Using the scripture to make political arguments is trashy and unfair. As a Speech and Debate acc. veteran, I’ve had personal experience with religiously inclined ‘support’. As a non-Christian, I felt disadvantaged and nervous to make a comeback because I didn’t want to offend anyone. But hey, before I go off on a nostalgic rant, let me back up.
For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals. These individuals originate from diverse backgrounds and religions, and where as there is no specific religion that can be solely liable. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine how violence and religion can simultaneously exist because the nature of these two elements seems to be contradictory. To begin with, there are two particular explanations in which introduce some historical examples of religion and violence intertwining, and illustrate how those two entities (religion and violence) can coexist. One explanation states that certain individuals feel that violence is relatively harmless, and therefore feel no remorse in performing violent acts.
On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that. Prominence over human welfare and determinative nature regarding human experience –since both deal with human then they can be combined. The strength is that it when we put our lives according to the sacred we are likely to live a life free of problem associated to ungodliness. On the other hand it is important to perceive the true reality that underlies our religion .If we don’t do so we are likely to suffer and destroy what is already positive about our religion hence suffering. In that case religion will be the dividing factor instead of a bonding factor as it should
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
It can be seen as a good approach to morality as it does not allow people from different denominations such as cultures or where you are born or in different situation they may find themselves to build their own moral rules and framework to life, it is personal but is guided by these innate rules. Religious people also share natural law ideas as they argue that there is an eternal unchanging part of morality which remains unchanged regardless of personal opinions and preferences. They believe that God created them with a purpose and that all the rules guiding them from natural law help them to fulfil this purpose. Christianity has a great deal of support for the view that there is a natural law of morality. The Christian understanding of this concept is based largely upon the work of Thomas Aquinas as he explained that faith and reason are closely related.
Some atheists and agnostics argue to remove "in God we trust" from our currency. Conservatives on the religious right work for prayer in our public schools. Secularists fear religious zealotry, and believers abhor moral anarchy. In this popular level historical overview of the relationship between church and state, religion and politics, Jon Meacham, the managing editor of Newsweek and a practicing Christian, argues against both extremes. There is, he insists, a well-defined historical common middle ground, what he calls a "sensible center," that best serves the many and varied interests of our country.
The notion that religion is of no significance to the growth and well-being of the American society is fraught with danger. This cornucopia of differing culture demands a common thread that binds its citizens together. It astounds me how our judiciary came to the erroneous conclusion that the First Amendment implies that religion should not pay a role in our democratic republic. I believe the founders, as forwarding thinking as they were, would have provided a more closed language, had they known that this statement:” Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (p.11.2008),This Amendment that was meant to buttress the anti federalist position on government interference with
However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life. Why is religion needed when it is not the source of moral guidance? Two famous critiques of the link between religion and morality are the Euthyphro dilemma and the many critiques od Richard Dawkins against religion. Both essentially come to the same conclusion; that we do not need God to be good. The basic concept of religion and morality, especially divine command theory, is very simple: what God commands is good, therefore only do that.
How has the separation between the State and Religion benefited the nation today? Keeping the State and Religion separate has helped resolve many issues within our nation. With the help of our four founding fathers our nation has become a place where anyone remains free to speak and teach their own religion. As stated by President Thomas Jefferson it should be man’s given right to exercise their religion being that it isn’t causing harm to anyone physically and it shouldn’t be an issue of concern. It was also noted that religion should remain separate from government issues to avoid decisions being compromised based on the religion someone practices.
There is no biological evidence to support this theory. This argument is a religious one thus making it very difficult for the government to make laws in regards to this topic. Since it is unethical to mix government and religion, if the government were to weigh in on the topic of abortion either way they are breaking the cardinal rule. In looking at the definition of terms it is very obvious that pro-choice is very much a constitutional right. Perhaps there are just not enough people willing to break down the definitions of the terms used in the constitution to the degree that it takes to unravel this everlasting pro-life versus pro-choice argument.