Close Topic Options

Religion & Politics - Page 2

It is possible to separate the two, but its just not probable. The reason that it won't completely separate is the same as the reason it should separate. All people have different religious beliefs and religious morals. Any two people of similar religion can disagree on its meaning, interpretation, and how it applys today. Instead of leaving them completely out of politics, they get integrated and we all fight about it. But some feel that you cannot separate the two at all so they just put their own in.

Another problem I see it that there is no separation either way. The wall of separation that Jefferson spoke of went both ways. You cannot expect religion to influence politics without politics influencing religion, the lines blur and corruption of the separation begins. If you think this doesn't happen, the take the Bush administration. Bush deliberately courted the church for their vote. He even had his people like Ashcroft speak in churches as he did as well. Using the church to gain the religious vote is indeed a corruption of that separation with politics influencing the church vote, in the church. That is a good example of how the wall of separation has broken down in both directs. Whether it can be repaired or not, I don't know. I don't even think its possible in todays atmosphere to separate them.

Politics and Religion

Jeff Miller once said: "I myself participate in a weekly Prayer Breakfast with a number of my Christian colleagues in Congress who know that politics and morality are inseparable. And as morality's foundation is religion, religion and politics are necessarily related."

Religion & Politics Beliefs Religious General

Religion & politics are inseparable because, as has been stated, politicians bring their religious beliefs to their platforms, and because people will vote for the politician who most closely represents their own beliefs. This actually shouldn't be a problem, as far as I'm concerned. All religions, unless they are corrupt, have similar value systems. It's fanatics who distort religion that get us into trouble. If majority rules, and the majority of us are not fanatical, we should be okay.

Page 2 Politics and Religion

Its interesting to note that most people thing the fore fathers of America came over from Britain because they wanted freedom to chose their religion. That is partially true, but not the main reason outside perhaps the puritans. See the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were deists not subscribing to an organized religion but believing in god. But britain was a perfect example of what we don't want. The church of england was headed up by the head of the country, the king. It was the reason that Jefferson so wanted the separation of church and state, because they didn't want a theocracy in which the government cannot and does not separate their decisions from their religious morality. It effects freedom of speech and nearly everything else. If you make laws based on morality, then who's morality are you basing it on? Yours? Then what is your morality based on? Is it based on your religion? If so, then by making laws based on your religious morals, you necessarily descriminate against those that don't believe in your morality or your religion. But today most think its wrong for government to interfere in religion but are ok with religion interfering with politics because its their religion. How hypocritical is that? Would those same people be ok if it was someone from an opposing religion making laws based on that?

That is the problem and why the mixing of the two has become dangerous.

Politics and Religion

Jefferson DID want a wall. He wanted to make sure that the Government didn't interfere with religion. There is no indication of the opposite.

I believe it is absolutely impossible to remove religion from politics, without removing religion from society. Most people have their moral foundation based upon their religion, no matter what the religion is, even atheism.

If some religious person is elected to office, and begins to do things I don't like, based upon his religion (including secular humanism or atheism), then I will work to get him out of office.

I am perfectly willing to elect someone from a religion that I am not in favor of. It just doesn't matter to me. What matters is their actions.

Religion & Politics

This statement doesn't make sense to me. Of course a lawmaker would make laws based on their own morals, who else's? This is not discriminatory, it is democracy. What difference does it make where a political leaders morals come from, as long as they are intact and a representation of the people? I will vote for whoever's morals most closely resemble mine, regardless of their religion, or lack of religion, as the case may be.

Religion & Politics - Page 2

No, its not democracy when you make something that one man believes is right, a crime when the what one does is not effecting anyone else. This is the case in gay marriage where this act does not effect anyone else and is not a crime outside biblical belief that homosexuality is wrong.

So if a mans faith believes that god loves all including gays and that homosexuality or even marriage is not wrong, then a law against it would this be a law which goes against what our fore fathers envisioned in the law. The wall of separation is not in regards to ones belief in the Bible but ones personal faith on conscience. Thus even more, if you consider marriage a religious institution, then even more a law cannot be against it.

I am not arguing for gay marriage, but simply using it as an example of when religious virtues interfere with ones own beliefs and pursuit of happiness. This shows us that someones particular morality can interfere with others morality. If an act does not harm anyone or effect anyone else, then you should not be allowed to create that law based on your personal religious views, understanding that someone else may have a different religious or moral view. Most laws on the books are not morality laws.

Laws are there to protect us, not in force ones own view of morality. Theft, murder, rape, all these things harm others, even some drugs do. But a great many of our laws are made simply because some people think that others shouldn't be doing them, they are "sin" laws. This is where religion and politics should not mix. Laws that are made based on their standing as a "sin", and not on whether someone elses freedom is endangered or someone else is harmed, are morality laws based on religion and are subject to interpretation by others and or other religions and should never be allowed in the books. That is why religion and politics should not mix.

Religion & Politics General Religious Beliefs - Page 2

I am not sure how it is in the Rest of the World, but in the United States politics is a religion unto itself. Even many of those who proclaim Agnosticism or Atheism have a religious fervor when it comes to their political ideals. Marx, Stalin and Castro are their Saviors, with their iconic pictures littering the office walls of College Professors (of which I have seen at least two when I went to University).

I believe religion in politics is only dangerous when force is used to institute changes. Likewise government without religion definitely had murderous consequences with the likes of Stalin and Castro, so the absence of religion in politics is not necessarily a guarantee of Freedom. Also note in the heavily religious muslim nations, freedom is non-existent and even met with violent force.

In Democracies (Or more accurately Republics) such as the U.S and Great Britain, laws are based on the consensus of the Majority with carefully placed safe guards to protect the Minority. This being said all laws are based on the morality(be they religious or Secular) of the populace. Laws tend to follow the trend of the times. If the Nation is Moral (Again be they religious or Secular) in the most fundamental sense of the word (respect for individuals, freedoms, and life) then the nation will prosper. If they are religious or Secular and they do not hold freedom of the individual to worship or not worship as they please then the Society is Bankrupt.