Political correctness probably has an inherent, spiritual basis that is not driven by any particular religion. This established, it is taken too far by the few who choose to abuse it for their own benefit.

I just don't like being told it is requisite to vote for a particular candidate lest God be upset with me. Primarily, I dislike this because all humans are fallible and, as we've seen, stem cells and abortion are the least of our concerns when choosing a candidate.

Some of the religious right candidates have revealed themselves to be of less than stellar motal fiber - just have some from the left. It's a crapshoot, so let's stick to issues rather than grant someone a pass based on WHAT they are rather than WHO they are.

Are you speaking of my belief's within Constitutional law, statutory law, or just as an individual opinion??

Being a person that has problems with what is relgion anyway? I will be back later after work and speak.
There are differing purposes when the words of the bible come in and belief in God.
The bible really doesn't speak on politics, rather "voting" by a show of hands by those chosen as Godly.
If one researches...it is not a good thing to call one a leader because there is only one leader. That one person isn't a do all or know all for a countries people. There is no power given to one person....ever.
If one researches.....People who believe in God must take heed. For they have been duped. Me included.

Kat

Edited to say this:
While I do read the bible, and take in what it says; I had read one time that we must be careful to not take parties. I read that as the two main parties most adhere to. I see danger in thinking that there must be the two...dems, and repubs. When these two become the only ones that are recognized as a true voting public. It's sorta like thinking that there is only two real religions...Catholic and Baptist...you know?
Why is it that we think that these two paties are the only ones that count?

It is a fact. I was asked to swear to god, and refused. It lacks any testosterone and I lacked any motive, other than refusing to swear falsly as it was against my beliefs.

The politics of the religious place I work at basically boils down to, "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent then anything you say will be ignored."

I must be speaking to vaguely.

Here is the question. If you are a member of any organized religion, OR if you have beleiefs' based on written dogma, would that, in any way, dictate to you how you should act with regards to any particular polictical activity.

I gave one example already. How would your religious peers react to hear that you were fighting AGAINST the welfare of children?

Another example, how would your religious peers or authorities view your very verbal and involved actions to promote a war?

How would your religious peers or religious authority figures deal with you, if they saw you marching to PROTECT pro-choice?

Or how would those same people view your actions if you were to actively try to change the minds of your fellow congragationalists to allow civil unions at the Federal Level.

In other words If you can fight FOR something with the blessing of your religious convictions, can you also fight against something with with all the same blessings?

The Amish are the only group I know who separate themselves from the law of man. They follow only what is absolutely necessary, and on several occasions the governments have had to give in, but only to the Amish. They believe their law is not of this earth, but they do what they believe they were meant to do, render unto Ceasar - but only when it does not go against their dogmatic beliefs.

Do you have any such beliefs?

Anyone who strongly believes in something will be affected if laws are coming to contradict with their belief . It is just common sense .

Anyone who strongly believes in something will be affected if laws are coming to contradict with their belief . It is just common sense .

AHHH!! thnx - i cant answer that then i have no "religious peers" to concern myself with having to answer to them - sorry.

ok Red.

My Brethern do not really get involved with the Govt. at all. Like I said 501c we rejected as a whole. We do not need tax breaks if that means govt. involvement.

With that said we adhere to mainly 2 pieces of scriptures both a individuals own belief in what they should do.

1.. If you see it as sin then it is sin to you.

So it's a individual decision.

2.. Choose life not Death.

again this is with correlation to #1.

Many groups will not accept a blood transfusion citing scripture.

This may be true. That is a personal decision.

Your child though a parent is always to choose Life in any situation of where death is a possibility.

Yahweh is all knowing. So the saving of ones life that can be done conventionally should be done,

otherwise Yahweh can see this as tempting him because he has already provided.

That is all I really know of thier is no confusion on this subject.. We see it as being clear common sence.

Blessings...Miles

Tribo - thanks, I already knew, you would not have an answer, your's is not a wide path given to a lot of hand-holding and concern for other's opinions. Thanks though, for trying.


Miles, I see now where you were going with your previous post. Actually I rather figured your particular structure would be pretty uninterested in the law (of man) unless it was to have any effect on your freedom to worship as you see fit.

