Religion and Politics

Religion and Politics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

KenDckey -> Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 5:29:59 AM)
I was sitting here comtemplating some of the arguments that I have seen and heard on the affect that religion has/should have on the political races. I remember that when JFK was running the fear was that the pope would run the country. A big deal seems, at least to me, that because of religion, Obama, Romney and Bush are all criticized. It is almost to the point, my opinion, that if a candidate has a religious background that they aren't qualified to run a country. I personally don't understand what the problem is. Therefore I would ask that someone explain it to me.

LadyHathor -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 5:34:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I was sitting here comtemplating some of the arguments that I have seen and heard on the affect that religion has/should have on the political races. I remember that when JFK was running the fear was that the pope would run the country. A big deal seems, at least to me, that because of religion, Obama, Romney and Bush are all criticized. It is almost to the point, my opinion, that if a candidate has a religious background that they aren't qualified to run a country. I personally don't understand what the problem is. Therefore I would ask that someone explain it to me. Our founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state for a reason---democracy must be blind to religion, though one could argue that spiritual leanings guide one to the benefit of humanity----I for one do not believe that mention of one's religion has a place in speeches about the ability to lead a country--that's like saying boxers or briefs---what does that have to do with war or no war?

KenDckey -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 5:44:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHathor Our founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state for a reason---democracy must be blind to religion, though one could argue that spiritual leanings guide one to the benefit of humanity----I for one do not believe that mention of one's religion has a place in speeches about the ability to lead a country--that's like saying boxers or briefs---what does that have to do with war or no war? So does this mean that the moral makeup of a candidate, which I believe is the basis of their character not important?

Foititis -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 5:55:02 AM)
I find it down right hypocritical when people make decisions about a politician based on their 'moral character'. I'd take the guy who cheats on his wife, sleeps with a man, doesn't believe in god that has sensible policies over a crazy religious nutter who is 'a man of moral fiber'.

Sanity -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Foititis ...a crazy religious nutter who is 'a man of moral fiber'. You can't possibly mean Barack Obama. Can you? quote: Obama stopped in Idaho, where caucuses offer a mere 18 delegates on Tuesday, and he worked to reassure Westerners on two fronts. "I've been going to the same church for more than 20 years, praising Jesus," he told an audience in Boise, warning his listeners not to believe e-mails that falsely say he is a Muslim. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=Ar2ZEW6ggNpk7znErlO8_EQEtbAF

KenDckey -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:06:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Foititis I find it down right hypocritical when people make decisions about a politician based on their 'moral character'. I'd take the guy who cheats on his wife, sleeps with a man, doesn't believe in god that has sensible policies over a crazy religious nutter who is 'a man of moral fiber'. So does this mean that anyone who has a religious belief, not otherwise specified, a "crazy regligious nutter?" Most of the things that you mentioned I would agree with you on, as long as he had the moral fiber to admit it and not lie about it.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:08:16 AM)
Morals do not just mean "Christian Morals". Morals are just what a person sees as right and wrong. Morals are based upon what a person sees as virtues. Virtues are the goals we wish to attain, morals are how we see right and wrong, ethics are the rules by which we fulfill our morals and attain our virtues. These may or may not be based upon religion. If a politician does not have honesty as a virtue, and is honest in their dealing as a moral, then how can you believe anything they say they will do? quote: ORIGINAL: Foititis I find it down right hypocritical when people make decisions about a politician based on their 'moral character'. I'd take the guy who cheats on his wife, sleeps with a man, doesn't believe in god that has sensible policies over a crazy religious nutter who is 'a man of moral fiber'.

