Another Question for Europeans (and Americans): Religon in Politics

[SCCajun]

In response to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310862) thread, I had a question.

Most, if not all, of the replies to the OP question said something about the matter of religon in politics. This echo's complaints I've heard here in the states as well.

I'm not trying to be glib or rude, but as a person of sincere faith, I am not sure what this means. I mean, throwing aside all of the hypocrisy, and assuming that Bush, the right wing evangelical, et al are sincere (I know it may be difficult, but try to use your imagination), what is expected?

Let me give an example to explain. Suppose that President Bush believes sincerely that God teaches that "life" begins at conception. Now, if that is his fervent sincere belief, how is he supposed to react to the abortion issue?

Or maybe a better example, if he (or another leader) believes that God intended marriage to only be between a man and a woman, how should he address that issue?

Again, I know it may be difficult, but assuming these folks are sincere, they have a strong desire to prevent wrongs from being done. In the first case they want to prevent "murder," and in the second, they want to prevent an "offense to God."

I've just not heard any examples of what they should do instead.

SCC

[TwistofFate]

Suppose that President Bush believes sincerely that God teaches that "life" begins at conception. Now, if that is his fervent sincere belief, how is he supposed to react to the abortion issue?

Leave it to the will of the people to elect representatives based on their platforms, who can then effectively legislate, rather than try and rally the faithful come election time who think that same sex marriage or abortion will somehow destroy the country and/or their religion.

[kunilou]

Frankly, I expect my elected officials to have some sort of moral compass to guide their actions, rather than simply pandering to the will of the mob -- which, in my area, seems to be "cut my taxes and I don't care how you do it." If their religious beliefs shape that moral compass, why is that any worse than fairy tales and fables they learned as children?

Where I draw the line is when they suppress their true agendas while running for office, only to try and sneak them in after they're elected. But that isn't limited to a person of faith.

[Scott Plaid]

They can be as religious as they like, just don't make such statements as "Atheist should not be considered citizens." Or writing bills that make school kids feel obliged to pray in school. (They can already pray all they like, just don't make it a public performance thing. )

[Mk VII]

here the voters expect candidates to keep their religious views to themselves, and don't want to hear them paraded as justification for the politician's programme.

[Shodan]

Leave it to the will of the people to elect representatives based on their platforms, who can then effectively legislate, rather than try and rally the faithful come election time who think that same sex marriage or abortion will somehow destroy the country and/or their religion.
Isn' that what we did last November?

So now how should Bush "effectively legislate" on the abortion issue?

It might be easier to discuss a hypothetical.

Suppose a sincere evangelical believes that gay marriage is God's will. It seems that the country is not ready for this, based on the lack of success for the various gay-marriage referenda across the nation. What should our hypothetical evangelical do?

Now suppose it is abortion, instead. Different? How?

Regards,
Shodan

[Scott Plaid]

Isn' that what we did last November?Nope, at least according to statistics, that is. As I recall, each group pushed its members to vote. The extrely religious groups came out in the same proportion as in past years. However, the perception of the media is diffrent, clouding the issue. Personally, I attribute Bush's election to a desire not to change horses in mid-war, rather then a desire to keep them-thar gay folk in their place. :mad:

[SCCajun]

here the voters expect candidates to keep their religious views to themselves, and don't want to hear them paraded as justification for the politician's programme.

But why? I confess to being an obtuse (at times) American. With my Religious Conservative upbringing I can recognize the fact of the above statement, but what I don't get is why.

I guess another way to pose the question is why are beliefs based on religious beliefs less valid than others. Especially in a moral context. I understand that people may not want to hear anyone "Preach" at them when dealing with some issues (the War in Iraq), but on other issues (Gay Marriage), religious beliefs are the foundational underpinning of what the plitician believes. As such, it can't be avoided.

I mean, other than a religious basis, there is little basis to argue against some issues.

(As an aside, are there any European countries that currently allow Gay Marriage?)

[yojimbo]

But why? You may notice that Mk VII is from England. Despite the fact that the Head of State is also the head of the largest religion England has become a very secular country. Tony Blair has a very strong Christian fate but this is played down and almost never mentioned. There is no political gain in it for him at all, in fact if anything it's becoming a bit of a problem for him.

