Should religious belief inform public policy?

[Caliban]

That definition does not apply to some of the religions and is extremely vague. For example, Confucianism doesn't have anything to do with the service, worship of God or the supernatural.

Second, what does it mean to be devoted to the "religious faith or observance"?

I suppose many would say the Golden rule -- treat others the way you would have them treat you.
So then, even if we use your definition I would argue that for a Christian it is referring to the golden rule given by Jesus. For Jews it would refer to the "two greatest commandments" expounded on by Jesus.

I don't think that is fair to all religions but it doesn't matter to me. I was simply taking the more inclusive definition.

Besides, there is no conflict. If you ask me, a Bible believing Christian, if I should use my religious beliefs to inform my political decisions then what does that mean? Why wouldn't I refer to James and Jesus?

I can define God as the universe. Did I prove God is real? No. Do you see the similarity in your argument?

 

[ZNP]

There are programs for the poor. That Republicans like to pull funding away. For greed. Conservative are part of this problem. They are free to go to church. But not force their moral laws on us. Catholics and other religions do charities. So they are free to do that all ready.

It isn't that black and white. Every political policy is sold on its benefits (cut taxes, law and order, help the poor, etc). But hidden in the bill is lots of pork, that is government corruption. Bridges to nowhere. I can be against the corruption and that can be portrayed as being against the poor.

Also, I would point out that in addition to religion, there is also the covenant that governments have which is to deal responsibly with murder. Nothing wrong with being a "law and order" candidate, that is the government mandate.

 

[ZNP]

I can define God as the universe. Did I prove God is real? No. Do you see the similarity in your argument?

I was asked if I would use my religious beliefs to inform my political decisions.

What are my religious beliefs? Take care of widows and orphans, and fight corruption.

I do not understand why you or anyone else is taking issue with that.

In addition I point out that being in the NT it is going to be the common religious belief to many Christians. This thread is posted in a Christian forum. Have you all lost your mind?

 

[Caliban]

I do not understand why you or anyone else is taking issue with that.

Because you definition would make me religious. I am not religious at all. According to you, anyone who wants to take care of orphans, widows, and fight corruption, is religious. That's unreasonable.

 

[ZNP]

Because you definition would make me religious. I am not religious at all. According to you, anyone who wants to take care of orphans, widows, and fight corruption, is religious. That's unreasonable.

"Should religious belief inform public policy?" This is asking me if my religious belief should inform my public policy. If your religious belief is different from mine so be it.

 

[Caliban]

"Should religious belief inform public policy?" This is asking me if my religious belief should inform my public policy. If your religious belief is different from mine so be it.

There is no "my" public policy--public policy affects everyone. I am not talking about your vote; this thread is about legislation and political power.

 

[ZNP]

There is no "my" public policy--public policy affects everyone. I am not talking about your vote; this thread is about legislation and political power.

This is the most idiotic thread I have ever seen.

First, you ask if "religious belief", but you are not referring to my religious belief you are referring to the religious belief you have assigned to me even though it isn't mine.

Then you make a distinction between the stand a person makes to get laws changed, to change public policy. AOC runs on a campaign, she says what she stands for, some decide to vote for her, some don't. She gets elected. Then she needs to create coalitions with other like minded representatives and begin the legislative process. This is how you get public policies. People are concerned with issues, if enough of them are concerned they form a majority, and if they have a majority they should be able to pass legislation. All of those people involved in that policy, and there can be millions of them, have a say. Should they use their religious beliefs?

Now you argue there is no "my" in this discussion. So what is the real question? I can make my decisions based on my religious beliefs, part of my 1st amendment rights, but the elected officials who propose and pass the legislation can't? So you are requiring that we all be hypocrites?

 

[Caliban]

I can make my decisions based on my religious beliefs, part of my 1st amendment rights, but the elected officials who propose and pass the legislation can't? So you are requiring that we all be hypocrites?

Individual voters can vote their religious beliefs without impediment. Religious people are welcomed to gather likeminded thinkers in public spaces--no problem. But lawmakers should not write legislation and cite their religious text as a reason why the whole state or country should be compelled by law to observe. The separation of church and state makes this clear, but some religious believers continue to advocate for Christian values in our laws. That's why this thread is not "idiotic," as you say.

 

[ZNP]

Individual voters can vote their religious beliefs without impediment. Religious people are welcomed to gather likeminded thinkers in public spaces--no problem. But lawmakers should not write legislation and cite their religious text as a reason why the whole state or country should be compelled by law to observe. The separation of church and state makes this clear, but some religious believers continue to advocate for Christian values in our laws. That's why this thread is not "idiotic," as you say.

So my religious belief, a Christian definition, and one that could reasonably be expected to be shared by other legislators is to fight corruption. So you are saying that a candidate is should not campaign on that issue?

Another religious belief I and other Christians share is to care for widows and orphans. So if we pass a policy that benefits orphans and widows we shouldn't say that? Because something about the church?

