Hey Amanda. I think people need to vote based on who they are and what they believe to be true. If your faith is part of who you are, it should make an impact on what you do politically. Take, for example, William Wilberforce, the English member of parliament who made sure slavery was outlawed in the British Empire, or the Christian social movements of the late 19th century, William Booth & the Salvation Army. Or Bono. Do you think he’s separating faith from politics when he goes to Washington, D.C. and quotes Bible verses in order to persuade senators and congresspersons to support initiatives like D.A.T.A. and the One Campaign?
The point of “separation of Church and State” in the constitution is so that we don’t have the government coming and pounding on our door and dragging us off to prison or the guillotine if we decide to stay home on Sunday, or worship on Saturday instead, or participate in a minority religion rather than the majority denomination. When the United States was born, all the countries where Americans came from had an official state religion, sanctioned by the government. There was no religious freedom. So the point is not that we should be free FROM religion, but that we should have the freedom to participate in our religion (or lack thereof) to the fullest extent possible in this earthly life.
There are times when the views of one religion will conflict with another in the nationwide political arena, and our system helps us figure that kind of stuff out in a way that will be best for all parties. Take, for example, the fact that polygamy was made a felony in our country. When that happened, the Mormons weren’t too excited. But they adapted. But this wasn’t an issue of one religion versus a secular society. It was one religion’s conflicts with all the other religions in the country. All the other religions believed marriage to be between one man and one woman and were not willing to compromise on this. Okay, my parents just called and they’re nagging me so I have to go…
Very ZeFrank . . . Only, obviously, much better looking.
I really liked it and look forward to seeing more . . . I’m sure it was much harder to put together than simply throwing up links but it’s definitely something unique that only you could provide.
I’m a linux user, and for some reason I have problems with the abc videos; so I’m glad you are vlogging through your site where the video actually works for me!
Great to see you in action again! Please keep ‘em coming.
-aleska
The phrase isn’t, but the concept is… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Amanda… How come nobody’s responding to your question-of-the-day? Did I post my comment in the wrong place?
I really liked Steve Woolf’s comment, and I agree with it. Me, as an individual, for example, I want to go up to Erin with her vandalized car and give her a hug. If only all of us could stand up for our convictions.
Institutions full of people like me would probably be less likely to do such a thing. Sometimes individuals do a better job of living out their faith than the conglomerations.
Did you film this on your MacBook’s built-in iSight camera?
i’m right there with you on iMovie. It’s not hard although I totally farked 3 hours worth of work the other night. Oy.
Hey Amanda. I think people need to vote based on who they are and what they believe to be true. If your faith is part of who you are, it should make an impact on what you do politically. Take, for example, William Wilberforce, the English member of parliament who made sure slavery was outlawed in the British Empire, or the Christian social movements of the late 19th century, William Booth & the Salvation Army. Or Bono. Do you think he’s separating faith from politics when he goes to Washington, D.C. and quotes Bible verses in order to persuade senators and congresspersons to support initiatives like D.A.T.A. and the One Campaign?
The point of “separation of Church and State” in the constitution is so that we don’t have the government coming and pounding on our door and dragging us off to prison or the guillotine if we decide to stay home on Sunday, or worship on Saturday instead, or participate in a minority religion rather than the majority denomination. When the United States was born, all the countries where Americans came from had an official state religion, sanctioned by the government. There was no religious freedom. So the point is not that we should be free FROM religion, but that we should have the freedom to participate in our religion (or lack thereof) to the fullest extent possible in this earthly life.
There are times when the views of one religion will conflict with another in the nationwide political arena, and our system helps us figure that kind of stuff out in a way that will be best for all parties. Take, for example, the fact that polygamy was made a felony in our country. When that happened, the Mormons weren’t too excited. But they adapted. But this wasn’t an issue of one religion versus a secular society. It was one religion’s conflicts with all the other religions in the country. All the other religions believed marriage to be between one man and one woman and were not willing to compromise on this. Okay, my parents just called and they’re nagging me so I have to go…
Now that is what I’m talking about!!!!
Awesome video.
Very ZeFrank . . . Only, obviously, much better looking.
I really liked it and look forward to seeing more . . . I’m sure it was much harder to put together than simply throwing up links but it’s definitely something unique that only you could provide.
Again, awesome.
I’m a linux user, and for some reason I have problems with the abc videos; so I’m glad you are vlogging through your site where the video actually works for me!
Great to see you in action again! Please keep ‘em coming.
-aleska
Aaron,
The term ’separation of Church and State’ is not the constitution.
The phrase isn’t, but the concept is… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Amanda… How come nobody’s responding to your question-of-the-day? Did I post my comment in the wrong place?
Hey Aaron,
There are more comments here:
http://starring.amandacongdon.com/2007/05/15/miniblog/
Ah, there they are!
I really liked Steve Woolf’s comment, and I agree with it. Me, as an individual, for example, I want to go up to Erin with her vandalized car and give her a hug. If only all of us could stand up for our convictions.
Institutions full of people like me would probably be less likely to do such a thing. Sometimes individuals do a better job of living out their faith than the conglomerations.
Did you film this on your MacBook’s built-in iSight camera?