From Snopes
Constitutional law professor quips on the difference between the Bible and the Constitution.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional
Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU,
was requested to testify.At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you
have to say about that?”Raskin replied: “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on
the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”
I love spreading the Gospel, but I wish more law makers would not take every opportunity to put the Bible into politics.
Unfortunately, the right wing is financed largely by rich fundies. If the lawmakers don’t please the rich fundies, the money goes away. But you are absolutely correct: the Bible does not belong in politics. We don’t live in a theocracy, and we wouldn’t want to. As I said yesterday, what’s next? Outlawing heavy petting? Fining people for kissing earlier than the second date? Making drinking and gambling and dancing illegal? Where do you draw the line?
We live in the real world, not in some Sunday school bubble where nothing ever challenges our paradigms or makes us think or reevaluate.
very well said, gabe. bravo!
To criticize a Christian for involving biblical values in politics is the highest form of Hypocrisy. Basically you are saying that their beliefs should be kept to themselves and not made a part of their political lives. I understand that it is frustrating to some to see ‘Right-Wing Zealots’ try and ‘get the bible invovled in government’, but there is nothing WRONG with one doing so. In fact, it lines up quite well with what Jesus did in his short time on earth.
” beliefs should be kept to themselves and not made a part of their political lives” – Yup.
the bible and the government should be kept apart. imagine a muslim elected official always trying to put Koran influences you dont’ agree with into law. you wouldn’t want it, i wouldn’t want it either.
also, your jesus line just didn’t make sense. i do believe that jesus told us to give unto caesar, not beat caesar to death with scripture.
I’m assuming that the last post was by a Christian…. What is done in the last post is put Christianity on the same belief plane as Islam.
I believe that the Bible is the inherent and infallible word of God. I believe that the teachings of Jesus are of the utmost supreme importance to my entire life. I also believe that everyone on the planet earth would be better off having accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. If I truly, truly, truly believe these things how can I then exempt these beliefs from my political life? I understand the frustration with making every conversation about Religion, but I must make every political decision based upon my Christian beliefs. I understand that others do not accept my beliefs, and they have that constitutional right, but I also do not feel that my government should be seperate from my Christianity. They are NOT separate realms of my life.
I think that what the 3rd post was referring to when speaking about Jesus, was that Christ said that we should love God with ALL that is within us(heart, soul, mind, spirit, etc..); and that Politics fall clearly within this realm. Why not make the point politically with my Bible? I use it govern my personal life, do I not believe it’s best to govern my political life?
This is my sincere Personal Conviction, surely I’m alone on these thoughts; I’m sure the ‘you’re a hater’ posting will follow shortly. 🙂
“If I truly, truly, truly believe these things how can I then exempt these beliefs from my political life?”
What if someone else of another religion truly, truly, truly believed that their un-Christian beliefs should become law, and was in power to do so? It’s not as easy a decision if you are in the minority.
Once you put political beliefs in government, you start to lose freedom of religion.
So you say that in order to truly be able to stand up for what I believe, that I have to sit down and let things happen that are against my beliefs? This makes no sense.
And I think that your last statement is a misquote, I’m sure you meant that once I put my religious beliefs into government, that I start to lose my freedom of religion. Do you understand how crazy this sounds? The idea of having my freedom of religion, means that I do NOT have to remain silent; and that I can voice my opinion in government, and that I can vote my religious convictions, and that I can use the holy scriptures to support my political beliefs. To stay quiet and then be able to keep my religious identity and voice is lunacy.
BTW-I’m uncomfortable using a word like Religous so much. 🙂
That’s not what I’m saying at all. The argument is that no one would want a religion shoved down his or her throat, not to sit down and let things happen. Equality, for all, for all faiths. Just as strong as you believe in your faith, their are others that should have the freedom to be believe in theirs or not to believe in any belief system at all. They should be able to do this without Christianity being thrown at them. The best way for you to love your neighbor is to let them have their freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to worship, freedom to have premarital sex, freedom to drink, freedom of dying without pain.
Yes, you dont have to remain silent, you have that right. Yes you can vote your religious convictions. But using holy scriptures to support political beliefs (making laws)is the start of establishing a religion of the country.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
last word