Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: God’s morality outweighs man’s

Letter by Vince A. Wagner, University Place on April 18, 2012 at 10:55 am with 62 Comments »
April 18, 2012 12:11 pm

Re: “Catholic leader gets it wrong” (letter, 4-18).

It is correct that in 1973 a small percentage within the American Psychological Association declared that homosexuality was no longer pathological and removed the behavior off the deviant list.

At that time, a referendum was held to see if psychiatrists would agree to delete homosexuality from the deviant list. However, only 25 percent of the APA voted. Of those who voted only three out of five voted “yes.” That means only 15 percent of the APA voted to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual.

The diagnosis was political, and no one has ever denied that. There was never any investigation or scientific evidence produced to show that homosexuality was “a normal expression of human sexuality.”

For homosexual activists, the legalization of homosexual “marriage” is of the highest importance because in their minds legal means moral. For homosexuals it is about demanding from government and society what God didn’t and won’t give them: approval of their sexual behavior.

For homosexuals it is not about redefining marriage. It is about undefining marriage out of existence.

For others, Referendum 74 and Initiative 1192 are about what Scripture teaches concerning homosexuality and God’s command for marriage, not what some in the medical field choose to believe and ignore. It is about honoring the oldest and most universal of all God’s institutions. It is about God’s definition of morality versus man’s definition of morality.

Leave a comment Comments → 62
  1. surething says:

    Wow, just wow.

  2. more like wrong, just plain wrong.

    unless one is willing to live under ALL Old Testament Laws.

  3. tellnolies says:

    Which god gets to make that call?

  4. Theefrinker says:

    Since I’m a thinking person, I probably should have just passed over this letter–but then again, I’d be without entertainment for my lunch hour. The “Scripture” was written by man, then re-written and edited by many more men. Governments recognize human marriage, so they should recognize all human marriage. If churches wish to participate as well, that is outstanding of them. If not, they can stick to the out-dated Scripture and remain unbothered by progress.

  5. Well Mr Wagner, i hope you don’t eat shellfish or sleep/slept with your wife during the time she is/was “unclean”. -__-

  6. LornaDoone says:

    Vince – when you and God can sit down for a cup of coffee with me and dicuss this like adults, I’ll be more than happy to listen.

    In the meantime, I think you are trying to scare me with mythology.

    As to God, well, I’ll suggest that based on the folklore, if God were available for that coffee talk, he’d probably look at you and say “Vince, what goes on between those other people and me is none of your business and I wish people would quit misquoting me”

  7. I’m certain that at the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders, there was absolutely nothing political going on during their debates and votes about which scriptures would become part of the official Bible…

  8. amber424 says:

    Vince, just because you happen to believe in a specific god does not mean that the rest of us do (or believe in any god for that matter). Just because you are bound by your beliefs does not mean that the rest of us have to be saddled with them as well. And by the way, where the hell did you get your ‘facts’ from for this LTE?
    Vote NO on Referendum 74!

  9. averageJoseph says:

    Looks like Vince has ALL the regulars in a tizzy. LOL.

    I see no one refuted anything he said.

  10. Pecksbadboy says:

    Mr Wagner, let your God sort it out. In the meantime just pray and go you own way.

  11. LornaDoone says:

    “I see no one refuted anything he said”

    The old “prove God doesn’t exist”.

    Someone failed Logic 101.

  12. LornaDoone says:

    I wonder whose fault it will be when the latest incarnation gets el booto?

  13. averageJoseph, should we go paragraph by paragraph to show the obvious mistakes in the letter in refuting what it says?

    First, it was the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees in 1973 that voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, and a majority of all the members supported the removal in 1974. Homosexuality was never on a “deviant” list. I am not sure where Mr Wagner gets his info, but it was not the American Psychological Association and it does not comport with the facts:

    ” In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year.”
    http://www.diseases-diagnosis.com/virtual/American_Psychiatric_Association

    Next:

    “There was never any investigation or scientific evidence produced to show that homosexuality was “a normal expression of human sexuality.”

    The APA states that the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders was based on a review of the scientific literature:

    “All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.”

    http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx

    Mr Wagner purports to be able to read the minds of gay activists when he says they think “legal means moral.” The only refuting that is to see what people actually say, and gay activists say that legal means legal. Gay activists have said denying gay marriage is not Constitutional, and many courts have said that denying gay amrriage is unconstitutional. Mr Wagner gets to keep his views on morality, even if gay marriage remains legal. He does not have to marry another man.

