Religion in Politics

Viktyr Korimir said:

Why should I concern myself with the political opinions of vermin?

Click to expand...

You really shouldn't use that word with that avatar.

DiAnna said:

Of course it's hyperbole. However, the fact remains that a legislator's religious belief is a major factor determining why people vote for him/her. People want to see legislators who mirror their own religious values in the government. Once in government, legislators are in a position to impose religious dogma through legislative means... and many have done so. When this occurs, the beliefs of a majority religion intrinsically colors the legislative process. When every session of congress opens with a Christian prayer, then I believe that I am correct in my presumption that said religion is being recognized by the governmental process in a way that I disapprove of. My government is asking a specific religion's diety to "guide" them. When I sit in a church and the preacher tells me that if I do not vote for candidate A over candidate B then I will go to hell, the church is most assuredly pressing itself into the governmental process. When candidates who are non-religious have no chance of being elected to state or national public office, then the church is again is shown to be the crux of who is and is not allowed governmental power.

Therefore, the statement that the church IS the government, hyperbole though it may be, is not necessarily incorrect.

As for who is an "authentic Christian" and who is not, that's not for me to say. That would be between them and whatever God they believe in. I strongly... strongly... support the freedom of all Americans to worship as they please. However, given the clashes between religious groups lately, including the Christian-led anti-mosque silliness of the past years and the histrionic reaction of so many to anyone who does not believe at all, I'm thinking a hell of a lot of Americans are pretty selective about who is and is not allowed such freedoms.

This is one reason I stay away from religious forums. I see no need to intrude upon people's discussion of their own beliefs. Also, I note the reaction to those who do not share them. When a viewpoint you could not agree with mixed religion and government you, according to your own words, had difficulty even being polite to me although we have gotten along quite well in the past and agreed with each other frequently! People do not like their religions to be challenged. I do not challenge them. I simply do not like them being a cornerstone of the government, and those who run it.

Click to expand...

Well Diana, you and I seem to have a widely diverging view of the character of government, who runs it, and what its cornerstone is.

Personally I think if it was actually being run by genuine Christians who lived what they believed and voted their consciences within the bounds of the Constitution, we'd be a lot better off than we currently are.

To me though, I certainly don't perceive our Government as being run by the Church. For starters, which Church? Catholic, Mormon, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist? Seperate critters who don't always see eye to eye, you know? I suppose you mean Christianity in general, as a principle... but frankly I don't see that either. Not remotely. I see hardly any Federal law that I can point to and say "that originated because of Christian beliefs". Rarely any State law, once in a while. Local, here and there yes. So the Congress says a traditional prayer... anyone can mouth a prayer, doesn't mean there's an ounce of sincerity in it.

Most legislation these days seems to come from the government's desire to maintain, uphold, and expand it's power over its citizens. Much legislation appears to be in the service of special intrests, mainly corporate, making it easier for certain big corps and big-money contributors to do what they want to do. The rest is mostly pork, vote buying and the occasional attack of bad conscience.

Once in a blue moon we actually get a piece of pragmatically useful legislation, but if you blink you're liable to miss it.

Sure as sunrise, I don't see Congress legislating with Christianity as its cornerstone. Not for a long time now. :shrug:

Goshin said:

Well Diana, you and I seem to have a widely diverging view of the character of government, who runs it, and what its cornerstone is.

Personally I think if it was actually being run by genuine Christians who lived what they believed and voted their consciences within the bounds of the Constitution, we'd be a lot better off than we currently are.

Click to expand...

True, we disagree about religion's impact upon government. I do agree with you that the word "cornerstone" was a poor choice; obviously the true cornerstone of our government is the constitution. Interpretation of the constitution, however, often differs between the religious and the secular. Separation of church and state, for example.

