Religion vs. Politics - Where does one start and the other end?

[buddy_holly]

Hi there. I have a simple question, that will problably invoke a little thought.

Should Religion and Politics be at all affiliated?

Please explain your opinion as to why or why not the two should be affiliated. Pretty please, no one-liners followed by a link, I want your opinion, not someone else's.

I should also start it off.

I personally think that the two should not at all be affiliated. Throughout history, religion, regardless of what religion it may be has been the major cause of war, bloodshed, and some of the more forgettable things in history. (Salem witch hunts, Conquistadors, etc..).

Especially with today's multicultural society, it is even harder, because as a leader of one faith, it is nearly impossible to see to the rights of another faith. (23% of Texans thought of Obama to be Muslim and because of that alone, did not vote for him, however, ironically, Obama is Christian).

What do you think?

- Buddy Holly

 

[RobinRedbreast]

I chose 3. No, but there are things government can certainly take from religion; The problem is, the things it can take/learn from/borrow are not prevelent on a daily basis with practitioners of religion Instead, it is more the "in-theory" things that rarely actually get practiced by every day followers of any faith.

But I agree; Today's society is a diverse world, too diverse to be intertwining politics and religion which only stands to alienate and confuse large portions of the population.

 

[Alizera]

I can understand particular congresspeople having a religious faith where they draw inspiration from. That's their own business.

I think America was founded on the principle of religious freedom and having the government keep out of religion and religion keep out of government. Like buddy_holly said, I think that putting religion in politics will only end up with war or some other catastrophe.

Also when you say you want to put religion into politics, the question should be -what- religion. America is very diverse, like Morning Glory said. Even in between various denominations. It would be better just to leave religion to religion and politics to politics.

 

[RobinRedbreast]

When I boil it down in my head, I don't think I'd want the government to be judging my actions based on another religion, so I can't in good faith say I'd want the government to be integrated with Christianity either for that very same reason: The fear and confusion it would instill in others who are not Christian.

In a sense though, some people see being non-religious as taking partisan to one way of thinking. Religious participants often become offended when their actions are not looked at with religion. So, it's like we can't win! No matter what we do, people are unhappy. So it may as well be as fairly unhappy as possible: No religion in politics.

But I do believe religion in general, at it's core NOT in it's practice, is a good thing to take influence from in many scenarios and in many ways.

 

[Sketcher]

Loosely affiliated. I don't believe that politicians should check their faiths or their expression of faith at the door when they are elected. By the same token, I don't believe in theocracy. I think President Bush struck the right balance between faith and politics for the most part. He's not ashamed of his faith, and he respects the faiths of others.

 

[Qyöt27]

I choose #3, insofar as religion and social conscience coincide. There are clearly certain things which most religions agree on, and things which most people, regardless of religion or lack thereof, agree on. Things which benefit the community as a whole.

That said, and as others have said, one has a very tight line to walk between crossing boundaries to either side of this subject, as well as approaching the question of which religion or denomination is going to do the deciding, or how to be fair to all (I said fair to all, which is the duty of government, not pleasing all). I often wonder how much this discussion will even come up after those two hot-button topics are resolved once and for all (I've already voiced my opinion on how to resolve them elsewhere, I'm not going to repeat it here). I can think of a few more fringe things that some groups may link a religious significance to, although there are other motives which fuel those debates as well. However, I feel that in the end those things are indeed far smaller in scope and would mean far less in deciding a candidate for political office - and if it did start being that way, then things would just get really petty really fast.

 

[E.C.]

I picked three.

We're too diverse to have one religious set of laws or rules imposed on everyone, but there are basics that need to be set.

 

[Windmill]

No affiliation, ever.

I'm all for a lot of our morals- but they shouldn't be there based off religious basing, but rather that we all wants these morals that we adhere to- honour, respect, privacy etc etc. These morals we base our laws on- for a lot of people, they will be there because of religious values. But people should not pass laws on them for religious reasons, but simply because as a society we appreciate these morals for whatever our reasons.

Politicians should be proud of their religions, and proud of their morals, but separate the two when possible.

Church and state = religious discrimination = insanity.

 

[RobinRedbreast]

I'd love to hear from the people who voted Yes, we have at least three of them

 

[Hali]

I think that religion and politics need to be separate. We live in a secular society. Passing laws that are based on religion (i.e., gay marriage, abortions) can step on others' rights. As much as we may not agree with the issue at hand, we really have to pick our battles.

 

[explodingboy]

I'd simply say that I put the individual rights higher than someone elses religious ideology. (Especially saing as we all have different beliefs even when part of the same faith)

I'm in favour of a practice what you preach rather than force everyone else in the room to agree. Don't like gay marriage.. don't marry someone of the same sex then, Don't approve of Abortion.. don't have one.. theres a reason its pro choice, you can opt out or in.

To try and force your own interpritation over non believers or believers of a different faith is not going to make you very popular or make for worth while politics.

 

[Sketcher]

I think that religion and politics need to be separate. We live in a secular society. Passing laws that are based on religion (i.e., gay marriage, abortions) can step on others' rights. As much as we may not agree with the issue at hand, we really have to pick our battles.

"You Shall Not Murder."

"You Shall Not Steal."

These laws are based in religion. And they are questions of morality. Hence, we have legislated morality based in religion.

 

[Hali]

"You Shall Not Murder."

"You Shall Not Steal."

These laws are based in religion. And they are questions of morality. Hence, we have legislated morality based in religion.

You are right. I think I my didn't word my post right. I know that 'You Shall Not Steal/You Shall Not Murder' are laws based in religion. However, like you said, they are questions of morality. Christians and non-believers alike will agree that you shouldn't murder or steal, ect. I was meaning issues such as gay unions, legal abortions, war, ect. Like whoever said in a post above me, if you don't believe in it, don't do it, but don't push it on other people.

 

[buddy_holly]

"You Shall Not Murder."

"You Shall Not Steal."

These laws are based in religion. And they are questions of morality. Hence, we have legislated morality based in religion.

It's true that these come from the ten commandments, but these same things come up in the Koran, the teachings of buddha, and other sources. These laws aren't particularily christian, but fairly unified across all religion. The topics that get a bit dicey are gay marriage rights, as there are differing opinions depending on where you look.

A government that bases these laws on religion, over say, civil rights (Freedom of choice), then yes, I do see a problem. These governments are telling people of many religions, "Look, according to this book, you two men can't marry each other, and you, the pregnant woman due to rape, must conceive."

Now does that seem right?

Say a new government comes into power. The leader comes out to be a very religious man, but not the same religion as you. His religion says that men can have as many wives as they want. Let's also say, for the sake of argument, that you do not agree (just stay with me here). Since he is the leader, he passes a law that all men must have more than one wife at a certain age. Does that seem right? Does that not infringe on your freedom to choose how many wives you can have?

Just because abortion is legal, does not mean one must have an abortion, but it at least allows the freedom to choose, if one must. The same goes with gay marriage. I'm not going to leave my wife to marry another man just because it may be legal, but it allows those who do feel that way, the freedom to be able to marry.

It isn't neccesarily a question between right and wrong, it's more of a question of civil rights and personal freedoms.

- Buddy Holly

 

[Sketcher]

It's true that these come from the ten commandments, but these same things come up in the Koran, the teachings of buddha, and other sources. These laws aren't particularily christian, but fairly unified across all religion. The topics that get a bit dicey are gay marriage rights, as there are differing opinions depending on where you look.

But homosexuality is condemned in the big three religions, and while I don't know the sexual laws of the Eastern faiths, it wouldn't surprise me if it was banned as well in the older traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Just because abortion is legal, does not mean one must have an abortion, but it at least allows the freedom to choose, if one must.

I'm normally for freedom on a lot of things, but when people are being killed, the law has to step in.

The same goes with gay marriage. I'm not going to leave my wife to marry another man just because it may be legal, but it allows those who do feel that way, the freedom to be able to marry.

I would think your wife ought to have legal recourse.

 

[tessas212]

NO affiliation - sorry, we aren't a theocracy and we shouldn't vote based upon religion.

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

The running of a country should be completely separate from religion.

Religion's had its go at politics, and millions and millions of people died prematurely, in bloody and violent ways because of it. Religion has failed to effectively govern in every way it's possible to. Religion has a vast history of being obsessed with power, doing all it can to gain as much of it as possible and not caring who gets killed in the process. I don't like the idea of people with that kind of mind frame being in control.

Unfortunately, in many places, the country's law is still a religious law. Homosexuals are still hung for something that's neither wrong, nor something they can help. The book I'm reading, Horus Rising, set in the 41st millennium, has a monologue I quite like. It explains how in the 41st millennium, mankind has released itself from the shackles of religion. Through this, The Emperor of Mankind brought the whole of humanity together under a re-invented secular society, without religion. Whilst the universe in 38,000 years time is far from peaceful, Mankind's enemy is no longer itself.

 

[Isambard]

But homosexuality is condemned in the big three religions, and while I don't know the sexual laws of the Eastern faiths, it wouldn't surprise me if it was banned as well in the older traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism.

The big three religions also hold that women should shut up and obey their man.

I'm normally for freedom on a lot of things, but when people are being killed, the law has to step in.

Thats a philosophical discussion as to what has person-status. Civil rights also holds that the rights of the individual, trumps the desires of those around him/her. Its reason why if I stole one of your kidneys, I would be legally required to give it back, even if it meant my death.

I would think your wife ought to have legal recourse.

What does this have to do with what he posted?

I think Politics and religion should not be affiliated in any way. Nothing good comes of it.

 

[RobinRedbreast]

Interesting..

I wanted to make an informal note to you guys, that you can't go on to discuss anything on abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, or anything else listed in the Controversial Topics rule within the CF rules.

Just making sure this doesn't get de-railed

 

[buddy_holly]

I would also like to see those who had answered the poll "Yes, they should be closely affiliated" give me their reason for answering the way they did.

I am curious as to what reasons these are. That's all.

- Buddy Holly