News Politics - playing the religious card

[Evo]

Should religion be combined with politics? Should laws be made according to religious viewpoints? Recent Gallup polls* show that the majority of Americans now approve of abortion and gay marriage, oddly there is an increase among outspoken religious politicians attempting to push laws against both of these. (let's not drag the thread off topic with discussions of these two topics, it's just to point out a trend).

It seems that even as we hear about the US becoming less religious that we see more politicians pandering to religious groups. Or even worse, IMO, they actually believe that they are the earthly implement of a deity.

Has America gotten more religious, or just American politics?

The country has grown less religious since the 1970s, while frequent churchgoers are now much more likely to vote Republican or support the Tea Party, according to recent studies.

As a result, faith-filled rhetoric and campaign stops make Americans appear more Christian than they really are, according Mark Chaves, a Duke University professor of sociology and religion.

"The Michele Bachmanns and Rick Perrys of the world are playing to a base that's much smaller than it was in the 1970s and 1980s," said Chaves, whose new book, "American Religion: Contemporary Trends," analyzes trends based on data from the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The Tea Party's sinking approval rating -- currently at 20 percent, below Republicans, Democrats, atheists and Muslims -- signals a growing discomfort with mingling faith and politics, including the kind of "overt religious language and imagery" recently used by Bachmann and Perry on the campaign trail, Putnam and Campbell recently wrote in The New York Times.

What's more, Putnam and Campbell say the Tea Party is much more religious than originally thought. "The Tea Party's generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government," they concluded, "but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/religion-politics-america_n_933395.html

Please read the entire article before posting so everyone is on the same page.

Let's keep personal religious beliefs out of this, the discussion should be if religion and politics should be combined. If you believe they should be combined, can you explain why it would be beneficial for the country? Do you think the heavy religious emphasis by some politicians is good or bad?

* Gallup polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx

I know feelings on this are highly charged, so let's please stick to discussion about this trend without getting out of control.

 

[BobG]

To be fair, it's not a given that the Tea Party's sinking ratings are due to their perceived association with the religious right. Their role in the debt ceiling debate could have a lot to do with their sinking popularity, as well.

And the Tea Party and social conservatives aren't quite synonymous. Only 42% of Tea Party supporters also support the social conservative movement, but 69% of social conservatives support the Tea Party movement. (The Tea Party, Religion and Social Issues)

It would be more fair to say social conservatives see an opportunity to coopt the Tea Party movement for their own objectives. Among religious groups, though, support for the tea party is highest among evangelicals - the religious group most adamant about instilling religious values into the law and/or Constitution.

For decades, social conservatives were kind of pushed into the background since who else could they vote for besides the Republican candidates? Democrats? Probably not likely. It's only recently that their influence in the Republican Party has become significant. Given that history, it's not all that surprising that they would be among the most likely to rebel against the Republican establishment if they didn't feel their views were getting enough attention.

The Tea Party needs social conservatives if they're to remain large enough to be a viable player - especially after their latest 'victory' in the House debt ceiling debate. I'd look for an even closer association in the future.

 

[BobG]

As for the religious right, I think they're following a smart strategy.

Yes, the Republican Party keeps shrinking as moderates leave, but that just increases the influence of the religious right.

Eventually, there will be an election where the incumbent President is a Democrat, the economy is horrible, and voters will be more concerned about voting for change than the name tacked to that change.

Doesn't matter whether it's right to let religion have more influence in government or even whether most people believe it's right or wrong. It's still effective politics for those that believe religion should have more influence.

A President is for 4 years, or maybe 8 years at the max. A Supreme Court Justice is for life (or about 30 years or so).

 

[Evo]

As for the religious right, I think they're following a smart strategy.

Yes, the Republican Party keeps shrinking as moderates leave, but that just increases the influence of the religious right.

Eventually, there will be an election where the incumbent President is a Democrat, the economy is horrible, and voters will be more concerned about voting for change than the name tacked to that change.

Doesn't matter whether it's right to let religion have more influence in government or even whether most people believe it's right or wrong. It's still effective politics for those that believe religion should have more influence.

A President is for 4 years, or maybe 8 years at the max. A Supreme Court Justice is for life (or about 30 years or so).

Then we can only hope that the good of the country comes before personal religious beliefs and that people make decisions accordingly.

 

[xeryx35]

Yes, I really hate it when people put religion before the service of the country. That's not service to God by any stretch of the imagination except that of the extreme right.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Evo, in the OP asks: “Should religion be combined with politics? Should laws be made according to religious viewpoints?”

I answer “No” and “No”. Here are the last two paragraphs from an opinion article by Neal Gabler which agrees:

“As we are sadly discovering, this minority cannot be headed off, which is most likely why conservatism transmogrified from politics to a religion in the first place. Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.