My religious belief, defined by the NT, says nothing about the church. Why would the separation of church and state have anything to do with it? Actually, I see this policy of "separation of church and state" to be part of my religious belief, to fight corruption. Therefore my religious beliefs are written into the constitution.

 

[Caliban]

So my religious belief, a Christian definition, and one that could reasonably be expected to be shared by other legislators is to fight corruption. So you are saying that a candidate is should not campaign on that issue?

Another religious belief I and other Christians share is to care for widows and orphans. So if we pass a policy that benefits orphans and widows we shouldn't say that? Because something about the church?

My religious belief, defined by the NT, says nothing about the church. Why would the separation of church and state have anything to do with it? Actually, I see this policy of "separation of church and state" to be part of my religious belief, to fight corruption.

Fighting corruption and providing "for the general welfare..." are not Christian issues--they are human issues. I am taking about specific things in the biblical text that are (mostly) unique to religion.

But even so, no political argument should be made by quoting scripture or by saying "God told me..." Policy that affects a pluralistic society should be made on secular grounds alone. Your personal reasons for how you vote, raise your kids, or conduct your personal life are yours--no one should interfere with your genuinely held beliefs (assuming they are not harmful).

 

[ananda]

I strongly disagree. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is in place because what you are suggesting did not work.

What I suggested was never really put into practice in the USA.

 

[ananda]

That might work in a free market, but not all businesses operate in a free market. I don't care if the guy running the store down at the corner hates my race or not. All I want from him is to sell me the goods in a civil manner.

my point was that the Civil Rights Act is a good thing because it ensures that racists engaged in serving the public must not discriminate. They can have all the little racist and underdeveloped thoughts they want floating around in their head; but they cannot act on them when engaged in business.

The superficial level of external regulation may create a veneer of justice and equality, but IMO people still hold on to their deep down beliefs and unfortunately act on them in more subtle ways that aren't often overtly seen.

 

[Caliban]

What I suggested was never really put into practice in the USA.

Then I don't see a point in discussing it. I am talking about present and historical realities; you are conceiving a thing that has not happened and shows no evidence of happening.

 

[Caliban]

The superficial level of external regulation may create a veneer of justice and equality, but IMO people still hold on to their deep down beliefs and unfortunately act on them in more subtle ways that aren't often overtly seen.

I am okay with that. That's the best we can do.

 

[ananda]

I am okay with that. That's the best we can do.

I'm not okay with a superficial image of justice and equality. I don't want food servers to be compelled to serve me with a fake smile on their face - perhaps after spitting in my food where nobody could see them.

 

[ZNP]

Fighting corruption and providing "for the general welfare..." are not Christian issues--they are human issues. I am taking about specific things in the biblical text that are (mostly) unique to religion.

But even so, no political argument should be made by quoting scripture or by saying "God told me..." Policy that affects a pluralistic society should be made on secular grounds alone. Your personal reasons for how you vote, raise your kids, or conduct your personal life are yours--no one should interfere with your genuinely held beliefs (assuming they are not harmful).

So you blame Lincoln when he said "a house divided cannot stand". The people who made the liberty bell also violated this commandment of yours when they put the verse on the bell. They need to take the oath of office with their hand on the Bible so long as they don't actually open it up and read it. George Washington obviously did not subscribe to your laws: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.” – George Washington

I wonder if they can quote other authors? Would it be OK for a political argument to include quotes from atheists? Philosophers? Pundits? When it comes to people trusting in our economy and money we want them to know that "in God we trust" just so long as no one utters God's word.

I suppose you are also against the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. – John Adams

US Grant obviously didn't follow this rule of yours. “Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties, write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book are we indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future. Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.” – Ulysses S. Grant, Are you also against righteousness? “The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation.” – Abigail Adams

Explain to me how the first amendment protects my right to free speech while you prohibit me from quoting the Bible? What an odious and offensive rule. You must be incredibly conceited to think 350 million people need to follow this ridiculous rule of yours. It is provocative and envious.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not okay with a superficial image of justice and equality. I don't want food servers to be compelled to serve me with a fake smile on their face - perhaps after spitting in my food where nobody could see them.

Me neither, that's why education and empathy are so important. We have to live in reality after all. Until we reach some far-fetched utopia, we must be satisfied with incremental progress. There is no other valid alternative.

 

[ananda]

Me neither, that's why education and empathy are so important. We have to live in reality after all. Until we reach some far-fetched utopia, we must be satisfied with incremental progress. There is no other valid alternative.

I agree with that.

 

[istodolez]

Instead of wasting my time what is your definition of religion that would be true of all religions in the world?

Buy a dictionary.

 

[ZNP]

Buy a dictionary.

So the dictionary defines my religious beliefs? Awfully arrogant of you. How very hypocritical of you, on one hand you cry about Christians trying to define your religious beliefs and on the other you impose your definition of religious beliefs on Christians.