I’ve been reading some more about this Santorum character in the national news.
Right or left, religious or not, this guy is a certified “nut”.
-Dave
In reply to:
Jim,
You’ve made my day. I’ll dance a jig the day Santorum is voted out of office. Between his very offensive comments about gays (I’m not gay, but I have many friends who are ) to this latest weather bill, he’s, to me, the poster boy, along with Frist and DeLay, of the dangerous, right wing arm of the Republican party. And before anyone flames me for saying that, see what Christie Todd Whitman writes in her book, “It’s My Party, Too”, and what other prominent Senators and Reps have recently said about the highjacking of the repub party by the evangelical christians - a bad thing.
JB
Isn’t it interesting when a group is being listened to the chosen term is “hijacked”!!
The reality here is this country is tired of liberal decrepit lack of values and moral decline of our country and we have had enough. The people are standing up, as is their right. It is not a HIJACKING of the system by Christians! It is an effort to provide a safe and morally upright world in which we can raise our children and grand children. This means respect for life, public praise and respect for our creator Jesus Christ, heterosexual marriage. Everything the liberal left opposes!
Sorry to rant off topic but you started it by going down this political road and taking a swipe at us Christians in your post.
Respectfully,
Jeff —
So it’s okay for evangelical pilots (e.g., AOPA) to try to influence government, but not okay for evangelical Christians?
Take it as a given that in our democracy EVERY tribe will try to influence government. That’s the sausage factory of democracy. If organized conservative Christians (evangelical is a bad choice of word here, as there are also Catholics, Pentacostals, fundamentalists, etc.) happen to be enjoying more influence in Washington than secular liberals these days, then it’s up to secular liberals or the religious left (MIA since MLK) to come up with more compelling reasons for support. Anger won’t sell. Never has in America.
On a more pleasant topic, how are you enjoying your well-earned IFR ticket?
Rich
In reply to:
The reality here is this country is tired of liberal decrepit lack of values and moral decline of our country and we have had enough. The people are standing up, as is their right. It is not a HIJACKING of the system by Christians! It is an effort to provide a safe and morally upright world in which we can raise our children and grand children. This means respect for life, public praise and respect for our creator Jesus Christ, heterosexual marriage. Everything the liberal left opposes!
Clark:
I don’t think I’m part of the liberal left by any means, and we’re on very touchy ground here. But I enjoy these discussions. So like an idiot I’ll wade in with a few questions and a few thoughts . . .
First, the BIG question. What exactly is it that makes some Christians (or Jews or Muslims for that matter) think they have some kind of lock on moral and/or ethical “values”? Being honest, are your Christian friends, individually or as a group, REALLY more “moral”, than the non-Christian people you know? If I think of all the people I know, I don’t see any correlation at all between religion and morals. Some of the most moral people I know are not religious at all. Some of the most dishonest and untrustworthy people I know go to church and praise the Lord every Sunday. My teenage boys, who have not been brought up in a religious environment are two of the most moral, ethical, dependable, honest and kind students in their school of 2,500.
I just don’t see how the teaching of moral values is in any way related to religion. Is it possible that your fixation on Christian “moral values” is simply an excuse to label others who may have different religious beliefs as somehow lesser than yourself? If so, that is simple bigotry and discrimination, no different than racism, is it not?
I was brought up to believe that the strength and promise of America rests in our democratic system of government and the freedom we all enjoy to live, speak, travel, vote and worship as we see fit. I wouldn’t pin any “hijacking” on one particular group like Evangelical Christians. I would say, however, that ANY group whose members think they should dictate how OTHERS should live and what OTHERS should believe are indeed trying to hijack the country. By definition, these people are anti-freedom and therefore un-American. Did 500,000 Americans die in World War II for freedom, or did they die for Christianity? I thought is was for the former.
If you look down your nose at everyone who doesn’t share your religious beliefs, worldwide that is a whole bunch of people you can feel superior to. And if one of your children happened to be gay, well I would feel sorry for him or her. I don’t believe either of my sons is gay, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that if it turns out that way it would not make one atom of difference what I think about them. Does that make me extremely moral or extremely immoral? You tell me.
Among Evangelical Christians, what ever happened to “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? And, why do we need 10 Commandments when the Golden Rule, "Do unto others . . " so handily covers them all in one fell swoop?