Unfortunately, they are right. Having opted out of political discourse, they are not susceptible to any suasion. Rationality won't work because their arguments are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Better message control won't work. Improved strategies won't work. Grass-roots organizing won't work. Nothing will work because you cannot convince religious fanatics of anything other than what they already believe, even if their religion is political dogma.”

I suggest reading the full article at:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/02/opinion/oe-gabler2

My opinions and observations are:

• I don't believe religious teachings have a place in the way our country is run or decisions are made.

• I do not want any social or political policy made on the basis of religious faith.

• I oppose the use of political power to attain moral ends.

• Religion has already intruded into the political sphere, including same-sex marriage, don’t ask, don’t tell in the military, abortion, stem cell research, and education.

• A large divide seems to be growing in America between an increasingly Christian morality-driven conservative right and an increasingly polarized and oppositional liberal left.

• “Ground Zero Mosque” and “Obama’s A Muslim?” are simplified, eye-catching headlines, but the conflict they represent is more complicated than left vs. right. When political candidates claim homosexuality can be “cured” or that “Creationism” ought to be taught alongside evolution in public schools they only amplify the conflict between the two sides.

• America has separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment.

• Everyone of every faith is entitled to have and practice their religious beliefs.

• Cooperation between individuals and groups breeds trust. Compromise is the key to progress in resolving differences. Both are essential for the successful advancement of our nation.

 

[Zryn]

Should religion be combined with politics? Should laws be made according to religious viewpoints?

Ideally:

Yes and Yes.

It seems to me to be disingenuous to exclude any single point of view from the ability to represent itself in politics.

Just as hateful and intolerant minority groups will likely never rise to any significant power because the opinions of the majority reject them, religion should be combined with politics with the ideal that the ebb and flow of democracy will sort out an appropriate balance.

Realistically:

No and No.

If you have nothing nice to say it's better to say nothing at all, or this phrase.

 

[Ryumast3r]

No and No. Religion, especially ones that rely only on "blind faith" and such have no place in politics where real-life problems are supposed to be solved.

Maybe it's that I think too much like an engineer, but you don't solve real life problems by sitting by your bed and praying for some unknown force to build you a bridge that'll carry 2 million tons. It won't happen. You have to make it happen by doing the math, getting the support, the money, the workforce, the design, the approval from the city/county/state/country, etc.

I trust people who argue against my economic (and social) view-point based on statistics and facts (even if I disagree with how true the stats/facts are), but someone who just relies on some book written a looonnnggg time ago, and while it has good advice has no idea how to solve current problems, I have very little trust in their ability to run the country at all.

 

[Evo]

If you have nothing nice to say it's better to say nothing at all, or this phrase.

Pretend the religious right aren't wanting to create laws based on their religion? They are attempting to force their beliefs on everyone and we have to stand up against them. We have strived for so long to get rights for women, equality for homosexuals, science in education, and they want nothing more than to take these things away and throw us back hundreds of years. IMO.

Say nothing? It's time for those of us that want social and scientific progress to stand up and scream.

 

[turbo]

A few days ago, there was a political cartoon in my newspaper in which a couple was reading their newspapers, and the wife said something like "If God told Bachmann to run, he must want Obama to win."

 

[turbo]

Say nothing? It's time for those of us that want social and scientific progress to stand up and scream.

I want to use this as my sig, but I'd probably get banned.

 

[Zryn]

Pretend the religious right aren't wanting to create laws based on their religion? They are attempting to force their beliefs on everyone and we have to stand up against them. We have strived for so long to get rights for women, equality for homosexuals, science in education, and they want nothing more than to take these things away and throw us back hundreds of years. IMO.

Say nothing? It's time for those of us that want social and scientific progress to stand up and scream.

Sounds kinda zealous and/or frustrated.

I know feelings on this are highly charged, so let's please stick to discussion about this trend without getting out of control.

I was just following orders .

 

[Proton Soup]

No and No. Religion, especially ones that rely only on "blind faith" and such have no place in politics where real-life problems are supposed to be solved.

Maybe it's that I think too much like an engineer, but you don't solve real life problems by sitting by your bed and praying for some unknown force to build you a bridge that'll carry 2 million tons. It won't happen. You have to make it happen by doing the math, getting the support, the money, the workforce, the design, the approval from the city/county/state/country, etc.