Here in Ireland we a VERY large Catholic population proportionally speaking. Religion has lost most of it's direct political power over the last 2 decades but the Catholic vote is still very strong. An abortion referendum would still fail to be passed at the moment but the gap would be a lot smaller than the last time we tried to get it passed into law. Politicians never talk about their religion unless it's directly related to the subject at hand. It would be alien to hear a speech end with "God bless Ireland".

All schools here teach evolution, creationism would only be brought up as another belief in religion* or civics class.

I honestly can't remember a political ever bringing religion into any argument that wasn't actually about religion in the first place. While a lot of people are religious we don't really like our politicians being pubic about their religious beliefs. It's a personal thing not a political thing.

*Yep we have religion class. In my day(I'm 34) it was Catholic religion class. That may have changed somewhat nowadays. Anybody could opt out of religion. I stopped going at around 14 as I told my father I didn't believe in God so he wrote me a note. You're given work to do while the class is going on somewhere else.

[panache45]

I suspect that most, if not all, tyrants throughout history "sincerely believed" all the horrible ideas through which they enslaved people. We don't elect people based solely on their "sincerity," but on the actual content of their beliefs, and on how our own lives might be affected.

The litmus test is not how "sincere" the politician is, but how he plans to deal with people who don't agree with his subjective religious beliefs.

I really don't give a rat's ass what a politician personally thinks of my sexual orientation, but when he enacts laws based on his subjective prejudice, he's crossed a very fundamental line. And it doesn't matter to me whether the majority of voters agree with him.

[Mk VII]

one thing voters here are maddened by is politicians lecturing them about their morality (or lack of it) especially when they know (or suspect) that the self-same political class contains some of the most unprincipled amoral individuals still unhanged.
Former premier John Major started a 'Back To Basics/Family Values' campaign while in office and the Press tore him and his party to pieces as fresh revelations emerged - as they always will - about adultery, greed, financial corruption and all the other human failings which his colleagues were prey to.

[Jervoise]

But why? I confess to being an obtuse (at times) American. With my Religious Conservative upbringing I can recognize the fact of the above statement, but what I don't get is why.A successful government has to govern for all -- or at least most -- of the population. In countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, most people do not hold strong, conservative religious views. While the population is at least nominally Christian, church-going-god-fearing folk are comparatively rare (and getting rarer). So while the Prime Minister and his Cabinet may be strong Anglicans or Catholics, they must realise that their religious views are not shared by much of the electorate. They may personally feel that abortion, for example, is amoral and a sin, but are fully aware that the pro-choice side has already won the battle for the minds of the public. The electorate will not take kindly to an attempt to strip back rights already won.

So part of the reason is pragmatism. The other part, IMO, is propriety. Most voters view it as purely distasteful for a politician to mention God. One, many of us don't believe in God and don't want to be governed by a man or woman who claims to be inspired by some mythical sky pixie; and two, we simply don't trust politicians who claim to be holier than thou. As Mk VII illustrates, too many times they've been proved to be just as human as the rest of us.

To turn the questions around for a moment, why is it that Christian politicians in the US don't speak out against capital punishment?

(As an aside, are there any European countries that currently allow Gay Marriage?)Quite a few. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland allow "registered partnership", which are roughly equivalent to marriage. Norway and the Netherlands allow full marriage. Spain's Parliament has approved a draft gay marriage bill. Also, come this December, gay couples in the United Kingdom will be able to enter civil partnerships, which are akin to marriage.

[clairobscur]

here the voters expect candidates to keep their religious views to themselves, and don't want to hear them paraded as justification for the politician's programme.


Same thing over here. I learnt about the religious leaning of the former prime minister Jospin (who at this time had been in charge for several years, despite Chirac being president, because Chirac's party was in the minority in parliament)....on the Straight Dope!

[clairobscur]

Quite a few. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland allow "registered partnership", which are roughly equivalent to marriage. Norway and the Netherlands allow full marriage. Spain's Parliament has approved a draft gay marriage bill. Also, come this December, gay couples in the United Kingdom will be able to enter civil partnerships, which are akin to marriage.


There's a "solidarity civil pact" in france too, but it doesn't grant to the couple all the rights granted to an actually married couple. And some of the rights it does give are granted only after 3 years (If I'm not mistaken) of union.

[clairobscur]

I guess another way to pose the question is why are beliefs based on religious beliefs less valid than others. Especially in a moral context. I understand that people may not want to hear anyone "Preach" at them when dealing with some issues (the War in Iraq), but on other issues (Gay Marriage), religious beliefs are the foundational underpinning of what the plitician believes. As such, it can't be avoided.




