Religion in Politics

Zyphlin said:

Because both encompass a group identity. I could compare people who play video games to people who are black too. I could compare people who are Basketball fans to people who believe in a Breaded guy in the sky. I can compare individuals from California with Old people. I know you desperately want to prove me wrong by attempting to be as offensive as possible in belittling christians, hoping that I'll run off on some raving tangent rather than point out your obvious flaw. Sorry, not going to work, as I'm not really the religious sort.

Click to expand...

Blacks, basketball players, and gamers do not have a reference book that chooses their feelings towards others and decides their opinions for them. Blacks do not have an all-knowing black man that tells them, "You must vote against..." or "if this is not part of government then...".

Zyphlin said:

Groups of people that share some sort of commanality...be it race, religion, interest, gender, age, etc...identify easier on average with other people who share that commanality, no matter how much you wish to degrade said common factor.

Click to expand...

Again, I understand that there are voting blocs, but those are based off of feelings and identification - not based off of something a book tells them to do, a pope, or anything of that sort.

Zyphlin said:

No more than I'd find 80% or above believing we need to raise taxes because the Rich aren't "paying their fair share" or because the rich are "the Man" who need to be shown a lesso nor because "The Rich can afford it based on my own views of how much money they really need" or because Marxian philosophy says so or because they reasoned that such was the correct answer through using the socratic method.

Click to expand...

Really? So the use of absolutely no logic is fine?

Zyphlin said:

Yes, I did. A persons belief regarding the law are based on their own personal beliefs of what is important to them, what their morals are, and what their views of the world are. People can gain those things from a variety of sources from society, to religion, to science, to philosophers, and on. Unlike those who are so egotistical as to belittle those that dare to think differently then them, I don't feel that people should be insulted or our constitution shat upon simply because someones views are formed differently than my own.

Click to expand...

Who is ****ting on constitutions? You seem to be quite defensive, but I wonder if you get this defensive as Christians continue to insult the the very existence of others? Do you not call them egotistical when they protest and abuse the rights of homosexuals? Do you get sick to the stomach by the persecution and hatred of the Jews by Christians?

I say I think the voting bloc of the Christians is a problem in this country and I'm ****ting on the Constitution?

Zyphlin said:

No, not really. See, your big scarey boogey man slipper slope doesn't scare me, nor sway me, nor change my position. Should we get to a point that the majority in this country are athiests and they vote based purely on their athiest views and put forward laws and policies that are hazardous or uncomfortable for those of faith...but are constitutional...I'll have no issue with that from the stand point of where they get their belief from. I may have significant issues with the laws or actions they push...much as I have significant issues with many of those things pushed by staunch Christians...but not with WHY they push it.

Unlike you, I don't like my prejudice and bigotry towards various groups override my beleif in the constitution and reasonable application of fairness across the board.

Click to expand...

Again, atheist don't have views. Atheists do not have a book that tells them what to do (a book written by man but claimed to be holy). It is not the issue of voting blocs that I am discussing, it is the issue of one particular voting bloc that gets its ideals from a book written by men thousands of years ago.

Why is it okay for you to bring up the bias in other voting blocs, but when I bring up the bias in the religious bloc I am ****ting on constitutions and being egotistical? Anytime someone questions religion, this backlash always occurs and it doesn't bother me anymore.

People can get mad if they want, but I am not impressed by their voting outdated ideals.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I am deeply religious, and my religious beliefs do inform my political stance. It couldn't be otherwise; how can I divorce my sense of what is right and wrong from my sense of what my country needs?

Click to expand...

I am very aware of this and it is exactly why I started this thread.

Fiddytree said:

Perhaps you need to stay away from the documentary genre, or at least be more selective in viewing them. At times, though they make political arguments from time to time, the National Geographic-style documentary is rather impressive and is not incredibly laden in the, what I like to call..."shock and awe" strategy of other writers of documentary films.

Religion can be an incredibly self-satisfying experience as well as a useful moral guide not just for individuals, but for communities as a whole. I never had the faith in mankind's ultimate ability to completely triumph over revelation through logic and reason. As such, that instinct of mine would argue that sometimes something else is needed in us to be better people, something higher.

I may have said I am non-religious, but that's only to a certain degree. I have faith in the fact there is a God, I think I even have faith that Jesus was divine. I just have not had the personal experience necessary to really be considered that much of a spiritual follower. Nevertheless, I do hold credence to the idea that the very concept of God frightens me and has given me additional, if not more, reason to be better to my fellow man and live a good life.

The other half of my reason for this is, I do not believe in shunning those who believe and are guided by their faith. To a certain extent, it is true, the rule of law over revelation to rule man. But, I do not believe in the doctrine of reason and logic alone should dictate rule of man, if for no other reason than reason and logic will have a difficult time ruling a man of faith by reason alone.

