SHould politics and religion mix?

[Halifax]

With the huge rise of the Pentecostal movement in Australia and the success the Family First Party (a conservative Australian Christian party) had on the last Australian election, I pondered the effect religion has on politics, and visa versa.

The title of the thread says it all: should politics and religion mix? Personally, I find it disgusting that politicians would use religion to suit their own gain and manipulate scriptures to justify their actions.

I would love to hear your responses.

 

[BVS]

Your faith and moral system should guide you to certain extent but religion should NEVER come into hand when politics is concerned.

 

[indra]

While I don't expect politicians to leave their personal beliefs at home when they are working, I also don't want their personal beliefs imposed on me (I'm sure they wouldn't want mine imposed on them either). I want them to understand that religious views are not something to be imposed on a secular populace.

So I guess that's a no.

 

[unosdostres14]

Politics and religion should NEVER mix. When a president is making decisions, you should not be able to tell (by the decisions he/she makes) if she is old, young, black, white, hispanic, asian, gay, straight, muslim, christian, hindu, jew. You should not be able to tell. Only then do you know that this person is making decisions based on what he/she feels is right for the nation.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

While I don't expect politicians to leave their personal beliefs at home when they are working, I also don't want their personal beliefs imposed on me (I'm sure they wouldn't want mine imposed on them either). I want them to understand that religious views are not something to be imposed on a secular populace.

So I guess that's a no.

. What indra said .

Angela

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't think there is anything wrong with having faith-based beliefs guide your everyday decisions, political or not. However, I'd object to a theocracy, which is far from what we have here in the States, regardless of this term being used to exaggerate a strong secular point of view. A democracy is all about being governed by the people, and standing for what they as a whole believe in, and there is no way to please EVERYBODY. If the majority have a stance, so be it. If it isn't forcing religion, then it's fine.

 

[learn2kneel]

Our founding fathers sure thought so. Their views wouldn't really be socially acceptable these days tho. They did agree that ONE religion/denomination shouldn't run the whole show, but they certainly also based many of their political stances and laws on their Christian worldview.

 

[foray]

I live in a country where it does mix, and it's a hindrance more than anything. A mature govt would have more faith in people.

foray

 

[Axver]

Politics and religion should NEVER mix. When a president is making decisions, you should not be able to tell (by the decisions he/she makes) if she is old, young, black, white, hispanic, asian, gay, straight, muslim, christian, hindu, jew. You should not be able to tell. Only then do you know that this person is making decisions based on what he/she feels is right for the nation.

I totally agree.

When governing a diverse society, I believe all decisions should be religiously neutral.

 

[Do Miss America]

Our founding fathers sure thought so. Their views wouldn't really be socially acceptable these days tho. They did agree that ONE religion/denomination shouldn't run the whole show, but they certainly also based many of their political stances and laws on their Christian worldview.

You might want to check your history again. Many of our founding fathers were Unitarians and didn't believe they should mix.

 

[learn2kneel]

I understand that many of the founding fathers were Unitarians and accepted many ways to get to heaven, but they still accepted that the general principles on which America acheived independance were those of Christianity. Although many of them were Deists or Unitarians and rejected the divinity of Jesus, they still accepted the teachings of Chrisitianity and implemented them into their politics. I agree with Macphistowannabe about faith-based beliefs and I think thats what they used to guide them, which is something I think that leaders today would take criticisim from doing.

 

[Irvine511]

i would say that it is belief in God, as opposed to subscribing to a particular religion, that did become the basis of the constitution -- it is because all human beings come from the same spiritual orgin, call that God, that we are then endowed with inalienable rights, we are all equal in the eyes of god, the shepard smelling of sheep shit can point to the pharaoh and spit out the revlutionary idea that in the eyes of god the two men are equal, etc. at its core, belief in God should be tantamount to existentialist notions of freedom -- that we are free to do whatever we want, we are masters of our own destiny.

therefore, it stands that we are entitled to a government based upon notions of human equality rather than landed gentry and aristocracy. it also stands to reason -- as beings empowered with the freedom that comes with the base assumption of equality stemming from a common point of origin -- that such a government of the people, by the people, and for the people must necessarily be separated from religion and God -- government is a human creation, not a spritual one, and it must be administered by humans, and the surest way to abuse is through those who are in power to begin to claim knowledge of Truth or of a direct line to God or that God has specific viewpoints.

and we're seeing that in the Republican party right now, this very instant. don't kid yourselves -- a president who doesn't think anyone who doesn't believe in his God can be president, and a speaker of the House who doesn't believe in the very basic assumption i've detailed above.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

There's that whole thing going on in the Senate now, w/ Senator Frist and the filibuster thing. I don't know all the details, but it's something to do w/ him attending some sort of conference where they're talking about filibusters being used "against people of faith".

