Politics & Religion, where do we draw the line?

Remove all ads!

As the title says; Where do we draw the line between politics and religion? Joe Drum is a devout Church goer, tithes and sincerely leads his life according to the tenets of his faith. When he votes or express a political opinion it is highly influenced by his religious beliefs.

Ann Scram is also a dedicated Church goer but her church is very liberal. Her opinions and voting preferences are also influenced by her religious beliefs.

Nation leader Jack Dump is a devout fundamentalist. He is also influenced by his religious beliefs.

Nation leader Ikbu Shadel is a devout Muslim. He is also influenced by his religious beliefs.

Nation leader Adalen Tramentern is a convinced atheist. No religion for him.

Can we separate our religious beliefs from our political actions and beliefs? And if we do separate the two is this being hypocritical?

 

In my opinion the answer of this question is the next best thing after the invention of the wheel. I find relegion dangerous because people loose the broader picture whit it. Basic human right conflict whit relegion, but that is old news.

I really hope that people understand what relegion is for. It is personal, not public

 

I don't know if we honestly can keep our religious beliefs aside, but imo we should at least try to. That religion influences our perceptions is a given, but that does not mean that it should be included in the formal structures of the state.

To me, a closer union of state and church gives the state a dangerous increse in powers: to mandate not only what is tolerable in society, but also what is moral. This is dangerous on two counts: first, a state that tries to mandate morality is more likely to stiffle dissent, and second, morality itself is likely to become a tool for partisan struggless and bickering. Therefore, I would prefer to see the two structures separate and I believe that it is, indeed, the better road to pursue. If a member of the clergy decides to enter the world of politics or a politician wishes to join the clergy, that is their choice - as long as they play by the rules in the field they have chosen.

 

Agreed. Unfortunately this seems to be much harder for people to do than it would seem. At the level of the individual some devout people (regardless of the religion) will attempt to sway others to their point of view. The problem (or good thing, depending on how you look at it) is that they very often do it because they truly believe they are right, and that they are doing you a favor by opening your eyes to their truth. Being an atheist, I've had three friends, all of the same religion (not going to say which one because I don't want to avoid making sweeping generalisations), try to convince me to convert to their religion, or even to any of the monotheistic ones, and it was obvious they truly believed I would be a better man for it. It's hard to describe my reaction - on the one hand I was tempted to tell them "pike off", on the other hand they never came across as trying to force a decision on me, rather they seemed really genuinely concerned about my well-being.

Now if you take this at the level of the state then you have a completely different case. States don't come to you and have a chat with you to sway you to their point of views. States pass laws that say this is legal, that is not. When said laws are being made to fit one particular religion then you have a problem, because chances are some of these laws will infringe on another religious group's rights/freedom/belief (or whatever you want to call it), at the individual level. This is what we have in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and (to a lesser extent) Iran, as well as quite a few countries with islamic regimes. Then again you find the same in countries where christianity is the state religion. Or Judaism. The same can even hold true for atheist states - look at how the USSR and China banned individuals from exercising their faiths. Atheism can, in a way, become as fanatical as religions can when taken to such extreme.

Again I fully agree, but considering that in almost all cases the union comes from either the clergy or people who are close to the clergy being in power, it's hard to imagine the separation happening. Take Saudi Arabia as probably one of the most extreme examples. The ruling family depend on the clergy to stay in power and crush their people. Can you imagine them accepting to let go of their power (and their money) in the interest of their people? It's sadly never going to happen.

 

One thing I have noticed in my own religious experience, is that we believe our ethical teachings are best for all, and believe that society as a whole would benefit if everyone made an effort to live a similar, if not exact moral code. As such, a number of them would support the one with the most favourable moral backing in the campaign. If the Aethiest were to oppose same sex marriage (regardless of reason), support the right to life and is tough on crime, the religious may support that if they disagree with the other candidates...

Just because a candidate holds a certain faith doesn't get the majority of the religious voters. Further, Religion is not the only criterion on which a candidate is to be supported. If he is clueless on how to support an economy, then he's not likely to get in...

 

You never know before they're president, though. At most, you can look at his/her record so far, but even that may be a misleading factor. So far I've yet to see a candidate clueless enough to reply to a "Do you have the qualifications to lead our country/economy/army?" with a "Uhm, not really."

Besides, in most cases it's not the president that matters, but the team s/he's working with. Good advisors whom the boss is smart enough to follow can make even a numbskull successful, and incompetent/corrupt administrators can foil a potentially great president.

 

It's unavoidable that political positions be influenced by religious values. A person, voter or elected official is going to support specific programs based on how well they fit with that person's overall morality, which is largely shaped by religion. I don't care if a candidate says, "I'm against abortion because I think life starts at conception." I may still vote for that candidate *IF* s/he agrees with me in enough other areas. However, a candidate who says, "My church says abortion is evil so it should be illegal" makes me run screaming in the other direction.

 

Rallymama and I are on the same page. I cannot imagine having my personal political decisions uninfluenced by my faith. For that very reason I want no governmental involvement in religion. I recall chilling childhood experiences of public school religious indoctrination that sent me home sobbing more than once. The intertwining of church and state becomes lethal to religion and eventually to the state. But religion as personal guide to moral life and decisions must impact personal political decisions, IMHO.

 

It is probably unreasonable to expect politicians to not support their own moral positions/those of their religion. Those are the sorts of things that they generally get elected to implement anyway (in America and other highly religious countries, at least).