They're not necessarily less valid (though fro my atheist point of view, I might differ) but first the population is much less religious on the overall, so mentionning your religious values might not give you much support, and second, it's perceived very differently. In France, a politician quoting the bible or mentionning god, or explaining that his decision is related to a religious belief during his official duties or in a speech would be perceived as the equivalent of an official endorsment of religion, hence completely unnaceptable. The political culture and traditions are simply different.

[violacrane]

one thing voters here are maddened by is politicians lecturing them about their morality (or lack of it) especially when they know (or suspect) that the self-same political class contains some of the most unprincipled amoral individuals still unhanged.
Former premier John Major started a 'Back To Basics/Family Values' campaign while in office and the Press tore him and his party to pieces as fresh revelations emerged - as they always will - about adultery, greed, financial corruption and all the other human failings which his colleagues were prey to.

And the biggest revelatio didn't emerge until years later -- that Major himself had had a four year affair with fellow MP Edwina Currie before he was PM.

[cornflakes]

A successful government has to govern for all -- or at least most -- of the population.This may be more true for nations that are run by parliamentary democracy. The two party system used in the U.S. only requires that a candidate win 50.000...001% of the vote. They can do this by winning over the voters or by dividing or discouraging the opposition--coalitions do not really exist here.

[SCCajun]

Thanks to everyone. I am still an obtuse American ;) but I am beginning to understand. (It is a very foreign idea to me).

FWIW, I do count myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist, but unlike many of my cohorts, I tend to be much more libertarian. My thought is that I know what I believe, and you have every right to be wrong. :D

You should have seen the faces of the group I was talking to when I suggested that in general churches could learn a lot about how Christ intened for them to treat one another by studying the polyamory ideals. :D

Anyway, thanks for helping me understand.

[aurelian]

You should have seen the faces of the group I was talking to when I suggested that in general churches could learn a lot about how Christ intened for them to treat one another by studying the polyamory ideals. :D
Anyway, thanks for helping me understand.

That must have been something to see!
And thanks for discussing the question, too SC. You're much more open-minded than I was when I was a fundie, and I respect your ability to question rather than proclaim. There have been some nasty threads involving people who were just out to repeat their own fixed beliefs; and for what the sentiment of a total stranger is worth, I appreciate your openness.
A few (disorganized) thoughts:
- there are sects of Christianity that believe that God's kingdom is not part of this world, and it is best to withdraw onesself as much as possible, not only to avoid unnecessary 'worldly' influences, but also to focus on God's work. Then there are Christians (I don't believe of just one particular strain) that ardently believe and fight for the institutionalization of their beliefs. Since both base their conclusions on the Bible, it seems impossible to really 'know' (you could believe, though) that you had picked correctly. This sort of intractable certainty worries me.

-Really vocal fundamentalist politicians (or those who base their public speech on fundamentalist beliefs) basically believe that we are going to hell in a handbasket - modern society is not a good thing (too morally permissive, too corrupt, too faithless, etc) and that the tide must be turned back - to a more 'traditional' (regardless of whether or not such a time ever really existed) era. I'm not a traditionalist: saying that something is legitimate because 'it has always been that way' is a non-reason to me. People used to truly believe the body was composed of humors, and that poor people were incapable of love. As other posters have already mentioned, people are certain about all sorts of things that turn out to be incorrect. IMO, if I were creating my utopia, I would prefer to have progressives than traditionalists. I want people who believe in the power of the human being, in education and progress, not someone who believes we are doomed and flawed. (I'm making massive generalizations, I know.)

- To turn your question around, why 'should' a politician have a religious foundation, or a religiously-based philosophy? Do you believe that morality can only come from religion? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but this is a common answer - humans are not capable of creating their own morality.