    Since morality is in the mind of the beholder and is totally a belief system, morality does not equate to legality. My parents never believed that drinking alcohol was moral, and making it legal did not change their minds. Nor did they have to change their beliefs and be forced to drink alcohol, or gamble or do anything else that was legal, but immoral in their eyes.

    Mr Wagner believes that gay marriage will “undefine” marriage, not gay activists. His fantasy conspiracy theory that gays are out to get rid of marriage for everyone is totally ridiculous. Heterosexuals have been doing a great job in removing marriage as a requirement for two people to live together and have sex or have children for many years now. The tiny minority of gay people in our society will have little impact on that direction one way or another. It has gien a boost to the wedding industry in states that have legalized it.

    Mr Wagner says: “Referendum 74 and Initiative 1192 are about what Scripture teaches”. In his mind, that may be true. I think scripture teaches us that Jesus would approve of gay marriage. Again, he can believe anything he wants to believe, and I get to believe what I want to believe.

    Beliefs are one thing and facts, evidence and knowledge are different. All of the latter are totally absent from this letter.

  14. Amber424 – First NO vote on R74 is to refuse to sign the petation.

  15. Unless we are willing to live under all Old Testament laws, we should ignore the ones about lieing, stealing, and murder too, right xring?

  16. LornaDoone says:

    Someone thinks lying, stealing and murder were only wrong since a book was written in ancient times?

    Everyone knows that if you are going to be religious you pick and choose your laws anyway.

    Lying – only wrong if you get caught. Then you repent.

    Stealing – see above.

    Murder – you say you are protecting the lives of unborn children.

  17. My, doone, but you are cynical. Must be tough being you.

    No book was needed to establish that lieing, etc. are murder. The book merely confirmed it and recommended against it. Check out Paul’s epistle to the Romans (1:18ff)

  18. menopaws says:

    Those of us who find the Bible to be a pleasant fable are not particularly impressed by those who use it as a weapon to club people who are different than they are. I am a spiritual person, but not particularly religious and letters like this convince I made the right call. Pews filled with people like this letter writer just feels like I have arrived at the wrong party. Sorry, but faith is private, personal and never meant to exclude people…….I have no desire to mingle with those who choose to judge others while claiming moral superiority and the blessing of the Lord. I have a strong feeling they are in for a huge surprise when they arrive at those pearly gates!!!!!!!

  19. velmak – The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating to ca. 1700 BCE (short chronology). Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BCE), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BCE) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BCE), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.

  20. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that no law can be justified on the basis of religious dogma or religious tradition. People have tried to justify laws because the Bible says so, and they get shot down every time. The last try that I am aware of was by Virginia saying interracial marriage was against the Bible.

    In upholding or striking down various marriage laws, the Supreme Court has said that the fundamental human right of marriage can be restricted by states only if the marriage harms others, harms the people in the marriage or harms democracy. Note, no mention about someone’s personal sense of morality or religion.

  21. LornaDoone says:

    “No book was needed to establish that lieing, etc. are murder. The book merely confirmed it and recommended against it. Check out Paul’s epistle to the Romans (1:18ff)”

    Lying etc are murder????? Interesting, not sure what it means, but interesting.

    If no book is needed, why refer to said book?

    Long before religion there was life. Urg took Uggs stick. Ugg didn’t like it and let Urg know it. There was a repercussion. Urg learned to not steal. No tablet from the sky required.

    Cynical? Nope. Those days left long ago with religion. I’m now honest and realize that religion breeds hypocrisy and a cynicism that says “all who live other than my way are evil”. True spirituality has nothing to do with religion.

  22. LornaDoone says:

    Tuddo – there are passages in the Old and New Testaments that, if a person wants, would outlaw interracial marriage. The Bible will help with any bigotry you want, if you are willing to read it the way you want. It tells you something about the motivation by which the scriptures came about.

  23. This vince guy sure is afraid of homosexuality. what sort of insecurities could provoke these manic projections?
    Jesus taught love and inclusion.
    Vince doth protest too much…

  24. Frankenchrist says:

    Phil, if Zeus was against gay marriage he would hurl down thunderbolts at married gays. He isn’t, so obviously god’s morality weighs the same as man’s.

