Should Religion come into Politics ?

[michel]

Having seen the thread "George H. W. Bush's Comments Towards Atheists" reminds me again of a conversation that Fluffy and I had not so long ago.

We have both been very surprized by the "Religion in Politics" culture with which America seem to have been saddled.

Certainly, in England, there is little religious content in politics; as far as I am aware, the same goes for most of our European continental friends.

I am interested to know when and how religion became what seems like a necessary adjunct to politics in The States. Perhaps someone could give me an internet site reference ?

Do any of you forsee the day when Politics and Religion will have their separate places in America ?

What would you need to bring about such a change ?

 

[Original Freak]

It has no place...none...not even if it's proven 100% accurate and unquestionably true. If the Christian god of the bible proved himself to me, and told me the bible was a perfect account of his actions, I still wouldn't worship him and don't think a countries laws should be based around such a creature.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I agree that it has no place in politics. The politics of religions are the politics of divisionism, of hatred, and it creates exactly the "us and them" mentality utilized by Bush and countless others throughout history to excuse unjustifyable wars, mass killings, etc. I'm not saying that the religious have no place in government, only that they should understand that in the administrative process of governing it is harmful to part with logic, reason and law, which religion seems to have the effect of doing in the United States. As the evangelists said after the 2004 elections "Those liberals didn't realize that this is a Biblical nation." Perhaps they don't realize that we are a constitutionally secular nation, and for good reason. Theocracy is a bad thing, especially based on a religion that has a history of endless war and killing in the name of God. Those who want a theocracy should look at Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Laws are extreme and illogical, and the political and religious majorities have little if any protection. Obviously, the white American Christians who support theocratic policies would argue that the problems with Islamic theocracy lie within Islam, and not within theocracy, but equally obviously, that belief is based only on their own bigotry. Christian theocracy would certainly lead to the destruction of countless individual rights and liberties that millions struggled for, and I imagine it would also lead to unbelievably destructive religious war, especially considering some of the types who call themselves "Christian" in the United States.
The obligation that government has to religion is to protect the rights of their practitioners and to promote tollerance between them, not to promote their own at the expense of the taxpayers of a constitutionally secular nation.

 

[Fluffy]

Well to do anything in a society based on the wishes of a minority is undemocratic. If the majority in America continue to be religious then religion will continue to play a part in politics. Either that or America will cease to be a democracy.

From a personal point of view, I would not want to see a Christian theocracy emerge simply because I disagree with too much of Christianity to wish it to become law.

Having said that it is totally illogical to expect believers in Christianity or any other religion to not vote according to their beliefs. And if a democracy is based on peoples wishes then the 2 are inseperable. You can't seperate Church from State unless the state is secular in the first place.

 

[Ormiston]

I sure hope things will eventually change. What do you all think is responsible for the changes in Europe over the centuries?

 

[niceguy]

I sure hope things will eventually change. What do you all think is responsible for the changes in Europe over the centuries?

The lack of separation of state and church in our history. You could actually be punished for not showing up in church often enough, or worse, showing up in the wrong type of church. Religioues minorities has been harshly percecuted here in our history, driving many of them to emigrate over to the US. So when the laws became more lenient and media become more avalible to the general public so we didn't need to go to church to hear the news, we abandoned it. The church are no longer used as a tool for the state to help control the population and so the state no longer need the church so our seperation of the the church from the state came gradually. Now, even mentioning ones religoues belives may make a politican loose votes since we expect them to be secual. We do have a somewhat religoues party in our parliment but thats all, they are to small to have any real power and they are far from the extremists we see in the religoues right in the US today.

 

[Lintu]

People will always vote based on their beliefs but it is becoming blatant that the separation of church and state is not intact. For instance, I don't know if anyone posted this (it is entirely possible) but the governor of Texas recently signed a bill in a church (on purpose) and has dedicated his support to registering 300,000 "values voters" (aka Christian Conservatives). It's disgusting.

 

[almifkhar]

the sad reality is that politics and religion have gone hand in hand for it seems forever. as far as say the united states turning itself into a theocratc state (i am a bad speller i am sorry) i say no to this. i say no because this just so happens to be a melting pot. there are so many religions that are practiced in this land it would not be fair to everyone to be forced to believe in something they did not believe in. for our presidant to speak of his so called religious beliefs in public is flat out wrong. his only job is to defend our consitution nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Crystallas]

You cant avoid religion and politics. Now as far as a ballance, that their must be. As much as anyone would never want to see church and state mix... Im just convinced that it would slander those who choose to follow their faith and take away from many aspects of it. Now what Bush said and how I feel are 2 diffrent things. Bush says dumb crap and he seems to say dumb crap often.
Its just the matter of respecting people who choose to live life how they feel best suited. Thats why people will fight what politics factors in as a religious influence. Its just a natural way of keeping ballance. But like I just said "Bush says dumb crap." Were going to have people like this. Sometimes it works for the better, sometimes the worse. The way our system works is if we dont like it, 4 years change it. If anything, we will learn from his mistakes and use that to improve, and I hope we learn from the things that he has done right too(seems that we fail to do this when bad things happen, then we just want to be so diffrent that we lose things that did work well.)

 

[michel]

People will always vote based on their beliefs but it is becoming blatant that the separation of church and state is not intact. For instance, I don't know if anyone posted this (it is entirely possible) but the governor of Texas recently signed a bill in a church (on purpose) and has dedicated his support to registering 300,000 "values voters" (aka Christian Conservatives). It's disgusting.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day politics is a 'Job' - when you are working, it is logical to maximise any way of ensuring your security in the job.