Click to expand...

Why? Because I ask questions about religion and the effect it has on the nation? What did I do wrong other than ask if the religious right is negatively affecting the nation?

whysoserious said:

I do not believe religion and politics have any business being mixed, yet during political debates (especially within the GOP), it seems that questions concerning religious faith (Christianity) are constantly brought up. What does the belief in Jesus, Muhammad, Zeus, Dionysus, Osiris, or any other theological being have to do with politics?

Is there an issue when such a large part of the voting block is devoutly religious and votes based off of their beliefs?

Click to expand...

there are numerous issues in which our Faith and the guidance of God have fed our understanding of how society should be organized.

the Civil Rights Movement, led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, for example.

cpwill said:

there are numerous issues in which our Faith and the guidance of God have fed our understanding of how society should be organized.

the Civil Rights Movement, led by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, for example.

Click to expand...

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?

whysoserious said:

Why? Because I ask questions about religion and the effect it has on the nation? What did I do wrong other than ask if the religious right is negatively affecting the nation?

Click to expand...

No, your post demonstrated not much of the sort, nor was I attempting to attack your other questions.

Early Christians were convinced that the coming of Christ would happen within their lifetimes, and Christians throughout the history of the faith have had those tendencies to diminish the contributions of others not in-line with their perspective. Nevertheless, I would suggest it is a poor idea to suggest that because of those tendencies in some or many that religion is thus bad for individual, public, or political life. Again, it may be worth your while to step aside from the documentary market, which does perpetuate a "shock and awe" style meant to "wake you up" rather than think carefully, in order to come at religion a bit more carefully than rapture apocalypse politics.

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...

Credit is well-deserved to religion in the cause of civil rights. Although religion had a hand in justifying slavery, it was immensely difficult for practitioners of the faith, who owned Plantations, to continuously desire that these slaves have a Christian upbringing. The message of the Christian heritage was also antithetical to American slavery's belief that this slave was less than human or a human but of lesser stock. Sometimes slave owners would want that heritage, but other times, they saw it as subversive to their power. It became a powerful rallying cry for many African Americans, and was in all actuality, one of the strongest forces in abolitionism in this country (and among, if, not the first).

It continued to grow and it is immensely hard to deny that. Secular forces were at work (the Declaration of Independence), but ideas matter in religion as well (perhaps more so).

I Am a Christian and I make no bones about it, but I consider myself to be more spiritual than religious. I don't hesitate to let people know how I feel on religious topics.

I have a problem when one person's religious belief is codified into a law that affects everyone else's life.

On the surface I have no problem with people using their religious belief to vote people of the same belief into office. However, if we accept the premise that my statement is okay, then we must accept that it's also okay for people using their race to vote people of the same race into office, and people of different religions using those different religions to vote "their own" into office. Is it any wonder, then, that the most qualified people are not in government? Rather, we see a conglomeration of people voted into office because of their race or their religion, and a mandate from their constituents to pass laws that benefit the race and religious belief that voted for them in the first place.

I rather doubt the founding fathers had that in mind, but I'm sure that everyone on this board can justify why their own personal beliefs are exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. There is no separation of church and state in this country. The church IS the state, because people will make certain that their religious views are firmly entrenched at every step of our governmental process, right down to the Christian prayers opening every session of congress. There is freedom of religion in the USA; however, there is no freedom from religion. And that's sad.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I am deeply religious, and my religious beliefs do inform my political stance. It couldn't be otherwise; how can I divorce my sense of what is right and wrong from my sense of what my country needs?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by that. Certainly there are certain common morals and such throughout a society that can be adhered to. However, if you start talking about enforcing your particular flavor of religious doctrine through law and at the expense of the rights and liberties of others, then you are in the wrong.

DiAnna said:

I have a problem when one person's religious belief is codified into a law that affects everyone else's life.

On the surface I have no problem with people using their religious belief to vote people of the same belief into office. However, if we accept the premise that my statement is okay, then we must accept that it's also okay for people using their race to vote people of the same race into office, and people of different religions using those different religions to vote "their own" into office. Is it any wonder, then, that the most qualified people are not in government? Rather, we see a conglomeration of people voted into office because of their race or their religion, and a mandate from their constituents to pass laws that benefit the race and religious belief that voted for them in the first place.

I rather doubt the founding fathers had that in mind, but I'm sure that everyone on this board can justify why their own personal beliefs are exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. There is no separation of church and state in this country. The church IS the state, because people will make certain that their religious views are firmly entrenched at every step of our governmental process, right down to the Christian prayers opening every session of congress. There is freedom of religion in the USA; however, there is no freedom from religion. And that's sad.

Click to expand...

Wow, mega overstatement. I'm tempted to state that more emphatically, but I'm trying to be polite.