  25. sandblower says:

    I hope Mr. Wagner is not in a position to influence young children. Most adults are already bright enough to see through his mental fog.

  26. no god, so who cares what these biblical people think

  27. penumbrage says:

    Any mistaken interpretations by ancient shepherds, farmers and clergy aside, the Architect of DNA and the Engineer of human reproduction could only have defined ‘man’ as ‘The sex I designed to contribute sperm to their offspring’ (genetic XY males) and ‘woman’ as ‘The sex I designed to contribute eggs to their offspring’ (genetic XX females).
    The incontestable fact is that dozens of medical disorders like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia result in hundreds of thousands of intersex citizens (XY males with vaginas, XX females with penises) and a whole spectrum of ambiguously sexed humans of both genders from mostly masculine through half-and-half to mostly feminine.
    If you believe (in direct opposition to medicine, science, personal experience and how God actually made human reproduction work) that all humans are exclusively 100% male or 100% female, then you can no more design a successful and fair society for all U.S. citizens than someone who believes the Earth is the center of the universe could design a successful space program.
    If your church offends your morals by recognizing ‘same sex’ marriages, I suggest you quit and find one that you’re more comfortable with.
    If you object to the term ‘marriage’ for the secular, governmental recognition of the state of wedlock, I suggest you lobby for a name change.
    But please don’t interfere with the United States in it’s ongoing efforts to enable the pursuit of happiness for as many of it’s citizens as possible – whether or not they think, act (or have genitals in perfect agreement with their genders) like the rest of us do.

  28. These discussion oftentimes include a claim that Einstein was a devout believer. Yet he wrote this the year before he died:

    The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
    http://whohasthisimagination.com/einstein-in-1952-wrote-that-the-word-god-is-nothing/

  29. So, if Muslims running a country is evil, why does the right always insist that some christian church run this one?

    If you people want a theocracy, by all means go some place and start one, but you can NOT have MY country!

  30. “The Supreme Court has ruled many times that no law can be justified on the basis of religious dogma or religious tradition.”

    And yet, the laws that govern our civil behavior are based on “some” moral code that came from somehwere. Where?

  31. vingrotto says:

    Believe in God or don’t believe in God. Either way our laws have been put in place to protect the rights of EVERYONE, not just for those who choose to live their lives by The Bible. Go to church. Surround yourself with your loving congregation Vince and let the rest of us live our lives based on an inherent practice of love, respect and morality – traits we CHOOSE to honor because they are the right thing to do and not because a book tells us we should. Put down the Kool-aid!

  32. sozo, our laws were based on legal codes that bBoy and others have mentioned. Judaism treats some issues as “The Law” and some as just good for a person. Roman law may have had influences from their old pagan religions. In many tribal religions, the shaman was both the law and the prophet and set the boundaries of behavior. The chief was generally the enforcer, but could be the innovator, too.

    For governance, the Magna Carta is the most cited document as the precursor of rational law. It says the law comes from the people, not the godhead. Of course, Pope Innocent annuled that part, saying law came from God through the Catholic Church, but the idea of the law arising out of the rational mind of the people who are subject to it endured and became manifest in our Constitution.

    Since those times, we had an Enlightenment, where culture in western civilization realized that we could develop, implement and enforce laws based on reason. Rationality is a wonderful thing. It gets rid of the need for some mystical being to tell us what we need to do.

    We don’t all have to agree on which mystical being we should listen to, and whether or not it was eight-armed or three-headed. People can live moral lives without the need for religion through their own insight and rationality. Governments by people who use rationality is what our founders strived for.

  33. LornaDoone says:

    “And yet, the laws that govern our civil behavior are based on “some” moral code that came from somehwere. Where?”

    Common sense. Someone figured out “if I don’t want someone to do this to me, maybe I shouldn’t do it to others”.

    Those who feared reason, nominated a Supreme Being to substitute for conscience.

  34. I love reading the drivel from the Left! They get SO Good Gawd Self-Righteous with their Psuedo-Intellectual Hot Air!

  35. Dcr628, I don’t think God wants people to write baseless, error- and hate-filled diatribes in His name. I think there is another power that does that. Could it be – Satan?

  36. “And yet, the laws that govern our civil behavior are based on “some” moral code that came from somehwere. Where?”