I trust people who argue against my economic (and social) view-point based on statistics and facts (even if I disagree with how true the stats/facts are), but someone who just relies on some book written a looonnnggg time ago, and while it has good advice has no idea how to solve current problems, I have very little trust in their ability to run the country at all.

this seems to be the all-too-often argument, but i think it represents a false-dichotomy. the truth is that most religious people do not operate this way. look up things like the protestant ethic and you'll see that religious people do not just sit around waiting for something to come from a higher force. rather, religion operates much more like philosophy does for the non-religious. it's what people use to give meaning to their lives and guide the non-scientific decisions.

as for the OP, i think it's not possible for people to not use their religion in their political decision making. just as it's not possible for the non-religious to not use philosophy in theirs. take the two examples that shall not be discussed. there's no reason to believe an atheist can only fall on one side of those issues. or that the decision would only be based on reason and not emotion or instinct.



now, benefit to the country... yes, i think including ones personal, not-necessarily-religious beliefs is important. people aren't robots, and we won't be served well by a decision-making process that removes parts of the human equation.

do i think heavy religious emphasis by politicians is bad? i think any kind of demagoguery is bad. i don't think it is necessarily a religious problem.

 

[Evo]

do i think heavy religious emphasis by politicians is bad? i think any kind of demagoguery is bad. i don't think it is necessarily a religious problem.

But the whole point is that these particular politicians are running a religious campaign, they claim to be doing God's will.

Of course people will be more likely to lean towards their own beliefs in making laws and decisions, but a leader should make the best possible choices for the country, even if it goes against their personal beliefs. The people that believe they are on a mission from God to impose their interpretation of what God tells them he wants are not likley to do what is best for the country, I mean, they can't go against God, right?

I don't mean that politicians shouldn't be religious, it's when they've gone off the deep end that I get frightened about their capability to make rational decisions. Like Michele Bachman and her husband's business "Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay".

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/miche...-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691

Do you think that she would change her mind if she became president?

And Rick Perry who did another in a series of flip flops going from emdorsing gay marriage to signing a promise to ban gay marriage.

WASHINGTON -- Republicans who support gay rights have seen their brief hopes for Rick Perry's candidacy dashed as old quotes surface, new pledges are signed and news of his forthcoming campaign events and associations emerges.

The Texas governor and leading presidential candidate briefly gave hope to the increasingly influential group of Republican LGBT advocates when he expressed his support for the rights of states to pass their own legislation governing marriage. Since then, however, he has said he would back a constitutional amendment banning the practice, while quotes from an old book surfaced in which he compared homosexuality to alcoholism. On Friday, meanwhile, Perry signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge that would, among other things, commit him to support sending a federal marriage amendment to states upon becoming president.

But the icing on the cake could come this weekend, when Perry is set to mingle with one of the most virulently anti-gay activists and prominent social conservative donors in his home state.

The event, officially labeled a "call to action," will feature a retreat at a Texas Hill Country ranch. Among the event's hosts will be David Barton, an evangelical leader and founder of the organization WallBuilders.

Please read on about Barton.

this is where you hang a bloody scalp over the gallery rail. You hang these four Republican scalps over the Senate rail and every other Republican senator looks up and sees those scalps and says, ‘my gosh, I’ll be hanging up there beside them if I don’t stay with this pro-family stuff.’ And that’s exactly what has to happen.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/rick-perry-gay-marriage_n_938125.html

 

[MarcoD]

I am a bit weary of responding since this seems to be a local US debate. And the original question boils down to personal beliefs, and beliefs are (mostly) irrational.

I am a humanist. My personal beliefs derive from the fact that a) I don't know a lot, but b) I seem to be human and there seem to be other humans. And from that, I derive that all human life is equally valuable, and -in some leap of faith- that we are just here to take care of each other (for better or worse).

A humanist, or -an extreme case- a marxist, will claim no, and no.

A religious person will claim yes, and yes.

I have the feeling that US citizens are religious, or believe in the existence of God, maybe not Christianity, but they are inclined to vote for religious people as people who they can be certain to have at least some minimal form of moral guidance. (Stemming from the belief that religion has the moral monopoly on ethics.)

The thing is that you can hardly debate individual beliefs or the religious, mystic, experience. The only thing I came up with as a question, and a reason to me, why religion shouldn't be in politics is the following:

What if Perry is elected president and God tells him to nuke Mecca?

 

[daveb]

And Rick Perry who did another in a series of flip flops going from emdorsing gay marriage to signing a promise to ban gay marriage.

I am by no means a Perry fan, but to be fair, he didn't really flip-flop. He continually advocates States' rights for those things not in the Constitution - he has no problem amending the Constitution, which is what he advocates for the gay marriage, abortion, etc. debate.

 

[Proton Soup]

But the whole point is that these particular politicians are running a religious campaign, they claim to be doing God's will.