Jim Knollenberg
Clark,
In reply to:
Isn’t it interesting when a group is being listened to the chosen term is “hijacked”!!
When the definition of a word, e.g. liberal or liberalism, is changed to mean something entirely different, hijacking has indeed occurred!
From the on-line Merrian-Webster dictionary…
One entry found for liberalism.
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a: often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual
liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
2 b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based
on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
2 c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human
race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and
civil liberties
2 d: capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
In reply to:
The reality here is this country is…
The reality is that our “leaders” have used “divide and conquer” to their advantage. Reality comes in shades of gray, but those self-serving leaders preach simplistic messages that pretend reality is just black & white. Hence the current schism.
Someone PLEASE move this digression to the Off Topic forum!
Very small minded of you!
Jim,
Very well put. It’s amazing how the republicans and the religious right have painted us liberals (me, I don’t know if you are) as bad, morally corrupt Americans. How dare they! They don’t know me, and I take umbrage with Senate Leader Frist, who thankfully, doesn’t represent me, implying at that Family Research Council lovefest the other day that anyone who is against the ten or so judges that the Dems have been blocking, and that the Dems themselves, are against people of faith. These are disgusting and reprehensible comments. How many of Bush’s nominees have been approved? Something like 200 or more. How many blocked? Something like 10? So Frist and DeLay want to force the issue and abolish the fillibuster, an important element to the US democracy since the mid-1800s. I could go on. This is dangerous rhetoric and precedent, poisonous through and through.
And Clark, respectfully, “the people” as you put it, did speak, in November, when Bush won the election by one of the slimmest margins in history. It was no mandate, as the right likes to think. So “the people” aren’t standing up, a loud minority is. Let’s remember. This isn’t a Christian country and we all don’t need to respect Jesus. It’s amazingly myopic, and offensive to non-Christians, to imply otherwise, but that’s what fervent religion does.
And lastly, you live in Wisconsin, explain to me how a gay couple, in love, like maybe you and your wife, who decides to commit to each other and marry, in San Francisco, for example, affects you directly. How does it directly affect your life? It does not. Not you, or anyone else who voted for Bush with the sanctity of marriage and moral values on their mind. It doesn’t affect any of them directly. On the other hand, tell me how Bush’s economic policies affect the majority of the people who voted for him for his moral integrity. Negatively, I’d bet. Maybe not you, in your tax bracket, but it’s mind boggling how many people voted against their own economic interests in the last election. This is discussion is degrading and I’m done.
With respect,
Jeff
In reply to:
Clark:
I don’t think I’m part of the liberal left by any means, and we’re on very touchy ground here. But I enjoy these discussions. So like an idiot I’ll wade in with a few questions and a few thoughts . . .
First, the BIG question. What exactly is it that makes some Christians (or Jews or Muslims for that matter) think they have some kind of lock on moral and/or ethical “values”? Being honest, are your Christian friends, individually or as a group, REALLY more “moral”, than the non-Christian people you know? If I think of all the people I know, I don’t see any correlation at all between religion and morals. Some of the most moral people I know are not religious at all. Some of the most dishonest and untrustworthy people I know go to church and praise the Lord every Sunday. My teenage boys, who have not been brought up in a religious environment are two of the most moral, ethical, dependable, honest and kind students in their school of 2,500.
I just don’t see how the teaching of moral values is in any way related to religion. Is it possible that your fixation on Christian “moral values” is simply an excuse to label others who may have different religious beliefs as somehow lesser than yourself? If so, that is simple bigotry and discrimination, no different than racism, is it not?
I was brought up to believe that the strength and promise of America rests in our democratic system of government and the freedom we all enjoy to live, speak, travel, vote and worship as we see fit. I wouldn’t pin any “hijacking” on one particular group like Evangelical Christians. I would say, however, that ANY group whose members think they should dictate how OTHERS should live and what OTHERS should believe are indeed trying to hijack the country. By definition, these people are anti-freedom and therefore un-American. Did 500,000 Americans die in World War II for freedom, or did they die for Christianity? I thought is was for the former.