    Not a church and not the bible and certainly not the vatican.

  37. I love reading the drivel from the right! They get SO Good Gawd Self-Righteous with their Psuedo-Intellectual Hot Air!

  38. And the Juvenal right show up.

  39. letsworkitout says:

    Juvenile would refer to most here lol. Left or right. It is more about slinging sludge at each other, there is no discussion here, just tantrums and finger pointing. Same old, same old.

  40. …And once again it becomes glaringly apparent that Kluwer while still needing that DICTIONARY, is unable engage in thoughtful discussion! Yep, Ol’ Kluwer is the classic poster boy of the Left. Fits the genre to a T!

    Just cant accept the notion that there are people who hold onto the traditional philosophies that have held for thousands of years as opposed to the sad, socially destructive notions of the left that maybe have fifty years behind them! HAA!

  41. Letswork….There actually IS the possibility of a discussion. It digresses when local, closed minded, lunatic liberals drag the whole thing into the sewer the second someone actually suggests that traditional values that have existed successfully for thousands of years as opposed to their whims of “feel good for themselves” notions, might be worth hanging onto. Might be worth expressing in the hopes of drawing the mis-informed fence straddlers to a sensible thought.

  42. LornaDoone says:

    “Simple fact is, if God intended for men and men, and women and women to engage in sexual acts, I tend to think He would have designed the plumbing a little more accomodating to that end.”

    Sorry, moderator, but I can’t avoid being graphic on this while putting this silliness to rest.

    The alleged “plumbing design” is no more accomodating to the heterosexual persuasion. Why would Mr. Perfect double up one orifice as a sexual pleasure center and a location for expelling liquid waste, in addition to the extremely close proximity of the solid waste disposal locale?

    Additionally, heterosexuals have had no problem (other than personal choice) of utilizing the same method of sexual pleasure as SOME male homosexuals, adapting the fittings, so to speak.

    Finally, female homosexuals’ sexual proclivities demonstrate that two partners need not have the “X/Y” factor, known in electrical and plumbing as “male and female” fittings. Many heterosexuals have non-coital pleasure as well.

    It would seem that those who cannot see past the limited vision might also be suffering from a lack of creativity and an obsession with other people’s sexual activities.

    I guess one could say that God designed this and that, but God didn’t design the brain for thinking outside the box.

  43. Dcr, you presume too much if you think I am trying to justify God’s intent to others. I am justifying laws based on the Constitution, our highest authority for civil law, not God.

    If anyone could ever write a fact-based article, letter or other document showing how gay marriage and gay rights could possibly infringe on others, harm others, harm those in the marriage or harm our democracy, I would read it intently and seriously.

    I read this letter seriously, and showed that it was not fact-based at all, but totally fabricated and error-filled. If one person or a group of people want to impose their definition of “morality” on others, then it must be based on the effect it will have on secular society, not because it is a religious belief.

    For example, even though Prohibition was a “morality” issue to some, it legality was determined through the secular filter of interstate commerce, and it was passed because of arguments about harm to individiuals, to others and to society, not because of Baptists’ and Methodists’ religious opposition to alcohol.

    I have many times stated that people can personally believe anything they want to. If my believing that Jesus would approve of gay marriage offends you, then so be it. It is a belief, just like anyone stating that Jesus would not approve of gay marriages, since there are no facts to base it on, not even in that book written by fallible men on their perception of what God is and wants.

    Some Christian denominations think gay marriage is the will of God, some don’t. They can practice whatever they believe. However, since the right to marry and the secular benefits bestowed upon marriages by the government in this country are not a religious issue to be decided by ecclesiastical courts, then any person’s or church’s decision on God’s intent is beside the point, except for their own life and their own actions.

  44. CookieLadyDoone? Your method of thought makes my day! Its honest to God better than the Comedy Channel..Sort of reminds me of the abortion topic the other day, where in regards to your “seed diet” comment, you fairly well got your tushy handed to you on a silver platter!!!!! :D

  45. Tuddo, I understand what you are saying. And I understand everyone has their own belief. I never have had a problem with that. And of course what two people do in their own privacy, homo or hetro-sexual, has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

    My comments regarding this are quite simply, to voice disagreement. And I believe that disagreement is shared by the majority of people in this country.

    It gets crazy around here, regardless of topic, when those lunatics of the left go on their self-righteous tantrums because someone has the nerve to state that disagreement. It is then that traditional, reasonable people like myself engage in the entertaining game of putting the self righteous in their place, while showing the undecided the insanity of the left. (Oh boy THAT will surely get a response! HAA!)

  46. LornaDoone says:

    “Sort of reminds me of the abortion topic the other day, where in regards to your “seed diet” comment, you fairly well got your tushy handed to you on a silver platter!!!!!”

    SEED DIET?????????

    Someone is delusional.

  47. LornaDoone says:

    When something is handed to someone “on a silver platter” it means:

    Provide with something valuable for nothing, or give an unearned reward to; also, make it easy for. For example, She did no work at all, expecting to have everything handed to her on a silver platter

    Thus when someone says “got your tushy handed to you on a silver platter”, they are intimating that you were handed your own gluteous maximus (a trick in itself), which you didn’t deserve. (series of question marks and exclamation points)

    Basically, that phrase is stupid, ridiculous, meaningless and a malaprop at best.

    What this person was probably trying to say is that I was “handed my lunch” or “had my lunch handed to me”.

    This is the person claiming they “engage in the entertaining game of putting the self righteous in their place”??????????

    Well that deserves a big LOL.

    Fond memories of aislander and his thesaurus comments.

  48. LornaDoone says:

    “traditional values that have existed successfully for thousands of years”

    What is a “traditional value”? Since homosexuality is as old as mankind, would that make it a traditional value? If a value is old and was once held as right by society, that would make slavery a traditional value.

    When the righteous right tries to play rhetoric games, they might want to keep in mind that many of us have been educated and use reference guides as opposed to just nodding our heads and saying “amen, brother”.

  49. OMG I guess the CookieLady sure showed me! I digress…I expect I worded that incorrectly. But by virtue of the fact that said CookieLady responded, it must have touched a nerve! HAA

    Just for fun, I think I shall have to dig up that old exchange from 5th of April…..

    “LornaDoone challenges,
    “So a fetus/embryo is the equivilant to a human being? I want to see sozo go on a seed diet, as opposed to eating fully developed fruits and vegetables. Try embryos as opposed to beef.
    They are all the same, right?” Well now, I can tell you that I have sat down with a bag of sunflower seeds, and felt just as full as I have after a cheeseburger. Food is food, regardless.
    One more pathetic, liberal analogy bites the dust. No matter what spin you people put on this, a fetus will become a human child, and deliberately ending its development and thus, its life, for the selfish convenience of the mother, more worried about her rights than the life of her future child, is wrong. There is no other possibility to this.…by the way Lorna, do you prefer a three egg omelet, or a slice of boloney? Of course with your Liberal leanings, I would have to think you prefer BALONEY….but that still wouldnt take away from the fact that the EGGS are still EQUALLY food.”

  50. dcr — ur side is not simply “voicing disagreement”. u r trying 2 take away the basic civil and social rights of fellow american citizens.

    when will u people learn to read the bible? old testament is highly conservative. new testament is far more liberal. it’s just funny how they pick and choose which adhere to based solely upon convenience. i dont see them sacrificing animals for their sins. i dont see them shunning pig and shellfish. but old-testament self-righteousness (homophobia); jealous-god hatred (islamophobia)? oh thats rampant these days. more believers need to live like their bumper-sticker; wwjd. jesus took in the sick and shunned. jesus lifted up the amongst us. jesus paid taxes to caesar without complaint. the parable of a camel through the eye of a needle. feeding thousands of his hungry followers fish and bread. “let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone.” jesus cast out the money changers. since when is “jesus love me” conditional? again, wwjd…

  51. Velmak – in a word yes.

    If you accept the OT as the divine word of god you must accept all the laws or risk the wath of the one whose name can not be said.

    Many of the laws in the OT really only make sense when viewed in the historical context of the time and place OT comes from.

    Thanks for the setup. It will be interesting to see the reaction to these two conundrums.

    Dcr – sorry to point this out to you – but Jesus was a liberal and opposed the Jewish Church and Priesthoods.

    LornaD – re the plumbing. Have you read Desmond Morris? If not you should as he uses zoological studies of humans and primates to come to the same conclusions

  52. wildcelticrose says:

    Vince,

    You are free to believe whatever you like and worship however you choose and to have your marriage sanctified by the church of your choice (if they will have you).

