The Intrusion of Religion Into Politics

[Madeline]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

Last I checked religion is not somehow barred from politics. Go ahead provide for us a single source that declares that religion is barred from opinions of voters when they vote.

By the way don't you avidly defend Muslims? You are aware that according to their religion Islam is supposed to BE the Government right?

 

[Madeline]

I think people should think for themeselves, RGS, not be "molded" or ordered to vote a certain way by their clergy.

[W]hen good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them.

Huge Swing In The US Catholic Vote, Says New York Times | Mundabor's Blog

 

[California Girl]

I think people should think for themeselves, RGS, not be "molded" or ordered to vote a certain way by their clergy.

[W]hen good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them.

Huge Swing In The US Catholic Vote, Says New York Times | Mundabor's Blog

If you 'think' that people should think for themselves, why do you never do so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think people should think for themeselves, RGS, not be "molded" or ordered to vote a certain way by their clergy.

[W]hen good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them.

Huge Swing In The US Catholic Vote, Says New York Times | Mundabor's Blog

Let me translate your comment. What you mean, since you oppose people having the free right to vote as THEY see fit, is that others think as you do.

I repeat provide a single source that bars religion from being a source as to how we are governed, what laws we pass or our opinions on who we vote for.

Then provide some context, some evidence that a religious take over is even remotely possible.

 

[hipeter924]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

Obama calls himself a Christian (as do virtually all the members of the Democratic Party), and so do most of the US politicians, the US is already a theocracy if you define a theocracy as religion being significantly involved in politics. So if you want to go back to secular values you had better start by impeaching Obama and all politicians that bring religion into their political decisions and ideas (which is politically impossible). Personally I don't care what people believe, except where human rights are concerned.

 

[Smartt33]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

That is funny. I have not heard in all my years, of any time when the government, or the people were suggesting or promoting a theocracy. There are pockets of people here and there who have radical ideas, but they are on the frenge.

However, America became a great nation because of God fearing people who risked everything.

Of come not so God fearing people did too, and that has made America the balanced nation that she is (was).

Muslims could be the ones to ruin the nation with religion, and an evil theocracy.

 

[hipeter924]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

That is funny. I have not heard in all my years, of any time when the government, or the people were suggesting or promoting a theocracy. There are pockets of people here and there who have radical ideas, but they are on the frenge.

However, America became a great nation because of God fearing people who risked everything.

Of come not so God fearing people did too, and that has made America the balanced nation that she is (was).

Muslims could be the ones to ruin the nation with religion, and an evil theocracy.

Depends who is in the Supreme Court, some of them do a poor job of protecting the constitution, then again Supreme Court Justices can be sacked. Muslims will find it impossible to establish sharia without violating the separation of church and state, so the liberals and Muslims wanting Sharia have a hard job ahead of them.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think people should think for themeselves, RGS, not be "molded" or ordered to vote a certain way by their clergy.

[W]hen good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them.

Huge Swing In The US Catholic Vote, Says New York Times | Mundabor's Blog

If you really believe this way, I'll bet the black churches really frosts your ass.

 

[Nosmo King]

If the American electorate decides they want to have their religion influence their vote, that's just fine. As long as the American politicians don't let their religious beliefs dictate policy for the country.

No one will compromise on their faith. By its very nature, faith is one area not available for compromise. Therefore, no religious beliefs must dictate policy.

Banning abortion based on religious beliefs is one good example of what should never happen. No one wants someone else's religion calling the shots for them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

Wait a minute.

What is the problem you have with the premise that our rights do not come to us from the government, but from a source that actually empowers government? Even a die hard atheist should worry about the view that rights are bestowed but the government, or that they come from a social contract that we all agree to, either implicitly or explicitly. If our rights come from the government they can be taken away by the government, and do not really exist.

If, on the other hand, our rights come from a source outside the government, even if it is only because we exist and can think, then the government does not have the power to simply strip us of our rights when they become inconvenient, or in the name of national security.

That might be why the Democrats are loosing the religious left, unless you think Catholics, who tend to be liberal about social issues and health care, suddenly saw the light about aboortion and joined the Republicans as a result.

 

[Madeline]

I think people should think for themeselves, RGS, not be "molded" or ordered to vote a certain way by their clergy.

[W]hen good shepherds start doing their job, sheep start following them.

Huge Swing In The US Catholic Vote, Says New York Times | Mundabor's Blog

If you really believe this way, I'll bet the black churches really frosts your ass.

Yes and no, BBD. A black church is (usually) much more than a house of worship. It has traditionally acted as the de facto social service agency in its community, handing out loans, helping kids get scholarships, and yes, supporting black politicans. The pastors do try and tell the congregants who to vote for, but there are schisms galore; there's no centralized authority the way there is in a Mormon or RCC church.

Which I suppose sounds as if I object to the clergy influencing the congregation on voting only when there's a danger they'll be effective -- and that seems less than intellectually honest of me.

I'm not sure I can better articulate what disturbs me. I had read a piece in "On Faith" (that WashPo column) about how the Pope was gathering the Bishops to try and convey that a Catholic in the US had to be a single-issue voter. If the politican supports abortion rights, stem cell research or gay marriage (but hypocritically, not if he supports the death penalty) that Catholic may not vote for him regardless of his other positions unless they wish to be cross-wise with the church. As quoted, the Pope came close to announcing voting was a sacrament and doing it "wrong" was a sin. But I'll be damned if I can find the piece I really wanted to discuss. I shall endeavor to try again, but I am not imagining it, either.

IMO, it is wrong for Ratzinger to lean on American Catholics to this degree. If the RCC wants that level of influence, let them run some candidates of their own for public office (which is what black churches do). I resented their campaign of disinformation in California over Prop 8 (gay marriage rights) and I object to single-issue voters in general.

 

[Madeline]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p99a6K81zqM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p99a6K81zqM[/ame]

 

[Madeline]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

Wait a minute.

What is the problem you have with the premise that our rights do not come to us from the government, but from a source that actually empowers government? Even a die hard atheist should worry about the view that rights are bestowed but the government, or that they come from a social contract that we all agree to, either implicitly or explicitly. If our rights come from the government they can be taken away by the government, and do not really exist.

If, on the other hand, our rights come from a source outside the government, even if it is only because we exist and can think, then the government does not have the power to simply strip us of our rights when they become inconvenient, or in the name of national security.

That might be why the Democrats are loosing the religious left, unless you think Catholics, who tend to be liberal about social issues and health care, suddenly saw the light about aboortion and joined the Republicans as a result.

I agree our rights derive for our social contract and not the government. The government is just the vehicle we use to render our rights enforceable. The issue I have isn't philosophical, Quantum Windbag -- it's practical. I fail to see why the entire nation must or should be organized so that everyone's conduct is either RCC-approved or else criminalized.

This quest for political power on the part of any organized religion (RCC, or Mormon or whatever) is obnoxious to me because it is antithetical to the American Way: an open, diverse society governed by laws that value no faith over another -- or none at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You want to dictate to others how and when they can voice their opinion in the political process. Pretty simple concept. Do not claim you are for Freedom when you create threads like this where you DEMAND only your way or the highway. Do not pretend you are somehow on the high road when all you are doing is demanding that others cow-tow to your political beliefs.

I repeat for the third time, provide us a law, an ordinance something from the Constitution that bars people from running political campaigns that are biased toward the religious, something that bars people from voting based on their religious beliefs, something that prevents laws from being written and passed that are based on religious beliefs.

 

[Si modo]

Islam is law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Islam is law.

Don't waste your time pointing out to Madeline that a religion she supports does EXACTLY what she is complaining of. It goes right over her head.

 

[Si modo]

Islam is law.

Don't waste your time pointing out to Madeline that a religion she supports does EXACTLY what she is complaining of. It goes right over her head.

True. Shes' not too bright, that one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Under God: With election results in, debate over religious factor begins - William Wan

Can't you "Religious Right" types get that the US is not a theocracy?