If you look down your nose at everyone who doesn’t share your religious beliefs, worldwide that is a whole bunch of people you can feel superior to. And if one of your children happened to be gay, well I would feel sorry for him or her. I don’t believe either of my sons is gay, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that if it turns out that way it would not make one atom of difference what I think about them. Does that make me extremely moral or extremely immoral? You tell me.
Among Evangelical Christians, what ever happened to “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? And, why do we need 10 Commandments when the Golden Rule, "Do unto others . . " so handily covers them all in one fell swoop?
Jim Knollenberg
What I have read in your post requires my response to dispel some misconceptions about Christians and my initial posts.
Jim)
First, the BIG question. What exactly is it that makes some Christians (or Jews or Muslims for that matter) think they have some kind of lock on moral and/or ethical “values”?
(Clark)
I cannot answer that question as I am not making that claim.Are you implying that no one should even utter the term "moral"and if we do shame on us for not being clean as the driven snow.
But at some point there must be an agreement on what constitutes moral or ethical behavour. The lack of that agreement means we all do what ever we want whenever we want to whom ever we want.Otherwise defined as anarchy.
When any group tries to follow some code of conduct,it should not/does not imply a “Lock” on the subject. If you look at my original post at no point have I advocated having a lock on morals or ethics. My post did say I wanted to raise my children in a safe and morally upright world. Who has a problem with that?
(Jim)
Being honest, are your Christian friends, individually or as a group, REALLY more “moral”, than the non-Christian people you know? If I think of all the people I know, I don’t see any correlation at all between religion and morals. Some of the most moral people I know are not religious at all. Some of the most dishonest and untrustworthy people I know go to church and praise the Lord every Sunday.
(Clark)
You may know some dishonest and untrustworthy people who call themselves Christians. I know some myself.
We are all sinners.
There is a connection between religion and morals. Because you do not see the connection does not mean there isn’t one.
Of the folks that you indicate are moral people, you may want to ask them what drives them to be honest and moral? It has to start somewhere.
Jim)
My teenage boys, who have not been brought up in a religious environment are two of the most moral, ethical, dependable, honest and kind students in their school of 2,500.
(Clark)
James,
Congratulations. You should be proud and grateful.
Where did your sons get those values from?
James)
(I just don’t see how the teaching of moral values is in any way related to religion. Is it possible that your fixation on Christian “moral values” is simply an excuse to label others who may have different religious beliefs as somehow lesser than yourself? If so, that is simple bigotry and discrimination, no different than racism, is it not?
(Clark)
I never took any swipes at other religions. The original post I was made to said nothing about other religions or Christianity for that matter.
What I did say was I wanted to be able to praise our creator Jesus Christ in public which no one can deny some find very offensive and wish to shut down that type of “free speech”.Take it out of the schools , out of our court houses ,out of the Pledge of Allegiance,remove it from football games etc.
The post I was responding to was the one that that began with “labels”.
It would seem to me that this question should be asked of Mr.Berlin who ended his post with the words “along with Frist and DeLay, of the dangerous, right wing arm of the Republican party.”
The thrust of my comments comes from the frustration at the media, hollywood types (who are always aligned with the left and actually define the left) who continue to throw their beliefs on sexual behavior , gay marriage ,abortion and any number of other issues in our face on a regular basis when ever we turn on the television or pick up a newspaper. Hollywood is making a continual effort at normalizing their ideas of morality and no one has a problem with them! Why not? Because it is happening on an incremental basis.
Jim)
I was brought up to believe that the strength and promise of America rests in our democratic system of government and the freedom we all enjoy to live, speak, travel, vote and worship as we see fit. I wouldn’t pin any “hijacking” on one particular group like Evangelical Christians. I would say, however, that ANY group whose members think they should dictate how OTHERS should live and what OTHERS should believe are indeed trying to hijack the country. By definition, these people are anti-freedom and therefore un-American.
(Clark)
This country was founded on Judeo Christian values. We are just trying to preserve those values with which this country was founded.
Who is trying to dictate how others should live their life in this discussion?
(Jim)
If you look down your nose at everyone who doesn’t share your religious beliefs, worldwide that is a whole bunch of people you can feel superior to. And if one of your children happened to be gay, well I would feel sorry for him or her.