Of course people will be more likely to lean towards their own beliefs in making laws and decisions, but a leader should make the best possible choices for the country, even if it goes against their personal beliefs. The people that believe they are on a mission from God to impose their interpretation of what God tells them he wants are not likley to do what is best for the country, I mean, they can't go against God, right?

i think most of them are simply riding on their own egos (and well, let's be practical here, the corporations who have bought them). which is fundamentally no different than some god. and when you vote them in, you give approval to that. once the politician is elected, she has a mandate. she is doing what a majority of voters think is best for the country.

I don't mean that politicians shouldn't be religious, it's when they've gone off the deep end that I get frightened about their capability to make rational decisions. Like Michele Bachman and her husband's business "Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay".

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/miche...-pray-gay-candidates-clinic/story?id=14048691

Do you think that she would change her mind if she became president?

what difference does it make? is it really that different from cognitive behavioral therapy? if someone is uncomfortable with their current situation, I'm not sure it's my business how they want to approach it.

And Rick Perry who did another in a series of flip flops going from emdorsing gay marriage to signing a promise to ban gay marriage.

Please read on about Barton.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/rick-perry-gay-marriage_n_938125.html

rick perry is just a demagogue, imo. not so different from Al Gore, except maybe in charisma. I'm actually praying that rick perry's sexual exploits will blow up in his face in a bigger way than even clinton experienced.

 

[BobG]

The thing is that you can hardly debate individual beliefs or the religious, mystic, experience. The only thing I came up with as a question, and a reason to me, why religion shouldn't be in politics is the following:

What if Perry is elected president and God tells him to nuke Mecca?

Is there something in Evangelical Christian philosophy that would indicate they're in favor of nuclear weapons, let alone nuking rival religion's holy places? (And Rick Perry is an Evangelical Christian)

I think it's fair to say that Evangelicals have remained silent on some issues in order to maintain a close relationship with non-Evangelical conservative Repubicans. Nuclear weapons and immigration would be two of those issues.

I don't know much about Perry's views on nuclear weapons (I think he does support a missile defense program), but if he is in favor of nuking Mecca, it probably wouldn't be because of his religion.

 

[Ryumast3r]

this seems to be the all-too-often argument, but i think it represents a false-dichotomy. the truth is that most religious people do not operate this way. look up things like the protestant ethic and you'll see that religious people do not just sit around waiting for something to come from a higher force. rather, religion operates much more like philosophy does for the non-religious. it's what people use to give meaning to their lives and guide the non-scientific decisions.

I think you may have missed my point (or I didn't state it clearly enough, either way). I wasn't saying that religious people, or people who believe in God are unstable/bad, I was saying that religion shouldn't be used to run a country. I don't care if someone is religious, as long as they don't bring the viewpoint to the table (such as praying to God to build the bridge) as a solution.

Philosophy is all well and good, and gives people a direction, as does religion, but when the direction is taken as the final solution, that's where my support ends.

 

[MarcoD]

this seems to be the all-too-often argument, but i think it represents a false-dichotomy. the truth is that most religious people do not operate this way. look up things like the protestant ethic and you'll see that religious people do not just sit around waiting for something to come from a higher force. rather, religion operates much more like philosophy does for the non-religious. it's what people use to give meaning to their lives and guide the non-scientific decisions.

The problem with religious philosophy, is that you can derive any truth you want.

In Christianity.
Women subordinate from man? Sure, Eve was made from a rib of Adam.
Women equal to man? Sure, we are all equal under God.

The same holds true for Sharia.
In Saudi Arabia woman aren't allowed to drive cars. (I don't really know the theological reason for that.)
The rest of the muslim world doesn't seem to care.

Want slaves? Want racism? Want a religious war? Everything goes.

Now I don't think the pure scientific approach is a lot better, but at least, to me, it is marginally better.

 

[xeryx35]

The problem with religious philosophy, is that you can derive any truth you want.

In Christianity.
Women subordinate from man? Sure, Eve was made from a rib of Adam.
Women equal to man? Sure, we are all equal under God.

The same holds true for Sharia.
In Saudi Arabia woman aren't allowed to drive cars. (I don't really know the theological reason for that.)
The rest of the muslim world doesn't seem to care.

Want slaves? Want racism? Want a religious war? Everything goes.

Now I don't think the pure scientific approach is a lot better, but at least, to me, it is marginally better.

Being religious, a pure scientific approach is not better. But even for you, are you going to choose to kill 6 million people scientifically, or 6,000,001 people with a pure religious approach? In absolute numbers it may seem marginally better, but the truth is that both are horrible evils, no matter what.

IMO, God is an entity who helps me and guides me through my life, controlling the forces of nature by means of scientific processes, not justification for the worst acts of cruelty conceivable by even the most psychotic brain. And there is no reason to apply archaic religious dogmas to politics. If you want to apply the basic core principles - peace, justice, equality of opportunity - it is fine. However, there is no reason to use much of religious law to guide political decisions. All it does is pander to a core group of ideologues.

