Should religion have a place in politics

Gandhi

Gandhi

New Member
I was watching Dateline today and they had a story about evangelicals in america. And part of it was about religion and politics. And I've noticed how big a role religion has in american politics, specially with the administration in place right now. I find it interesting since in canada we don't see religion have as big a role in politics. And also would bush be president if he wasn't christian?
And y is it religion doesn't play as big a role in politics in canada?
I also found it interesting how they tried to tie the bible and democracy together. Which goes back to our old topic on where morals come from.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9815374/

Also with the old story about god telling president bush to go in to afghanistan and iraq. Which I know the white house said was false, but they also told us there was WMDs in iraq.

http://www.halifaxlive.com/artman/publish/BBC_061005_7723.shtml
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2176
So should religion have a place in politics, and y?
 
So should religion have a place in politics, and y?
Click to expand...
no, history shows power hungry people pose as "religious"(whatever that means) for self justification reasons, which later generations point to and say "I hate the church" because of a few arrogant people with power.
 
Yes, but don't use the religion as the scapegoat of moral failure, and do not associate the politicians (and their decisions) as being characteristic of the religion.

Separate but not mutually exclusive.
 
Dark Virtue said:
I think that anyone that says YES means YES, BUT ONLY IF THEIR RELIGION IS THE SAME AS MINE.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. My first thought was of other religions that believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Then, I pondered that a religious yet moral person might be able to bring to the table. Then I think of the Muslim and what they require... While you want to shoot these thoughts down, I consider them in keeping with integrity.
www.crosswalk.com
1 From whence come wars and fightings F18 among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. 3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. F19 4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. 5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy F20? 6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
James 4
Wanting our religion to be the same is nothing to be ashamed of. We read the Bible with preconceived notions and a refusal to do as God teaches. We could all believe the same if we could open our eyes! We would all believe the same if we stopped inventing Bibles to fit our religion. Really, DV. You want to give us a hard time, but can't you see that there are some religions that are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there! I know, I am asking for it with this one! Yes, I do believe my God the Creator of the Heaven and Earth outshines a golden statue, a promise of virgins, a book followed that was written by a man dreaming under a tree, some spaceship tale...
Many of these religions fail because they come back to the prideful means of making ourselves god, needing and depending on no other.
http://www.theimperials.com/lyrics.html
OH BUDDHA
Words and Music by Mark Farrow
Well old Buddha was a man
And I'm sure that he meant well
But I pray for his disciples
Lest they wind up in hell.
And I'm sure that old Mohammed
Thought he knew the way
But it won't be Hare Krishna
We stand before on that judgement day
(Chorus)
No it won't be old Buddha
That's sitting on the throne
And it won't be old Mohammed
That's calling us home.
And it won't be Hare Krishna
That plays that trumpet tune
And we're going to see the Son
Not Reverend Moon.
Well, I don't hate anybody
So please don't take me wrong
But there really is a message in this simple song
You see there's only one way Jesus
If eternal life is your goal
And meditation of the mind
It won't save your soul.
(Repeat Chorus)
Well, you can call yourself a Baptist
And not be born again
A Presbyterian or a Methodist
And still die in your sin
You can even be Charismatic
Shout and dance and jump a pew
But if you hate your brother
You won't be one of the chosen few.
'Cause it won't be a Baptist
That's sitting on the throne
A Presbyterian or a Methodist
That's calling us home
And it won't be a Charismatic
That plays that trumpet tune
So let's all just live for Jesus
Because He's coming back real soon.
(Repeat Chorus)
 
Csonidering your religion shpaes how you live your life..the two are not able to be separated.
Click to expand...

This makes me thik of prime ministerpaul martin and allowing gay marriages.
He's a christian, but said "I believe in the Charter of Rights, and I do not believe that the prime minister of the country can cherry pick those rights"
He did't put his personal feelings about gay marriages come in the way, because his job isn't to spread his personal values to everyone. So I don't see y they can't be seperated.

Look at Hariet Miers, I'm not sure if she was qualified for the job, but u had people against her just because she didn't fully state ser stance against abortion. The next nominee has to be a christian. Of cource I don't think Bush would nominate a non christian. Don't u think there's something wrong with that?
 
Gandhi said:
This makes me thik of prime ministerpaul martin and allowing gay marriages.
He's a christian, but said "I believe in the Charter of Rights, and I do not believe that the prime minister of the country can cherry pick those rights"
He did't put his personal feelings about gay marriages come in the way, because his job isn't to spread his personal values to everyone. So I don't see y they can't be seperated.
Click to expand...

President Bush did not push very hard for a marriage amendment in this country either. He gave it lip service to try to appease the conservatives such as myself. It is laughable the way the media (and the people who buy into it or want to hammer conservatives) portrays President Bush as a fundamental christian conservative. He is far far from it. What has he done that makes him a fundamentalist? Nothing! He gives it lip service and then quietly follows his own agenda.

What you see now is the result of the conservatives in this country FINALLY catching on. President Bush will scramble once again to try to convince conservatives that he is one of us.

President Bush spends as much time praising islam as he does Christianity. This farce that he is trying to create a Christian government is just plain silly.

President Bush is a liberal in sheeps clothing. Now having ranted I must say that President Bush is a far cry better than the alternative was:confused:

I also need to clarify that I respect the office of president. He is our elected leader and we've got to take the bad with the good.

Gandhi said:
Look at Hariet Miers, I'm not sure if she was qualified for the job, but u had people against her just because she didn't fully state ser stance against abortion. The next nominee has to be a christian. Of cource I don't think Bush would nominate a non christian. Don't u think there's something wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I could make the same argument for keeping environmental, economic, and social issues out of politics.

The president shouldn't allow his environmental beliefs to influence the decisions he makes.

The president shouldn't allow his economic beliefs to influence the decisions he makes.

The president shouldn't allow his social beliefs to influence the decisions he makes.

That is absurd! And so is the notion that Christians should separate their religious beliefs from politics.

President Bush made us a promise. That is why he is in office. For many of us the biggest reason we went to the polls was to elect someone who would appoint conservatives to the supreme court.

We believe that the supreme court has been stacked with liberals and is not interpreting the constitution correctly. Don't we have the right to that belief? Don't we have the right to vote for someone we hope has the same belief? Is this a free country or not?
 
Last edited:
At least it's out in the open here.

You know that being a practising Christian does not armour you against temptation, don't you? You know that the only thing that keeps government fair is NOT morality and it's NOT ethics - it is a tightly controlled system of checks and balances that stops ANYONE from getting too powerful.

And that is in place exactly BECAUSE you cannot seperate your beliefs from your concept of what is best for everyone. And so we make it very difficult for anybody to, for example, make little camps for the non-Christians to be forcibly converted in. We make it very difficult for anyone to claim that not being Christian means that your assets can be seized. We make it very difficult for anyone to decide that, perhaps, a state should be segregated along religious lines.

Because that is all that seperates us from Iran. People are essentially good, but groups of people are essentially evil, manipulative, heartless, thieving and murderous. And groups of Christian people are no exception. My advice to you is that if you want to live in a religious theocracy, then go and pick one of the many that are still out there and study it.

And know that the religion that dominates does not alter the experience of the governed - I speak in accordance with the histories.
 
Eon said:
At least it's out in the open here.

You know that being a practising Christian does not armour you against temptation, don't you? You know that the only thing that keeps government fair is NOT morality and it's NOT ethics - it is a tightly controlled system of checks and balances that stops ANYONE from getting too powerful.

And that is in place exactly BECAUSE you cannot seperate your beliefs from your concept of what is best for everyone. And so we make it very difficult for anybody to, for example, make little camps for the non-Christians to be forcibly converted in. We make it very difficult for anyone to claim that not being Christian means that your assets can be seized. We make it very difficult for anyone to decide that, perhaps, a state should be segregated along religious lines.