To me though, I certainly don't perceive our Government as being run by the Church. For starters, which Church? Catholic, Mormon, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist? Seperate critters who don't always see eye to eye, you know? I suppose you mean Christianity in general, as a principle... but frankly I don't see that either. Not remotely. I see hardly any Federal law that I can point to and say "that originated because of Christian beliefs". Rarely any State law, once in a while. Local, here and there yes. So the Congress says a traditional prayer... anyone can mouth a prayer, doesn't mean there's an ounce of sincerity in it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I refer to the generalized "Christian" religion, which we both know contains dozens of different faiths with specific differences in belief. Sincerity of prayer doesn't matter to me; the fact that religion is brought into the governmental chambers matters to me. The fact that the words "Under God" was inserted into our secular Pledge of Alligiance matters to me. Putting "In God We Trust" on our money matters to me. The fact that an individual must declare a religious faith even to be elected to national office matters to me. When abortion was illegal, that was a faith-based law that mattered to me. The attempts to thwart SSM, thus continuing the legalized discrimination of homosexuals, is faith-based and matters to me.

Most legislation these days seems to come from the government's desire to maintain, uphold, and expand it's power over its citizens. Much legislation appears to be in the service of special intrests, mainly corporate, making it easier for certain big corps and big-money contributors to do what they want to do. The rest is mostly pork, vote buying and the occasional attack of bad conscience.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

whysoserious said:

Really? You're going to give credit for the civil rights movement to religion? There are lots of religious people out there, how can you tie the fact that he was a reverend to all of his noble works?

Click to expand...

Because He did. Ditto with the abolitionists.

ADG said:

For a Republican, belief in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is a prerequisite in most cases. I believe Ron Paul breaks this mold, but him aside, most Republicans know that to appeal to the conservative base you must believe in a Christian God. And while you may not believe that religion and politics should be combined, many Republicans do not share this belief. To many, the USA is a Christian nation, founded on Christian ideals by Good Christian men.

So is this an issue? You betcha, and it is why we have more than one party!

Click to expand...

Shallow would be an understatement for this post. The last sentence is total bull****, without question.

soccerboy22 said:

Like that whole an atheist was elected in Ashville, NC and there was a law saying you had to be Christian to hold office?

Click to expand...

Well that isn't possible nationally because the Constitution forbids it.

whysoserious said:

Perhaps I have just watched too many documentaries about religion in the past year, but I just find it disturbing how much it influences people's lives. The last one I watched quoted a poll that said around 20% of people believe the rapture will happen within the next 50 years and another 20% or so weren't sure. That means around 40%+ of the voting bloc believes the rapture may or may not happen within the next 50 years. Really?

Combine that with the evangelical movement that has nearly unlimited funds, tax exempt status, and a long arm in politics, and it gets a little weird in my opinion. As I said on another thread, it is hard to debate with a person whose coup de grace is, "Well I'll be going to heaven and you're going to burn in the lake of fire". And while many do not say this aloud, if you are a devout Christian, that kind of stuff has to be constantly on your mind.

*Edit:

Also, if 40% of the people believe there may be a rapture soon, what motivation do these people have to do anything to fix the world? What do they care? It's probably going to end soon and then they get to go spend eternity enjoying bliss.

Click to expand...

And what are the results of all this? Gays and abortionist have had more influence on controversial laws passed then Christians. So what is your real concern?

I haven't read beyond the OP, but I don't get saying religion has no place in politics, politics is about forcing your beliefs on others, if your beliefs are religious, so be it, forcing religion on an atheist or someone with a different religion no different from forcing democracy on a monarchist, or bureaucracy on a libertarian. I can understand separation of church and state, but separation of religion and politics is stupid.

Ikari said:

The belief in upholding and proliferating liberty and freedom is one of the fundamentals for our government, however. Not theocracy. My point was that your religious beliefs have limits when talking about the use of them through law. You cannot infringe upon the rights of others. It's really nothing more than that.

Your last statement, BTW, is why we have the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

I'm sick of seeing this word thrown out like it's a imminent threat to society. It has never been a threat since the founding of this nation. It's total bull****, and the only reason it's used is to marginalize religious people, and hopefully run them out of the country. The rabid atheists in this country feel so threatened by a group of people who believe in treating people nice and living in peace; it sick as hell is what it is.

American said:

The rabid atheists in this country feel so threatened by a group of people who believe in treating people nice and living in peace; it sick as hell is what it is.

Click to expand...

