I have watched the show plenty of times and it is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is amazingly yet VERY interesting to say the LEAST….. to see the MIND SET of people who hold very different morals..values…ethics….and stances!
I could NEVER knowingly share a husband….let alone a piece of my favorite shirt, skirt, coat, cd or even candy!! Kids don’t share and we become adults and take the art of SHARING to a whole new level…………..
Every belief that citizens try to express politically is rooted in some philosophy or religion or some set of assumptions about society and its
well-being. They do not come from out of nowhere. Religiously-based convictions about society and morality are as legitimate as those that spring from non-religious philosophies. Hence, Christians, Muslims, or Jews may seek to get laws passed that are rooted in their religious convictions. Such laws are appropriate as long as they have a secular purpose and do not constitute an establishment of religion.
Whether these laws are wise or worthy of enactment must be judged by whether they promote the common good as judged by national values not by the fact that they are or are not rooted in the religious faith of those who support them.
A religious foundation is neither required not forbidden. Neither secular humanism nor religious faith is privileged in this regard. Ideally and in principle, religious believers should not seek to get laws passed on religious grounds but because they express the values of the secular society. These norms and goals are defined by the founding documents and cultural traditions as they have come to be embedded in the common life. For example, if people of faith want to crusade for universal health coverage, e. g., they should argue for the policy not because the Bible or the Pope authorizes it or because God wills it but because it promotes “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and because Congress is constitutionally permitted to spend money to provide for the “general welfare.”
Likewise, religious groups that seek to outlaw racial or gender discrimination should make their case on the claim that it would be good for society as a whole not on the fact that it is authorized by their religious faith. In practical terms, however, if believers feel that distinguishing between the religious
basis and the political implications of their faith is an intolerable splitting of a unitary set of beliefs, then let them act accordingly. If people actually
convince other voters to support legislation because the Bible, the Pope, Buddhist teachings, the Koran, or church doctrine mandates it, not much can be done about it except to make an effort to persuade them that there is a better way.
TRUST ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We cannot determine or control the reasons why people vote or support the policies they do or prevent them from convincing others to do the same. In the voting booth citizens are a law unto themselves. They can vote for whatever or whoever they want for any reason that motivates them. It is pointless to demand purity of principle on this matter. Voters act out of prejudice, self-interest, racial identity, ignorance, and for all sorts of other good and bad reasons, including their religious beliefs, philosophical commitments, and a devotion to justice based on American principles. Let us be realists about the matter.
Democracy is an untidy, often VERY messy, matter…..IF you do not believe me… look at AMERCIA! Ugghhhhh……
The people can do what they want restrained only by Constitutional mandates. But it is better when acting politically in the public arena for believers to translate religiously-based beliefs into the traditions, language, and values of the secular order. This is called for as a matter of principle. It is advisable pragmatically as well, since the tying of policy or voting explicitly to the tenets of a particular
religion, denomination, or sect may repel large number of voters and hinder rather than further the cause.
I love Politics AND History……………
Church conversations and little talks were a tad bit on my nerves – people do not understand the difference between CHURCH and STATE and I have been really seeing that over the last 5 years. However, it is merely the CHURCH that has a HIGH LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about politics….
Yes…… I MAY BE A HISTORY AND POLITICAL JUNKIE – but overall most black churches are not involved intellectually like “they should”….
The problem of church and state has to do with institutions and the spheres of action that are appropriate for each. Here the concept of separation is valid. The government does not appoint bishops and pastors for the churches. Churches, meaning here all religious organizations, do not appoint presidents, governors, and judges. No religion can be favored over others or supported by taxes.
The state has no role or authority in defining beliefs relating to God and worship. The free exercise of religion is to be guaranteed. The state is neutral between particular religions and permits citizens to believe or not believe in God and to engage or not engage in religious practices or belong to religious organizations according to the dictates of their conscience.
There is no religious test for holding office……………….. If it was a criteria… AMERICA would surely be in big trouble!! Yikes.
Is religion one of many activities that deserves protection so that other interests are equally important in the eyes of the law? Or does it deserve
special consideration so that its claims outweigh all others? If the former, our ultimate loyalties and our relationship to God may be demeaned and set aside for lesser values. Yet religion may be the sponsor of what is bigoted, heinous, reprehensible, or even trivial.