The truth is, we must try to stop the ultra-conservative hardcore religious from distorting religion and giving the world a bad image of it. As stated earlier, that is not how religious people generally run their lives.

 

[Newai]

I have a hard time telling the difference between politics and religion, so my vote is a big shrug.

 

[WhoWee]

Should religion be combined with politics? Should laws be made according to religious viewpoints? Recent Gallup polls* show that the majority of Americans now approve of abortion and gay marriage, oddly there is an increase among outspoken religious politicians attempting to push laws against both of these. (let's not drag the thread off topic with discussions of these two topics, it's just to point out a trend).

It seems that even as we hear about the US becoming less religious that we see more politicians pandering to religious groups. Or even worse, IMO, they actually believe that they are the earthly implement of a deity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/religion-politics-america_n_933395.html

Please read the entire article before posting so everyone is on the same page.

Let's keep personal religious beliefs out of this, the discussion should be if religion and politics should be combined. If you believe they should be combined, can you explain why it would be beneficial for the country? Do you think the heavy religious emphasis by some politicians is good or bad?

* Gallup polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx

I know feelings on this are highly charged, so let's please stick to discussion about this trend without getting out of control.

Now that everyone else has weighed into this discussion, I'd like to add that (IMO) religion isn't the problem - it's polarized ideology. Religion is merely a weapon in the battle. This article is quite thorough in it's comparison. After reading through all of the comparisons - please ask yourself - how is it possible for these 2 ideologies to ever agree to a compromise that makes everyone happy and doesn't result in bankrupting the Republic?

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

"Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs"

 

[MarcoD]

Being religious, a pure scientific approach is not better. But even for you, are you going to choose to kill 6 million people scientifically, or 6,000,001 people with a pure religious approach? In absolute numbers it may seem marginally better, but the truth is that both are horrible evils, no matter what.

That's not what I mean with the scientific method either. I think ration can be used to derive an ethics (through philosophy), but I also acknowledge that like religion, one (or worst case, anyone with an agenda) can rationally derive pretty conflicting ethics or moral rules. (Though in doubt there is always the law, but that doesn't help on defining a law.)

The SA rule of conduct may seem weird, but a hundred years ago there were probably many people who found that women shouldn't ride horses, and used the scientific method to prove that they shouldn't.

IMO, God is an entity who helps me and guides me through my life, controlling the forces of nature by means of scientific processes, not justification for the worst acts of cruelty conceivable by even the most psychotic brain. And there is no reason to apply archaic religious dogmas to politics. If you want to apply the basic core principles - peace, justice, equality of opportunity - it is fine. However, there is no reason to use much of religious law to guide political decisions. All it does is pander to a core group of ideologues.

To me, it seems everybody struggles sometimes with the question how to do what is right, or what feels right, or what people told you what is right.

The truth is, we must try to stop the ultra-conservative hardcore religious from distorting religion and giving the world a bad image of it. As stated earlier, that is not how religious people generally run their lives.

It's a general mutual feeling which applies to both religious and atheist people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now that everyone else has weighed into this discussion, I'd like to add that (IMO) religion isn't the problem - it's polarized ideology. Religion is merely a weapon in the battle. This article is quite thorough in it's comparison. After reading through all of the comparisons - please ask yourself - how is it possible for these 2 ideologies to ever agree to a compromise that makes everyone happy and doesn't result in bankrupting the Republic?

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

"Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs"

Government is and has always been a matter of compromise. Fundamentalist religions don't allow for compromise. Also, that list is an abstraction and not representitive of the views of "liberals" or "conservatives". The polarization of which you speak is a natural consequence of the range of views possible.

The explanations are imo vastly oversimplified and generally not representitive of reality. Take for example the last one about welfare. Do conservatives oppose long-term welfare for everyone with no exceptions? And some conservatives oppose all welfare with no exceptions. The oversimplification in the list ignores the complications that create legitimate differences.

That list seems to me more the views of one conservative and his or her opinion of liberals.

In the case of the death penalty, they conveniently ignored that we have an imperfect system that will beyond a doubt execute innocent people - not a liberal or conervative issue! They try to label it as liberal, but I consider it a matter of simple and undeniable logic. They also ignore the concept of power and how much the government should have. Being a conservative at heart, I don't want the Government having that much power.

 

[BobG]

Now that everyone else has weighed into this discussion, I'd like to add that (IMO) religion isn't the problem - it's polarized ideology. Religion is merely a weapon in the battle. This article is quite thorough in it's comparison. After reading through all of the comparisons - please ask yourself - how is it possible for these 2 ideologies to ever agree to a compromise that makes everyone happy and doesn't result in bankrupting the Republic?