What color is the sky on your world? If they believed in treating people nice and living in peace, they'd be goddamned Quakers. Nobody's afraid of the Quakers taking over the country.

American said:

I'm sick of seeing this word thrown out like it's a imminent threat to society. It has never been a threat since the founding of this nation. It's total bull****, and the only reason it's used is to marginalize religious people, and hopefully run them out of the country. The rabid atheists in this country feel so threatened by a group of people who believe in treating people nice and living in peace; it sick as hell is what it is.

Click to expand...

What a bull**** argument. Seriously, this is pretty ignorant of reality. Here in the US, atheists are the least electable group, behind Muslims. And we've seen the stupidity that circles those arguments. Atheists are not trying to "run the Christians out" or any other dumb ass, retarded, reality ignoring argument which could be made. The only thing they are looking for is to ensure that religious law isn't held over them. Which is why I said that it's ok so long as they are limited by the rights and liberties of the individual. Theocracy is not an ideal to be upheld nor proliferated. So long as people remain within the rights and liberties of the individual, they can do as they like. So please stop with stupid arguments which have nothing to do with what was written.

Ikari said:

The belief in upholding and proliferating liberty and freedom is one of the fundamentals for our government, however. Not theocracy. My point was that your religious beliefs have limits when talking about the use of them through law. You cannot infringe upon the rights of others. It's really nothing more than that.

Click to expand...

And those rights INCLUDE the right to practice ones religion and the right to vote. And if my religion has taught me that homosexuality is wrong and thus shouldn't be endorsed, then I am well within my rights to vote against the government allowing gay marriage and you'd be the one attempting to violate rights if you attempted to tell me I'm not allowed to use my religion as a basis for my rational on how I vote.

Yes, religious beliefs have limits. And we should never establish a theocracy or a state religion. However, you are infringing on other peoples rights when there is talk of attempting to prohibit or harass people into removing a part of what makes up their morals, ethics, views, and beliefs when they vote simply because you dislike it. If what they vote for is unconstitutional, then there are safe guards in this country for that. If what they're voting for is something you simply dislike and YOU think is unconstitutional...but has not been found to be such...then they are fully and completely within THEIR rights to have voted that way for whatever reason they choose.

And religious people are just as within their rights and reasonable imho to not vote for a staunch athiest as an athiest would be not to vote for a staunch religious individual. I think both sides are rather idiotic if that is the basis for their vote either way rather than actual issues...and not just the issues they make up in their head through their own bigoted stereotypes.

Zyphlin said:

And those rights INCLUDE the right to practice ones religion and the right to vote. And if my religion has taught me that homosexuality is wrong and thus shouldn't be endorsed, then I am well within my rights to vote against the government allowing gay marriage and you'd be the one attempting to violate rights if you attempted to tell me I'm not allowed to use my religion as a basis for my rational on how I vote.

Click to expand...

I think you should be more than free to do so, and the courts are more than free to overrule you. That's one of the reasons we have them. If you wish to infringe upon the rights of others, we have a system in place to prevent that. You could say that your religion taught you that white folk are superior and slavery is the best system for non-whites because then white folk will take care of them. And you can vote that way. But we have a system in place which is supposed to prevent that from becoming law. You can hold whatever religious belief you want, but you cannot impress that believe upon me through law.

Zyphlin said:

Yes, religious beliefs have limits. And we should never establish a theocracy or a state religion. However, you are infringing on other peoples rights when there is talk of attempting to prohibit or harass people into removing a part of what makes up their morals, ethics, views, and beliefs when they vote simply because you dislike it. If what they vote for is unconstitutional, then there are safe guards in this country for that. If what they're voting for is something you simply dislike and YOU think is unconstitutional...but has not been found to be such...then they are fully and completely within THEIR rights to have voted that way for whatever reason they choose.

Click to expand...

I'm not endorsing an infringement upon religion. I am saying that people who want to push their religious doctrine through law are wrong. While you are free to practice and preach your religion, your god ends at you. I am not beholden to the same rules because I do not hold your god. People may vote anyway they wish, but I will never endorse those who act against the rights and liberties of the individual. And as such, I will further support the Republic in the checks and balances it has against mob rule.

