Religion and politics.

Remove all ads!

The left side always bitches about the Church's sexual ethics being so disruptive on the younger generation, even in supposedly conservative Christian countries. Teaching that homosexual acts are wrong is called spreading hate. Telling kids within the Church that 13 year olds shouldn't really be sexually active is called backwards. And so on and so forth. The thing is that the Church's preaching acts on people's conscience and even without any legal pressure people feel the need to "liberate" themselves, making one group in the left side's electorate of those who want that voice silenced.

Plus, see what happens when a ranking cleric preaches publicly against abortion, homosexual marriage etc. If he preaches against the morality but not legality of it, then he's labelled as backwards, 19th century, hating bigot etc. If he preaches against it being legal but leaves the right/wrong side relatively alone, then he's labelled as a political meddler.

ERGO: Some politicians and social activists won't be happy until the Church starts speaking like "we respectfully submit that abortion is perhaps not fully agreeable on the moral level, with respect to your progressive and tolerant contrary beliefs"... Blaaah. When you see me posting like that, give me some Vi... Vicodin.

 

Thanks, guys, for this splendid piece of entertainment!

Rallymama said:

This may be the current PC interpretation from the religious softies, but it was not the point RuneQuester was trying to get at. If the Bible was given by God himself, then there was this time Gnarfflinger describes as kindergarten during which God in His Might demanded his faithful to kill them other suckers. Good and hard. This was with god, not isolated from him.

This is witty and I like it very much. It doesn't contribute to the solution of the logical dilemma religion (and especially christianity) is facing, though. But of course, surely this matter is not as serious as some people seem to believe it is.

Gnarfflinger wrote:

It's a good thing you kept that insight hidden in all your previous posts - we would have missed a highly entertaining exchange otherwise. Love and kisses, man!

Since chevalier gave up in the face of reason, there's only Gnarfflinger left in claiming that religion has to be political and everyone disagreeing with this is denying the church the right to speak.

The general idea is that since morality touches all aspects of life, religion deals with morality and politics deals with life, there is a natural overlap between these two. However, I don't see how religion came first and held an inherent claim over this common ground which was then invaded by politics. What Morgoroth said before.

Don't forget that religion is just a tool, as well as politics. Each has to be used wisely (if at all ). Politics is subject to objective measurements (like general health of population, average age, gross domestic product, etc.) and is oriented towards the outside accordingly. Your behaviour towards others, really.

Religion is a purely subjective thing. It is directed inwards, how you feel with yourself and how you superimpose a higher might over your little life. What I don't get is: why the need to point your fingers? Live your life and leave us be. Your life is certainly not for the worse or the better if you know about someone who is engaging in carnal matters. It's his loss, isn't it? Feel elated about your salvation and stick to your mates.

The saddest thing is when religious people start talking about love. "God is all about love." C'mon. If you had ever felt the way I feel towards my loved ones, you would never ever say something as stupid as this. Loving a concept vs. loving a human being. Sad.

 

This really depends how you preach it. The Church is not immune from the law, but as long as they don't preach against the law it would be allright.

Not even the left in here thinks that a 13 year old should be sexually active. Personally I was taught about sex in school the first time when I was 13 year old. The point of that education is not really to encourage you to have sex, the point is that if and when you have sex it's ultimately your choice and you better be aware of the risks you take before you jump into it.

Just as there are priests who can't accept defending homosexuality there are bound to be politicians who can't accept speaking against it.
I'm not much for labeling people, it's allways idiotic no matter what the case is. To call a woman who just had an abortion a murderer is just as stupid as calling a priest preaching against it a 19th century hating bigot.

Some religious activists won't be happy until we ban homosexuality alltogether, so it all goes both ways as usual. Anyway I would not want either, but I would prefer that the Church stays on a moral level without moving to the legal or political level.

 

Gnarfflinger:

Cannot respond to you unless we start a new thread and besides, you didn't read or didn't understand my previous replies so I would have been repeating myself mostly anyways.


@Rallymama: Duly noted. I Should have worded that differently.(oh and I did not seek to reolve said dillemma by turning to atheism ).

 

There are some politicians that want to pass laws that contradict the church's stance on moral issues, laws which threaten their rights to uphold these morals. In Canada, there is already a law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the proposed legislation legalizing same sex marriages is enacted, then the first time a Catholic Priest or Mormon Bishop refuses to perform such a ceremony, they can be accused of this. Technically they are guilty, and could be co-erced towards performing these marriages in God's name, despite their teachings about Homosexuality. This is percieved as an attack.

I thought that point was being ignored by those that didn't agree with other things I was saying...

For years, Politics didn't overtly contradict Religeon. Now that certain issues have been brought to the forefront (abortion, same sex marriage), religeon is speaking out to defend their stance, and what is believed to be God's stance. If you're going to deny religeon the right to speak, then why should other groups have that right? I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

It's a tool of those opposed to Religeous involvement in politics to discredit the Religeous. Nothing more than mud slinging. Kind of pathetic on their part. They claim they want a rational discussion, but refuse to accept other beliefs. Religeon, on the other hand, make no pretence of wanting a debate, only to accept their beliefs.

I accept this, but only ask that both sides be allowed to speak.

Matthew 7:1 says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." That's telling me that it's not my place to get in the face of a woman who's just had an abortion and call her a murderer. It's also not the place of the liberals to call the religeous backwards. The second verse in that chapter of Matthew goes on to tell us that the way we judge others will be the same way others judge us. hence, name calling and finger pointing really don't solve anything.

I can accept that it shouldn't be illegal, but I also don't want the politicians elected to represent me to say that it's okay either when I clearly believe otherwise. I would prefer that politicians stay out of that debate. When politicians start championing views opposed to the church, the church will speak. That is their job.

Likewise, I humoured you in attacking the credibility of religeon for a time hoping it would be relevent to this discussion. I feel that you have ignored my main points to continue to speak out against religeon.

 

How indeed. Look at the issue of prayer in school: How is it that every session of congress is opened with a prayer from the Senate Chaplin? Or the House with their own religious services? Yet, it's not good enough for our children in their schools.

I mean, how is it that out of necessity the politicians about to do the nation's work feel they have to bow their heads, but it's not constitutional in our classrooms for our children to do the same? The biggest battleground has been our schools. Yet almost every other major institution in America observes a "moment of silence," if not outright prayer? It's not just illogical, it's pure politics, plain and simple.

 

What I get out of Gnarfflinger's redundant posts is that there are still a lot of misunderstandings. Deliberate at times? Whatever.

First of all: although many here - including me up to a certain point - would appreciate churches to be silent on some matters, there are some points you shouldn't forget.

1. Disagreement is not the same as denying someone the right to speak. Likewise, to emphasise on the separation of church and state is not the same as dictating the church what to teach.
2. Voting for a specific candidate (or rather a specific party) who's aligned with your beliefs doesn't automatically result in a government that's aligned with your beliefs.
3. A debate is about reason and listening to each other. Gnarfflinger admits that there is no wish on the celestial side to debate. Anyone besides me finds this irritating? Thought so...

This I don't understand:

Could this possibly be true? I rather doubt it. Perhaps it is a bit different in Canada, so feel free to provide the draft law in question. All debates concerning same sex marriages I have ever followed affect the mundane part exclusively. It is centered around taxes, the right to adopt children, heirship, custodianship and some such.

However, I don't believe there is judicial ground for a law that forces mormon priests to conduct those marriages. Now, if we hadn't a secular marriage but would have to rely on the churches solely, matters would certainly be different.

Perhaps now you see how separation of church and state serves not only the state but the church as well? You can practice your rites without having the slightest impact on non-believers - which I deem a good thing.

Of course, this leaves open the question of homosexual people who have the desire to recieve the sacrament of marriage - but this is off topic (and something I can't really understand anyway).

@Chandos: Do you feel the inconsistent part is on the side of the congress session starting with a prayer or rather on the prayerless classrooms? I could never get the hang of all this openly conducted praying - isn't a prayer an internal matter of each prayee? Man, where did I have my head during my time as an altar boy...

 

There's no way that's going to happen. There is no way that a law stating that same sex marriage is legal would in any way force a Catholic priest to marry a same sex couple. It WOULD require a Justice of the Peace to marry a same sex couple. That's like saying because Jewish weddings are legal, that I could have forced a rabbi to marry me, even though neither I nor my wife is Jewish. The rabbi could have politely declined on the grounds that I am not a member of his faith. Similarly, just because a constitutional amendment stating same sex marriage is legal, would in no way force anyone on a religious level to marry anyone of the same sex.

And when views of the people happen to be opposed to those of the church, our politicians (which are our representatives) will debate. I can agree that perhaps the politician elected to represent you does a poor job at representing your views (maybe you wanted one of his opponents to win). However, saying that politicians should stay out of the debate - that's simply not possible. It is THEIR job to represent the views of the people, so how are they supposed to stay out of it?

 

With the situation. If you wish to have prayer in a public buildings, or public endeavors, then why are schools exempt? Look at the political situation: Conservatives use the school prayer issue to further their own political ends - to prove that liberals are irreligious; liberals use the issue to prove that conservatives wish to create a religious state. Then they all get together in a public building - the Capitol building - and pray together. That makes sense to me.

 

In some matters, it is of little concern to the church, but these matters aren't what we're talking about.

Disagreement implies that both sides have the right to speak. Anyone if free to disagree witht he Church, but all I ask is that they be allowed to speak.

Granted. We're just trying to stack the odds in our favour. I have stated that the Church should not support candidates, only champion issues.

Core Doctrine is given of divine authority (from religeous standpoint). It is not up for debate. Runequester tried to go there, and was chastised for going off topic. We believe that God has given us laws, and that all who wish to return to Him must obey them. Those who do not believe are free to disregard them at their own peril. We simply do not want that which is defined as sin legitimized.

That is the intent of that law, which is on the back burner because of the Minority government in Canada. It has not been passed, but some provinces are already performing Gay Marriages.

The law I'm referring to is another law passed last year that forbids discrimination based on sexual preference. A gay couple could accuse a religeous leader of discrimination for refusing to perform such a marriage. If the wrong judge hears the case, he could find the religous leader guilty of such discrimination.

This will only be good as long as two things happen:

1) Freedom of religeon is absolutely protected.

2) Religeous leaders have the right to preach their doctrine without fear of persecution.

The second includes taking a stand on moral issues, not being forced to fold like a poker player with a lousy hand every time a politician wants to make a law that would not suit the religeous community.

And the Religeous faithful are among those people that they are elected to represent. If you silence the church on moral issues, then you deprive the elected official of the voice of the a portion of the people he is there to represent. If this is done, then the will of the people is not properly debated. Is it still democracy when only some groups are allowed to speak, while others are silenced?

It sounds like both sides placing words in the other's mouth in hopes that the people voting will find those words detestable.

 

Gnarff, there's absolutely no way this could happen. As I said earlier, there are dozens of reasons a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc., can give for refusing to marry someone, and many of those reasons focus on the couple being ill-suited for marriage. That could be because they are members of the same sex, or it could be more of a religious issue. For example, when my wife and I were married in a Catholic church, we had to provide baptismal certificates to show that we were both baptised as Christians. If one of use were baptised they would probably attempt to convert the one that wasn't to Christianity, but if neither of us were baptised and did not wish to be baptised, the priest could have very justifiably refused to marry us. No matter what judge heard that case, a law allowing homosexual marriage or disallowing discrimination on the basis of sexual preference will not force any church to change their policies regarding marriage.

Your representative is there to represent the view of the majority of those in his voting district. I completely do not see how "if you silence the church on moral issues" then it logically follows that "you deprive the elected official of the voice ... he is there to represent." How does silencing the Church prevent the official from representing his consitutents' views? If s/he does not represent your views, I think it is more of a case that your views are not in the majority, moreso than your representative's inability to debate them.

 

No one is seeking to take the right of free speech away from the Church I'm not sure how many times I
have to repeat myself in this.

You just said that you don't want homosexuality banned, still you say that you don't want that which is defined as sin legitimized. So does this mean that homosexual acts should be illegal or not? What about divorce? I guess sex before marriage should be illegal too?

One thing I find funny is that some of the Christian Right allways complain to nations like Iran for their unjust treatment of women and still they themselves wish to ban homosexuality and divorce.

As it should. Discrimination based on sexual preference should definently be illegal. If a priest goes and screams to a gay couple that they can't be married because they are gay and will burn in hell he pretty much deserves to be punished. Instead he could just have politely refused without giving any specific reasons.

I think both of the points above are protected by the constitution in just about every western democracy. So I'm not sure what you are really worried about.

Is anyone here trying the deny the Church the right to adress moral issues? The Church should not be involved in political campaigns and the Church should not be used for political means.

Additionally there are Christian politicians to represent the Church in politics it need not draw itself to the political campaigning. I consider it unethical for religious groups to involve itself in politics. Politics is not why they exist. When they seek to gather political power they are surrendering to the temptation of material power, which is simply wrong for religious organisations.

 

Who gets to decide what "sin" menas, Gnarfflinger? What happens when some religions hold particular practices as sinful and others don't? This ignore, of course, the vast numbers of people out there who don't affiliate themselves with any religion. Why should any one group get to determine what's legal and illegal for everyone?

As I said before, religions have every right to determine what's right and wrong for their own adherents. Just because the secular government allows something to happen doesn't mean that the religious community has to adopt that practice as well.

Think of life as a buffet table. It is every group's right to choose what dishes they'll eat or not eat, and I don't even have a problem with someone saying to me "I don't think you should eat that dish because..." What I will never, ever accept is someone saying, "You can't eat that because I think it's wrong." I give my son more decision-making power than that, and he's not even five yet!

God gave each of us free will, and the intellect necessary to decide for ourselves how to apply that free will. Please have enough respect for the rest of God's creations as to allow us to do exactly as God wishes.

 

Against what law? Against who's law?

I heared something about children born at home. According to some laws in certain states, if I am well informed, that is a 'crime'. The mother should give birth in hospital. Is that correct?

 

@MoN,

Not that I know of - and it would be rather hard to enforce in all situations anyway. What if, for example, someone went into labor during some type of natural disaster - hurricane, flood, blizzard, etc., where the roads were impassible and it was simply not feasible to get to a hospital?

 

Mmh, weird. I heared somebody from NC (North Carolina?) mentioning something like it. Not sure if he ment NC aswell, though.

 

@dmc: The idea about interracial dating being sinful was a misconception. There's not a scrap of text in the Bible to support that. But about same gender dating, the Bible is quite specific, so there's no legitimatising. This doesn't mean that God loves someone any less for being homosexual. Nor even for performing homosexual acts, to be exact, but yes, such acts are abomination to the Lord. I don't want any propaganda saying it's natural. On the other hand, I don't want any yelling at homosexuals and throwing rocks on them, either, even though I don't follow the "live and let live" route and I don't agree to disagree.

 

I remember Pat Robertson back in the 80s saying that AIDS was "God's punishment" on HS. Then heteroes started getting it...so much for God's punishment.