(Clark)
I do not look down at those who do not share my religious beliefs. I do have issues with those who want to make excuses for lack of personal responsibility, changing the meaning of words and institutions such as marriage that have been in place for thousands of years and redefining them to their convenience.
And no my children are not gay.
(Jim)
I don’t believe either of my sons is gay, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that if it turns out that way it would not make one atom of difference what I think about them. Does that make me extremely moral or extremely immoral? You tell me
(Clark)
No, your love for your children does not call into question your morality, but given the choice between having you children being gay other not, which would you chose? And why?
Among Evangelical Christians, what ever happened to “Judge not, lest ye be judged”?
(Clark)
This verse is so often used and so little understood.
To judge means to decide to distinguish, or to condemn or to avenge. This verse does not mean that Christians are forbidden to judge others. It does mean we are not to judge the inward motives of others in the sense of condemning them.
(Jim)
And, why do we need 10 Commandments when the Golden Rule, "Do unto others . . " so handily covers them all in one fell swoop?
(Clark)
Are you saying you have a better idea than the Creator of the universe the heavens and the earth?
Jeff: We Republicans do not paint you all as bad or corrupt. I can understand why you feel that way.
I would hope that you can take a look at where society is today and see that morals, values and even basic education is on a slide downward. Just remember back to the Kingsman having to testify in Congress on the words to Louie Louie—and fast forward to today and listen to some of the mainstream RAP. Decay—I think so.
Ask some of the graduating seniors some basic geography questions or even who the Vice President is or what are nouns and adverbs—you will see what we mean.
Somewhere between here and there we Republicans and you Democrats had better start cooperating and stop all this acrimonious invective. There is some good coming out of Washington—but the public IMHO is getting fed up with all the backbiting.
Maybe it’s time we all took a time out, had a glass of Clou De Val Cabernet and a good Ashton Monarch together and started to build and even stronger USA!!
In reply to:
Jim,
Very well put. It’s amazing how the republicans and the religious right have painted us liberals (me, I don’t know if you are) as bad, morally corrupt Americans. How dare they! They don’t know me, and I take umbrage with Senate Leader Frist, who thankfully, doesn’t represent me, implying at that Family Research Council lovefest the other day that anyone who is against the ten or so judges that the Dems have been blocking, and that the Dems themselves, are against people of faith. These are disgusting and reprehensible comments. How many of Bush’s nominees have been approved? Something like 200 or more. How many blocked? Something like 10? So Frist and DeLay want to force the issue and abolish the fillibuster, an important element to the US democracy since the mid-1800s. I could go on. This is dangerous rhetoric and precedent, poisonous through and through.
And Clark, respectfully, “the people” as you put it, did speak, in November, when Bush won the election by one of the slimmest margins in history. It was no mandate, as the right likes to think. So “the people” aren’t standing up, a loud minority is. Let’s remember. This isn’t a Christian country and we all don’t need to respect Jesus. It’s amazingly myopic, and offensive to non-Christians, to imply otherwise, but that’s what fervent religion does.
And lastly, you live in Wisconsin, explain to me how a gay couple, in love, like maybe you and your wife, who decides to commit to each other and marry, in San Francisco, for example, affects you directly. How does it directly affect your life? It does not. Not you, or anyone else who voted for Bush with the sanctity of marriage and moral values on their mind. It doesn’t affect any of them directly. On the other hand, tell me how Bush’s economic policies affect the majority of the people who voted for him for his moral integrity. Negatively, I’d bet. Maybe not you, in your tax bracket, but it’s mind boggling how many people voted against their own economic interests in the last election. This is discussion is degrading and I’m done.
With respect,
Jeff
You have left me so much to work with here, there isn’t enough bandwidth to go around.
I’ll just pray for you.
Lets just agree that we love our Cirrus’.Thats why we are here to begin with.
In reply to:
On the other hand, tell me how Bush’s economic policies affect the majority of the people who voted for him for his moral integrity. Negatively, I’d bet. Maybe not you, in your tax bracket, but it’s mind boggling how many people voted against their own economic interests in the last election.
Jeff - Are you suggesting that you only vote for your “economic interests”? Maybe the people were voting for their “interests”.
In reply to:
Somewhere between here and there we Republicans and you Democrats had better start cooperating and stop all this acrimonious invective.
