Barry Goldwater on Religion and Politics
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)
Previous comments... You are currently on page 6.
Everything about homosexuality has stood the test of time. Go look up the life expectancy differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The differences are smaller for lesbians vs straight women, but still startling, and FAR from statistically irrelevant.
That's not to say that all gays end up living shorter lives. My grandfather's brother who was gay just died in his late 80's, really nice guy, just saying that all studies have shown homosexuality on average reduces life expectancy by between 10 and 30 years. Even just say 10, maybe there's something there that should be investigated, considering smoking lowers life expectancy by less on average?
The reason religion has asserted its authority over the family and the individual is that, well, I don't expect you to believe this, but the Creator already gave us the answers in His Word. But besides that, if you don't believe His Word, believe the results. It's worked. For thousands of years, it's worked. When people follow the Biblical principles outlined for the family, for sex lives, etc, they are, on average, much more happy and fulfilled.
Jan, waxing worshipful
Children without parents are a problem, but wedlock is irrelevant.
Precisely what about homosexuality has stood the test of time? That they've always existed and harm no one...except the children abused by priests resorting to this for "no sex out of wedlock".
The statement about soldier and chaplains basically says "We should have chaplains, but require nothing of the soldiers relative to them, and government shouldn't tell chaplains what to say." Ok, fine, just says "freedom of religion", not sure what mythical Word of God that comes from. That wisdom (like all wisdom) is purely of man.
The problem with family and the individual is that religion has asserted its authority over this area of philosophy, and rejected objective philosophical analysis and argument (in favor of someone's definition of the word of god). In doing so, religion has made people dependent on it for this, and unable to evaluate and discuss it themselves like a drug dealer. Coupled with socialism's removal of responsibility, religions have caused the present lack of values you find so concerning.
Case in point, Government TODAY claims:
- Fat is bad for you
- Smoking is bad for you
- Bacon is evil
- You should eat plenty of whole grains
- etc...
All of this is based on supposed science, all has people that disagree with it, and all of it (well, except the smoking one) is a load of horse crap and has been proven so. But, it is what it is, I don't mind them pushing it with a very little bit of my own money.
However, long ago, our government USED to affirm that:
- Sex outside of marriage is bad for you
- Having children out of wedlock is detrimental to the children
- Divorce is harmful to all involved and should be avoided if at all possible
- Homosexuality is outside the norm, but we won't arrest consenting adults
- Soldiers ought to have free access to chaplains of their own faith while serving in the armed forces, and those chaplains are free to preach as God calls them.
etc...
All of the above is based on the Word of God, has withstood the test of time, and has not been rebuked. Of course there are people who oppose them, but they have no ground to stand on.
Point in all of this is... our Government at one point espoused these principles. They didn't enforce them, they just encouraged them. Today, we do quite the opposite. And do you think the state of the family and the individual in this nation is better today than it was 100+ years ago? Neglecting technological advances, it's far far worse.
Also I suggest understanding this type of church -< https://carm.org/apostasy-christian-chur...
I would posit a correction to your statements, if I may be so bold: The Constitution does not need to "...choose a 'religion' or set of moral values..."; it needs to _exclude_ unacceptable values.
Exclusion instead of Inclusion.
Jan (not trying to put words in your mouth - but I agree with most of what you said, and with this change I would agree with all of it)
Yes, pure fear-mongering... I was younger and being taught to duck and cover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqx...
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Jan
In England the anti-slavery movement was secular, only when a momentum had built-up did some of the churches join.
Today, in England, churches allow Muslim preachers to speak from the pulpit. Everywhere, except for the religious right, Christians are major supporters of collectivist social and political policies, and are uncritical supporters, and leaders, of the new religion of carbon change green crap.
That being said, even a society founded on the Constitution can not accommodate ALL social mores. Some contradict in substance, others on authority. So in the end, society _does_ ultimately have to choose a "religion" or set of moral values as authoritative and binding to the exclusion of some which are found to be incompatible.
Does that mean that the State should establish a formal "religion"? Absolutely not. Only that the State's modus operandi should be to accommodate where possible but recognize that there will be incontrovertible issues upon which a decision will be made to the exclusion of one side or the other. All such should be left for a vote and the matter closed at that point (ie, it is not subject to Court purview).
The "lesser evils" have always won, long before Goldwater had his chance, while today most of them are Greater Evils, yet 98% of the voters voted "Yay". Go figger!
Load more comments...