[Rhodes22-list] Jesusland.

[Hank]

Robert,

I agree that they do not have a place in the Laws of a secular
government.  However, don't you agree that the individual voter is
going to vote on a particular candidate based upon these values, both
those of the voter and the candidate?  All of us, whether republican
or democrat, are basing our votes based upon some sort of values that
the candidates have that we agree or disagree with.

The separation of Church and State as written in the constitution was
placed so that the government would not favor or select one church
over another (either actually or through appearance).  It was not
implemented to remove religion from the hearts and minds of the
citizens or their elected leaders.

Hank


On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:25:12 -0500, Robert Skinner
<robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
> Hank -
> 
> On checking with modern dictionaries, I note that the
> distinction between the bases of the two terms has
> become blurred, so you are right on that score.
> 
> Going back to the historical origins of the terms,
> ethics have their origin in the Greek concepts of right
> action, with little or no reference to deity.  The term
> "morals" is more recently coined, appearing in the 15th
> century AD, generally associated with morality plays
> employed in religious instruction, somewhat like the
> Christian parables.
> 
> Given that the distinction between the two words is
> currently so minimal in common speech, I will restate
> my position:
> 
> Values that are not broadly multicultural, that are based
> on a single scriptural and monotheistic base, have no
> place in the laws of a secular government.
> 
> /Robert Skinner
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Hank wrote:
> >
> > I have to disagree on your definition of morals and ethics.  In most,
> > if not all, dictionaries, morals and ethics are synonymous terms and
> > are often used to define one another.  Nether one implies a Deity.
> > They both are based upon acting out of a sense of right or wrong, good
> > or evil.
> >
> > Hank
> >
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:13:36 -0500, Robert Skinner
> > <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
> > > Rummy -
> > >
> > > Couldn't agree more about the problems that come
> > > up when we combine religion with politics.
> > >
> > > Part of the background of our current "family values"
> > > vs. secular considerations may come from our failure
> > > to distinguish between moral issues and ethical ones.
> > >
> > > Morals are a product of a person's dialogue with his
> > > deity of choice - and there is more than one such
> > > acknowledged in this country.
> > >
> > > Ethics are shared in a society without regard to
> > > religion - or the society falls apart.  When the
> > > society decides to enforce morals, it becomes a
> > > theocracy, and people's rights are submerged in the
> > > regulations laid down by the priest class, specially
> > > when it is indistinguishable from the ruling class.
> > >
> > > I believe that the "family values" issues raised in
> > > the last election are totally irrelevant to our
> > > government, and were used in the most unscrupulous
> > > way to obscure the real issues confronting our
> > > government.
> > >
> > > /Robert Skinner
>