Aneirin -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:23:15 AM)
Religion is a personal belief, and so should be kept out of politics, fair enough a person's spirituality might influence a decision, but I do not want to hear that something be done because God, Allah, Zeus told them. Memories of that person Blair talking about his faith, as Prime Minister, and Bush mentioning a crusade after the 9-11 attacks, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Foititis -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:31:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Morals do not just mean "Christian Morals". Your quite right they don't, however when your talking about politicians in western governments and you hear people talk about their moral fibre or lack thereof they are infact referring to the Christian ethic. quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Morals are just what a person sees as right and wrong. Morals are based upon what a person sees as virtues. Virtues are the goals we wish to attain, morals are how we see right and wrong, ethics are the rules by which we fulfil our morals and attain our virtues. These may or may not be based upon religion. I can't really fault you on that. But I will say when we get down to it a persons ethic is oft based society’s expectations of them that are inturn based on laws which are heavily steeped in religious ethic (Christian or otherwise). quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf If a politician does not have honesty as a virtue, and is honest in their dealing as a moral, then how can you believe anything they say they will do? Then again how do you know they won't? All sorts of politicians have made election promises they've no intention of keeping one simply has to hope that they are electing a person who honestly believe their polices are going to change the country for the better that way weather they're a lying bastard or no they won't have any reason not to do what they claim. Kendckey- I'm a staunch atheist so while I won't ever say it to someone's face I do feel that a religious person is essentially a nutter, in that they speak to feel and believe in something that's not there. That however is my personal view that has little to do with the topic at hand and I honestly meant no offence to any religious people who read the thread. Edit- I didn't mean to call you Kenducky

KenDckey -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:41:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Religion is a personal belief, and so should be kept out of politics, fair enough a person's spirituality might influence a decision, but I do not want to hear that something be done because God, Allah, Zeus told them. Memories of that person Blair talking about his faith, as Prime Minister, and Bush mentioning a crusade after the 9-11 attacks, wrong, wrong, wrong. I can pretty much agree with your assessment. Most religions that I have studied have many of the same basic core beliefs anyway. Therefore, for the most part that makes religion a wash. I do believe that one's moral background influence political decisions. For example, abortion. As to whether or not someone believes that their diety has spoken to them. Who Knows. Not me. I figure they are entitled to that belief. Whether they mention it or not to me at least isn't importnat.

LadyHathor -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:41:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHathor Our founding fathers believed in the separation of church and state for a reason---democracy must be blind to religion, though one could argue that spiritual leanings guide one to the benefit of humanity----I for one do not believe that mention of one's religion has a place in speeches about the ability to lead a country--that's like saying boxers or briefs---what does that have to do with war or no war? quote: So does this mean that the moral makeup of a candidate, which I believe is the basis of their character not important? Moral character and religion or spiritual leanings are not one in the same---the prisons are filled with followers of religion----to Me moral character is doing what's right no matter what the religion dictates---I suggest a good reading: Moral Philosophy for Modern Life by Falikowski--it presents the merge of religion and politics and why that happened--and the danger of that as well--its interesting, in a program about Iran, I learned that Iran merged their politics with religion 29 years ago---as a means to gain aide and sympathy---and it has nothing to do with moral character---do not confuse the two as one.

KenDckey -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:44:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Foititis Edit- I didn't mean to call you Kenducky ROFL been called a lot worse. With a name like mine, you grow up with it.

RealityLicks -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey It is almost to the point, my opinion, that if a candidate has a religious background that they aren't qualified to run a country. I personally don't understand what the problem is. Therefore I would ask that someone explain it to me. I think it boils down to certain religious strictures affecting executive decisions. For instance, Tony Blair had long been contemplating becoming a Catholic, like his wife. Unconfirmed rumours suggest that this was partly due to the Anglican Church supporting the ordination of women. Supposing the Archbishop of Canterbury died. As Prime Minister, Blair was responsible for selecting the new Archbishop, who in turn would obviously be instrumental in the Anglicans' backing - or otherwise - of women priests. A secular leader should select the best candidate - but if he were known to hold similar religious views as the person he chose, he would be open to charges of partiality. From the reverse viewpoint, Blair failing to pull the Catholic Church up when it allegedly discriminated during selection of clergy in schools could be put down the fact he was converting to their religion. To keep real or imaginary bias to a minimum, a secular state ought to be led by a secular individual, who maintains a real distance between his/her religious belief and their office or else has none. Personally, I think you could do worse than the Ayatollah Khomeini. And by the looks of it, you have. Boom. You're back in the room.

