• 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!

Do you favor Religious Government?

Do you advocate religious government?


  • Total voters
    66
I think I interpret the phrase differently.

I want a test. It's just that my test would be designed to weed out people of improper religious faith.

What are those improper religious faiths?
 
Good to know that you would only hire agnostics or atheists to represent a country mostly consisting of believers . That sounds like a great idea.
 
Last edited:
Good to know that you would only hire agnostics or atheists to represent a country mostly consisting of believers . That sounds like a great idea.
I agree. It's the only way to ensure that no government policy pays religion any mind.
 
I guess this is where our philosophies clash a bit. I'll use abortion as an example for my beliefs as well. I believe that abortion is murder because of my religious faith. Because I personally believe it's murder, I do not support the right to anyone practicing legalized murder. This is why I am against abortion as a right for anyone. I have my religious beliefs and because I hold them to be true and the best belief out there, I want to see that manifested through our laws just like anyone else.

Personal questions digsbe (maybe it should be in a PM, not sure), but I have looked through the bible several times and I find multiple quotes that both support and detract from the idea that abortion is murder. Where do you get your opinion on this one from?

(I hope I don't derail this thread)
 
Personal questions digsbe (maybe it should be in a PM, not sure), but I have looked through the bible several times and I find multiple quotes that both support and detract from the idea that abortion is murder. Where do you get your opinion on this one from?

(I hope I don't derail this thread)

It's fine. I'll PM you a response tonight after I get off work.
 
I'm for religious people being part of our government - people with good character make good leaders. No, I don't mean religious in the way of Westboro Baptists or extremist Muslims or abortion clinic bombers. Yes, I know that people with no religion can have good character too.

I'm defiinitely NOT for a theocracy.
 
I like a nice secular government.
 
I oppose theocracy. Period.


However, I define theocracy by its older original definition: the church runs the State, or IS the state.


I have no problem with religion being a factor in political debate, or religious people being part of the government and having views/votes influenced by their religious beliefs. If you don't like 'em, don't vote for 'em... but on some level EVERYONE is influenced by what they believe, whether that belief is political, philosophical or religious.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that I can answer this poll the way it is written. I favor a government representing the morals and values of their constituents, regardless of where they get those morals and values.

The separation of Church and State prohibits the US government from either favoring or censoring any specific religion. It does not ban "religious" values from our laws.
 
I think laws should only be made when they are necessary to protect people or property. And even then, there should be a common sense test to determine if it is something that people really need to be protected from. We should weigh the pros and cons to decide if the law is protecting people from others or themselves and whether or not they need to be protected or if the law is actually working. I think there are a lot of laws that would be overturned if we looked at laws like this.

And I don't think the "will of the majority" should be the be-all, end-all for making a law. I'll use a very improbable, but not completely impossible, example. If someone/a group got together to convince people that water was bad and was able to get laws on the books anywhere in the US that water should be banned from use in that area, would it be okay as long as that was the "will of the majority" for that area? The law is completely stupid and actually puts people in danger of dying (those that can't take care of themselves and/or actually move).
Another one, which might actually be a little more probable, although still not likely. What if the people of an area decided to make a law that prevented a couple from having anyone else live with them if that couple had children? The reasoning for the law was based on research that determined that children are ..% more likely to be abused when someone other than their biological parents lives in the household with them. Would that be okay as long as it was approved by the majority? Would it be right? Would it matter if the research was wrong or questionable? Would they even need the research to back up there law so long as the majority approved of it? (BTW, this is hypothetical. I've never actually heard of such a law, and would absolutely be against it.)
 
Can I change my vote, I accidentally vote the same as pbrauer?
 
See thats a personal belief, and not everyone subscribes to that belief. So I think it's unfair for someone to have to follow that belief, even if the majority of it of the population believes it. I'm not going to tell someone their belief isn't as valid as mine, and on the abortion issue, if someone wants to get an abortion, they are going to get it, whether it's illegal or not. Banning abortion would only lead to the deaths of women, and I look at it like that, which is why I support it, instead of just being ambivalent to it.
Another example would be that muslims think that it is wrong to drink alcohol, so do you think it would be okay for muslims to ban alcohol, because of their religious belief is pushing them to make that public policy, even if you don't subscribe to their religious belief?

Why should religious beliefs be any different than say philisophical beliefs? The 1st amendment does as much to garauntee people the free expression of their religion, and voting is free expression, as it does keeping the government from making laws that establish a religion.

If you would vote in favor of something because the words of Locke and Hobbes have affected how you view the world why would that be different than voting in favor of something because the words of Matthew, Luke, and John affects how you view the world?

Almost every law is about forcing people in some form to do what the person thinks is best for the country based on their own opinions and views of a situation. You talk about people doing what they think is best for the country, not what they think is needed religiously. You talk like those are mutually exclussive. Do you think that somehow people that oppose abortion think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban non-"green" things do it for that reason? Do you think that somehow people who push for allowing a moment of silence at the start of school think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban transfats? Just because YOU don't think its good for the country does not disqualify the notion that they don't. And just because some of the country won't like it obviously doesn't disqualify it because there's no law that gets passed that is liked by everyone in the country.

YOU think that abortions just going to lead to the death of a lot of women and is bad for the country. Others think that it already leads to the death of many people and disallowing it would be good for the country. Why is their view on it magically, as if there is some universal truth to it, "bad" and yours is "good" otehr than because it fits your own biases and opinion to the issue.

You act as if there is some universal "Right for the Country" that is crystal clear and unquestionably true to all.