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

"Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs"

Probably the same way I refrain from intentionally rear ending cars in front of me that display truly idiotic bumper stickers. It's difficult, but it's doable. (Edit: I probably shouldn't drive before posting.)

Feeling that a thread discussing religion in politics is a waste of time is a valid point. But deciding to fix the problem by diverting it into a discussion of extreme liberal/extreme conservative views is disrespectful.

Besides, your topic would be better addressed in a separate thread with a poll to see if there were even one person that held every view on that liberal list or even one person that held every view on that conservative list. (It should probably be an anonymous poll agreeing with every issue on either list might make people think you were raised in some kind of cult.) And one of the options should find out how many people agree with at least one item on both lists (hopefully, I'm not that abnormal).

I guess the same could apply to religions. I know the Catholic church agrees with at least one item on both lists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the op, as long as politicians have beliefs, those beliefs will to some extent affect and shape policy. Beliefs are beliefs and religous beliefs are just a subset of a larger set of all personal beliefs and perspectives. Evo mentioned that one should do what's best for the country, but beliefs will determine what one thinks is best.

Also, the country doesn't always come first. Sometimes the individual comes first. Sometimes you just have to do what's right whether its best for the country or not. But what is "right"?

 

[BobG]

Also, the country doesn't always come first. Sometimes the individual comes first. Sometimes you just have to do what's right whether its best for the country or not. But what is "right"?

Good point. The use of torture would be one of those issues where numerous countries have agreed the benefit isn't worth the wrong of torture.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Good point. The use of torture would be one of those issues where numerous countries have agreed the benefit isn't worth the wrong of torture.

In my view, and one that I think I can defend pretty well, drugs are bad, but the war on drugs is worse. What might be best for the country in a technical sense would be to just execute anyone that fails a drug test. But the entire point of doing what's best for the country is to do what's best for the people. And executing people for human weakness, or human nature, is hardly in the interest of the people. And to do so certainly wouldn't be "right" by any standard that I could accept. But then I was raised Catholic, so maybe that's just my former religion speaking.

 

[xeryx35]

As for the op, as long as politicians have beliefs, those beliefs will to some extent affect and shape policy. Beliefs are beliefs and religous beliefs are just a subset of a larger set of all personal beliefs and perspectives. Evo mentioned that one should do what's best for the country, but beliefs will determine what one thinks is best.

Also, the country doesn't always come first. Sometimes the individual comes first. Sometimes you just have to do what's right whether its best for the country or not. But what is "right"?

I understand that beliefs may shape policy to a certain extent, but as long as any extreme polarization is not reflected in the influence on these policies, it is fine.

BobG, the article is indeed a "smart" conservative's opinion of "stupid socialist" liberals.

 

[WhoWee]

Feeling that a thread discussing religion in politics is a waste of time is a valid point. But deciding to fix the problem by diverting it into a discussion of extreme liberal/extreme conservative views is disrespectful.

My intent wasn't to derail the thread. As stated, I think religion is a weapon of choice by both sides in the political debate. The right tries to achieve a higher moral position with it and the left typically tries to belittle the right by challenging on the basis of lack of proof. It's a tiresome game that can't be "fixed" - IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My intent wasn't to derail the thread. As stated, I think religion is a weapon of choice by both sides in the political debate. The right tries to achieve a higher moral position with it and the left typically tries to belittle the right by challenging on the basis of lack of proof. It's a tiresome game that can't be "fixed" - IMO.

Religion wasn't so much an issue until the faithful started challenging scientific theories and pushing an education agenda. Also, they have made a religious issue out of gay marriage when that is a civil issue. So I disagree. The right wing, and esp people like Beck and his followers, have made religion an issue. Back in the 80s, the Republicans allied with the evangelical/fundamentalist movement. In part, this is how Reagan was elected. Now we see the offspring of that marriage.

 

[xeryx35]

Religion wasn't so much an issue until the faithful started challenging scientific theories and pushing an education agenda. Also, they have made a religious issue out of gay marriage when that is a civil issue. So I disagree. The right wing, and esp people like Beck and his followers, have made religion an issue.

And religion was never meant to be that way. Religion is a misused weapon by those brainwashed or willingly accepting of right-wing ideology.

Sad thing that America has become a dumping-ground of extremists.

 

[MarcoD]

In my view, and one that I think I can defend pretty well, drugs are bad, but the war on drugs is worse. What might be best for the country in a technical sense would be to just execute anyone that fails a drug test. But the entire point of doing what's best for the country is to do what's best for the people. And executing people for human weakness, or human nature, is hardly in the interest of the people. And to do so certainly wouldn't be "right" by any standard that I could accept. But then I was raised Catholic, so maybe that's just my former religion speaking.

