Spoke with my Congressman yesterday

[Megenoita]

First of all, it's not contrary to our founders' idea of separation of church and state; all they perpetuated was that the state shouldn't interfere with the church-the reverse of that was something that our country imposed later-not our founding fathers.

And my point was clear-the congressman wasn't pushing any religion or Bible story, yet the new poster was pushing his belief system strongly. Don't push your own if you can't handle another side being pushed (even though it wasn't here). Everyone speaks their moral views; don't get upset just because one isn't yours. You overreacted when a congressman even mentioned the Bible, not realizing that he wasn't pushing it or any of its views! That shows how hyped up you get over it. All I'm saying is that while you enjoy pushing the religion of humanism, and I willingly bear it, then you should be able to bear someone who has the morals of many of the men who founded the country in which you now dwell and enjoy freedom.

[BillJames]

No, Megenoita, you are wrong. The Congressman specifically brought up the Bible in talking about a policy issue that he will be voting on (gambling). Why the hell would he bring this up at all? It's like me saying that, in a conversation about how I might vote on an anti-gambling bill, that I believe in a manuscript that states that a giant space rat will gnaw on the earth if people gamble, so we should keep that in mind. In other words, if he believes such things, he should keep it to himself and not use it to influence he views on what is good for his country (rather than his own crazy beliefs).

And how am I "pushing" my moral beliefs on you, Megenoita? Did I say you must share my beliefs, or that you shouldn't gamble, or not do this or that? No. I'm saying leave me alone with any religious mumbo-jumbo.

It's always the religious people who are always banning stuff because it "goes against the Bible" or some such nonsense.

[Megenoita]

Wow, I'm sorry that you are so upset. Do you understand that our founding fathers believed the Bible, and talked about it all the time? Did you know that they quoted it frequently, and that it was largely the foundation for many of our laws upon their founding? Do you understand that? Now, a congressman mentions the word, "Bible", and you are upset. Well, I'm sorry that you are upset; but maybe it's for a good reason. Maybe you are convicted or something, I don't know. But what I do know is that the man mentioned it, and did not say that you have to believe it. He did not say that laws should be made based on it, though he has historic precedent to make that claim if he did. He did not argue that any policy should or should not be made because of what it says. He didn't say that you shouldn't gamble. He didn't say you had to be religious in any way other than the humanist that you are. Is he "pushing" his beliefs on you? Were the founding fathers?

If you have a problem with people mentioning God or the Bible, move to another country. Our country claims, "In God we trust." Do you still spend money? Then you are being hypocritical. You don't want to be bothered by the mention of religion, yet you spend money that has religion all over it, live in a country based on Christianity.

For me, I wish that people like you would be quiet with your humanism, which is the religion that worships people, mankind. I don't like that religion, and I wish no one ever pushed it like you are by voicing how the Bible is not true, and people should shut up about it. By denouncing another religion, you necessarily perpetuate your own. I hope you understand that simple truth. Now, what do I do about this? I allow you to voice your humanism without complaint, and I only ask you to do the same with me. Like I said in another thread one time, everyone voices their belief system, preaching it. If you compare how you've spoken in this thread to how the congressman mentioned that the Bible doesn't directly condemn gambling, I think anyone involved in this thread will readily concede that you've been "preaching" what you believe far more strongly than the congressman "pushed his religion". And it's not close.

Religious mumbo-jumbo is how this country was started. Funny that people like you want to absolve yourself from your foundation. But alas, this country is growing more and more inclined to what you have grown up believing, being embittered by anything other than humanism and darwinism. But that's your right in this country. Do as you wish. All that I ask is that you let a congressman believe and speak his views just as you speak your own. Just because you hate his views doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to speak them. It's really as simple as that.

This is my last post on this thread; I'm not following it anymore, but I hope we part ways in some sort of agreement about freedom of speech and expression. And when in doubt about separation of church and state, check out what it applied to when it was enacted.

Peace,
M

[blueodum]

Do you understand that our founding fathers believed the Bible, and talked about it all the time?

*************

Thomas Jefferson was an agnostic.

[blueodum]

If you have a problem with people mentioning God or the Bible, move to another country. Our country claims, "In God we trust." Do you still spend money? Then you are being hypocritical.

********

It doesn't say "In Yahweh We Trust". Christians do not hold a monopoly on the "God" concept.

