I said in a thread yesterday that their tactics do more harm than good, looks like some evangelicals agree.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/evangelicals.ap/index.html
-
-
oops, meant to put this in the Relgion forum. please move :(
-
Who wrote it Shoes? Reads like a Gary Willis enterprise, and do you have link?
Os Guiness? Gary Mwouw?
Never heard of them, CNN is about as trustworthy as eating peanut brittle with broken teeth...Last edited: May 3, 2008 -
The actual "Manifesto" doesnt come out until Wednesday I believe. So who is involved, and what it actually says wont be known until then I suppose.
-
It becomes an ideology when they tell us the want to amend the Constitution and dictate policy according to what their God tells them. Quit doing that and it won't be ridiculed by people who don't want the Bible replacing the Constitution.
-
I don't think anyone but Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to reflect biblical principles. The government can barely manage to govern what they already have, let alone trying to establish and run a religion? No thanks, leave that to the pastors and preachers.
However this does not equate to completely removing all references to God/religion from all aspects of government.
There has been a happy median since 1776. This country has done well and prosperred with Christianity right along side. The recent outrage from both sides is a result of one side trying to upset that happy median, and the other side trying to keep it in balance. Pitting Constitution in opposition to Religion, forgetting that all the while they have lived in harmony for over 200 years. -
-
References to God/religion is one thing (even then I could argue its endorsing one religion over another). The far right doesn't want references, which they have everywhere you look. You can't go half a mile in the south without seeing a church. And in that sense you are right. Its not like their ability to practice their religion is being oppressed. They have had that ability for over 200 years. The problem is that everyone else isn't practicing it the way they are and that is a problem for the rest of us. -
-
It is a soundbite issue anyway, it takes all three branches of government to amend the constitution anyway and 2/3 of the states have to ratify it, or something like that. So it isn't just one guy that can fullfill any promise along those lines. -
-
Here's the "manifesto" for anyone who wants to read it, or see who's involved. I wouldnt expect any big named people to be involved, they're making far too much money off the way evangelicals are currently constituted to support and type of change imo.
http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/
a snippet of the summary:
Last edited: May 8, 2008 -
That's a pretty well stated manifesto. Being self critical and hitting both sides makes me somewhat sympathetic to the cause. Hopefully this has some influence on people.
-
I think that there is a place for religion in a secular country, as evidence that this country has prospered with religion along side for over 200 years.
People should be allowed to vote their conscience, whether that conscience is based on religion .....or any other source of moral value ..shouldn't matter.Last edited: May 9, 2008 -
I agree with everything you said except for the 10 Commandments being in a court room. The Commandments are a good moral code for anyone to live by. But if I've seen a state sponsorship of one religion over others that would be up there as a pretty good example of it. Our Constitution and laws are perfectly acceptable moral codes. And if a judge really feels so strongly as to display the Commandments because of personal faith I would advise that he/she should maybe be a priest over a judge.
-
Having them displayed is not a government endorsement - meaning there is no State mandate to force belief or establish a certain religion over another. It is just a plaque on a wall that means something to some, and nothing to others.
Like I said - instead of tearing an example of good morals codes off the wall, why don't we add other good moral codes alongside it? -
Well the 10 Commandments are so general that its hard for any religion or nonreligion to be offended. So the only way people would be offended is because its clearly a Christian document and they would probably want a representation of their religion to go right along with it. And also as you say, three of them are staples of our justice system. So why bother with the redundency other than to show everyone how Christian we are? Why not let our Constitution and laws stand on their own?
gafinfan likes this. -
I think the Christianity of most of the people in the US should be displayed in (like you said) the way we act towards those different from them in the US and around the world instead of in relation to our laws, which are supposed to be free of an established religion. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
I was on vacation, visiting my daughter as she graduated from seminary when the manifesto was actually published. It did figure into some conversations among the alumni.
My faith informs my decision making, it shapes the way I consider problems and oppurtunities. Equating faith with a partisan political position is a formula for disaster imo, both for the nation and for the faith.DOLPHAN1 likes this.