Ah, physicists. No moral stature what so ever. Like my father's solution to solving the world's population problem: just sterilize all women after their first baby.

 

[WhoWee]

Also, they have made a religious issue out of gay marriage when that is a civil issue. So I disagree.

What do you disagree with - I said ...religion is a weapon of choice by both sides in the political debate. The right tries to achieve a higher moral position with it...

 

[BobG]

And religion was never meant to be that way. Religion is a misused weapon by those brainwashed or willingly accepting of right-wing ideology.

Sad thing that America has become a dumping-ground of extremists.

Such as those right wing Catholic groups that protest the death penalty?

There's only one religious group that has a strong tie to any particular political party and that's Evangelical Christians.

Not that other religious groups haven't been active politically. It was Baptists upset over paying taxes to support the Congregationalist churches that got separation of church and state in some New England states, for example.

And Protestant churches played a big part in getting the Prohibition amendment passed, while Catholic organizations played a big part in getting the Prohibition amendment repealed. (And before you get the wrong idea, it was progressives that supported prohibition and conservatives that support repeal.)

Giving support for political issues the religion is concerned about is one thing. Wresting some control, even if limited, over a political party is another issue, entirely.

 

[Evo]

President John Kennedy made the speech below.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him... I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."

Compared to Rick Perry's words and actions.

When it comes to allies, Perry isn't a bit shy about cultivating some of the more sinister right-wing culture warriors. His event's website formally endorses the statement of faith of the Rev. Don Wildmon's American Family Assn., which has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of its strident anti-gay bigotry. In the late 1980s Wildmon, who is one of this event's personal sponsors, was denounced as an anti-Semite by the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the head of the Atlanta office of the Anti-Defamation League after he alleged that Jews controlled the film and television industries and consciously laced movies and TV programs with anti-Christian messages.

Perry is hardly the only GOP candidate to troll for votes in these murky waters. Virtually the entire Republican field went to Washington last weekend to court attendees at Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Conference. Sarah Palin, who has written that Kennedy was wrong in his speech, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) both play up their evangelical connections. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum wears his conservative Catholicism so prominently on his sleeve that you'd think he was running for archbishop.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/11/opinion/la-oe-0611-rutten-20110611

Many people find what is going on with the religious right a disturbing direction for our country, to say the least.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What do you disagree with - I said ...religion is a weapon of choice by both sides in the political debate. The right tries to achieve a higher moral position with it...

Their intent is to:
Deny people liberty and equal rights based on sexual preference.
Impose their personal mythology on public schools as science or equivalent to science
Declare when life begins based on faith and legally impose that belief on all women

This isn't about a higher moral position. This is about control.

 

[BobG]

Their intent is to:
Declare when life begins based on faith and legally impose that belief on all women

Life or human life or human consciousness?

I think when life begins would be a scientific fact that would be hard to dispute. When that life has some form of consciousness (and is capable of having a soul for the religious) is open to debate and hard to pinpoint scientifically. And, perhaps that difficulty in pinpointing when that life gains human consciousness might be a big reason several religions have shifted to using life, period, as the criteria. (A little bit of an over reaction, in my opinion, since I think it's safe to say human consciousness doesn't occur at conception.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Life or human life or human consciousness?

I think when life begins would be a scientific fact that would be hard to dispute. When that life has some form of consciousness (and is capable of having a soul for the religious) is open to debate and hard to pinpoint scientifically. And, perhaps that difficulty in pinpointing when that life gains human consciousness might be a big reason several religions have shifted to using life, period, as the criteria. (A little bit of an over reaction, in my opinion, since I think it's safe to say human consciousness doesn't occur at conception.)

"When life begins" is classically how it has been phrased - meaning that it has a soul, in the religious context. When we think of this as a person is the next question.

The point is of course that the religious position is driven by faith alone. Yet they wish to impose this belief on everyone else.

 

[WhoWee]

This isn't about a higher moral position. This is about control.

The higher moral position is intended/assumed to win the argument - and thus control or power - again, where is the disagreement on this? Religion is a weapon used to win the debate.

 

[CAC1001]

Declare when life begins based on faith and legally impose that belief on all women

Both sides go by faith on that issue (although for the Left, not religious faith). There was very little, if anything, scientific about how the SCOTUS decided Roe v Wade.

"When life begins" is classically how it has been phrased - meaning that it has a soul, in the religious context. When we think of this as a person is the next question.

The point is of course that the religious position is driven by faith alone. Yet they wish to impose this belief on everyone else.

