"The only way to put your faith before your politics, is by not injecting your faith into politics. Otherwise, it's just all politics." So, posts someone on Facebook.
I write back:
"That is one thought, Gerald, but our values and where they come from have a lot to do with our opinions. You cannot say, I will strip my values from this and it will show that my values mean more to me than my decisions.
"Every person should be allowed to form opinions based on their own values. I should not have to drop my own values and thereby be forced to assume another person's values. Nor should I be forced to mask where my opinions are stemming from. We should not say, Yours are religious values, so you should not be bringing them into politics.
"We should be allowed to interject who we are into what we think. To take this from us strips us of freedom of thought and exression. It takes from us the liberty to be who we will be. Or, at least it says, You can be who you will be, but not in public, or at least not when it comes to discussing social issues.
I say, Let a Christian be a Christian, and let him be it in public, if that is what he chooses.
"Many do argue that it is the Christians who are forcing their opinions on others and that is why there should be a separation of religion from politics. I believe, however, that to express an opinion does not force it upon another, but to suppress that opinion is a form of force."
When another Facebooker notes that when we pass laws enforcing our opinions, that forces them on others, I write:
"All laws are a form of force. It is not just the laws stemming from those with Christian backgrounds, but all laws. Someones values are behind every law. Do we say it is okay to have values behind our laws, but not Christian values?"
When someone asks for an example, I write:
"Any law comes from the values. Our law against murder being but one. The ACA stems from a desire to take care of people's health needs. That is a value, a moral one.
"Not all share the values behind the ACA. If so, we would not have a budget impasse. While all might want to care for the sick and afflicted, not all see it as government's jurisdiction. That is not their personal value.
"And, the backgrounds of the people largely determine their views, what they have been taught by others is a strong influence. Some value guns more than others, and such a value often comes with having been around those who champion guns, of hearing others tell them the need of guns for self-defense.
"To ban Christian values, and not other values is discriminatory."
And, later in the thread, I write:
"To say a church should not be allowed to influence government laws, is to say not all influences should be allowed. If we are not 'banning' these influences, what are we doing?"
And, shortly later:
"Often, it is not the church, itself, but the just members in it who propose legislation limiting alcohol and tobacco. They come to the decision to propose the legislation on their own. To say this should not be allowed is to say their background should disqualify them from proposing such legislation. Everyone comes from a background. To say that's fine, as long as the background is not that of being LDS, is discriminatory."
And, I write:
"Some do believe it wrong that the church has an influence. They argue that separation of church and state means the church should not be allowed to have such an influence. You might say it is a justified ban, if you believe the ban should exist, but if the church is not allowed to have such an influence, that is a ban."
No comments:
Post a Comment