I would have no problem with someone believing alcohol is a dangerous and troublesome drug that leads to numerous deaths and thus due to that view votes to ban alcohol. So then why should I have an issue if someone felt that alcohol was sinful and poluted ones body and spirit causing people to act dangerously and troublesome and thus it should be banned? These individuals have constitutional protection to practice and express their religion, and part of that expression is the understanding that ones peronal philosophies...be it gained from a religion, from a philosopher, even just from living life"...influence how you view the world.

To tell people they can't make political decisions based in part on their religious beliefs is unconstitutional imho, and more than that is ridiculously bigoted when you allow any other prsonal philosophies to be applied as "reasoning".
 
Also, if we have 'seperation of church and state' why does Congress take time off for Christmas, a religious holiday? And why does Congress open with prayer?

We do NOT have complete separation of church and state, never have, and as long as most of us are Christian or their supporters, we never will.
The two examples are more religious than church......
And I do favor limited religion in government.....but NOT a religious government.
 
The debate of Separation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Separation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the separation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?
It all depends on how you define the phrases/terms “Separation of Church and State” and “Religious government”.

Personally, I define the latter more as “one or more religions fully control the (so-called) secular government”, as opposed to what we currently have (I think), which is “secular government officials and leaders may make some decisions with input from their religious beliefs”.

I far prefer the second.

As several have said, eliminating religious beliefs as a factor in the decision-making of secular government here in the USA is, frankly, impossible.

Or anywhere, for that matter.

Even if a concerted effort to avoid the influence of religious beliefs in making a decision would seem to simply be another effect of that influence, in a way.

But on to “Separation of Church and State”.

I had always understood it as being more of a “government will not mess with religion”, as opposed to the opposite.

The key, IMO, is to prevent decisions being made with religious belief being the only or majority reason.

That way leads to a theocracy.

But I seriously doubt that religious belief can be totally eliminated from such.

Still…

Meh.
 
The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?

I despise faith-based government be it bible thumpers who tell me its "immoral" to hunt on sunday or call gays "sinners" or socialists who tell me that its wrong to be successful or that its "fair" to soak the rich.

both types of relgion are anti-rational and should play no role in our nation's policies
 
I despise faith-based government be it bible thumpers who tell me its "immoral" to hunt on sunday or call gays "sinners" or socialists who tell me that its wrong to be successful or that its "fair" to soak the rich.

both types of relgion are anti-rational and should play no role in our nation's policies


If you're waiting for government to be 100% rational, you're in for a very long wait.

Not to mention, there may be some aspects of "entirely rational" government that you would not like. Part of the problem being, who defines "rational"?
 
Why should religious beliefs be any different than say philisophical beliefs? The 1st amendment does as much to garauntee people the free expression of their religion, and voting is free expression, as it does keeping the government from making laws that establish a religion.

If you would vote in favor of something because the words of Locke and Hobbes have affected how you view the world why would that be different than voting in favor of something because the words of Matthew, Luke, and John affects how you view the world?

Almost every law is about forcing people in some form to do what the person thinks is best for the country based on their own opinions and views of a situation. You talk about people doing what they think is best for the country, not what they think is needed religiously. You talk like those are mutually exclussive. Do you think that somehow people that oppose abortion think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban non-"green" things do it for that reason? Do you think that somehow people who push for allowing a moment of silence at the start of school think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban transfats? Just because YOU don't think its good for the country does not disqualify the notion that they don't. And just because some of the country won't like it obviously doesn't disqualify it because there's no law that gets passed that is liked by everyone in the country.

YOU think that abortions just going to lead to the death of a lot of women and is bad for the country. Others think that it already leads to the death of many people and disallowing it would be good for the country. Why is their view on it magically, as if there is some universal truth to it, "bad" and yours is "good" otehr than because it fits your own biases and opinion to the issue.

You act as if there is some universal "Right for the Country" that is crystal clear and unquestionably true to all.

I would have no problem with someone believing alcohol is a dangerous and troublesome drug that leads to numerous deaths and thus due to that view votes to ban alcohol. So then why should I have an issue if someone felt that alcohol was sinful and poluted ones body and spirit causing people to act dangerously and troublesome and thus it should be banned? These individuals have constitutional protection to practice and express their religion, and part of that expression is the understanding that ones peronal philosophies...be it gained from a religion, from a philosopher, even just from living life"...influence how you view the world.

To tell people they can't make political decisions based in part on their religious beliefs is unconstitutional imho, and more than that is ridiculously bigoted when you allow any other prsonal philosophies to be applied as "reasoning".



QFT, and because it is a crying shame that I can't thank this post several times.
 
The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?

I oppose any nationalized religion.
I oppose any church posessing municipal power.

I'm ok with Young-Earth Creationism in the schools, but it belongs in a thyology class, not a science class.

I wish Day-Age Creationism was explored scientificly to try and technicaly explain how the exotic nature of this planet's beginning might have been possable.
 
If you're waiting for government to be 100% rational, you're in for a very long wait.

Not to mention, there may be some aspects of "entirely rational" government that you would not like. Part of the problem being, who defines "rational"?

I do as it pertains to my point of view-and you are right

however when I hear socialists whining about "faith based" decisions I reply that socialism is based on faith rather than rationality as well
 
No because religious governments don’t believe in equal under the law.
I don't think that's accurate, precisely.

Rather, in a religious governing system (read: theocracy), the law itself would probably be by design biased against one religion over another or other such things in the first place, so "equal under the law" wouldn't even be in the realm of possibility.

It’s not that such a government doesn't believe in equal under the law – I’m sure everyone who falls under a given law is treated equally under said law ;) – it’s that they believe there should be laws based upon or effecting religion at all.

THAT is the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom