Poll: Religion out of Politics?

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Which Creator? Yours, the Hindus, the Mugube Pygmies of Mozambique? I can't understand how you can believe that we should have to follow the beliefs of ancient Sheepherders in the Middle East

..Unless it's the lives of brown people in the Middle East

I would trust a conservative Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist to make fair and moral decisions much more than I would a liberal secularist/atheist.

Are we discussing USA politics or politics in general? Because Middle Eastern people do not have the same rights as US citizens within the territory of the United States. If we are discussing politics in general, then there are a fantastic number of secular liberal socialist countries where your dreams of an amoral goverment have already come true.

That's subjective.

Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Also, with regards to a secular socialist form of government....I thought that would be the Christian ideal, you know, helping the poor and disadvantaged, everyone pooling their resources for the common good of society, rather than capitalism where everyone is in it for themselves. Oh wait.....I thought liberals were immoral and selfish.........


Don't you realize that you are in fact a hypocrit and you don't live by the teachings of Christ? Your brand of Christianity is a perversion of his teachings.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Poll: Religion out of Politics?

My Vote: Yes.
Reason: If I see another religious guy on any news station about "God" and his ways with homosexuality, etc.. Im going to SNAP!

Curious to see who disagrees and why.

Politicians should do what they believe in, if they happen to be religious than so be it. They were, after all, elected as such.

To say "Religion out of Politics" you may as well demand that no one be religious.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Katscan

Originally posted by: shadow9d9...and despite it, there was still slavery for hundreds of years and women were not allowed to vote for 100s of years... why wasn't god pushing for freedom and the law then? Guess who was fighting for those rights... hint- not the south and not republicans.

Please tell me you put some thought into that statement.
So you are saying that Civil War was about slavery and the South was fighting to keep slavery? Ummm no, you are wrong. Your statement there is very wrong, the South(not sure why you added republicans but thats your personal opinion) were fighting for their own freedom. It wasnt about slavery at all like so many think it is.

Originally posted by: brandonb

I should have said "respectively" for the comment about the south and republicans.

As for the Civil War.. the reason the south wanted to secede was because they wanted slavery and the north didn't. Therefore, you could say that it was about slavery and not "freedom." They only wanted the freedom when they realized they couldn't keep slaves.

I kinda wish that they let the south secede after reading some of the responses in some of these threads.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: ayabe
Sexuality is a personal matter and shouldn't be discussed in any form or fashion in the public square. If more people would stick to that, the level of intolerance in this country would drop dramatically.

Don't doctor my quotes.

Sorry should have put a disclaimer. But your idea can be applied other areas - such as sexuality.

 

[engineereeyore]

I do not believe religion has a place in politics. However, I think you'll be hard pressed to remove the moral values that religious people have obtained from politics. I'm not saying that religion is the source of morals, so please don't take that out of context, but anyone who is religious is going to live their lives typically in a religious fashion and in accordance to a specific set of guidelines. As long as they realize those are their morals and don't try to force them on others, they're okay. But I think it's unreasonable to expect that there won't be a hint of religion in politics as long as there are religious politicians.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Which Creator? Yours, the Hindus, the Mugube Pygmies of Mozambique? I can't understand how you can believe that we should have to follow the beliefs of ancient Sheepherders in the Middle East

..Unless it's the lives of brown people in the Middle East

I would trust a conservative Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist to make fair and moral decisions much more than I would a liberal secularist/atheist.

Are we discussing USA politics or politics in general? Because Middle Eastern people do not have the same rights as US citizens within the territory of the United States. If we are discussing politics in general, then there are a fantastic number of secular liberal socialist countries where your dreams of an amoral goverment have already come true.

That's subjective.

Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Also, with regards to a secular socialist form of government....I thought that would be the Christian ideal, you know, helping the poor and disadvantaged, everyone pooling their resources for the common good of society, rather than capitalism where everyone is in it for themselves. Oh wait.....I thought liberals were immoral and selfish.........


Don't you realize that you are in fact a hypocrit and you don't live by the teachings of Christ? Your brand of Christianity is a perversion of his teachings.

Take away social issues, and all you have left of government is crime prevention & national defence.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Which Creator? Yours, the Hindus, the Mugube Pygmies of Mozambique? I can't understand how you can believe that we should have to follow the beliefs of ancient Sheepherders in the Middle East

..Unless it's the lives of brown people in the Middle East

I would trust a conservative Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist to make fair and moral decisions much more than I would a liberal secularist/atheist.

Are we discussing USA politics or politics in general? Because Middle Eastern people do not have the same rights as US citizens within the territory of the United States. If we are discussing politics in general, then there are a fantastic number of secular liberal socialist countries where your dreams of an amoral goverment have already come true.

That's subjective.

Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Also, with regards to a secular socialist form of government....I thought that would be the Christian ideal, you know, helping the poor and disadvantaged, everyone pooling their resources for the common good of society, rather than capitalism where everyone is in it for themselves. Oh wait.....I thought liberals were immoral and selfish.........


Don't you realize that you are in fact a hypocrit and you don't live by the teachings of Christ? Your brand of Christianity is a perversion of his teachings.

Take away social issues, and all you have left of government is crime prevention & national defence.

Yep, there was a party who believed in that, they called them Conservatives.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Which Creator? Yours, the Hindus, the Mugube Pygmies of Mozambique? I can't understand how you can believe that we should have to follow the beliefs of ancient Sheepherders in the Middle East

..Unless it's the lives of brown people in the Middle East

I would trust a conservative Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist to make fair and moral decisions much more than I would a liberal secularist/atheist.

Are we discussing USA politics or politics in general? Because Middle Eastern people do not have the same rights as US citizens within the territory of the United States. If we are discussing politics in general, then there are a fantastic number of secular liberal socialist countries where your dreams of an amoral goverment have already come true.

That's subjective.

Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Also, with regards to a secular socialist form of government....I thought that would be the Christian ideal, you know, helping the poor and disadvantaged, everyone pooling their resources for the common good of society, rather than capitalism where everyone is in it for themselves. Oh wait.....I thought liberals were immoral and selfish.........


Don't you realize that you are in fact a hypocrit and you don't live by the teachings of Christ? Your brand of Christianity is a perversion of his teachings.

Take away social issues, and all you have left of government is crime prevention & national defence.

Yep, there was a party who believed in that, they called them Conservatives.

And you do have a counter example...right?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Which Creator? Yours, the Hindus, the Mugube Pygmies of Mozambique? I can't understand how you can believe that we should have to follow the beliefs of ancient Sheepherders in the Middle East

..Unless it's the lives of brown people in the Middle East

I would trust a conservative Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist to make fair and moral decisions much more than I would a liberal secularist/atheist.

Are we discussing USA politics or politics in general? Because Middle Eastern people do not have the same rights as US citizens within the territory of the United States. If we are discussing politics in general, then there are a fantastic number of secular liberal socialist countries where your dreams of an amoral goverment have already come true.

That's subjective.

Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Also, with regards to a secular socialist form of government....I thought that would be the Christian ideal, you know, helping the poor and disadvantaged, everyone pooling their resources for the common good of society, rather than capitalism where everyone is in it for themselves. Oh wait.....I thought liberals were immoral and selfish.........


Don't you realize that you are in fact a hypocrit and you don't live by the teachings of Christ? Your brand of Christianity is a perversion of his teachings.

Take away social issues, and all you have left of government is crime prevention & national defence.

Yep, there was a party who believed in that, they called them Conservatives.

And you do have a counter example...right?

A counter example of what?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Give me an example of something you consider social and something you consider non-social.

I'll answer your other comments after your reply.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Give me an example of something you consider social and something you consider non-social.

I'll answer your other comments after your reply.

Social - laws against assisted suicide.

Non-social - missle defense.


Edit:

social - drug laws

non-social - building highways

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe
BTW, I'm still waiting for one of you to step up to the plate and answer this question for me please,

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?

Being mostly a Libertarian I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post, i.e., that government should stay out of social issues. But is that realistic? No, so your premise and/or question is false.

Do most Americans want the government to stay out of civil rights, which is a "social issue"? I think not.

Most of our tax rules for individuals are driven by "social issues". Earned income credit, tuition credits, etc are all driven by "social issues". The purpose of a progressive tax rate schedule is redistribution of income, a "social issue".

Do laws against criminal activity have anything to do with "social issues"?

Do Social Securtity & medicare/Medicaid have anyhing to do with "social issues"?

Does the issue of immigation have anything to do with "social issues"?

We are far beyond the point where our government deals only with building roads and providing a military against foreign invaders. Social issues are an inextricable part of the current government.

But to address the main point of the OP:

Poll: Religion out of Politics?

My answer is "no". Religion is an important part of many people's lives. Very difficult, if not impossible, to seperate the "person" from their "beliefs". And politics is, at its very root core, about people. About how they organize themselves to live together in a social framework etc.

Which so-called religion would you like out of politics? Other people's?. What about yours? Maybe it's not about any God or higher power, maybe yours is the religion of "money" or power.

People are not automotons/robots, whatever any (sufficiently) large group of people wants included in "politics" will be. It could be enviromental, social, financial, military, no matter - because politics is how it will be addressed in a democratic society.

Fern

 

[Katscan]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

....must continue the saga of the quote chain.....

 

[astrosfan90]

I'm really sick of the conservative politicians and voters who somehow think the answer to all of the world's problems is to "Christianize" the US government and elect only leaders who agree with their religious values, and that it's somehow God's will that these people are elected into office. It's theocracy-lite, and it's downright frightening that it's a widening trend. with mainstream candidates like Dick DeVos fitting this dominionist tag.

