Voting with Religion in Mind

[Quintessence]

It is sometimes said in my country that politics and religion shouldn't be allowed to mix. When it comes to the voting of everyday citizens, do you believe that one should vote only with "secular" ideas in mind, and not vote based on "religious" ideas? Do you feel this same standard should more or less apply to elected officials? If so, why? If not, why not?

I ask the questions in part because my thinking on this has shifted in recent years. I used to believe that secularism was a thing, but now I'm less convinced of that. What the idea of secularism seems to do is normalize some particular set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, then calls anything outside of that "secular." In normalizing the set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, the resulting construct necessarily excludes the diversity of world religions. When people think of "religion" interfering with government in my country, they think of a religiously-motivated Christian pushing for restrictions to abortion rights or repealing progressive legislation on homosexual marriage. They don't think of a religiously-motivated Druid pushing for renewable energy and staging anti-fracking protests. Both are examples of being political with one's religion in mind - and for those who are against religious interference in politics, neither should be allowed to have a voice because their motives are religious. Or should they?

 

[metis]

Gandhi said that anyone who thinks religion and politics can be separated doesn't understand religion; and let me also add that they also don't understand politics. Therefore, the real question is "how much?".

 

[Quintessence]

Gandhi said that anyone who thinks religion and politics can be separated doesn't understand religion; and let me also add that they also don't understand politics. Therefore, the real question is "how much?".

I do not have a good answer to that question.

Though one would speculate that if a system of governance is set up as a proper democracy (which doesn't really describe the Untied States right now, unfortunately), and with some overall governing principles laid out in a constitution, the system itself can self-mediate or self-moderate by how it is set up.

 

[Baladas]

I would personally say that the only time it is really a problem is when someone is religiously pushing for legislation that dictates what someone can do with their own bodies and personal lives. They are not harming anyone else.

In the case of fighting for legislation that seeks to prevent damage to the environment, I would say that this is seeking to prevent harmful actions that affect the community and the world at large.
So, I see a huge difference between the two.

 

[Mindmaster]

I do not have a good answer to that question.

Though one would speculate that if a system of governance is set up as a proper democracy (which doesn't really describe the Untied States right now, unfortunately), and with some overall governing principles laid out in a constitution, the system itself can self-mediate or self-moderate by how it is set up.

Except that some religions have millions of dollars in contribution money and are like their own kingdoms as far as how much sway they have with the politicians. So instead of getting choices, we are basically being conscripted into one choice. This is not the same being a Druid -- none of the candidates are really courting a Druid-friendly platform outside of Bernie.

To be fair, you can't separate your politics from yourself and most people don't. It's just part of your identity as a person, and what you support via voting or whatever is going to be shaped by that. You can't keep them from interfering, but you can keep candidates from spending it all.. See: New Zealand.

 

[bobhikes]

Voting should be an individual decision without force. The individual should decide what they deem important. If they decide to vote because they like the name, that should be considered valid.

 

[Augustus]

When people think of "religion" interfering with government in my country, they think of a religiously-motivated Christian pushing for restrictions to abortion rights or repealing progressive legislation on homosexual marriage. They don't think of a religiously-motivated Druid pushing for renewable energy and staging anti-fracking protests. Both are examples of being political with one's religion in mind - and for those who are against religious interference in politics, neither should be allowed to have a voice because their motives are religious. Or should they?

I think it is a fair point. Some people tend to associate religious values with negative things, rather than also accepting that they can also drive positive behaviour.

Religious values were a major driving force behind the abolitionist movement, especially Anglicans and Quakers in the British Empire.

During the Industrial Revolution, the drive for social justice and ethical business often had a religious impetus, again especially from Quakers.

The Catholic Church in Poland played a significant role in the anti-communist movement.

People make decisions according to their values, and religion happens to be a source of values. Even amongst non-religious people in the West, their values are greatly shaped by the Christian religious tradition. Humanism and Human Rights are even an offshoot of the 'ethical' strain of Judaeo-Christian monotheism.

Recent causes celebre for the left (the biggest proponents of 'no religion in politics') have been anti-war and poverty reduction, which have been supported by, for example, the Anglican Church. I didn't hear many of them complaining about this religious interference in politics though. Religious values seem to be fine if they are congruent with your own, it's just when they are incongruent that they become problematic.