From the way our politicians act, as well as a legislation they pass, I doubt 25% are genine, authentic Christians. That may be too generous.

You're describing a alleged Christian theocracy. There is no such theocracy in the USA. If there were things would be very very different.

It is one thing to acknowlege that the religious beliefs of the large majority have some effect on legislation. It is another thing to assert that the Church IS the State.... that is simply hyperbole.

I'm more spiritual than religious, but I don't think I have the right to tell people with different believes what to do, or how to live.

Other people may disagree with my morals, and it's not my right to restrict their freedom, as long as they don't harm others. That's freedom of religion -- nobody has the right to ban my religious views, but by the same token, I have no right to legislate my morals on people who don't share them. A multi-religious society can only work that way. Morals concerning actions that don't harm others should not be legislated.

Goshin said:

Wow, mega overstatement. I'm tempted to state that more emphatically, but I'm trying to be polite.

From the way our politicians act, as well as a legislation they pass, I doubt 25% are genine, authentic Christians. That may be too generous.

You're describing a alleged Christian theocracy. There is no such theocracy in the USA. If there were things would be very very different.

It is one thing to acknowlege that the religious beliefs of the large majority have some effect on legislation. It is another thing to assert that the Church IS the State.... that is simply hyperbole.

Click to expand...

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.

Questionable Christian who is a Democratic Socialist.

Fiddytree said:

Credit is well-deserved to religion in the cause of civil rights. Although religion had a hand in justifying slavery, it was immensely difficult for practitioners of the faith, who owned Plantations, to continuously desire that these slaves have a Christian upbringing. The message of the Christian heritage was also antithetical to American slavery's belief that this slave was less than human or a human but of lesser stock. Sometimes slave owners would want that heritage, but other times, they saw it as subversive to their power. It became a powerful rallying cry for many African Americans, and was in all actuality, one of the strongest forces in abolitionism in this country (and among, if, not the first).

It continued to grow and it is immensely hard to deny that. Secular forces were at work (the Declaration of Independence), but ideas matter in religion as well (perhaps more so).

Click to expand...

People can have morals without being religious. How is it possible that when someone has slaves and is religious there is no connection, but if they decide slavery is evil it was religion showing them the light. If anything, history has shown that civilizations themselves become more ethical and then religion catches up with its tail between its legs.

DiAnna said:

I have a problem when one person's religious belief is codified into a law that affects everyone else's life.

On the surface I have no problem with people using their religious belief to vote people of the same belief into office. However, if we accept the premise that my statement is okay, then we must accept that it's also okay for people using their race to vote people of the same race into office, and people of different religions using those different religions to vote "their own" into office. Is it any wonder, then, that the most qualified people are not in government? Rather, we see a conglomeration of people voted into office because of their race or their religion, and a mandate from their constituents to pass laws that benefit the race and religious belief that voted for them in the first place.

I rather doubt the founding fathers had that in mind, but I'm sure that everyone on this board can justify why their own personal beliefs are exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. There is no separation of church and state in this country. The church IS the state, because people will make certain that their religious views are firmly entrenched at every step of our governmental process, right down to the Christian prayers opening every session of congress. There is freedom of religion in the USA; however, there is no freedom from religion. And that's sad.

Click to expand...

I agree. Voting blocs in general are not helpful to society - though I still think the religious voting bloc is the most dangerous and the most illogical of the group. These people are well funded and they base their ideals off of a book written thousands of years ago (that is filled with gospels written by men about a man that they never met).

And I also agree that there is hardly any separation of church and state currently. If you are not Christian, it is nearly impossible to get elected to any prestigious government job. You will not see a Muslim (or even an agnostic) being appointed to the Supreme Court or elected president any time soon.

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...

Hardly, but then again, some people think the neo-conservatives actually represent conservative thought. They do not. They are the religious arm of fiscal liberalism.

I like all Americans IMO should always vote for whats right for AMERICA in respect to the constitution, Bill of rights, equality, freedoms and liberties. ALWAYS, if I find that I can not do this then I simply will not vote because in AMERICA its not my place to go against something that is in line with the aforementioned based on my own selfish beliefs.

Now of course the tricky part is what I think is right for america with respect to the constitution, Bill of rights, equality, freedoms and liberties may not be what you do and that is fine but it shouldnt be polutted by religion if it goes against the things mentioned above.

My religion and my beliefs for my own flock play little to no role in how I vote or how I look at politics, nor should it.

Im thankful that I live in a country where I have the RIGHT to believe in the religion of my choice and can do so freely. Ill never take that for granted nor be pompous enough to force or vote my views on others if they are based on MY religion alone. IMO I think its insanely hypocritical to do so and could never conduct myself that way.

whysoserious said:

I do not believe religion and politics have any business being mixed, yet during political debates (especially within the GOP), it seems that questions concerning religious faith (Christianity) are constantly brought up. What does the belief in Jesus, Muhammad, Zeus, Dionysus, Osiris, or any other theological being have to do with politics?