    What you are not free to do, is to legislate your version of god on the rest of the citizens of this country.

    Marriage is a legally binding contract administered by the government. As such, your religion has to relevance.

  53. wildcelticrose says:

    Ooops, that would be, As such, your religion has NO relevance.

    Note to self, stop eating and typing at the same time ;)

  54. LornaDoone says:

    Thanks for clearing up your convoluted former post, Dcr. I don’t have an archive to keep track of my comments and frankly don’t remember everyone of them either. Now….to the point.

    If embryos are people, then seeds are flowers and eggs are chickens, right? Try building an ocean going ship from just iron ore, instead of making steel and see how well it floats and holds together.

    Do you get feathers with your 3 egg omlet?

    The latest conservative take is that a child is in the making as soon as a woman finishes her last menstrual cycle. Maybe one of these days the conservative cons will make a “human life” be the twinkle in the man’s eye when he gets the notion to move the ocean. There is a propaganda floating on Facebook about “killing a cell”, but of course the same people think nothing of getting their hair cut on a regular basis.

    Please continue to be as ridiculous as possible. It makes my job easier.

    You really handed me my tush on a silver platter…..

  55. LornaDoone says:

    Dcr – one last thing. As demonstrated by the comment you dragged up, I don’t pay attention to much of what you post.

  56. LornaDoone says:

    Now let’s see….who is the other character that keeps track of “points scored” on the discussion forum?

    Oh yeah…CT7 Hmmmm…..

    xring – frankly, I felt a little silly with that “plumbing” post. I’m amazed at anyone that thinks sexual activity is designed to be limited to coitus. 99% of the time it’s a man’s comment and I’m betting that the woman (women)in his life are overwhelmed (heavy sarcasm here)by his lovemaking. If God decided, based on sexual plumbing, that only coital activity was the intention for mankind, women got the (pardon the expression) “short end of the stick”, again.

    No wonder Eve checked out apples.

  57. Lorna – you have got to read Desmond Morris – you and he have very similar beliefs.

    Intercousre is the glue that keeps humand couples together.

  58. averageJoseph says:

    TMI xring.

  59. It is interesting to me that so many folks want to eliminate God from the courtroom, as if there is no connection between our “reasoned” laws and our belief in a higher being. Interesting and a bit amusing given the fact that “God” is etched in stone in many of those courtrooms and it wasn’t that long ago that people placed their hands on a Bible when being sworn in. In other words, it’s only been in recent decades that folks have attempted to sever the tie between law and religion. Why?

    Acknowledging a just God is not about pushing a particular theology on people. I would fight to prevent that myself. In other words, I don’t want a Roman Catholic or a Baptist doctrine to be the basis of justice any more than I want Sharia Law imposed upon non-Muslims. Nor do most Christians that I know. But, this seems to me a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  60. sozo, when the laws are just and fairly applied, there is no need for God in the courtroom. I have never seen a depiction of God in a courtroom. The Ten Comamandments are always depicted as Law, not religion, in the court.

    When our nation was founded, our founders decided they did not want to have to decide whose version of God reigned supreme, so they turned to the philosophers and used Enlightenment philosophy for the terms and the expressions of thought.

    When writing laws, they included certain great ideas from the laws and the prophets of Israel, but they made sure they codified them as secular entities and did not ask the clergy to interpret them, but secular judges.

    Most founders did acknowledge a higher power, but it certainly wasn’t the “higher power” God of the evangelical Christians, who often worship the Bible more than they do God, although that wasn’t ruled out, either.

    Your idea of God and my idea of God are certainly different, and I do not think a court of law is a place to argue those points. Therefore, I am glad we keep God out of the courtroom.

  61. The Golden Rule was, according to Jesus, one of two great commandments (the other being devotion to God). The Golden Rule is also the concept that is most repeated throughout various religions and philosophical systems.

    Of the Ten Commandments there are only two – not killing nor stealing that directly relate to our code of laws in all contexts. It is also illegal to bear false witness in specific situations (In court hearings, business dealings, etc.) Since 70% of the Commandments have no direct application to our code of laws it seems more than a little absurd to insist that they be commemorated in stone in our courts (the whole thing about creating graven images that we worship also pops up)

  62. dlockner says:

    Your mistake is believing in a man made figment of a superstitious imagination.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0