Posted on 11/27/2006 5:37:30 PM PST by SJackson
I am an American atheist. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I do not believe in gods or in revealed texts. My belief in the tools of democracy is relevant on the public square. My disbelief in gods is not.
On Nov. 7, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, whose mission is to "forward Judeo-Christian principles and traditional values in Wisconsin," won a victory for the organization's interpretation of the Bible with the passing of the amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions.
According to a Sept. 23 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, the institute claimed that the amendment had the support of 5,000 churches and 2 million congregants. Fair Wisconsin, the group leading the fight against the amendment, claimed that resolutions opposing the amendment had been passed by organizations representing 500,000 congregants.
On Oct. 19, a forum was held in Madison to debate the state's Nov. 7 advisory referendum on establishing the death penalty for first-degree murder cases backed by DNA evidence. The Rev. Mike Mayhak of Faith Baptist Church quoted Genesis and Romans in support of the death penalty. Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison relied on the pope's interpretation of the Bible to oppose the death penalty.
While acknowledging that there were people of different faiths on either side of these issues, I can only assume there was a preponderance of Christians. So to them I ask: Are you guys reading the same Bible? And if you are, where is its ultimate authority if such diametrically opposed opinions can be buttressed by the same text?
This is not a rational debate. It is a Bible-quoting arms race, each side cherry-picking its way through a religious document that was arbitrarily cobbled together over several centuries from many writers and diverse cultural milieus. Whoever ends up with the most fruit expects to win the day. The trouble is many of the cherries in the Bible are just plain rotten.
In the early 19th century, abolitionists held the moral high ground by any objective, rational, nonbiblical backward glance. However, Southern slave owners and their representatives in Congress won the theological argument hands down. As the Rev. Richard Fuller said in 1845, "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament, and permitted in the New, cannot be a sin."
Slavery, as we now know, was a sin and a national disgrace, even if the Bible didn't tell us so.
Have we learned anything in the intervening 160 years about Scripture and policy? Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey once said, "The Bible is very clear on this (homosexuality). ... I abide by the instructions that are given to me in the Bible."
One can only speculate if Armey's understanding of Scripture was informed by the Rev. Ted Haggard's weekly televised pulpit pontifications.
Will it take our country another 160 years to know that discriminating against a group of people because of their sexual orientation is a sin and a national disgrace, regardless of what the Bible tells us? My point is that the Bible, or any religious text, has no authority on the public square in a secular society whose guiding authority rests in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Our democracy is based on a rational defense of the civil rights, civil liberties and economic welfare of its citizens, not on the ambiguous and often contradicting approbations and proscriptions of religious texts. Democracy cannot serve two masters.
This is not to say that an individual's political stance cannot be informed by his or her religious belief. It would be absurd to claim otherwise. But as a political argument, religious belief should go no further than the church door or your own pocket. On the public square, "because the Bible tells me so" just doesn't cut it ... or it shouldn't.
Robert Weitzel of Middleton writes frequently for newspapers, magazines and Web sites. E-mail: rweitz@tds.net Published: November 24, 2006
I am an American atheist. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I do not believe in gods or in revealed texts. My belief in the tools of democracy is relevant on the public square. My disbelief in gods is not.
Sure you do, except when the voters go the other way.
Wrong.
I don't think you have to cherry pick the bible to find God's stance on the whole homo scene. He seemed pretty clear about in in Lot's town.
The atheist is upset that God will not just go away.
From where are the rights in the U.S. Constitution derived???
ANSWER: The Declaration of Independence...
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."
A page right out of the writings of Moses...
This guy is just a pathetic anti-Christian, who does hate the Christians only by politically correct proxy... he really hates Jews...
I think the ancient Romans believed in marriage between a man and a woman. And the ancient Chinese. And just about every other civilized society in history, whether Christian or not.
Even Charles Darwin would likely point out that there's not much of a future in homosexual "marriage."
Is not the word " homo" a derogatory slang? do we really need to use this in a discussion?
And what does your "wrong" refer to???
It's not "discrimination" to tell someone that they don't have the right to redefine marriage to be something utterly different from what it's been for the past 6,000 years or so.
And "sin" is what, outside the structure of a religious structure? Stuff that's "not nice"?
Being an atheist is a religion in itself. If you proclaim yourself an atheist, then you must defend that position, offer objective evidence, opinion, theory and justification. You must be an atheist 24/7 and always ready to proclaim such.
Things that don't feel good. Feelings matter.
All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.
Um, this guy doesn't get to use terms such as "sin" when he denies the entire reality that gives the word meaning by his willful blindness (atheism). But the "fool" will borrow whatever is convenient to his argument, even when it doesn't make sense. His moral relativism preempts his ever being able to recognize right and wrong, good and bad, so his argument is sunk before it is begun.
I am I believe I do not believe My belief My disbelief
The bible's first statements about sin
Gen 3:5"... that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.