• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much religion should exist in politics?

How much religion should exist in politics?

  • Alot, secular decisions based on morality will reflect in the people that follow the law

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Religion is fine, but should be used minimally in secular decisions

    Votes: 13 65.0%
  • Religion should be strictly controled/banned

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
In a representative form of government, if the people of that society have strong faith based convictions then laws should reflect those convictions.

I also happen to personally think the Judeo/Christian value system serves any society well including the heritage of America IF AND WHEN it has been truly followed and not replaced with something else while only keeping the Christian name. Counterfeit Christianity has been both unfortunate and a paradoxical blessing at the same time. On the unfortunate side, much wrong has been done in the name of Christianity when God had nothing to do with it and in many cases the Bible condemns it but causing many who are unfamiliar with the Bible to erroneously think whatever wrong there was must be what true Christianity is about.
 
See above you must take other religious views into consideration.

No you don't, you can respect someone else's religious views but you don't have to take them into consideration when you make up your own mind about an issue or when you vote. I'm not Hindu, I can respect someone's Hindu faith but I'm not going to let a faith that I do not believe is true shape my personal beliefs, votes, and decisions when politics is concerned.
 
In a representative form of government, if the people of that society have strong faith based convictions then laws should reflect those convictions.

I also happen to personally think the Judeo/Christian value system serves any society well including the heritage of America IF AND WHEN it has been truly followed and not replaced with something else while only keeping the Christian name. Counterfeit Christianity has been both unfortunate and a paradoxical blessing at the same time. On the unfortunate side, much wrong has been done in the name of Christianity when God had nothing to do with it and in many cases the Bible condemns it but causing many who are unfamiliar with the Bible to erroneously think whatever wrong there was must be what true Christianity is about.

I'm going to have to disagree about Judeo/Christian value system. Though a lot of it is admirable...a lot more of it is bigoted and discriminatory towards certain groups of people. It is those values that have led to America's history of suppressing one group of people.

The Bible is a book filled with bigotry among other asinine notions. I respect a lot of the morals of not killing, stealing, etc...but I take exception with others like the entire book of Leviticus.

I don't think the Bible should be used to direct the country....I think the Constitution should be used for that, but we've strayed away from that.
 
No you don't, you can respect someone else's religious views but you don't have to take them into consideration when you make up your own mind about an issue or when you vote. I'm not Hindu, I can respect someone's Hindu faith but I'm not going to let a faith that I do not believe is true shape my personal beliefs, votes, and decisions when politics is concerned.

That's fine but you live a society where people do not believe the same things you do, you have to forget your own religious ideals and think about society, abortion is an example of this. You may be against abortion for religious reasons but you still vote for it because you think about the greater society and the people you represent.
 
That's fine but you live a society where people do not believe the same things you do, you have to forget your own religious ideals and think about society, abortion is an example of this. You may be against abortion for religious reasons but you still vote for it because you think about the greater society and the people you represent.

What if what I believe is best for society is also what I believe religiously? What if I believe that my religious values and morals are absolute and are what is best for everyone? What if someone else disagrees with me and believes that their morals and values are better than mine? What is the difference if someone is opposed to abortion for religious reasons and because apart from religion they believe that it is also best for society? What if someone was for abortion due to religious reasons? When given a ballot you are allowed to vote and make decisions based on whatever belief over whatever decision you want. Someone can vote based on their racist beliefs by only casting a vote for the white guy or only voting for the black guy solely due to racial preference. When the votes are cast they don't ask why you voted, they don't ask if you've educated yourself on an issue and they don't screen to make sure none of the votes cast had any kind of religious beliefs influencing the decision making. When an issue is put on the table you can make a decision on the issue for any reason and that vote is just as much valid as someone who came to the same conclusion or a different conclusion from you using a different worldview.
 
You cannot make laws because you think that all of society should follow your religious values. You have to consider what it said in the quote. Pierre Trudeau was a religious person, educated at religious schools, and went to church but he did not let it influence his governing.

I'm not accepting that rationale. He may not have made a religious argument, but what he saw as proper, valid, where he should lead had to be influenced by his religious beliefs. I'm questioning whether it is possible to separate belief from the person.
 
I'm not accepting that rationale. He may not have made a religious argument, but what he saw as proper, valid, where he should lead had to be influenced by his religious beliefs. I'm questioning whether it is possible to separate belief from the person.