Discuss.

Wait a minute.

What is the problem you have with the premise that our rights do not come to us from the government, but from a source that actually empowers government? Even a die hard atheist should worry about the view that rights are bestowed but the government, or that they come from a social contract that we all agree to, either implicitly or explicitly. If our rights come from the government they can be taken away by the government, and do not really exist.

If, on the other hand, our rights come from a source outside the government, even if it is only because we exist and can think, then the government does not have the power to simply strip us of our rights when they become inconvenient, or in the name of national security.

That might be why the Democrats are loosing the religious left, unless you think Catholics, who tend to be liberal about social issues and health care, suddenly saw the light about aboortion and joined the Republicans as a result.

I agree our rights derive for our social contract and not the government. The government is just the vehicle we use to render our rights enforceable. The issue I have isn't philosophical, Quantum Windbag -- it's practical. I fail to see why the entire nation must or should be organized so that everyone's conduct is either RCC-approved or else criminalized.

This quest for political power on the part of any organized religion (RCC, or Mormon or whatever) is obnoxious to me because it is antithetical to the American Way: an open, diverse society governed by laws that value no faith over another -- or none at all.

What should we base our conduct on? Should we use the standards of the atheists governments, and treat human beings as nothing more than cogs in a government machine, and assign them based on needs, not capability or desire?

We have to base our moral code on something, and love your neighbor as you love yourself is the best code ever articulated. The fact that it came from a religious person is irrelevant to its effect, at least it should be. Would you feel better about it if it had been said by Aristotle? I think that makes your problem more philosophical than you thought.

The last thing you have to worry about is all the Christians getting together and agreeing on a way to run things that keeps them all happy. Concentrate on the real problems, not the ones you make up.

 

[Madeline]

Wait a minute.

What is the problem you have with the premise that our rights do not come to us from the government, but from a source that actually empowers government? Even a die hard atheist should worry about the view that rights are bestowed but the government, or that they come from a social contract that we all agree to, either implicitly or explicitly. If our rights come from the government they can be taken away by the government, and do not really exist.

If, on the other hand, our rights come from a source outside the government, even if it is only because we exist and can think, then the government does not have the power to simply strip us of our rights when they become inconvenient, or in the name of national security.

That might be why the Democrats are loosing the religious left, unless you think Catholics, who tend to be liberal about social issues and health care, suddenly saw the light about aboortion and joined the Republicans as a result.

I agree our rights derive for our social contract and not the government. The government is just the vehicle we use to render our rights enforceable. The issue I have isn't philosophical, Quantum Windbag -- it's practical. I fail to see why the entire nation must or should be organized so that everyone's conduct is either RCC-approved or else criminalized.

This quest for political power on the part of any organized religion (RCC, or Mormon or whatever) is obnoxious to me because it is antithetical to the American Way: an open, diverse society governed by laws that value no faith over another -- or none at all.

What should we base our conduct on? Should we use the standards of the atheists governments, and treat human beings as nothing more than cogs in a government machine, and assign them based on needs, not capability or desire?

We have to base our moral code on something, and love your neighbor as you love yourself is the best code ever articulated. The fact that it came from a religious person is irrelevant to its effect, at least it should be. Would you feel better about it if it had been said by Aristotle? I think that makes your problem more philosophical than you thought.

The last thing you have to worry about is all the Christians getting together and agreeing on a way to run things that keeps them all happy. Concentrate on the real problems, not the ones you make up.

I am not making up the problems posed by the Religious Right, and you know it. But for the RCC and the Mormon Church bankrolling a massive campaign of disinformation, Prop 8 never would have passed in California and the Pope has very clearly said, banning gay marriage is a Catholic agenda item for the RCC.

And that's exactly my point. Why not be satisfied to withhold the sacrament of marriage from same-sex couples who are Catholic? Why is it desired to end gay marriage ceremonies performed on Lutherans, etc.? The RCC's heirarchy is a bunch of officious intermeddlers with boundary issues, IMO.