How can we protect religious liberty as a precious right and at the same time avoid its misguided, destructive, immoral, and hateful manifestations? To put it differently, society has a set of laws and practices regarding justice, medical practice, morality, decency and many other things.
When religious beliefs and practices are in conflict with what society has deemed necessary or important for the health and welfare of its citizens or
to guard their civil rights, what trumps what? How serious a breach of religious freedom can be tolerated for the sake of making secular law applicable to everyone? How reprehensible must an act be to eliminate its practice in the name of freedom of religion? Should individuals be allowed to discriminate in the name of religion against blacks or homosexuals or unmarried persons of the opposite sex where their own property or private prerogatives are concerned while a public institution should not? How do we distinguish between private and public in these cases?
How are we to weigh civil rights against freedom of religion? To shift the focus, is religious conviction merely an example of human subjective preference which we can change by another choice, or is it a transcendent objective demand that claims our allegiance in a compelling way so that we have no choice but to be obedient to it?
The Constitution specifically names freedom of religion as a protected right. How much weight does it therefore have in relation to conflicting claims? I am just so over everytime I put on the news someone is trying to take GOD off of something….. No one is stating to take His name off of money!
Let me touch briefly on a subject that is still with us. It involves a proposal by President George W. Bush. The issue of government support for faith-based human services is full of complications, dangers, ambiguities, and subtleties. The beauty of religiously-oriented social ministries is the potential for dealing with people as whole selves, i. e., giving them food for the soul as well as for the body. But this very unity poses the problem of how it is
Constitutionally permissible for the government to enable the providing of secular bread without funding sectarian religion.
If, on the other hand, the delivery of goods and services to the needy is totally divorced from the religious dimension, in what meaningful sense is it any longer faith-based, apart from merely being sponsored by a religious group? Why shouldn’t the government fund a church soup kitchen if all that is dispensed is soup? Because, we say, what the church would spend on soup can now be spent on the church bus. But maybe they would just serve more soup. Maybe the soup itself is a witness to the faith behind it, but if it is, is that not a sponsorship of religion?
Would the government discriminate against some religious groups? But that is a matter of administrative practice not of Constitutional principle. What is a religious group? What does faith-based mean? Can we think our way through this thicket without falling into confusion?
IM DONE……………… ugghhhh
Sometimes life can be overwhelming. For those times … you need a little Rainbow Faith.
The Rainbow ~ a symbol of one of God’s many promises / Faith is indeed ~ the courage to trust in His promises.
Most importantly, the rainbow in Noah is a sign of God’s covenant with humanity: “I now establish my covenant with you and your offspring to come, and with every living thing … Never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:8-11).
We tend to forget that this covenant was established not only between God and Noah, but with all future generations. We, as God’s creations, are required to do our part to keep the covenant alive and to work for a better, more peaceful world.
Regrettably, peace does not appear as spontaneously as a colorful bow in the sky follows the rain. Individuals and governments must constantly strive to achieve it. And when peace happens, its presence reveals itself less tellingly in headlines, treaties and handshakes than in small, everyday events that signify a return to normalcy.
Revisit “your faith” and see if it is where it is needed to be – things tend to happen when “we believe” in what we are hoping for!
The number one thing you need when you are trying to start over is a solid plan. Big life changes can be paralyzing. They can leave you feeling afraid, confused and hopeless.
A good plan will help you to overcome your paralysis. It will guide you step-by-step through a process to decide what you want and how to get it. After all, you wouldn’t start a trip without a destination in mind and a map to follow, now would you?
Take an honest inventory of your life. Many people find this very difficult. They refuse to accept that they are starting over from scratch. Instead, they bury their heads in the sand and try to continue living like they always have. If you really need to start over, then denying it simply won’t work.
Most of us started out in life from a clean slate. We built our lives from scratch once so surely we can use some of the same methods to do it again. It is a stretch, but recalling how you did it the first time is probably a very useful exercise.
I suggest that you set two or three short-range goals that you want to accomplish in the next three months. Also, I recommend looking out a year from now and envisioning where you want yourself to be. Be realistic but also stretch yourself.
It is probably hard to see now, but often when forced to rebuild our lives, we find the new one is even better than the old.