Not necessarilly. The strict religious types are against birth control. But there are plenty of pro-life people who are fine with use of birth control. The argument that it is human life at the moment of conception is true. What is not true is that it has human conscience, and thus constitutes being an actual human. An argument often made by pro-choice people is that it is just a "clump of cells" within the womb. This is true for about the first five or six weeks, but after that, is clearly not the case. The first trimester is weeks 1-12, the second trimester weeks 13-27, the third trimeste weeks 28-42 (these trimesters being decided by the justices on the Court). At week five alone, you have a basic beating heart and circulatory system developed. By week 8, you have a more developed heart, webbed fingers and toes, and arms that bend at the elbows (again, first trimester still).

Most pro-life people at this point say it is clearly a child, pro-choice people will differ depending on how far their views lean. Roe v Wade says for the first trimester, states cannot restrict abortion in any way. States can "restrict" abortion during the second trimester in terms of requiring it be done by licensed doctors at licensed medical facilities, but otherwise cannot place undue burden on the woman's choice to have an abortion. Third trimester, the states can restrict abortion, but any restriction must have an exception for the health of the mother. In Doe v Bolton health was defined so broadly that pretty much any reason given for an abortion is considered as requiring an exception for the woman's health, so basically the states were prohibited from restricting abortion in all three trimesters.

This is a baby at 13 weeks: http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-13-weeks

IMO, I think both sides (pro-life and pro-choice) go to extremes in their views, but both have points as well.

 

[Evo]

The higher moral position is intended/assumed to win the argument - and thus control or power - again, where is the disagreement on this? Religion is a weapon used to win the debate.

But when you pit religion against reality, religion loses.

Can we return to the topic?

 

[CAC1001]

Should religion be combined with politics?

Nope. But IMO what society should also watch for are claims that religion is being injected into politics when it isn't necessarilly.

What I also find interesting is how does one address religions that aren't officially religions, such as extreme environmentalism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The higher moral position is intended/assumed to win the argument - and thus control or power - again, where is the disagreement on this? Religion is a weapon used to win the debate.

If it were only a political weapon it wouldn't bother me. So I don't see that as the issue here. If we agree on this then the point seems trivial. The issue is what people intend to do with that power. Liberal don't plan to ban religion, the last time I checked.

By saying it's a weapon, you seem to suggest that is only a political tool, and I don't see it that way. The imposition of religious based laws on everyone else is the goal. Faith based arguments are one means to this end but that is not the concern.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not necessarilly.

Any religious argument here invokes the notion of a soul, which is completely a faith-based argument. I didn't say anything about pro-life generally. As I did say, when we consider this a person, is another matter.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I assume that any person who is religious is most likely going to make decisions based on that view point just as I assume that any person subscribing to any philosophy is going to make decisions based on that view point.

The root conundrum would seem to be whether or not we require any justifiability for decisions and opinions. If the majority of people think that something is "wrong" do we ask them to justify this opinion or are they allowed to possesses their opinion regardless of their ability to justify it? As a practical matter we can not require justification, at least not in politics. People will believe what they believe and make decisions based on this no matter whether its religion they believe in or something else. To actually require justification would be to take away their rights unless they can satisfy whom ever is in charge.

To answer the questions...

"Should religion be combined with politics? Should laws be made according to religious viewpoints?"

It will happen and the only way to stop it is to take people's rights away. I am against taking people's rights away. While I do not consider these to be things which "should" be done I will not say that they "should not" be done.

 

[Astronuc]

A timely article - A hot issue on the campaign trail: theology
http://news.yahoo.com/hot-issue-campaign-trail-theology-070610355.html

I think it is a matter of whether or not an individual is ideologically compatible with the electorate, or majority thereof.

 

[MarcoD]

But when you pit religion against reality, religion loses.

I am sorry, but this just isn't true. As an example, which is believed by some Jehova Christians and some conservative Islamists, the reason why the western world lives in a 'moral void' is because we worship false idols (rationality/capitalism) instead of the truth as depicted in a book which holds the real Absolute truth, the word of God.

There is no manner in which you can reasonably win a debate against -any- conservative religious person. At best, you can exchange ideas and hope that you're not being lied to.

EDIT: This was overly pessimistic. The best you can do is find a common ground.

 

[WhoWee]

But when you pit religion against reality, religion loses.

Can we return to the topic?

My entire post number 39:
"My intent wasn't to derail the thread. As stated, I think religion is a weapon of choice by both sides in the political debate. The right tries to achieve a higher moral position with it and the left typically tries to belittle the right by challenging on the basis of lack of proof. It's a tiresome game that can't be "fixed" - IMO."

Btw Ivan (post number 29) - "But the entire point of doing what's best for the country is to do what's best for the people. And executing people for human weakness, or human nature, is hardly in the interest of the people. And to do so certainly wouldn't be "right" by any standard that I could accept. But then I was raised Catholic, so maybe that's just my former religion speaking. "
Did you just use religion to take a higher moral position?