Christian Democrats in the United States

Monday, May 7, 2007 4:08 PM

the political reality of the U.S. constitution

A group of people calling themselves the Christian Democratic Union propose a "human dignity amendment" to the U.S. constitution. We must be extremely careful treading these waters because the words used can be construed so broadly. We must not implant a message that would destroy the very principles essential to the United States and her defense of freedom.

Their proposed amendment text is difficult to understand: "except in the case where the very existence of an innocent human being is itself an immediate, imminent, and ultimately insoluble barrier to the imminent continued existence of another innocent human being, such that the physical body of the offending innocent human being unwittingly becomes an insolubly lethal parasite." Is that an abortion exception for parasitic twin syndrome? The last thing Americans will be willing to do to the Constitution is to litter it with exceptions to regulations. If it cannot be articulated as a simple principle, it will never pass and is politically unrealistic.

It also offends the character of liberty at the core of the United States by attempting to inscribe a duty in law to "remember the poor" because we are made "in the image of God." An act of faith to help the poor must be of one's own free will, and enough Americans would make those choices if they had the resources that we would still be well off without dictating a religious responsibility to every citizen. They will have to pull the constitution out of my cold dead hands before anyone adds a mandate of religious duty.

J wasn't only about helping the poor, either.

Americans do not want a theocracy of any kind in their country. Such an amendment is politically unrealistic, offends the free character of the United States, and only serves to divide people and occupy their frustration, so they are not effective in solving real-world problems for real people.

Their insistence that actions of government institutions not bring direct or disproportionate harm to the poor is a pretty good idea. However, this is the kind of thing that could be accomplished by a president elected by the people under that policy platform, or by an act of Congress, and does not need to be enthroned in the primary national law to become a reality.

> detail, links and comments >>

Saturday, May 5, 2007 11:55 AM

legacy religious art on public grounds

I also have no problem with religious monuments on public grounds, as long as some kind of sign says that the government does not require people worship them. (Hey, somebody might not know.)

> detail, links and comments >>

11:45 AM

atheism

Personally, I don't want to kill atheists or try to enforce my beliefs on them. I think atheism is the most rational point of view. (But how could you even explain irrational numbers with such a limited view -- the world clearly is more than rational.) I also believe that we can get ourselves out of most of our trouble if we have the guts to stand up and apply our rationality. President Bush "puts God to the test" with his short-sighted dependence on prayer.

So we should welcome any atheist as well as good-hearted people of other religions who want to construct a peaceful, co-existant world. (And otherwise, you're just preaching to the choir anyway, so you're not doing much.)

> detail, links and comments >>

Friday, May 4, 2007 1:45 PM

but don't censor the 10c either

I'm not sure how to say that there should be no opposition to putting the ten commandments up in a courthouse in a non-official display, if the courthouse rotates its artworks and does not discriminate against displays of other religions' takes on basic principles. I'm just saying we should stop wasting our time bickering over such trivial issues while people go hungry and can't read and can't figure out how to feed another kid because no one will help them. -ed.

> detail, links and comments >>

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 7:35 PM

Church and State

A while back someone put a sculpture of the ten commandments in a courthouse, saying it was the basis for the law conducted in that courthouse. Doesn't one of those commandments prohibit graven images and their worship as holy objects? So why would you make a graven image of the ten commandments and set it in the courthouse as an "official" holy object? At least, this is a perfectly valid Christian interpretation, one of possibly many. Do you see how easy it is to divide you by manipulating your religion? Divide and conquer.

Instead, public government should enable good-spirited people to help each other become better people, regardless of our individual belief. Muddying the waters of law with religious preference quickly leads to a loss of the principles of common welfare that our American law is there to maintain. America was founded on the principles of religious freedom. That freedom defines her character as a nation. Don't sully her reputation by trying to enforce a narrow religious view on everyone. We should try to find common religious ground together in spirit and actions, not in law or symbols.

> detail, links and comments >>