I agree that religious values shouldn't get preferential treatment in the political sphere, but they should get equal treatment. All our values are all based on some kind of fiction anyway.

 

[Quintessence]

Except that some religions have millions of dollars in contribution money and are like their own kingdoms as far as how much sway they have with the politicians. So instead of getting choices, we are basically being conscripted into one choice.

While true, this is symptomatic of a larger problem with political financing. I'd wager corporations take advantage of this far more than religious groups do, and in any case, money corrupting politics is part of why democracy in America is... well... largely in name only.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think it's possible to believe in something without attempting to impose it via legislation upon those who don't.

 

[Augustus]

I think it's possible to believe in something without attempting to impose it via legislation upon those who don't.

Only to a certain extent though.

What about people who don't believe in democracy, freedom of speech, the welfare state, civil rights, taxes, etc.?

 

[Quintessence]

I think it is a fair point. Some people tend to associate religious values with negative things, rather than also accepting that they can also drive positive behaviour.

Hah... curiously, that wasn't what I was going for there when I wrote that, but this is a good thing to mention as well. What one considers positive and negative depends on what one values - obviously the people who stand to make a profit from fracking aren't going to like anti-fracking lobbyists and protesters, right?

 

[Quintessence]

I think it's possible to believe in something without attempting to impose it via legislation upon those who don't.

What is the point of holding to a belief if one doesn't put it into practice? Golly gee... we would have zero environmental regulations if we followed this! Aiee!

 

[Mindmaster]

While true, this is symptomatic of a larger problem with political financing. I'd wager corporations take advantage of this far more than religious groups do, and in any case, money corrupting politics is part of why democracy in America is... well... largely in name only.

Well, my concern is the top percent of wealthy folks who live differently from everyone else make the rules. That means basically your concerns are ignored. I'm sure that there were reasons to do this in the past, such as poor education in the past to non-wealthy folks. But, that is no longer the case.

There isn't a single corporation on the earth even near the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church, even though you would think the two-billion-plus Muslims would be catching up by now. If you really analyze the laws and what is permitted and compare it to the ideas the Church will tolerate then it becomes obvious. There is no such thing as secularism in America, and I think maybe we need to stop pretending. Pick any issue from abortion to gay rights and generally, whatever the RCC/Anglican tolerates is going to be what is getting into law. You're going to find most major political candidates courting major Christian (RCC/Mormon), Islamic, and Judaism sects just because they have all of the money and the voters. Most of the population is still involved in one of these three major groups, so it's easy.

Also, a lot of money is streaming in from overseas in America to get laws passed that favor those countries but hurt us. The politicians don't care for the most part because they are getting so much side money that they don't have to worry about whether they are getting any more. It's only a government if there is a democratic component, otherwise, it's something else like an oligarchy, corporatocracy, or theocracy masquerading as a secular institution.

 

[Augustus]

Hah... curiously, that wasn't what I was going for there when I wrote that, but this is a good thing to mention as well. What one considers positive and negative depends on what one values - obviously the people who stand to make a profit from fracking aren't going to like anti-fracking lobbyists and protesters, right?

If one considers an increase in seismic activity and flammable drinking water to be 'negatives' they obviously have no sense of adventure. Such killjoy religious puritans have no place in a modern society.

 

[Father Heathen]

What is the point of holding to a belief if one doesn't put it into practice? Golly gee... we would have zero environmental regulations if we followed this! Aiee!

If course you should live by your own beliefs, but that's different from insisting that others live by them do, even if they don't hold those beliefs themselves.

 

[Quintessence]

If course you should live by your own beliefs, but that's different from insisting that others live by them do, even if they don't hold those beliefs themselves.

Sure it's different, but it's also inevitable. We would have total anarchy otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is sometimes said in my country that politics and religion shouldn't be allowed to mix. When it comes to the voting of everyday citizens, do you believe that one should vote only with "secular" ideas in mind, and not vote based on "religious" ideas?

I don't think that is possible or even particularly desirable. Politics and religion deal with too similar goals and interests for the separation to make a lot of sense.