-Again, IMO, because most religious beliefs are predicated on the notion of providing access to a truth (Truth) that another religion/ philosophy cannot, they are inherently elitist and relative - relative in that they depend on other beliefs to define themselves (in agreement or in oppoistion to), and that, had I been born in Iran, I would have (most likely) been a Muslim.
As a lurker on many a gay marriage thread here, I don't believe there are any arguments against gay marraige that aren't some permutation of either 1) 'ick' or 2) 'it's against my religion'. So obviously we don't give any creedence to the 'ick' argument - people used to think interracial marraiges were abominations, hence, 'ickiness' is not a fixed quality, hence it should not be used as the fundamental criterion. I'm not breaking any new ground by saying this, but religion can be just as relative. The Bible has been used to support all sorts of things - not to mention dogma. If I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, and I am cognizant of how much political/ cultural weight is carried in even the translation of one little word (John 1:1, anyone?), the Bible is not more an authority than any other philosophy.

And lastly, if you don't happen to be of the faith of a given politician, his use of his religion doesn't lend him much authority.

[ruadh]

While a lot of people are religious we don't really like our politicians being pubic about their religious beliefs.

I'd prefer my politicians not to be pubic about anything :eek:

Apart from the abortion debate, the one time you really do hear religion becoming a political issue in the south of Ireland is in the stem cell research debate. When this was in the Dáil (Irish Parliament) about a year and a half ago a number of politicians made religious arguments against it. It was quite creepy listening to it.

The north of Ireland is a whole 'nother story because of the strength of Ian Paisley's fundamentalist church.

[SCCajun]

That must have been something to see!
And thanks for discussing the question, too SC. You're much more open-minded than I was when I was a fundie, and I respect your ability to question rather than proclaim. There have been some nasty threads involving people who were just out to repeat their own fixed beliefs; and for what the sentiment of a total stranger is worth, I appreciate your openness.

Wow. Thanks.

Interesting their response was the "ick" that you mention below. Most of the Fundamentalist I know (including the group I was talking with) really didn't know what poly was. After I explained, they were so caught up with the "sex" side of it that they didn't hear or listen to what I was saying about the emotional support group. I was reminded of Christ's complaint that they have "ears, but they hear not."

I don't know if you read my other thread about change, but change is a topic I've been interested in for quite some time. I see the typical fundie leader (the preacher or evangelist) as unwilling to change. At all. Sure there is lots of talk about repent and such, but when it comes down to even minor changes, there is little real change. Most people are not willing to change either (or maybe as a result).

I've seen churches that have changed standards. Standards that they had preached as Biblical. I have also seen churches that refused to even consider budging on points that by their own admission have no Scriptural support. Both are incorrect approaches in my opinion. (More Below.)

A few (disorganized) thoughts:
- there are sects of Christianity that believe that God's kingdom is not part of this world, and it is best to withdraw onesself as much as possible, not only to avoid unnecessary 'worldly' influences, but also to focus on God's work. Then there are Christians (I don't believe of just one particular strain) that ardently believe and fight for the institutionalization of their beliefs. Since both base their conclusions on the Bible, it seems impossible to really 'know' (you could believe, though) that you had picked correctly. This sort of intractable certainty worries me.

The former would most closely resemble the group I'm associated with. The doctrine is taught as the doctrine of Separation and is reported to be one of the big reasons we are "Independent" and not part of a "Convention." (I suspect the real reason for most churches is that the pastor is a ego- megalo- maniac. Fortunately, our current pastor isn't.) A common phrase heard by this group is "if there is no difference, they why change." It refers to the fact that if "ungodly, sinful, immoral heathens" ;) don't see a difference between your lifestyle and ours, you will be unwilling to change your "heart/soul" to come to God. While I believe that is true to some extent, I don't believe the difference is what convinces anyone to "convert." Many fundies do.

The second group used to be called the "Kingdon Now" group in the mid to late 80s (or was it the 90s). In any case, they believe that God has given them the authority to "take" the earth and set up God's kingdom. I'm not real up on this (I believe it to be a misinterpretation of Scripture), but I think that Falwell and those of his group fall into that category. Frankly, these people scare me almost as much as they scare the non-religious, albeit for different reasons.

OK, I confess, I had to look up "intractable." ;)

In one way you are right. I believe that I am right because I have faith. Not just a generic, feel good faith that is preached so often. I have faith that God exists, and the He provided the 66 book Scripture as a basis of truth. A faulty interpretation or faulty logic that lead to a faulty conclusion doesn't invalidate that fact. (And yes, I do believe strongly enough in it to call it a fact, because to me it is.)

To provide an example, the fact that Jim Jones or David Koresh (sp?) (and others) have used Scripture to harm others doesn't invalidate the basic truth taught by Christ, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

However, with all that said, if you (or anyone else) comes to the issue without the faith that I have, I can easily see where there is plenty of room for trepidation.

