Leaving the community

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These people
who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would do well to
remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe in God from
participating in the political system. However, I have found that it is too
much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend the same
courtesy to me.

C J Campbell wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These
people who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would
do well to remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe
in God from participating in the political system. However, I have found
that it is too much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend
the same courtesy to me.

I would never exclude you and your opinions from the political debate.

Where the line is crossed is when the 'religious' attempt to codify some of
their beliefs in law. Too often nowadays the debate is focused on a
particular issue as 'right vs. wrong' when it really is a question of what
is the appropriate role of a 'religion neutral' government. It leads to the
great polarization we see today because there is no room to compromise on
'core' beliefs. It also implies that one set of religious beliefs are being
favored over another.

Abortion and gay rights are the big ones today and they are perfect
examples.

No one, not even the most liberal, believes that abortion is a good thing.
Yet they are often portrayed as being "for abortion". The appropriate
question is should the government be involved in medical decisions and/or
can the government decide what a woman can or can't do to her own body?

In the gay marriage issue we should be debating whether or not the
government should be involved in deciding who one can marry and if it
should even be in the marriage business at all.

When I was growing up Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays.
Would anyone suggest that the government step in and close all the steak
houses? Of course not. But not because it is a trivial matter. Rather it is
readily apparent that not all religions share this view and the government
would be seen as favoring one religion over another if it were to try to
intervene.

I believe that life doesn't begin until you can breathe on your own and that
if two consenting adults want to marry then that's the way "God" wanted it.
I expect my government to give equal weight to my 'religious' beliefs as
yours.

Who was the wise man that said 'You can't legislate morality'?

--
Frank....H