Ikari said:

I think you should be more than free to do so, and the courts are more than free to overrule you. That's one of the reasons we have them. If you wish to infringe upon the rights of others, we have a system in place to prevent that. You could say that your religion taught you that white folk are superior and slavery is the best system for non-whites because then white folk will take care of them. And you can vote that way. But we have a system in place which is supposed to prevent that from becoming law. You can hold whatever religious belief you want, but you cannot impress that believe upon me through law.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. And in your hypothetical, lets say the court didn't side with you but said it was constitutional. Then the voting would be entirely legitimate, regardless of whether or not they voted for it for a religious reason.

I'm not endorsing an infringement upon religion. I am saying that people who want to push their religious doctrine through law are wrong. While you are free to practice and preach your religion, your god ends at you. I am not beholden to the same rules because I do not hold your god. People may vote anyway they wish, but I will never endorse those who act against the rights and liberties of the individual. And as such, I will further support the Republic in the checks and balances it has against mob rule.

Click to expand...

They are not wrong. They are more than free to push their religious doctrine through law so long as it does not 1) Infringe upon someones constitutional rights 2) Does not establish a state religion.

Allowing Gay Marriage is not considered a constitutionally mandated thing at this moment. So people are absolutely allow, free, and constitutional in pushing hteir religious doctrine by voting against measures that would allow it to come into law. They are not infringing upon anyones constitutional rights (as its not been deemed a constitutional right to engage in such a marriage at this time in our country) and they are voting based on their religious beliefs.

As long as their votes remain within the boundries set down by the constitution, they are absolutely free to push their codified religious beliefs through law. The constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion...it does no such thing in restricting what goes into the reasons behind and individuals votes, or that laws based on a persons religious beliefs can not be passed as long as there is a reasoning, however poor you may view it, other than "Because [god] wills it". If creating laws that coincide with religious doctrine but are constitutional in all other ways was unconstitutional, then we'd need to remove laws concerning murder, theft, and many others.

Zyphlin said:

Absolutely. And in your hypothetical, lets say the court didn't side with you but said it was constitutional. Then the voting would be entirely legitimate, regardless of whether or not they voted for it for a religious reason.

Click to expand...

Well specifically in the hypothetical of slavery, regardless of religious reason, the court ruling would be proper grounds for revolution.

Zyphlin said:

They are not wrong. They are more than free to push their religious doctrine through law so long as it does not 1) Infringe upon someones constitutional rights 2) Does not establish a state religion.

Allowing Gay Marriage is not considered a constitutionally mandated thing at this moment. So people are absolutely allow, free, and constitutional in pushing hteir religious doctrine by voting against measures that would allow it to come into law. They are not infringing upon anyones constitutional rights (as its not been deemed a constitutional right to engage in such a marriage at this time in our country) and they are voting based on their religious beliefs.

As long as their votes remain within the boundries set down by the constitution, they are absolutely free to push their codified religious beliefs through law. The constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion...it does no such thing in restricting what goes into the reasons behind and individuals votes, or that laws based on a persons religious beliefs can not be passed as long as there is a reasoning, however poor you may view it, other than "Because [god] wills it". If creating laws that coincide with religious doctrine but are constitutional in all other ways was unconstitutional, then we'd need to remove laws concerning murder, theft, and many others.

Click to expand...

Well I'm not going to really turn this into a SSM argument, we have plenty of threads for that. So long as the votes are within the rights and liberties of the individual it can be considered just.

There will always be people that vote along religious lines. That won't ever change. But churches should in no way be allowed to practice any sort of politics. No tax exempt entity that is labeled as religious should be allowed to be involved either.

Ikari said:

Well specifically in the hypothetical of slavery, regardless of religious reason, the court ruling would be proper grounds for revolution.

Click to expand...

And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you there. However, that goes into an even farther off tangent.

Well I'm not going to really turn this into a SSM argument, we have plenty of threads for that. So long as the votes are within the rights and liberties of the individual it can be considered just.

Click to expand...

