Below is an adaption of a recent joint statement from some of our finest citizens sent to Washington to represent us.

Statement of Principles
By Fourty-Two Baptists in the U.S. House of Representatives
As Baptists in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Baptist tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, emphasizes individual responsibility under God, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a moral safety net to guide those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Baptist social teaching: individuals and congregations helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: addressing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Baptists to community and helping those in need.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Baptist community about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion—we do not celebrate its practice and will work to drastically reduce both its necessity and frequency. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this mandates promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children's healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

In all these issues, we seek the Bible's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Bible's role in providing moral compass, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the our fellow legislators in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Baptists and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Baptists, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

As Baptists who embrace the historic Protestant concept of vocation, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world.


Questions for debate:

1) Does a statement like this rise to the hyperbolic title of this thread, or is it nothing more than red meat to the politicians' base?

2) Do members of Congress violate their oaths of office when they legislate based on their religious beliefs?

3) Are similar statements such as these that come from a "liberation theology" or "liberal Christian" standpoint acceptable? Such statements would likely include commitments to collective healthcare, unfettered access to abortion, perhaps even with public funding, opposition to the death penalty, etc.

Wow, for some reason this story makes me laugh. Partly because I saw this coming since before Bush's reelection.

1.) I happen to think that this is just posturing for their voters. If it were anything more, I'm sure there would be some kind of vote to install Bush as the emperor.

2.) Certainly. If politicians complain about activist judges, why are they not being called on being religious activists? It's way too hypocritical for my taste and for one of the leaders of this nation to say that they will use their personal opinions to regulate a nation with no official religion and no official group of people is disgusting. To use the Christian dogma to legislate for non-Christians opens up issue entirely and it is a blatant attempt to establish Baptism (Christianity) as the religion in the moral right of this nation.

3.) They are beyond unacceptable. For a politician to be so narrow-minded and set in their ways that they promise to make their religion their default modus operandi is a gross breach of power.

Bikerdad, one question: Where is your source???



Okay. Let's get one thing out in the open here before I go any further. I am a Baptist myself (Southern Baptist to be exact).

1) I agree with VDemosthenes on this.

2 ) Not really depending on what they are trying to violate that amendment or the rest of the constitution. Before I go any further, I challenge you to reread the article and strip the religious statements from it when you do, then reconsider you stance on this issue. I will also say that any belief that one has (or philosophy that one holds) will most likely color one's actions to a greater or lesser extent, and that there is no real way of getting around this. Another thing, would you rather have your legislators tell you this and operate by it or not tell you and operate by it anyway? I know that this is an either or question, but that is what I'm getting at. The only practical way of getting them to not do it is to vote them out of office or let their phones ring off-the-hook.

(emphasis mine)
Here is the definition of "inform" that I found. The only contention I see that other people might have with this is the last sentence.

3) To me, this seems to be more centerish or center left. (I cannot decern more because of the lack of economic statements in the quoted part of the article). Is it acceptable? It depends. Are they (saying that they) are going to go against the constituion (directly or indirectly)?

1. I'll accept this as a sincere statement of the beliefs of these legislators. Frankly, this thing seems pretty bland to me; there is very little controversy in it.

2. Human beings are inevitably going to be influenced by their religious beliefs, as well as by many other factors, and there's nothing wrong with that. I have no objection whatsoever to a legislator making decisions based on faith. Where I have a problem is when legislators restrict religious freedom without an overwhelmingly strong reason, or when any government entity offers any official opinion for or against any religious belief. (I may be splitting hairs, but this is why I have no problem with politicians making speeches that include phrases like "God Bless America" -- that's the religious opinion of one individual -- but I have a big problem with "In God We Trust" on my money.)

3. This lukewarm statement is fine, as would be a similar one from a conservative or liberal background.

Posturing? What if the politicians actually take and pursue policy positions consistent with their Statement of Principles?

Are you reading more into this than is there? Your take is completely contrary to this part of the statement:

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Baptists, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

Why would it be a breach of power if the politician is open about their philosophical foundation? Nonetheless, if a politician opposes the death penalty for religious reasons, you contend that in doing so they are guilty of a "gross breach of power"?

I second that motion. You still didn't address the source in your latest post.