Unfortunately, the results of this generally suck for people who don't believe in that particular brand of sky fairy. There really isn't any way of preventing it short of a complete restructuring the system.

 

I have argued about this plenty of times on these forums and Rally summed it up quite well. While individuals are free to have their opinions I'd rather not have religious institutions in themselves getting involved in politics. It's one thing to preach that abortion is wrong and it's another thing to preach that voting for someone who supports abortion is wrong.

 

But look at this logically:

If a religion teaches that Abortion is wrong, then opposing abortion must be right. Even where the religions does not come right out and say it, they still imply that they would prefer the candidate that opposes abortion...

 

Gnarff, the conclusion you draw doesn't automatically fall out of your assumption. Someone who thinks abortion is wrong won't likely have one, but may believe even more strongly in the individual's right of self-governance and therefore thinks that the option should be available in a safe but limited manner. It's a matter or relative prioritization of concerns, which is going to be shaped by many things, religious beliefs among them.

And thus are we returned to the topic at hand BEFORE we derail into a discussion of abortion. Sorry, I should have chosen a less controversial example - maybe gun control? How about health care, or dealing with illegal immigrants?

 

i'm still kinda confused how any man can take a stand on abortion other than "why in the he!! are you asking me? do i look like i can get pregnant?"

 

Because the opinion of many in the pro-life crowd is that abortion is wrong not because some church says so, but because it kills a baby. In the opinions of many (myself included, here), the right of the child to live should supercede the right of its mother to choose; and while I don't believe that life begins at conception, I believe it starts soon enough after.

[tangent]Contrary to popular belief, all birth control except condoms, tubal ligations, vasectomies, "Uh, don't worry, I'll pull out!" and the extraordinarily successful (at getting you pregnant) Rhythm method blocks implantation, not conception. In other words, if you believe that life starts at conception, more than just abortion is unethical. Since most birth control stops implantation rather than conception, it would be seen as equal to abortion by one who views conception as the start of life.[/tangent]

 

This thread was NOT started to be an argument regarding abortion or any other issue except the politics and religion one. Please stay on topic. Can a person separate his/her religious beliefs from political beliefs/practices?

 

I'm going to vehemently disagree with this and state that why a religion says something is wrong is far more important. If "my church says no" is the best reason you can come up with for passing a law, then it shouldn't be passed. Religions ban lots of things that you wouldn't want to see banned by law. Homosexuality is quite clearly banned under pretty much every Judeo-Christian faith (still carrying a death sentence just as prescribed in the old testament and Koran in many countries that don't have separation of church and state), but whatever anyone here thinks about homosexuality, I doubt anyone wants to see our legal system wasting even a single dime enacting or enforcing sodomy laws. The last thing we need is for government to pass laws governing bedroom behavior, taking the Lord's name in vain, or lying (other than the harmful lying like libel, fraud, etc that the government already bans).

The ultimate point, here, is that laws exist not to enforce the moral edicts of the many or the few, but to protect the rights and safety of the individual. Murder isn't illegal because some faith says it's immoral. It's illegal because taking my life violates my civil rights. Theft is illegal not because it's immoral, but because taking my stuff violates my rights. Traffic laws exist, likewise, not to place arbitrary limits on drivers, but to protect everyone on the road from the danger that occurs when people drive too quickly or too recklessly, since breaking my stuff, even through negligence, is still a violation my rights.

 

The second sentence basically says it all. Our belief system (whatever system that may be) shapes who we are. And for someone to try to hide what he or she is just for the sake of politics is hypocritical. If I'm going to support someone who is, oh let's say, a worshipper of the godess Paris Hilton, I'd like to know that fact beforehand.

 

Sure, but there's a difference between being religious and passing the edicts of your faith into law. Jimmy Carter is a southern baptist minister, yet he never once tried to pass a law banning drinking, profanity, taking the lord's name in vain, adultery, sodomy...does that fact make him a hypocrite?

 

That's NOT the reason the Candidate will give for supporting the law. In the example, given, the candidate is not waving a bible and denouncing the practice, but giving a more constitution based arguement for the imperative to protect the right of the unborn child. Perhaps it is a strategy to court the evangelicals, but there will be more than just a "Because God said so" behind it. The religious organizations may then tailor their sermons to the issue, putting a spiritual spin in the issue, but it will keep the issue fresh in the mind of the public when they hear the politician.

Religion doesn't write the laws, but they can have their influence...

I would assume that Mitt Romney would have to do that. Considering what is presented about him, it is assumed that he is a full tithe payer (10% of all income). I don't see him reducing the tax rate to that...

But there are incidences where enforcing a religious view on an issue is just impractical. Int eh Mitt Romeny thread, T2Bruno brought up prohibition. I'm not sure what religion was behind that, it was a total flop. Therefore, there is some seperation...

 

You'd be surprised, Gnarff. Need I point out the number of politicians who don't believe in evolution and want to see creationism taught in science class, given equal footing with evolution? Who want to require prayer in schools? Who want to make homosexuality illegal? Whatever (false) reasons they give, they most assuredly are not constitutional.

Abortion is another issue entirely, and I wasn't attacking it specifically (especially since I, myself, am pro-life). That said, a surprising number of people are pro-life not because they actually gave the issue some thought, but because it's part of the doctrine of their churches.