-Really vocal fundamentalist politicians (or those who base their public speech on fundamentalist beliefs) basically believe that we are going to hell in a handbasket - modern society is not a good thing (too morally permissive, too corrupt, too faithless, etc) and that the tide must be turned back - to a more 'traditional' (regardless of whether or not such a time ever really existed) era. I'm not a traditionalist: saying that something is legitimate because 'it has always been that way' is a non-reason to me. People used to truly believe the body was composed of humors, and that poor people were incapable of love. As other posters have already mentioned, people are certain about all sorts of things that turn out to be incorrect. IMO, if I were creating my utopia, I would prefer to have progressives than traditionalists. I want people who believe in the power of the human being, in education and progress, not someone who believes we are doomed and flawed. (I'm making massive generalizations, I know.)

I think there needs to be a balance between the two. I am surrounded by traditionalists. My dad and I have talked on occasion about how funny it would be to "shake things up" for our churches. He said that one Sunday he wants to see the Preaching Service first, then Sunday School. In essence, swap the traditional time slots of the two. We both expect that many of the people would be upset at this. Why? They are traditionalists for tradition sake. Sunday School doesn't exist in the Bible. Neither do time slots.

On the other hand, there are many places that, in my opinion, have willingly (sometimes even anxiously) changed from what Scripture teaches. They are more anxious to appear cool/fun/interesting than in sticking to what (IMHO) is right.

I guess to some degree I hold to the old engineer philosophy, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I don't support change for change sake, but I am not opposed to change a tradition. I'm even open minded enough that I don't balk when someone questions a traditional belief (I've questioned my own share). I will willingly discuss questions and thoughts and ideas. Working with the youth group at our church, this is helpful, but so often, the teens are beaten down for thinking independently that it takes some time to gain their trust enought that they will even ask the questions they really have.

- To turn your question around, why 'should' a politician have a religious foundation, or a religiously-based philosophy? Do you believe that morality can only come from religion? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but this is a common answer - humans are not capable of creating their own morality.

Oh yeah, there was an original post here wasn't there. :)

Good question. I don't think it is necessary for a politician to have a religious foundation. And I don't really think morality only comes from religion. I try to act that way most of the time, but I confess to not being perfect.

I think that nature is clear that humanity can create its own morality. There are Island Nations or African/South American tribes that have no reference to the Scriptures, and yet have a moral code. It may not mimic our "Judeo-Christian," "Victorian" ideals, but it is moral in its own right. What I do believe is that no human based moral code will ever match the code God has already laid down.

That said, I think that a politician can indeed base a platform and a set of beliefs on a non-religious foundation. I believe that politician can be very successful in the eyes of both the religious as well as the non-religious. I think there are some positions on some issues that can't be argued without a religious foundation.

To be perfectly honest, this is an area I don't have a solid answer even for myself. Let me explain,

I believe in my very core that abortion is wrong. I personally believe that it is murder of a life. I base this on various passages of Scripture that I believe teach that life begins at conception.

I also believe that homosexuality is wrong. Again, this is my personal belief based on a variety of scriptures.

So, here is my delima. These are my personal beliefs, but at what point do I need to enforce my personal beliefs on someone else. I mean, in Old Testament Israel, it was rather easy. God dictated the laws. The country was a Theocracy. But now, what is right. Do I have the right to demand that our government enforce my personal beliefs on the rest of the country?

Right now, I'm looking at this from three distinct areas:

Majority - We, in America, live in a democracy, therefore the Majority should dictate the laws. I can do as I please with my life as long as it doesn't break the laws. This in one sense is apathy. Whatever will be, will be. My problem here is what do I do when a law is passed that I find morally wrong.

Rights - We, in America, believe that we are granted certain rights. By God, by nature, by life, by sentience, whatever the source, we believe that we have certain rights. (Life, liberty, etc.) This means that when I believe that something violates these rights, I should fight for it, but if not, leave it alone. In this case, I would personally fight against Abortion because I believe it to be taking a pre-born baby's right to life, but not against Gay Marriage because I believe it to be the homosexual couples right to liberty.

Morally - In this case, if I believe something to be wrong, I will fight to have the government recognize it as wrong. This can be a slippery slope (not the logical fallacy, but reality) in that it can lead to a religious dicatatorship. I mean, do I really want a law against gluttony or gossip? The end of this philosophy is the "forced baptisms" of Constantine. (Maybe better examples, but this was the first that came to mind.)