It is not possible to separate belief from the person but is possible for a person to separate belief form legislation.
 
It is not possible to separate belief from the person but is possible for a person to separate belief form legislation.

I suspect only superficially. At the core, there are lines a person will defend and do so largely due to their beliefs.
 
i voted "Religion is fine, but should be used minimally in secular decisions" of course

a persons religion is always going to be a part of them but anybody thats incapable of putting a good amount of separation between the two would make a horrible politician.

They could never get my vote because that fact is they would prove they have no understanding what america is about and how it works. They would be exactly who you dont want in office.
 
In a representative form of government, if the people of that society have strong faith based convictions then laws should reflect those convictions.

I also happen to personally think the Judeo/Christian value system serves any society well including the heritage of America IF AND WHEN it has been truly followed and not replaced with something else while only keeping the Christian name. Counterfeit Christianity has been both unfortunate and a paradoxical blessing at the same time. On the unfortunate side, much wrong has been done in the name of Christianity when God had nothing to do with it and in many cases the Bible condemns it but causing many who are unfamiliar with the Bible to erroneously think whatever wrong there was must be what true Christianity is about.

That may work if you are a Christian. It is or can be oppressive to some degree if you are not a Christian.
 
And laws made by our legislature should be based on objective evidence and rational argument. Religion offers neither. No amount of faith will make a law banning the mixing of wool and linen a law that the US can pass. It's fine if your morality comes from religion, but ideas about morality aren't enough to be the basis for a law in this country.

"Thou shalt not murder" is completely irrational. Noted!
 
If a politician states he is a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or whatever, he is presenting a platform of his basic moral beliefs. If he is devoutly any religion, he betrays his susceptibility to brainwashing and is instantly an unsuitable candidate. Good morals would be wonderful in politicians, but that has to be an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:
If a politician states he is a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or whatever, he is presenting a platform of his basic moral beliefs.
That is simply not true because the "basic moral beliefs" of individuals within those various groups varies widely.
 
That may work if you are a Christian. It is or can be oppressive to some degree if you are not a Christian.


A few examples? I already understand the gay rights argument so maybe other examples.
 
A few examples? I already understand the gay rights argument so maybe other examples.

divorce
marriage
sex
gay rights
womans rights
science
worship false gods

etc etc

see what you have to remember is, what are christian values/rules/laws.

are you basing your statement off of what your OPINION of them are or are you basing it of of the laws/rules/values of the BIBLE.

If our laws reflected the bible we are no longer what America is supposed to be, we are no longer a free country.

So yes depending on how far you take it, it could be SUPER oppressive.

Im christian, i certainly dont want the government that way.
 
I don't want to go back to the stone ages

Option 3 is my choice
 
If a politician states he is a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or whatever, he is presenting a platform of his basic moral beliefs. If he is devoutly any religion, he betrays his susceptibility to brainwashing and is instantly an unsuitable candidate. Good morals would be wonderful in politicians, but that has to be an oxymoron.

I think this is a better way of looking at it.

Cardinal Rouen observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such greatness.-Niccolo Machiavelli
 
This is a very difficult one as I don't think people should be excluded from anything for their beliefs. If a politician says that they are a certain religion but their behavior doesn't follow that religions teaching, then what am I to think about that politician. What exactly are they true to? At least if they are true to something and I'm against it, everyone is being honest.
 
I have no problem with persons in politics following their religion, but I do have a problem with them if they try to force their religion on others.

Everyone, atheist included, have a religious choice. So, there is no way to have a religious free government. We just have to be sure it favors no particular religion.

Instead of bowing down to the atheist religion by taking symbols, prayer, etc. out of public/government owned places, we should be offering equal time and space to all religions, including the atheist.

As it's been said before, Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. I see what you're getting at, but rest assured, Atheism is not a religion.
Separation of Church and State was supposed to allow no one religion to force it's religious views through government, not that religion should not exist in government.

Actually, if memory serves me right, Separation of Church and State didn't start like that. Also, you should know the term is nowhere in the constitution. If I recall Jefferson coined the concept "Separation of Church and State" in a letter to a church to assure them the government would not step into their affairs. The entire concept was to foremost protect the church from the government, of course it goes both ways down the line. Of course the entire subject is a matter of debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom