Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Imposing Christian morality on nonbelievers
Message-ID: <Feb.28.03.41.02.1991.9831@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 91 08:41:05 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Lines: 80
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

>   Your line of reasoning is muddled at best.
	Let's analyse this, shall we??

	I say:

	1) The law should reflect the will of the people
	2) Some of the people are Christians
		therefore
	3) Christians should have a right to try to influence the law

	Not very muddled at all, you see.

	You say:
	1) The law should reflect principles of innocence and guilt
	2) Christians have ideas of innocence and guilt based on religion
	3) Our government mandates a seperation of Church and State
	4) Allowing Christians to influence the law is equivalent to
having a theocracy. 
	5) A theocracy is a a violation of the "seperation of Church
and State". 
		THEREFORE
	6) Therefore Christians should have no influence over the law
and just let the atheists and agnostics decide what is right and wrong
in society.

	Your argument falls apart entirely on point #4. Allowing
Christians to influence to the government does not constitute a
theocracy. It is merely granting to Christians the same rights which
are available to all US citizens. Christians have to face the
same checks and balances which any other group must face; they do not
have an a priori right to change the law.

Lindborg:
>No, I didn't.  I said that laws based on your belief in God and what
>you believe that god tells you (through the bible, I assume) are not
>appropriate in our legal system.  You have, of course, heard of the
>separation of the church and state? 

	The seperation of Church and State means that the government
will not impose it's will on the Church (in the way that the English
government chooses who gets to be the Archbishop of Canterbury) and that
the Church will not impose its will on the government (such as
historically when the RC Church had control of over most European
governments) 

	You seem to claim that religious conviction is an invalid
source for law. Well then, I ask you "What does constitute a valid
source for law?"
	If you're not a total cynic, you might say that laws should be
made according to our collective moral consciences. It so happens that
religion is a deciding factor in the moral consciences of many people.
Are we somehow bereft of the basic rights of citizenship if we base our beliefs
on religion? This seems to be what you are claiming, which is why I
say that you are arrogant.
	The people who are arguing for legal changes based on religion
are going through the proper channels. They are in no way abrogating
the Constitution of the United States in their activities (for the
most part).
	The legal system should reflect the consciences of its
citizens, and it is in no way compromised if the citizens have
Christian mores, and the law reflects this.

>Laws should be made to protect 
>the innocent, not to expound your beliefs in your god.

	Sounds good rhetorically - too bad it has no basis in what's
*really* happening right now.
	Are any mainstream Christian groups trying to replace the
Pledge of Allegiance with the Nicene Creed?

	No one is trying to legislate faith. People are trying to
bring the law in line with their concepts of morality. This is the
right of every US Citizen, be they agnostic, Christian, Marxist, Democrat,
Libertarian, Skinheads, etc...
	A law based on Christian morality is not an endorsement of
faith in God - it is an endorsement of government's accountability to
its citizenship - some of which happen to be Christian.


	Stephen Chan