KenDckey -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 6:51:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHathor Moral character and religion or spiritual leanings are not one in the same---the prisons are filled with followers of religion----to Me moral character is doing what's right no matter what the religion dictates---I suggest a good reading: Moral Philosophy for Modern Life by Falikowski--it presents the merge of religion and politics and why that happened--and the danger of that as well--its interesting, in a program about Iran, I learned that Iran merged their politics with religion 29 years ago---as a means to gain aide and sympathy---and it has nothing to do with moral character---do not confuse the two as one. I think it is more in the intrepretation and application of those learnings. But I understand what you are saying.

LadyEllen -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 7:00:20 AM)
The problem is irreconcilable, assuming it is a problem in every case - and it certainly can be a problem in certain cases. We have this argument about religion and politics all the time in the Asatru religion. Some say that because nazis tend to attach themselves to our holy symbols and elements of our religion (all of which they misunderstand), it is essential that Asatru should not have any political element to it, to avoid this problem element having any voice that might be associated with us. This is the same situation in more mainstream religion (ie Christianity) - that most see huge dangers in allowing those with little understanding to then use their misunderstanding in their pursuit of politics. At the same time though, it is absolutely impossible that our morals, ethics and worldview comprised by our religion could ever be held distinct from our political views. It is natural and inevitable that if we believe from a religious point of view that mankind has a spiritual mission in the cosmos, that we will seek to express this mission in our political views and decisions. And in the mainstream Christian religious environment, it is also then natural that those who subscribe to that religious form will seek to express its aims by way of political support for those who express similar views. Correspondingly, candidates will seek to gain support by allying themselves with those views. Where it becomes a problem is in the fundamental misunderstanding of religion - which is widespread, and in the deliberate manipulation of that misunderstanding by those seeking and holding power, some of whom of late demonstrate the same misunderstanding. E

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 7:18:18 AM)
Politics is basically about pretending you are one of the people and know their concerns and act in a manor they do. Logic dictates that if the nation is secular then political success requires the politician to reflect a secular image of them selves. The opposite is also true obviously. Religion is separate from religion always and politics plays on religious beliefs always.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 7:38:23 AM)
If a man is talking religion he is reaching into your pockets for money, talking about moral fortitude while snorting coke and sleeping with your wife, and claiming that god told him to send your children to die in a resource war in a foreign land. But god told him to, so hands off! He's a man of god... [8\|]

KenDckey -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 7:45:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro If a man is talking religion he is reaching into your pockets for money, talking about moral fortitude while snorting coke and sleeping with your wife, and claiming that god told him to send your children to die in a resource war in a foreign land. But god told him to, so hands off! He's a man of god... I don't think that is quite true either. If it were, then, just by your response, would mean that you are describing yoruself. Least that is my take.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 7:57:26 AM)
I think religion is by far the worst political evil there is in the world. Seriously. A justification of your own barbaric desires in the extreme cases. Does it really matter if the true meaning of religion is good will to all men if it can be misinterpreted to mean non believers must die? Of coarse people are free to believe what they like as long as they don’t spread their beliefs, I think that is fair. I motion that we outlaw the spreading of individual religious beliefs because the word of god surely is so strong it can survive without humans spreading it right? Why does any human need to be a mouthpiece for god anyway? Is this god so weak he needs mere humans to spread his word to one another.

LadyHathor -> RE: Religion and Politics (2/3/2008 7:57:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro If a man is talking religion he is reaching into your pockets for money, talking about moral fortitude while snorting coke and sleeping with your wife, and claiming that god told him to send your children to die in a resource war in a foreign land. But god told him to, so hands off! He's a man of god... I don't think that is quite true either. If it were, then, just by your response, would mean that you are describing yoruself. Least that is my take. *hmmm, I would think more: Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Jim Baker...* *and a great post btw*

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875