 

[Katscan]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
I'm really sick of the conservative politicians and voters who somehow think the answer to all of the world's problems is to "Christianize" the US government and elect only leaders who agree with their religious values, and that it's somehow God's will that these people are elected into office. It's theocracy-lite, and it's downright frightening that it's a widening trend. with mainstream candidates like Dick DeVos fitting this dominionist tag.

You know how to fix that?

Go out and Vote! and get those who share your views to vote as well

 

[Vic]

As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

 

[engineereeyore]

Another thing to consider, many people are not 100% committed to their religion. Often, they develop their own take on moral issues and then find a religion that shares similar values, not the other way around. So how do you differentiate between what a person believes because of personal experience and what they believe because of religious influence. And on that topic, how much of a difference is there really? If a person disagrees with a specific religious doctrine associated with a religion, they usually leave it. So just because a personal religious views reflect his personal views, how can you blame that on religion?

 

[judasmachine]

It's OK and sometimes beneficial for a leader to have a strong moral code, but you simply cannot govern such a mishmash of people with one god's code. The level of intolerance often leads to violence which leads to violence which leads to violence which leads to death...

 

[bamacre]

Back before Reagan, it was the politicians entering the churches, not the other way around. Religion did not enter politics, politics entered religion. And those votes are what got Reagan his win.

It is not the religious who use politics as a tool, but politicians who use religion as a tool.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
It's OK and sometimes beneficial for a leader to have a strong moral code, but you simply cannot govern such a mishmash of people with one god's code. The level of intolerance often leads to violence which leads to violence which leads to violence which leads to death...

But is not the very premise of this thread a form of intolerance?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

By campaigning, I mean setting forth their intended agenda for legislation.

I disagree with the notion that the Constitution hasn't been abriged with some of this stuff.

Assisted suicide is one example, in 35 states it is a crime. Defined as a crime based on moral principles, i.e. the notion that your body belongs to God and not to you. That is the objection, whether stated or unstated.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Vic
As strongly as I am opposed to moral legislation, the OP's blanket statement of removing religion from politics is something I would have to be even more strongly opposed to, as it would essentially mean the complete removal of the First Amendment from the Constitution. People have the right to believe what they wish to believe, and to express themselves accordingly. Anyone who voted "yes" to this poll said that they do not believe in that right.

Absolutely, but they shouldn't be campaigning on moral issues derived from their religious beliefs. They shouldn't be using their religion as a political tool. It's a personal thing, ones relationship with God. Using your example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, but in practice, trying to legislate from their moral perspective infringes on the rights of Americans who don't share their beliefs.

You are confused. There are large and distinct differences between campaigning and legislating. Using my example, it is their First Amendment right to believe what they want to believe, and in practice to try to campaign based on those beliefs if they think that enough voters share them that doing so will help them gain office. In the meantime, the Constitution limits what legislation that can be passed based on those beliefs and accordingly protects the rights of those Americans who don't share those beliefs.

By campaigning, I mean setting forth their intended agenda for legislation.

I disagree with the notion that the Constitution hasn't been abriged with some of this stuff.

Assisted suicide is one example, in 35 states it is a crime. Defined as a crime based on moral principles, i.e. the notion that your body belongs to God and not to you. That is the objection, whether stated or unstated.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said, there is a difference between campaigning and legislating. But if you want to split hairs, what is the moral difference in laws that say a person's body is not their own or laws that say a person's property is not their own? Answer: none. The similarity in agenda is what leads you to argue on the false logic that 2 wrongs make a right.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, please for the love of Keith, answer my question:

So how does religion apply to anything except social issues that shouldn't be in the hands of government to being with?


Please give me an example of decision that needs to be made on moral basis that isn't a social issue.

Give me an example of something you consider social and something you consider non-social.

I'll answer your other comments after your reply.

Social - laws against assisted suicide.

Non-social - missle defense.


Edit:

social - drug laws

non-social - building highways

I'm unsure how to answer your question, as the government is signficantly more involved in social issues than non-social issues. Me wishing that wasn't the reality won't make it reality, regardless of my opinion of whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps you could restate/reframe your question?

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, with regards to a secular socialist form of government....I thought that would be the Christian ideal, you know, helping the poor and disadvantaged, everyone pooling their resources for the common good of society, rather than capitalism where everyone is in it for themselves. Oh wait.....I thought liberals were immoral and selfish.........

Jesus worked as a carpenter for most of his life and did not live in a commune, and there are many new testament examples of people with Godly values from all walks of life: poor, prostitute, tax collector, Roman centurion, Jewish pharisee, wealthy religious man, Samaritan, Greek, Ethiopian, etc. etc. The only "commune" example in the new testament was a group of Christian believers who voluntarily lived and worked together to further the Gospel.. it was not established by the government. My point being that the Gospel was and is for anyone, wherever they are in their life.

Originally posted by: ayabe
Don't you realize that you are in fact a hypocrit and you don't live by the teachings of Christ? Your brand of Christianity is a perversion of his teachings.

Recognizing the religious words of our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence or voting for officials and policies which further the rights of the unborn does not make me a hypocrite.