian context, it would probably be enough to force him to resign.

        In Belgium we worship what we bloody well want, and no president will tell us otherwise
        Last edited by Snowygerry; 28 Jun 17, 03:53.
        Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

        Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
          That's very like a version of "Pascal's Wager".
          I had to look that up.
          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

          Comment


          • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
            I had to look that up.
            That's okay.
            You see what I was driving at. "Pascal's Wager" was a product of the fertile mind of Blaise Pascal, 17th century French philosopher and mathematician.
            Briefly and simply-and I am open to correction-he maintained that we cannot know if God exists or not. However, it would be better to follow God's Laws, as we know them, because if He DOES exist then all's well. If He doesn't then no harm is done.
            "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
            Samuel Johnson.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
              Well I'm not all that familiar with the religious institutions of the US.

              We have an article 20 for instance stating that no person can be forced to participate in any religious service, or observe any religious obligations.

              That rules out things like starting a class with a prayer, swearing on bible in a courtroom, having to affirm your belief before assuming a public function, etc..

              Obviously I have no idea how common these things are in the US these days, but for sure the constitution doesn't rule them out.

              While art. 20 would not strictly make the quote from Trump in OP illegal, coming from a president, in the Belgian context, it would probably be enough to force him to resign.

              In Belgium we worship what we bloody well want, and no president will tell us otherwise
              I don't think any of those examples apply in the U.S. Correct me if I am wrong anyone, but you can't have prayers to start a class in the U.S. if it's a public school can you? There is an alternative to swearing on the bible in court if you object (You affirm... ) and also an alternative to swearing on a bible for taking public office I believe. I don't think the laws are much different, the culture is but not the laws.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                That's okay.
                You see what I was driving at. "Pascal's Wager" was a product of the fertile mind of Blaise Pascal, 17th century French philosopher and mathematician.
                Briefly and simply-and I am open to correction-he maintained that we cannot know if God exists or not. However, it would be better to follow God's Laws, as we know them, because if He DOES exist then all's well. If He doesn't then no harm is done.
                Of course the problem is the "God's Laws" part. Since the wager doesn't and can't distinguish between whichever variation of "God's Laws" that exist on the planet, then picking any religion and the interpretation of any religion fits the wager. Yet, chances are you are still betting on the wrong religion.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  Of course the problem is the "God's Laws" part. Since the wager doesn't and can't distinguish between whichever variation of "God's Laws" that exist on the planet, then picking any religion and the interpretation of any religion fits the wager. Yet, chances are you are still betting on the wrong religion.
                  Yep,in the end I suppose, "You pays your money and takes your choice ".
                  The "Gods Laws", comment, by the way was not Pascal's but my reading of the Wager which,perhaps, might be better expressed.
                  "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                  Samuel Johnson.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                    Yep,in the end I suppose, "You pays your money and takes your choice ".
                    The "Gods Laws", comment, by the way was not Pascal's but my reading of the Wager which,perhaps, might be better expressed.
                    I realize that "God's laws" was your own wording but it amounts to the same thing.
                    If not founded on a genuine "belief" and you are simply choosing to follow a given variant of a religion for the practical reason of hedging your chances of saving your soul, then you might as well pick a modern heavily secularized religion that is low on obligation and otherwise indistinguishable from no religion.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                      I realize that "God's laws" was your own wording but it amounts to the same thing.
                      If not founded on a genuine "belief" and you are simply choosing to follow a given variant of a religion for the practical reason of hedging your chances of saving your soul, then you might as well pick a modern heavily secularized religion that is low on obligation and otherwise indistinguishable from no religion.
                      I can't see anything wrong with hedging your bets in this instance, and if it's an incentive to behave decently regardless of cosmic reality-whatever it is - then it's a bonus.
                      I can't see that the Lord ,should he exist, would object too much to such spiritual gatecrashing.
                      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                      Samuel Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                        I can't see anything wrong with hedging your bets in this instance, and if it's an incentive to behave decently regardless of cosmic reality-whatever it is - then it's a bonus.
                        I can't see that the Lord ,should he exist, would object too much to such spiritual gatecrashing.
                        I recall the story on D-Day where the padre asked the Canadian soldiers to pray with him, and one of the soldiers said "Kind of late to start sucking up to him, isn't it Padre"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                          I recall the story on D-Day where the padre asked the Canadian soldiers to pray with him, and one of the soldiers said "Kind of late to start sucking up to him, isn't it Padre"
                          Rather like a "Death Bed Confession" I suppose, but then again, better late than never perhaps.
                          "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                          Samuel Johnson.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                            Of course the problem is the "God's Laws" part. Since the wager doesn't and can't distinguish between whichever variation of "God's Laws" that exist on the planet, then picking any religion and the interpretation of any religion fits the wager. Yet, chances are you are still betting on the wrong religion.
                            Assuming said deity believes in theistic legalism.

                            The older I get and the more I think about it the more I feel that an intelligent designer wouldn't be nitpicky. One of my theological philosophy rules is "It is safe to assume that an intelligent designer is at least as smart as we are and likely smarter therefore our understanding will be known to him." That's why I resist the argument that homosexuality is a spiritual weakness and challenge theologians. If WE know that homosexuality is a fluke of our brain's arousal programming then of course a designer would. He made the computer. Therefore 1st century opinions on homosexuality as a spiritual failing can and should be discarded.

                            Taking this to a theology level, if WE can comprehend that every man's personal sense of spirituality regardless of religion is an earnest attempt to connect with his creator according to his own understanding and the instruction he received as a child then it is logical to assume that an intelligent designer would be equally aware of this and thus not overly legalistic.

                            These days I see religion as a tool for spiritual connection and community rather than a formula of checkboxes for avoiding hellfire. If you are earnestly seeking spiritual purpose and not trying to kill me as an infidel or heretic I'm going to see you as a fellow pilgrim regardless of what temple you go to.
                            Last edited by Pirateship1982; 30 Jun 17, 21:40.
                            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X