Right now, I lean mostly toward Rights in theory, but I am in no way "activist" about it so I guess in practice I am Majority.

I guess, in getting back to the original post, I was curious because I'm so used to being discounted because I base my beliefs on the Scripture. After reading the other thread, I was curious as to why Europeans (and Americans) see this as a "bad" thing.

-Again, IMO, because most religious beliefs are predicated on the notion of providing access to a truth (Truth) that another religion/ philosophy cannot, they are inherently elitist and relative - relative in that they depend on other beliefs to define themselves (in agreement or in oppoistion to), and that, had I been born in Iran, I would have (most likely) been a Muslim.
As a lurker on many a gay marriage thread here, I don't believe there are any arguments against gay marraige that aren't some permutation of either 1) 'ick' or 2) 'it's against my religion'. So obviously we don't give any creedence to the 'ick' argument - people used to think interracial marraiges were abominations, hence, 'ickiness' is not a fixed quality, hence it should not be used as the fundamental criterion. I'm not breaking any new ground by saying this, but religion can be just as relative. The Bible has been used to support all sorts of things - not to mention dogma. If I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, and I am cognizant of how much political/ cultural weight is carried in even the translation of one little word (John 1:1, anyone?), the Bible is not more an authority than any other philosophy.

Yes, I understand the arguement, I think. It is interesting to me because I think this is a fundamental difference of opinion that I have with other people. One person (or many people) mis-interpreting the Bible doesn't, to me, invalidate the Truth of the Bible. But, as I alluded to above, I do believe that the Bible is inerrant. I believe that where there is a "problem" translation it can be interpreted in light of other passages and translation first. I believe that most (if not all) "difficult" passages can be resolved this way. But again, this is based on the foundation of my faith.

By the same token, I don't think that the existence of hypocrites invalidates the source. Many do. It is a difference of opinion.

But I do see your point. I guess that my reply is simply that if "the Bible is not more an authority than any other philosophy" then why should we give more credence to an athiest arguing from a humanistic philosophy than we do to a fundamentalist arguing from a religious philosophy. The answer, of course, lies in the fact that our personal philosophy lies more in line with the humanistic philosophy.

I suspect that part of the real problem that Europeans and Americans have with a politician being religious in his office (for lack of a better way to say it) lies more in the fact that they disagree with his philosophy than that they dislike religion.


And lastly, if you don't happen to be of the faith of a given politician, his use of his religion doesn't lend him much authority.

This is an interesting question. I find myself thinking about what I would do if we had three candidates for President (no party affiliations). If all three were equally vocal about their faith as President Bush is, who would I choose, the Islamic candidate, the Buddhist candidate, or the Hindu candidate (sorry if I left out your favorite religion).

It is an interesting question, and while some things are obvious to me, I'm not sure what my answer is right now. Ask me again some time. ;)

I've rambled enough for now.

[js_africanus]

I'm not trying to be glib or rude, but as a person of sincere faith, I am not sure what this means. I mean, throwing aside all of the hypocrisy, and assuming that Bush, the right wing evangelical, et al are sincere (I know it may be difficult, but try to use your imagination), what is expected?

Don't try to base laws & policy on superstitions.

Suppose the federal government made it policy that no HUD home could begin construction unless the county astrologer said that the stars were giving fortuitous (sp?) signs.

Suppose the President were trying to base policy on the fact that because ghosts are real, life extends after death and the dead, therefore, had rights just like you. A ghost would vote through a medium, of course.

Suppose the Pledge were changed to have the phrase "one nation under a favorable star sign"?

Suppose presidential elections were swayed on whether a candidate believed feng shui should apply to interior design or merely the placement of buildings.

All these things are as reasonable as Christianity's influence in American policy & law.



Suppose that President Bush believes sincerely that God teaches that "life" begins at conception. Now, if that is his fervent sincere belief, how is he supposed to react to the abortion issue?

Suppose Bush sincerely believes that national policy issues affecting fundamental human rights should be subject to the findings of a Tarot reading. Would this be okay w/ you?

While everybody should subject their beliefs to critical thought, people making laws and policy decisions have an obligation to abandon beliefs and work with facts and logic.