I think the main point is that the United States has evolved into a much more multifaceted society nowadays and the imposition of "Christian" values, once utterly uncontroversial, now rubs many people the wrong way. I think Christians ought to be a little bit more sensitive to these facts, particularly when they are telling other people how to live their lives.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't say "In Yahweh We Trust". Christians do not hold a monopoly on the "God" concept.

I think the main point is that the United States has evolved into a much more multifaceted society nowadays and the imposition of "Christian" values, once utterly uncontroversial, now rubs many people the wrong way. I think Christians ought to be a little bit more sensitive to these facts, particularly when they are telling other people how to live their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHO (not ONE religion would consider it a mere "God subject") do you think they were referring to when they first began doing this?

FWIW I think Megenoita was being more than accomodating to the "evolving society" in his posts. Maybe you aren't calling him out with your post, but just in case it's inferred. If you take a close look, all he said was that the congressman didn't attempt to "push his beliefs" as one poster claimed. Go back and read the OP. It's not there. He merely points out that, in his (the congressman) opinion, the Bible actually presents the disciples gambling. He's right that the Bible doesn't say anything to prohibit gambling. So, what's the problem? Meg's point is that just as the poster who denies God and the Bible is "allowed" to have that pov, so is the congressman allowed to have his. In fact, the congressman even admits that EVEN THOUGH he thinks the Bible doesn't prohibit gambling, he's not going to gaurantee that he won't vote in that way. So where was a Biblical world-view impressed upon you again? Interesting.

Reading is half the battle.

[BillJames]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading is half the battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure is.Didn't you read the part where the OP said that he was "fairly sure" that the Congressman's past sponsorship of anti-gambling legislation came from his moral/relgious background? Since he's the one who actually talked to him, I'll go with OP's impression.

[ QUOTE ]
But alas, this country is growing more and more inclined to what you have grown up believing, being embittered by anything other than humanism and darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, apparently this guy is an anti-evolutionist as well. 'Nuff said.

[MarkGreb]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like me saying that, in a conversation about how I might vote on an anti-gambling bill, that I believe in a manuscript that states that a giant space rat will gnaw on the earth if people gamble, so we should keep that in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giant space rats scare the crap out of me.

So I'm going to do my part and stop playing online poker. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reading is half the battle.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure is.Didn't you read the part where the OP said that he was "fairly sure" that the Congressman's past sponsorship of anti-gambling legislation came from his moral/relgious background? Since he's the one who actually talked to him, I'll go with OP's impression.

[ QUOTE ]
But alas, this country is growing more and more inclined to what you have grown up believing, being embittered by anything other than humanism and darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, apparently this guy is an anti-evolutionist as well. 'Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when does the OP's opinion supercede what the congressman actually said; especially when the congressman said that he wouldn't gaurantee a negative vote regardless of what he believed (that the Bible doesn't prohibit gambling)? I'd rather go with what the congressman actually said.

Communication is another half of the battle.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
It sure is.Didn't you read the part where the OP said that he was "fairly sure" that the Congressman's past sponsorship of anti-gambling legislation came from his moral/relgious background?

[/ QUOTE ]Most laws deal with morality in some way (except for those like which side of the road you drive on). The source of these laws come from somewhere, and for many it comes from religious belief. This is not wrong. The whole point of a democracy is that we get together and decide upon the moral laws that make sense to us as a society, no matter whether the origins are from religion or eating a bad burrito. If we don't agree with the law, we can oppose it and speak against it.

Yes, Christians seem to be anti-gambeling. It is strange, because it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, though some seem to make claim that it does.

However, I don't believe it is the Christians who are responsible (at least not by themselves) for these laws; if it were then Washington wouldn't be the first state to make online gambeling a Federal offense. I'm frankly suprised that more southern states haven't done more to curb gambeling because of their "bible belt" nature. In fact, I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop here in GA. The fact that this is starting in Washington rather than the Bible belt kind of highlihts the fact that this is more political than moral.

To address the main point about the congressman bringing up the bible, I don't see what the issue is. He brought it up because it is one source from which he derrives his moral views. If the people who put him there agree with this source of his moral viewpoint, then he's doing the right thing. If you don't agree, then you vote to put someone in office who agrees with you about the source of your moral code and what is best for society.

The reason that laws based on the giant rat space race aren't being voted on is not because it is a stupid source of a moral code, but becuse we as a democracy pretty much agree that such a moral code is not something we're interested in enforcing (a direct result of it being stupid of course).