|
FirmhandKY -> RE: hang on a mo... (6/18/2011 6:57:32 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Yeah the republican party. As far as the morality of abortion, that is a debate I no longer enter into. If someone has such an extreme view on an issue, that does not provide for common welfare of the citizens, I consider it illogical to have it as a primary reason to vote or not vote for someone, but that again is personal opinion.
Religious views are moral/ethical views, but often religion takes it beyond what most may consider a reasonable conclusion. I have as yet not seen very many ethical people in office, or wield power. There are a few exceptions, but most of them did not remain politicians for very long.
As far as campaign promises, the last time I saw a contract that many people bought into, it was a "Contract with America" and none of those that signed it lived up to the agreement. You are correct, these contracts are no more than a publicized campaign promise that will likely not be met.
Religion should never mix with politics, and politics should not mix with religion. When they do you often have corruption of power.
Thanks, O.
Some points that I'll pass by, some I agree with (basically) and some I find interesting and indicative of part of the problem with this entire debate.
Again, not trying to personalize the abortion debate, but using your post to point out certain assumptions that often bother me in this debate. If you feel I have misconstrued or taken your words out of context, please correct me.
In this phrase: "If someone has such an extreme view on an issue, that does not provide for common welfare of the citizens, I consider it illogical to have it as a primary reason to vote or not vote for someone ...", I find a couple of contradictions. Or at least grounds for further questioning and discussion.
First, it seems that you are equating an "extreme view" with the belief that "abortion is immoral"? Or that someone who has the view that "abortion=murder", and therefore their attempts to lessen it through our legal, democratic means is somehow not seeking to "provide for common welfare of the citizens" by saving those lives?
If these are your beliefs, how can you justify them, other than you disagree with them politically, and therefore attack them on other grounds (imposition of your religion!) in order to "impose" your own personal "moral beliefs"?
If this is what you are doing, then I'd argue that this is the exact same thing that you claim that they are doing: attempting to impose your moral beliefs on others through the political and legal processes of our government.
Second, the sentence "Religion should never mix with politics, and politics should not mix with religion. When they do you often have corruption of power.", depending on how it is interpreted can be either right or wrong.
I believe that the mixing of organized, bureaucratic organizations of religion and politics are a Very Bad Thing. The gaining of direct political power by religious organizations, in which a position of authority within a religious organization confers direct political, secular power isn't good for a free and open society (although the Brits monarchy's place in the Church of England, as it currently stands would make for some interesting discussions ... ahhh, another thread ....).
However, if you accept that religions are a strong factor in the formation of moral views, and that moral views of the citizens have a place in the democratic political equation of the formation of laws, then I believe that the "lack of separation" does not, and should not necessarily be condemned. In fact, the formation of laws without consideration of their morality is the antithesis of good government.
Finally, I would simply disagree that the "Republican party has been captured by religious zealots" in all it's forms and arguments. (another damn thread!)
Firm
|
|
|
|