Is there an issue when such a large part of the voting block is devoutly religious and votes based off of their beliefs?

Click to expand...

It has to do with voting blocks and convincing people with varying political views to put you into office.

It does not have to do with objective truth or proper policy. It's the high-school social cliqu game, a popularity contest where most of the time it actually does come down to height and hair.

Regarding the poll, I'm religious and conservative, but as social issues don't mean very much to me, my religion doesn't play big roll in what I actually attend protests for and donate money to.

I'm very pro-2nd amendment, for example. Religion doesn't play a part anywhere in my position.

Social issues like SSM and abortion are just fun to debate here because you all get so bent out of shape over issues which will likely never impact your life. I enjoy yank'n your chain.

Religion is something you decide to believe in or you grew up with for your own reasons. Religion and politics. The ONLY reason religion and politics have ever merged is because rulers have realized it's far better to control a people through their faith than physical submission.

Republican...Democrat, I believe all politicians are fairly educated people and being where they are, I am willing to bet that for whatever they say or do, most of them roll their eyes like us when they have to go to church.

Religion is not required for morals and ethics. Personally (I'm nonreligious independent) and individually, religion cannot be separated from politics; the personal is political. Everything is political. In government, we can and must separate them; our (moral) laws must be founded in reason and implemented likewise.


I think the poll looks about right.

Even in light of all the reasons voiced in the Federalist Papers by the Framers regarding religion and state, I still see another consideration. Kids go to school about 6 hours a day (some more). That leaves about 16 to 18 hours left in a day in which some part of it could be devote to teaching kids about faith or the related...outside of the school system. There are two days in a weekend that are possibly open to teach children religious dogma.

That said:

Our school systems today have enough on their plate trying to instill reading, writing, and math. And if kids are lucky that get some physical ed, art, and music.

To impose on the education systems requirements to teach or create multiple time schedules to provide various religious related courses would, in my opinion, be too burdensome on the system an denying children very important educational necessities to navigate the demands of life after their departure from the academic environment.

You can bet that all religious denominations will expect equal time and privileges in all academic levels in public schools.

ElCid said:

Be advised: YOU ARE NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. You're supposed to say, "I only believe in whatever makes me popular with the nearest street-mob. I wanna be kewl."

Click to expand...

Why should I concern myself with the political opinions of vermin? The only people whose thoughts concern me are those who think for themselves.

Ikari said:

It depends on what you mean by that. Certainly there are certain common morals and such throughout a society that can be adhered to. However, if you start talking about enforcing your particular flavor of religious doctrine through law and at the expense of the rights and liberties of others, then you are in the wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in religious doctrine. Your relationship with the gods does not concern me. But morality does concern me, and if the law prevents people from doing good or rewards them for doing evil, I will seek to change it.

whysoserious said:

I do not believe religion and politics have any business being mixed, yet during political debates (especially within the GOP), it seems that questions concerning religious faith (Christianity) are constantly brought up. What does the belief in Jesus, Muhammad, Zeus, Dionysus, Osiris, or any other theological being have to do with politics?

Is there an issue when such a large part of the voting block is devoutly religious and votes based off of their beliefs?

Click to expand...

I am conservative and semi-religious. Do I vote base on my religious beliefs? Sort of. Some of my political views line up with some of my religious views, but not because God or the bible says so. For example I am against abortion because I believe the baby in the womb is actually a baby in the womb and therefore deserves the same legal protections as you or I. I had this view long before I was religions.

Viktyr Korimir said:

I'm not interested in religious doctrine. Your relationship with the gods does not concern me. But morality does concern me, and if the law prevents people from doing good or rewards them for doing evil, I will seek to change it.

Click to expand...

The law needs to respect the rights and liberties of the individual, it is for that purpose we made government in the first place. If it cannot protect and proliferate our freedom, then there is no point in keeping it. Doing "good" is all well and fine (I suppose depending on one's defintion of "good"), but not at the cost of freedom. No one's religious beliefs entitle them to lord their ideals over others and retard them from their liberty and free exercise of rights.

Ikari said:

No one's religious beliefs entitle them to lord their ideals over others and retard them from their liberty and free exercise of rights.

Click to expand...

My religious beliefs don't entitle me to anything. That's why I'm here.

But you should note that your quasi-religious belief in liberty doesn't entitle you to anything, either; just because you say you have rights doesn't mean anyone has to respect them.

Viktyr Korimir said:

My religious beliefs don't entitle me to anything. That's why I'm here.

But you should note that your quasi-religious belief in liberty doesn't entitle you to anything, either; just because you say you have rights doesn't mean anyone has to respect them.

Click to expand...

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.