As I see it (I may be quite wrong), in America, if you want a greater following, then it is a case of 'Getting in bed with the Christians' - if it is a well intentioned morality, then that is fine - in moral terms - the trouble is presumably that one can't be certain that the 'Christian bandwaggon' is being jumped on for the right reasons.

Please don' t misunderstand me; I am not in the slightest bit against Christianity - it is just that I personally think that politics and religion ought, ideally, to be separated.

 

[Ori]

Religion shouldn't come into play concerning politics, but what are you going to do?

 

[Crystallas]

As I see it (I may be quite wrong), in America, if you want a greater following, then it is a case of 'Getting in bed with the Christians' - if it is a well intentioned morality, then that is fine - in moral terms - the trouble is presumably that one can't be certain that the 'Christian bandwaggon' is being jumped on for the right reasons.

I can see how its read as this, while very true for most states. This is one of the very few strengths of the Electoral College. Where its actually pretty ballanced in these terms. It most definately is reflected and can benefit a cantidate, its also looked down apon aswell. As far as congress and local goverment you are absolutely right in so many places. But not everywhere. It gets thrown out of ballance often in both directions of non-religious and pro-religious, but for the most part its been allright.

I think it bothers people more when the representative uses faith to sway support on a topic which they get little support on. Not so much that people bring in a religious backround to their office. But thats just the way I see it. I dont live in a Southern Baptist majority area(or any faith for that part), and I never have lived there... so I wouldnt know how often its abused locally, but Im sure it is. I guess Chicago is a very Catholic Area, and the news shows many Catholic events, but from what I have seen locally is that its more-so looked down apon when its brought into state, so its not in the politicians best intrest to do so, but it happens.

Its kind of funny... politicians are slaped with the "liar for life" tag on their forehead. But When they are honest, they get more critisism than a liar. As if they did something wrong. Its like we can't have our cake and eat it too.

 

[Ceridwen018]

If people want a theocracy, they can just move to Canada. Canada isn't a "theocracy" in the whole spirit of the word, I suppose, but they do recognize Christianity as the state religion, do they not?

Thinking back, that really would be a perfect fix--the Christians are the only ones trying to inject their ideals into government anyhow, am I right? Yay, creationism in schools!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See lilithu's Post #11.

 

[Ormiston]

See lilithu's Post #11.

This subject is MUCH trickier than I'd ever imagined. My position is that peoples' religious beliefs are nothing compared to the freedom and liberaties of all. So saying that, I believe that no religion has any right to affect the quality of living of any other group (eg. gays/Christians). But the confusing aspect of all of this is that it is very difficult to determine which side is right on many issues (the death penalty). But, even so, I stand by my point that religious beliefs do not give you the authority to hurt others and I feel that, especially in America, there is NO place for religion in the government. However each representative or judge came to their current moral standards is their business, how they behave at their current position is ours. I think I speak for quite a few people when I say I feel very uncomfortable with the Christian influence in the American government. Public displays and advertising individual religious preferences should be criminal or, at the very least, punishable (while on the job).

 

[Stormygale]

Mix religion and politics, and you have created the perfect ingredients for a bomb. It should be seperate, but, since politcs AND religion are such basic fronts in the way of everyday life, it is impossible to seperate the two....truth be known...

 

[Dr._buzz]

most politicians, such as george bush, will bring in their religions into their policies because that is what they believe is the rght thing to do.

for example, why should there be a law against abortions? what do male politicians (and most politicians are male)(not being sexist or anthin) know about having a baby and what is in the best interests of the parents. i think politicians should get out of the situation and the parents should decide what to do with the baby.

 

[jeffrey]

I think it is far more important to keep politics out of religion then religion out of politics. Keeping religion out of politics is almost impossible. You will always have churches trying to influence their agenda into politics. By both right and left, even though you hear more of the right doing it. You have preachers, both right and left wing, trying to get out the vote for candidates they feel will pass laws that they feel is their way of thinking. And politicians play on this to get votes. And unless you infringe on their freedom of speech, their is no way to curb this.

 

[Melody]

I can see how its read as this, while very true for most states. This is one of the very few strengths of the Electoral College. Where its actually pretty ballanced in these terms.

And yet, wasn't Bubble Boy elected by the electoral college while losing the popular vote?

 

[Pah]

I think it is far more important to keep politics out of religion then religion out of politics. Keeping religion out of politics is almost impossible. You will always have churches trying to influence their agenda into politics. By both right and left, even though you hear more of the right doing it. You have preachers, both right and left wing, trying to get out the vote for candidates they feel will pass laws that they feel is their way of thinking. And politicians play on this to get votes. And unless you infringe on their freedom of speech, their is no way to curb this.

Guess you and I will continue to disagree - but this time, it's not quite so serious.

As long as religion has organization, it will have politics within it. Religiions that dabble in secular politics is probably okay as well. But the freedom of speech is curtailed by the acceptance of tax benefits and other goodies the government gdoles out to keep churches afloat. Take away that subsidy and political speech is fine in the pulpit.

IRS Tax Guide for Chriches and Religious Organizations ( a pdf file)

Churches and religious organizations, like many other
charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from
federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and
are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an
organization must meet the following requirements
(covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
■ the organization must be organized and operated
exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other
charitable purposes,
■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any
private individual or shareholder,
■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation,
■ the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.