Because that is all that seperates us from Iran. People are essentially good, but groups of people are essentially evil, manipulative, heartless, thieving and murderous. And groups of Christian people are no exception. My advice to you is that if you want to live in a religious theocracy, then go and pick one of the many that are still out there and study it.

And know that the religion that dominates does not alter the experience of the governed - I speak in accordance with the histories.
Click to expand...

Thankfully the system also makes it hard for Christians to be put in little camps and forcibly converted to paganism. We make it very difficult for anyone to claim that being a Christian means that your assets can be seized...

lol...you sure have a penchant for taking a simple discussion to the extreme. Noone here is talking about making a Christian controlled state where only Christians have rights. What we are talking about is the fact that Christians are people too. We have the same rights you do. We have the right to vote for people who have the same belief system we do. To say that we don't have that right is just as bad as what you discribed above. It is a bigoted opinion against the rights of Christians.

You have the right to vote for environmental extremists, social liberals, and a welfare state. I don't begrudge you that right. So please don't make it sound like a person who votes for someone with their religious beliefs is a Nazi.
 
Aren't you sort of missing the point? I believe we were discussing in two seperate threads:

1. It's okay for Christian's to want to change people to their own religion.
2. It's okay for Christian's to run American along Christian religious grounds.

Now, given the two points being fair, how does that preclude what I've talked about? Going to claim it hasn't happened before - even in America's young history?
 
Dark Virtue said:
Sorry Didasko, but I have to agree with Eon, I think you missed the point.
Click to expand...

Don't apologize DV I would have really been surprised if you didn't agree with Eon:) Eon's point was very clear, I didn't miss it.

The point I was trying to make was that Eon took the thread way way beyond where it was when he came in. Religious theocracy! Where did that come from? Definitely not this thread.

I thought that Eon's post was in response to mine. Perhaps that is where the misunderstanding came in. Religion playing a role in politics is definitely not a theocracy.

Religion in complete control of government is a theocracy, and that is not what we were discussing in this thread.
 
1. It's okay for Christian's to want to change people to their own religion.
2. It's okay for Christian's to run American along Christian religious grounds.
Click to expand...
He hit the point of the thread with #2. Maybe I wasn't clear with my original post. Sometimes I'm not very good at putting to paper whats in my head.
 
Gandhi said:
He hit the point of the thread with #2. Maybe I wasn't clear with my original post. Sometimes I'm not very good at putting to paper whats in my head.
Click to expand...

So your saying you think Christians run America? Gandhi do you really believe that the United States is a theocracy?
 
Last edited:
I think its heading that way. U have a guy in power who wouldn't be in power if he didn't convert to evangilical methodist. I think during the election people on the site said they would vote for him because he has the same beliefs as them. When bush introduced harriet mair as his nominee he mentioned how sheis a evangilical. Playing the religious card for her to be excepted, since it worked for him so well.
 
"Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave. All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy -- making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God."
-- from Ingersoll's Some Mistakes of Moses, Section III., "The Politicians," in Works, Dresden Edition, Volume 2
 
Dark Virtue said:
"Churches are becoming political organizations.... It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave. All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy -- making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God."
-- from Ingersoll's Some Mistakes of Moses, Section III., "The Politicians," in Works, Dresden Edition, Volume 2
Click to expand...

lol...like I wrote above, nothing like this is happening in America and it will not in the foreseeable future. The idea that President Bush is a fundamental right wing Christian is laughable. Please tell me that you do not believe the left wing propaganda that says he is. He is moderate with a tilt to the left.

What we have is a lackluster president that every so often mentions God. He has been painted a religious fundamentalist by a media that has tried to hammer that into our heads for six years.

If you believe that President Bush is running a theocracy or anything remotely close...please show me some convincing evidence.

What is really happening is that the religious right is getting disillusioned with the republican party. Sadly it is all we have to work with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top