[hildea]

Let me give an example to explain. Suppose that President Bush believes sincerely that God teaches that "life" begins at conception. Now, if that is his fervent sincere belief, how is he supposed to react to the abortion issue?

Or maybe a better example, if he (or another leader) believes that God intended marriage to only be between a man and a woman, how should he address that issue?

Again, I know it may be difficult, but assuming these folks are sincere, they have a strong desire to prevent wrongs from being done. In the first case they want to prevent "murder," and in the second, they want to prevent an "offense to God."I see these two examples as fundamentally different. A politician's proper job is (IMO) restricted to things in this world. A fetus exists, undoubtedly, in this world, and if a politician sincerely believes that a fetus is an entity which deserves more legal protections than it currently has, I've no problem with the politician working towards changing the laws. (I'm strongly pro-choice, btw, but I have no problem understanding the other point of view.)

But it's (IMO) no part of a politicians job to look after the interests of entities which may or may not exist outside this world. Maybe there is a god, and maybe he/she/it is offended by same sex marriage. But politicians are stepping far outside their proper role if they begin to use their positions to look after God's interests.

[Scott Plaid]

hildea, theoretically, I suppose I would agree with you. However, I would say they can't dig into religion for a justification for why people should agree with them, or why it should be a law. That would toss anti/abortion/gay's shouldn't get married/women shouldn't be paid as much as men arguments out the window, for all the non-religious arguments I have seen for those view points where either caused by popular belief and popular religion, or were supported by "scientific" facts they fell apart under scrutiny.

[Zoe]

Majority - We, in America, live in a democracy, therefore the Majority should dictate the laws. I can do as I please with my life as long as it doesn't break the laws. This in one sense is apathy. Whatever will be, will be. My problem here is what do I do when a law is passed that I find morally wrong.

The majority doesn't always dictate the laws. There are rights secured within the Constitution that cannot be changed by a simple majority. These laws protect the rights of minorities even when a majority of the people would want them not to have those rights.

Living your life as you please isn't apathy at all. That's freedom.

When a law is passed that you find morally wrong, you have choices. You can disobey the law and face the consequences and you can become politically active to try to change the law. You can leave the country.

Rights - We, in America, believe that we are granted certain rights. By God, by nature, by life, by sentience, whatever the source, we believe that we have certain rights. (Life, liberty, etc.) This means that when I believe that something violates these rights, I should fight for it, but if not, leave it alone. In this case, I would personally fight against Abortion because I believe it to be taking a pre-born baby's right to life, but not against Gay Marriage because I believe it to be the homosexual couples right to liberty.

If homosexual couples have a right to liberty, why wouldn't you fight for their rights -- just as you would fight for the rights of the unborn child?

Morally - In this case, if I believe something to be wrong, I will fight to have the government recognize it as wrong. This can be a slippery slope (not the logical fallacy, but reality) in that it can lead to a religious dicatatorship. I mean, do I really want a law against gluttony or gossip? The end of this philosophy is the "forced baptisms" of Constantine. (Maybe better examples, but this was the first that came to mind.)

But we can fight for something on moral grounds without it being on religious grounds. (I think there will always be people who will want to inflict their morals on others though, and sometimes they can seem rather extreme.)

SCCajun, good thread. Let's be friends. (Send seafood from Hymen's in Charleston...)

[Sage Rat]

By law (1st Amendment), the government is not allowed to favor any particular religious belief system. So this does mean that politicians are, by law, obligated to drop their own beliefs as soon as they are elected--at least when performing their duties.

So what does this leave them with? Logic and scientifically proven fact. Atheists have morals too, and assuming the person actually gave any thunking to his morality system it will be a lot stronger, more trustworthy, and more in line with modern day life than anything that was simply painted onto your brain as a child because some guy 2000 years ago was one heck of a good talker.

[SCCajun]

If homosexual couples have a right to liberty, why wouldn't you fight for their rights -- just as you would fight for the rights of the unborn child?

Hmmm. This feels to me to be getting closer to the crux of the matter. Well, at least in one area. It is the old adage, "Your right and freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose."

That is to say, everyone is entitled to certain Og-given rights. (If I understand the term Og, I believe that is proper usage.) However, when the exercising of those rights affects the rights of others, I cannot support their freedom in that area. The question is exactly where does the exercising of one persons rights infringe on the rights of another person.