That's just bizarre

 

[verte76]

My country, the United States, is supposed to be secular. There shouldn't be any religion in the state apparatus. Unfortunately, these days there's a heck of alot of religion in politics, and I'm not liking it.

 

[Angela Harlem]

When there exists a religion that can encompass the needs and wants of an entire society, sure, why not. But politics on it's own has difficulty enough in achieving this, so adding one more dimension of exclusion and conflict for groups in society is narrowing, not encompassing, as I think politics needs to be so it cannot work and cannot be accepted on the whole as a good idea.

 

[nbcrusader]

It has been touched on before, but there is an aspect of religion that cannot and should not be removed from politics - that is the moral compass of the individual politician.

Should a religion/denomination/church/temple/mosque control a country's agenda? No.

But when we elect an individual, we should know their moral compass and the belief system under which they operate.

 

[Irvine511]

It has been touched on before, but there is an aspect of religion that cannot and should not be removed from politics - that is the moral compass of the individual politician.

Should a religion/denomination/church/temple/mosque control a country's agenda? No.

But when we elect an individual, we should know their moral compass and the belief system under which they operate.

i absolutely agree.

however, to what degree do we allow our elected official to reference their personal belief systems as reasons for why they vote they way they do and why the support certain pieces of legislation?

is it acceptable for a politican to say something to the effect of, "i, as a christian, cannot support the invasion of iraq because illegal wars are unacceptable to what i believe to be the teachings of jesus christ"?

 

[nickypiemcg]

As far as I am concerned religion gets far too much respect by politicians. They just seem to be afraid of offending people. I would vote for a politician who came out and said that people are free to practise whatever religion they please BUT there is no evidence that any major religion is anything but myth. We should work on the basis that religion is not true. The state should be entirely secular and it makes me uneasy to see religion having such an influence in American politics. I mean if you look at religion objectively in our age of science you'd say it was nonsense.

 

[nbcrusader]

is it acceptable for a politican to say something to the effect of, "i, as a christian, cannot support the invasion of iraq because illegal wars are unacceptable to what i believe to be the teachings of jesus christ"?

Absolutely. It is our responsibility to draw this type of position out during the election process.

In fact, I would have a greater deal of comfort in (i) knowing the religious convictions of a politician and (ii) knowing that they held a strong influence in their life. I believe it brings a greater level of consistency and certaintly in how they will lead in office.

 

[financeguy]

Though I believe in separation of church and state, I'm increasingly starting to think that much of the foundation of the structure of our belief system within liberal democracies is based on religious principles anyway.

Also as NBCrusader said we are entitled to know about the moral compass/value systems of politicians.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

is it acceptable for a politican to say something to the effect of, "i, as a christian, cannot support the invasion of iraq because illegal wars are unacceptable to what i believe to be the teachings of jesus christ"?

Sure, why not? If you censor politicians too much, you may never know what's in their hearts.

 

[Irvine511]

Absolutely. It is our responsibility to draw this type of position out during the election process.

In fact, I would have a greater deal of comfort in (i) knowing the religious convictions of a politician and (ii) knowing that they held a strong influence in their life. I believe it brings a greater level of consistency and certaintly in how they will lead in office.

interesting ... agreed that such things would come out in the electoral process, but i have the opposite opinion, and that's why i chose a christian justification for what we would call a "liberal" position. anyone who points to any religious text as justification for policy would not get my vote, republican or democrat. i do believe fiercely in the secularlization of politics and policy, by operating on the possible and the practical. while there's no question that religious beliefs -- should one even hold them to begin with -- can and should influence on an individual level, the referencing of scripture (bible, torah, koran, teachings of the buddah, etc.) be it in a campaign speech, on the floor of Congress, or in an interview as a piece of evidence for conviction, to me, would probably make that candidate unacceptable to me. i am thoroughly uncomfortable with the assumption of inerrancy of scripture, and the assumption that said politician has understood said scripture, on the part of those to whom we have given power to govern out society.

but that's just me.