I couldn’t agree more. As a start, maybe each of us should stop thinking so hard about whether we are Republican or Democrat, Christian or Agnostic, black or white, gay or straight. We should all try to concentrate on what will work best for America, and why. Cooperation would be so much easier if the parties were focused on the ISSUES and SOLUTIONS, and not on the political party, religious affiliation or sexual orientation of the people discussing those issues.
More and more, Americans’ opinions are formed not by careful consideration of the issues, but based on the “label” on the person discussing them. It seems to me this is no different than deciding a person’s character based on his or her skin color.
Jim Knollenberg
Clark,
In reply to:
I’ll just pray for you.
Please don’t. I don’t need you to.
In reply to:
Lets just agree that we love our Cirrus’.Thats why we are here to begin with.
To that, I say, Amen.
Jeff
In reply to:
More and more, Americans’ opinions are formed not by careful consideration of the issues, but based on the “label” on the person discussing them. It seems to me this is no different than deciding a person’s character based on his or her skin color.
Absolutely, and that’s our shame.
We need spirited debate on issues (without name calling).
We need the ability to “agree to disagree” at times while remaining respectful countrymen and women.
We need to stop the tribalism and name calling.
We need to stop being the pawns of those in positions of power (whose main goal is the continuance of their power).[:(]
We all need to think for ourselves and often challenge the things we’re told by “authority.”
etc…
Jim,
I have read…suffered (TIC)… through most of this dialog and found inspiration in what I have read from you.
Specifically, I really think “labels” are rediculous. One word or concept to characterize the essence of an individual? In truth, not very likely to fit most of us.
And I do think that your post “hits the nail on the head”.
So much more can be brought from honest truthful opinion and discussion without resorting to “judgement” in the form of labeling.
Even though I think of myself as basically living by my understanding of Christian ideals, I do not regularly attend church; about once a year for the past few as a matter of fact. The subject itself (of Christianity)is full of so much debate. After all, why else would there be Presbyterians, Epicopaleans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. all calling themselves Christian?
Spiritual beliefs are inherently personal in my view and I am willing to share my thoughts when asked…but only when asked. I do not believe in forcing beliefs on anyone. Let alone my beliefs. How preposterous to tell someone what they should believe. More realistic and perhaps beneficial is a sharing of ones belief or spiritual system in a non-threatening way (when asked) as one persons viewpoint. I am convinced that by sharing ideas, we all learn from each other. And that goes for both Clark and JT.
I am always suspicious when one claims HE has the answer…and the only answer. (the “HE” is NOT a reference to GOD or Christ just an individual) There is much about our universe to discover, and after we have thoroughly explored our own minds, there is still the physical universe that remains.
Thanks for your thoughtful, straightforward and logical post. I have enjoyed many of them in the past year. Are you headed to M3? Maybe we’ll meet.
In reply to:
Jeff - Are you suggesting that you only vote for your “economic interests”? Maybe the people were voting for their “interests”.
That’s a good point, but I’m just trying to say that very many peope who vote republican do so at their own detriment. It’s proven. Books and many inches of newspaper have been devoted to the fact that this is true.
JB
I too have been following this thread.
I believe religious beliefs are the distilled wisdom of the ages, codified by various religions as a guide to living a good life, and whether they come from God or experience, they are good rules to live by.
Where religion goes wrong, IMHO, is when it goes from being a guide to how to live your life, to a demand that the other guy use it as a guide to his.
In other words, people should pay more attention to how they live their own lives and less to how others live theirs.
Joe
A Google search for this Senator’s last name only (no first name) yields some interesting results, obviously planted by adversaries of the Senator. (I am not taking a political side here, just observing some web-based sabotage.)
For those who would rather not look, the subversive Santorum site was planted by some gay groups that oppose the real Senator. The main reason for their disagreement was an Associated Press interview two years ago in which he said that once the state approved homosexual unions, there would be no logical way to draw the line at any other kind of consensual union, including “man on dog” sex. Excepts from the taped interview with Ms. Jordan of the AP:
In reply to:
Mr. SANTORUM: In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality—
Ms. JORDAN: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States Senator. It’s sort of freaking me out.