(Please note, I'm not saying that I believe a homosexual couple exercising their rights infringes on my rights. I believe that many in evangelical circles would say that, but I'm not ready to commit to that line of thinking yet.)

In any case, I think this may be the non-religious definition of morality. Or maybe clarification, and not definition. The "Litmus Test" of whether something is moral or not is whether it affects the rights of another person. I don't think anyone (at least not here anyway) would argue that rape and murder are immoral. One person is exercising their rights at the expense of another's rights. By the same token, I don't think anyone would argue that shopping or eating would be considered immoral, at least not done the way normal people normally do them. :)

So then, the grey areas are where we have difficulty (in one sense, see below). In that, does Abortion or Gay Marriage affect the rights of another person. Some say no, others say yes, much fighting ensues.

Logical Descriptive 1:
Premise A: Individuals have the right to any activity as long as that activity doesn't violate the rights of another individual.
Premise B: Activity _____ (does/does not) violate another's rights.

Conclusion: Activity _____ (is/isn't) acceptable morally.

On another level though, I think we have a fundamental difference that gets more to my original question. See, as a religious fundamentalist, I believe there is a different standard for morality. I recognize that many (if not most) of you will disagree, but maybe my thoughts will help you understand Evangelicals. (Calm down, nobody said you have to agree with them :D ) The Bible is the foundation and source of morality, in that violating the laws that God has set down violates His rights. This is in the same way that violating the speed limit (when I cause no danger to anyone else) violates the (people-given) rights of the government.

Logical Descriptive 2:
Premise A: God is mankind's authority and as such set down rules.
Premise B: Violating the rules of an authority violates the rights of that authority.

Conclusion: Violating God's rules violate God's rights.

Combine with the Conclusion from above you get:

Any activity that violates God's rules is not acceptable morally.

However, if you disagree with Logical Descriptive 2:Premise A, the conclusions fall apart.

Don't misunderstand. I doubt the typical Evangelical or Fundamentalist have any concept of the above. I believe that at a gut level, they simply make a decision about an activity based on what they interpret God's word to say. That is at best. Most simply take what is fed to them and puke it out later down the road.

So, getting back to my OP, I think the Logical Descriptive 1 above is what people expect, and when things in Government slip down to Number 2, people get nervous.


But we can fight for something on moral grounds without it being on religious grounds. (I think there will always be people who will want to inflict their morals on others though, and sometimes they can seem rather extreme.)

I think we come to a divergence of the term now. Lets call one "practical" morals. This refers to anythin I can do that violates the rights of another human. Then we have "religious" morals. Anything that I believe violates the laws of God.

Practical Morals are going to be much less subjective than Religious Morals. It brings up many more interesting questions. I can argue against an activity because it violates the rights of another person (as opposed to God), and it doesn't approach religious matters. Setting up laws based on this doesn't bring Religion into the discussion at all. There is still grey area and subjectiveness (Abortion for one), but I think there is less subjectiveness than Religious Morals can create.

On the other hand, I can expect to live my life by Religious Morals, because to the individual, Religious Morals aren't subjective. Or rather, they shouldn't be. I know what I believe and why. If something new comes up, I research it to the best of my ability and make my decision. But as soon as I start dictating that you have to live your life based on my Religious Morals, we slip into subjectiveness because your interpretation may not match mine.

Not sure if this fits in here, but I seem to be given to rambling, so.... The Bible refers to the fact (if you believe it) that there is a single proper (ie, correct) interpretation of itself. That means that whoever is "right" would have the most appropriate set of Religious Morals (from God's perspective) and it wouldn't be subjective.



SCCajun, good thread. Let's be friends. (Send seafood from Hymen's in Charleston...)

Thanks, always looking for a friend. Especially in a place like this where I'm a VERY small minority. :) Unfortunately, I don't get to Charleston much. However, I'm originally from New Orleans and I do get down to the Mississippi Coast (my parents) about twice a year.

[Napier]

What especially obligates some politicians including the President to not involve religion with their politicking is that they swear an oath to uphold a Constitution that provides for separation of church and state.

I actually don't understand how somebody who thinks he puts God first can swear an oath to anything else - you can't promise to serve two masters if you can't be sure their interests will never be in conflict.

But as an athiest and a citizen, I disapprove of anyone mixing religion into his policy making.

I think somebody else's religion might guide them in living their life but doesn't obligate me to obey.