Thanks - you have given an answer equal to my intended question.

My religion is based on the separation of church and state....

there can be no religious freedom if they are connected as the state influenced by a specific religion obviously favors that religions beliefs, etc.

of course the separation is quite easy for me as my church is frequently the beach and it's hard to get much state business done there....

Peace

Ahhh..., Redy sorry I just saw your clarification...

When I do attend an organized religious group it is Unitarian Universalist. Generally they tend to be pro-environment and opposed to violence. But the religion is based on personal freedom and choice so there's really not too much coercion.

Except I just thought of one thing- most UU's try to be very tolerant and encourage all to attend- e.g. gays are welcomed, all races, all religious beliefs, etc. accepted.

BUT if someone wanted to march or otherwise support anti-hate crime or discriminatory laws, etc. that would likely bring unofficial peer pressure censure.

I doubt that there would be any official or public scolding but others would show their disapproval individually.

Is that the kind of thing you mean?

LOL... yer a cutie

Yes well, absent God what we have now is a DEmoralized society.

Tell me? What's so great about that?

Truth is; most religions are involved with politics. The same goes for government. It goes both ways. People bring government in by complaining about Christians and God and religion. Then in comes the government trying to appease those. Then the churches have their own agendas; they also have a big say in whos who and who gets elected. Scratching each others back. It is what it is.
I don't think we have ever had an athiest or agnostic high in government. That is; that we know of? So, do you really see it happening any time soon? Are they really going to be free from religion? Separating the two hasn't happened yet. Maybe by hiding things such as statues and things supposing the ten commandments out of sight out of mind sorta thing.

I have heard preachers and congregations say to vote your conscience of what you believe the bible would have you do. I have heard politicians talk of their belief in God and voting their Godly beliefs.
Many laws are passed on Godly beliefs.
If I am to say I believe in God, then I must vote and live that way. I have to bring God and politics together. I cannot separate them. It cannot be done. I cannot clean away my faith in a God of all and pretend that it isn't there. Truth is; moralization is a base biblical structure, according to law.

I can actually think back where I saw our morality change. It was to my knowledge when that law suit came about by that Flynn guy. He challenged the moral laws keeping porn out of sight. When he won that suit...it began showing up in our society with a vengence. Pornographic material used to be hidden by brown paper on the shelves. It used to come in the mail in brown paper with bogus addresses.It became okay to be immoral. To demean women publicly. Rape became more an more. Incest...child rape and porn was on the rise.
Cursing in public and around children was not done. Children used to be corrected by all the neighbors. now try it. You may get shot, and they may get away with it because they did it out of passion.
Now we have make my day laws....piss me off and I can say I was in fear of you and have the right to shoot you where you stand.
Can I separate God and all things in my life? No. I see that when God was taken out of the picture....things came crashing down around our heads. I see that some people use God or the lack of, as an excuse to do many things to suit them. Both sides.
People used to accept people for who they were...not how they thought. Now be careful what you think...it could get you jailed or worse...killed, or even kicked out of your neighborhood.
Times have changed...and not for the better in many cases.
Used to be when someone was charged with something...they had to prove it. Now you have to prove you didn't.
I just get so pissed when I see how things have changed in the world. A blow job for heavens sake used to be sex. Now it is no different than kissing.
Rant rant rant. I am sooo sorry.
Kat

Scatter:

Tribo - thanks, I already knew, you would not have an answer, your's is not a wide path given to a lot of hand-holding and concern for other's opinions. Thanks though, for trying.


hahahaha - yr wlcm


others opinion's are important to me just not here - i hold alot of hand's just not here - someone has to prove to me they are what they say thet are - word's are cheap - action's speak the truth of whom one really is - i cannot discern those thing's on a forum, only in person- when i know someone from their action's matching what they speak then i am the most trusting, hand holding person you will likely meet. my political views are always those of the constitution not of statutory laws - i fight from these self evident truth's where not mis-interpreted by a non -supreme court- who thinks their judgement is supreme - well it is in the sense they have the last word- but that does not mean there verdicts or judgements are correct only "their interpretation".proof of that is the reversals of their verdict's over the last 100 years - don't have to be an expert to see the truth of this.