This, I agree with. I don't have a strong care for WHY anyone votes the way they do as long as the laws remain within the realms of the constitution. I may at times think its stupid, like people who vote for the President that is cuter or vote for something because the name of the bill makes it seem like a good thing, but I would not in a second suggest that they shouldn't or can't vote based on that reason.

Zyphlin said:

This, I agree with. I don't have a strong care for WHY anyone votes the way they do as long as the laws remain within the realms of the constitution. I may at times think its stupid, like people who vote for the President that is cuter or vote for something because the name of the bill makes it seem like a good thing, but I would not in a second suggest that they shouldn't or can't vote based on that reason.

Click to expand...

So long as there is a system in place which can properly servo the will of the majority to protect the rights of the minority; neither would I.

katiegrrl0 said:

There will always be people that vote along religious lines. That won't ever change. But churches should in no way be allowed to practice any sort of politics. No tax exempt entity that is labeled as religious should be allowed to be involved either.

Click to expand...

I disagree with Churchs not being able to practice any sort of politics. I think a Church should not be publicly endorsing a particular party or a particular candidate, but I think it's unreasonable to perhaps suggest they not talk about political issues, as many political issues are not SINGULARLY political issues. IE...gay marriage, or abortion, or pornography, or gambling, or whatever...could all be a religious issue and is reasonable to be talked about. However, they shouldn't be going "So go out there and vote for Joe Soandso because he's pro-life". I would be behind removing tax exempt status for any church or religious group who was actively publicly supporting candidates or who were engaged in direct political activism (Such as sponsoring or organizing a group to go protest an candidate who was pro-choice).

Viktyr Korimir said:

What color is the sky on your world? If they believed in treating people nice and living in peace, they'd be goddamned Quakers. Nobody's afraid of the Quakers taking over the country.

Click to expand...

I believe in being nice to people and living in peace... as much as reasonably possible. I draw the line at being nice and living in peace with people who want to kill me or oppress me. The problem with the Quakers is they'd find it very hard to survive anywhere but the US, or another country that was willing to protect people who won't fight even in self-defense.

Christian =/= Pacifist

And those rights INCLUDE the right to practice ones religion and the right to vote. And if my religion has taught me that homosexuality is wrong and thus shouldn't be endorsed, then I am well within my rights to vote against the government allowing gay marriage and you'd be the one attempting to violate rights if you attempted to tell me I'm not allowed to use my religion as a basis for my rational on how I vote.

Click to expand...

Unless the effect of that vote is an active subversion of the principles of freedom and privacy that inform the operation of the republic.

The basic logic in your post is that people have a right to vote against things on the terms that it offends their personal moral sensibilities. Since that generally isn't believed about EVERY behavior (such as owning guns, or belonging to a specific religion), a good rationale must be provided to add moral authority to the law necessary for the law to be maintained.

There's never been a logically satisfying argument for why gay marriage should be banned. It "upsets traditional marriage" isn't a good argument because traditions enjoy no constitutional protections, particularly not above behaviors that actually seem consistent with the rights promised by the U.S. Constitution.

The criticism is that religious people have a civic duty to use their votes responsibly and non-hypocritically, which doesn't consistently occur.

Goshin said:

I believe in being nice to people and living in peace... as much as reasonably possible.

Click to expand...

You've never questioned my citizenship or my patriotism on the basis of my faith, or said that I should be subject to the laws of yours. Your notion of "reasonably possible" includes treating me as a neighbor, a fellow citizen, and an honorable person. There are many Christian Conservatives in this country-- prominent leaders of the movement-- for whom this is not the case. They have made it clear, time and time again, that I am not a "real" American and that there is no place for me in "their" America.

Goshin said:

I draw the line at being nice and living in peace with people who want to kill me or oppress me.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I am saying.

Goshin said:

Christian =/= Pacifist

Click to expand...

I don't expect Christians of any political stripe to be pacifists. But if prominent Conservative Christians want to treat me as the enemy, they shouldn't be surprised when I return the favor.

Viktyr Korimir said:

You've never questioned my citizenship or my patriotism on the basis of my faith, or said that I should be subject to the laws of yours. Your notion of "reasonably possible" includes treating me as a neighbor, a fellow citizen, and an honorable person. Theirs does not.