Secularism in the political decisions and policies, however, is a very high-priority necessity.

Do you feel this same standard should more or less apply to elected officials? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think elected officials should be encouraged to speak their minds on their religious stances, but strictly monitored when it comes to their actual decisions. Again, secularism must be preserved at all costs, although religious motivations behind policies are natural, unavoidable and often not an issue.

The trick of it is making sure that the actual policies never need to refer to religious beliefs or religions as such. What is proper is proper, regardless of any specific beliefs.

I ask the questions in part because my thinking on this has shifted in recent years. I used to believe that secularism was a thing, but now I'm less convinced of that. What the idea of secularism seems to do is normalize some particular set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, then calls anything outside of that "secular."

I don't quite understand and I certainly do not support such a conception of secularism. Secularism should be purposefully unable to tell that which is in some sense religious from that which is not.

In normalizing the set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, the resulting construct necessarily excludes the diversity of world religions.

Which is a main reason why I do not support such a conception of secularism. It would be self-defeating and needlessly oppressive.

When people think of "religion" interfering with government in my country, they think of a religiously-motivated Christian pushing for restrictions to abortion rights or repealing progressive legislation on homosexual marriage. They don't think of a religiously-motivated Druid pushing for renewable energy and staging anti-fracking protests. Both are examples of being political with one's religion in mind - and for those who are against religious interference in politics, neither should be allowed to have a voice because their motives are religious. Or should they?

Of course they should. Even psychopaths need to have a political voice, lest their illness fester and breed.

I certainly see no benefit in denying religious groups or persons their political representation, ostensively so if they see fit to.

However, it must be understood from the get-go that whenever one uses a religious argument it means that no one has any duty to agree with or even respect it. Religious beliefs are arbitrary and should be treated as such. They are ok, but personal.

If they happen to lead anyone towards good arguments or insights that inform policy, then so be it. Those arguments and insights should stand on their own without demanding common beliefs, though.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do not have a good answer to that question.

Though one would speculate that if a system of governance is set up as a proper democracy (which doesn't really describe the Untied States right now, unfortunately), and with some overall governing principles laid out in a constitution, the system itself can self-mediate or self-moderate by how it is set up.

What's a proper democracy anyway? I rather like being a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Even if I have problems with the electoral college and the prevalence of bipartisan cultural extremes. I *don't want* a pure democracy which is? As the monicker goes, three wolves and a sheep voting ok what's for dinner. That is, much more vulnerable to tyranny of the majority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is sometimes said in my country that politics and religion shouldn't be allowed to mix. When it comes to the voting of everyday citizens, do you believe that one should vote only with "secular" ideas in mind, and not vote based on "religious" ideas? Do you feel this same standard should more or less apply to elected officials? If so, why? If not, why not?

I ask the questions in part because my thinking on this has shifted in recent years. I used to believe that secularism was a thing, but now I'm less convinced of that. What the idea of secularism seems to do is normalize some particular set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, then calls anything outside of that "secular." In normalizing the set of ideas about what "religion" looks like, the resulting construct necessarily excludes the diversity of world religions. When people think of "religion" interfering with government in my country, they think of a religiously-motivated Christian pushing for restrictions to abortion rights or repealing progressive legislation on homosexual marriage. They don't think of a religiously-motivated Druid pushing for renewable energy and staging anti-fracking protests. Both are examples of being political with one's religion in mind - and for those who are against religious interference in politics, neither should be allowed to have a voice because their motives are religious. Or should they?

I see secularism as not giving religion any official special regard, whether positive or negative.

People can vote their consciences, and what informs their consciences is their own business - for instance, under a secular system, the law wouldn't care if a person's pacifism is based on religious teachings or non-religious philosophy; either one would be given weight based on how deeply it's held, not by whether it's rooted in religion.

And I've had a fair bit of exposure to Quakers doing anti-war tax protests, but I still think that secularism is a thing.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sure it's different, but it's also inevitable. We would have total anarchy otherwise.

Uhh... no? We would still have rational laws based on real world cause and consequence (prohibiting theft, murder, rape, etc.). I'm talking about completely arbitrary laws based exclusively on religious conviction (banning gay marriage, no alcohol sales on Sunday, etc.)