I want developed science. And you? I want developed constitutions of Europe On atheist forum my friend said, that God in constitution is rhetoric and beautiful words God created earth We must be good people, said God in constitution God saved me, said Wiki I don't read bible I don't go to church I for church online Anglicanism and Lutheranism is developed religion
Could you imagine what it would be like if congress had to argue about what the various gods and prophets were telling the USA to do?
Are you suggesting that references to god in a constitution make no difference of any kind in the laws of the land?
Well, I should have been more specific. Our constitution references religion. The statement there separates government decisions from religion. So for example, religious belief could not be considered in deciding cases such as Lawrence v Texas, or same sex marriage. I think the concern comes when the constitution allows policy decisions to be argued on the basis of religious belief.
The bill of rights actually protects religious beliefs. What it bans is the development of a religion by government. Since many people have religious beliefs and have a constitutional right to have them, it is absolutely appropriate for government to consider them in tort cases. That is not to say that religious beliefs avoid consequences for torts. But it would be unconstitutional for a court to refuse to allow religious beliefs to come forward. In the end it is up to a jury to decide the religious argument has merit.
Could you please elaborate and tell us what you defined as developed science. It's hard to have a dialogue without established parameters to go on
As I pointed out, we saw that in Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges. The fact that some religions didn't like same sex intercourse or same sex marriage could not be posed as an argument.
God's don't kill people, people that believe in God's kill people 99.9% of religious people are good people, it's that .1% you have to watch out for
not that easy if religions make laws to ban you from doing things like eating shellfish just cause their book says it's bad laws should not be based on religion remember the Salem witch trials.....
never know what crazy law a religious fanatic will want to pass banning the sale of cakes banning the blind with service dogs entry to taxis and businesses banning blasphemy.... the list goes on
OK so eating shellfish is legal everywhere. I thought it was just bluster. Where is it illegal to sell cakes or take a service dog into a business or speak blasphemy? More bluster? You aren't making any sense.
The significance and impact of the Salem witch trials is badly overstated. And what if a majority of voters wants laws based on religion? Do you not believe in democracy? By the way nothing in the New Testament says eating shellfish is bad. Only the New Testament is binding upon Christians.
I want a decent Star Trek series with absolutely none of the diversity and woke crap that permeates all of the modern Trek series.
I believe in freedom. If democracy is forcing people to behave according to the tenets of a religion, then it is not promoting freedom for all. At that point anarchy is preferable until a new government that protects individual freedoms can be established. Democracies can be as ****ed up as any other governments if the majority believe in the prosecution of the minority. Freedom for all is what matters, not the form of government.
I said they may want too, we have seen many threads on the subject here we are a secular country, we have religious freedom, no one religion
The problem is that the logic for your nonsense is the same as the logic for laws against LGBTQ, free speech, the state preaching one specific religion in public schools, and other issues that have been and continue to be serious issues. Introducing the claims of one religion into the running of a free society is just something that absolutely does not work. And, our founders, who did have religious views, said so - in our constitution.
If you think I write nonsense, then there is no point in sharing any more nonsense with you on that subject. Actually it works more often than not. I do agree that religion should not get involved in managing anything other than a religious activity. Don't confuse a society with a government. Religion is good for society but bad for government. They did indeed. They were saying so for government, not for society. In fact they demanded freedom of religion since religion is basically good for society. What they banned was government establishing a national religion. They were correct in doing that. I say these things despite the fact that I am not religious in any sense.