Click to expand...

I would not dream of saying or doing otherwise. You follow a different path than mine, but you follow it with principle and honor, and it is a path that allows others to follow their own. I believe that faith is a choice, and would not dream of trying to change that choice into a "you must believe X or else".... to me, that would destroy the entire point of faith, which is central to my theology. The very notion of "forcing someone to be a Christian" is as alien to me as the idea of forcing someone to be Caucasian, and about as impossible.

Law vs Morality is a slightly more complex question. On the one hand, I do not support theocracy or making into State law things that pertain only to Christianity, like going to church or refraining from unnecessary work on Sunday. On the other hand, law is supposed to be about justice, about what is right and what is wrong.... and I don't know how I can entirely seperate my religious beliefs about morality from what I think should be right or wrong in the law. I suppose the primary difference is that the law is (supposed) to be about HARM... one citizen (or corporation, etc) HARMS another, and what is to be done to set it right? Where there is no actual harm done, I tend to keep silent in most cases... the law is an expression of force, and one should always be judicious about the use or threat of force. But when we are talking about some kind of harm done, I cannot say that my beliefs will not color what I think is "right" or "wrong" about a given case. :shrug:

I could go through various specific issues and define whether they impinge upon "moral issues that need to be law", and "moral issues that don't need to be law" I suppose. That would take a while I suppose. However for the most part, if you're not doing harm in some way, I'm inclined to leave you alone and let you do your thing. I'm a Christian but I'm also a big believer in liberty and individual self-determination as a principle of government and law.

I don't expect Christians of any political stripe to be pacifists. But if prominent Conservative Christians want to treat me as the enemy, they shouldn't be surprised when I return the favor.

Click to expand...

Understood. Just bear in mind, the ones that get all the media air-time are the ones that say the most controversial things and suffer boot-in-mouth disease a lot. The same bunch tends to throw words like "heathen" and "pagan" around very haphazardly, and don't seem to know much of anything about the actual practice of modern pagans. The ignorant often confuse it with Satanism and old Aleister Crowley.

I'm reasonably confident there are more like me, than like the loudmouth foot-in-cheek crowd.

Goshin said:

Law vs Morality is a slightly more complex question. On the one hand, I do not support theocracy or making into State law things that pertain only to Christianity, like going to church or refraining from unnecessary work on Sunday. On the other hand, law is supposed to be about justice, about what is right and what is wrong.... and I don't know how I can entirely seperate my religious beliefs about morality from what I think should be right or wrong in the law.

Click to expand...

I think the obvious answer to the highlighted area is: Be a living example of your faith and religion. As a Christian, there's a lot in the Bible that you can draw from to live you daily life that reflects good, clean, caring, loving ways to live. And "Love Thy Neighbor" is a good start.

If people like what they see. They might be enticed to ask you what you do to have the kind of live that they are seeking.

I guess this begs the question: Are all religions geared toward good will to all people, regardless of what other people's faith or beliefs are? Do all faiths teach tolerance and acceptance?

Goshin said:

Law vs Morality is a slightly more complex question. On the one hand, I do not support theocracy or making into State law things that pertain only to Christianity, like going to church or refraining from unnecessary work on Sunday. On the other hand, law is supposed to be about justice, about what is right and what is wrong.... and I don't know how I can entirely seperate my religious beliefs about morality from what I think should be right or wrong in the law.

Click to expand...

I don't begrudge people trying to work their religious morals into law one bit, as long as they stay away from religious doctrine. I'll either follow the law or I won't. But I love this country, and I'm not going to allow it to be taken from me without a fight. I won't be considered an alien in my own homeland.

Goshin said:

Just bear in mind, the ones that get all the media air-time are the ones that say the most controversial things and suffer boot-in-mouth disease a lot. The same bunch tends to throw words like "heathen" and "pagan" around very haphazardly, and don't seem to know much of anything about the actual practice of modern pagans. The ignorant often confuse it with Satanism and old Aleister Crowley.

Click to expand...

Group I'm talking about includes a sitting President within our lifetime. He was talking about atheists, not pagans, but I don't doubt for a second that I was meant to be included.