Mr. SANTORUM: And thatÂ’s sort of where we are in todayÂ’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesnÂ’t have rights to limit individualsÂ’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And weÂ’re seeing it in our society.
Ms. JORDAN: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you.
WHo says the best days of the Republic are behind us???
In reply to:
Are you implying that no one should even utter the term "moral"and if we do shame on us for not being clean as the driven snow.
Far from it. I’m real big on morals and ethics. I think we should talk about it MORE, not less. I just think it is completely unrelated to religious teachings. I hope you are aware that way, way outside of Christianity, people still know that is not OK to steal, harm others, or cheat on your wife. Those are not “Judeo-Christian” standards, they are standards of basic human decency.
In reply to:
But at some point there must be an agreement on what constitutes moral or ethical behavour.
To the extent that our moral or ethical behavior affects others, that “agreement” is written in our laws. If it does NOT affect others, it is between you and your God.
In reply to:
The lack of that agreement means we all do what ever we want whenever we want to whom ever we want.Otherwise defined as anarchy.
Anarchy is lawlessness, not promiscuous sex. There is a huge difference.
In reply to:
If you look at my original post at no point have I advocated having a lock on morals or ethics. My post did say I wanted to raise my children in a safe and morally upright world. Who has a problem with that?
I’m guessing no one does. I sure don’t.
In reply to:
There is a connection between religion and morals. Because you do not see the connection does not mean there isn’t one.
Likewise, because you say it does not make it so.
In reply to:
Of the folks that you indicate are moral people, you may want to ask them what drives them to be honest and moral? It has to start somewhere.
I presume it starts with the individual’s simple belief in what is the “right” way to act to be the kind of person they want to be. Are you saying you would not know that stealing and murder is wrong unless your church told you that? I sure hope you are not saying that!
In reply to:
What I did say was I wanted to be able to praise our creator Jesus Christ in public which no one can deny some find very offensive and wish to shut down that type of “free speech”. Take it out of the schools , out of our court houses ,out of the Pledge of Allegiance,remove it from football games etc.
I’m finding this hard to believe, but can you REALLY not see why people who do not share your beliefs would not want to sit and listen to those beliefs stated, as government-sanctioned facts, in PUBLIC events? If so, it is a vivid example of how religious beliefs can blind you to common sense. Just ask yourself how much YOU would like it you had to sit through readings of the Koran just to attend a High School football game. And if YOU would not like that, then why is it hard to understand why OTHERS who do not share your beliefs would not like Christian scripture and prayers shoved down their throat against their wills. Why is it necessary, desirable, or pleasant for you to worship in public, knowing that many others there do not want to be sitting through it? Why is it not sufficient for you to practice your beliefs in your church with others who DO share your beliefs? In the U.S. you have more freedom to worship as you choose than almost anywhere in the world. Is this a simple case of “whatever I have, I want more?”
In reply to:
. . . given the choice between having you children being gay other not, which would you chose?
I don’t get to choose. I guess your God makes that choice. MY first choice would be to live in a country where it would not matter. I would like it if only the content of their character mattered. I am optimistic about that. I believe that in my children’s lifetime homophobia will come to be regarded as just as ignorant and outdated as slavery seems today. After all, it’s just another form of bigotry.
In reply to:
(Jim}And, why do we need 10 Commandments when the Golden Rule, "Do unto others . . " so handily covers them all in one fell swoop?
(Clark)
Are you saying you have a better idea than the Creator of the universe the heavens and the earth?
Yes. I stated my better idea right there in the question. It’s actually not my idea. Some version of the corollary we refer to as “The Golden Rule” is contained in every recorded major religion since the beginning of time. If it were adopted as a matter of government policy, The Golden Rule unites all people of goodwill, rather than drawing a boundry between Christians and everyone else. That’s why it’s a better idea.
Forty-some years ago, my fire-and-brimstone Lutheran minister kicked me out of my catechism class because I persisted in my question about whether or not Catholics would go to heaven. In the years since then, it has come into clear focus that devotion to any formal religion REQUIRES the belief that non-believers are “wrong.” I never wanted my children to view others that way. So in this regard, I view myself more “moral” than folks who think that only their spiritual beliefs are the correct ones.
Respectfully, enjoying the discussion, and not intending ANY offense to anyone . . .
Jim Knollenberg