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

In My Humble Opinion
21

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.)

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” :wink: 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.” :wink:

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.

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.

Oh yeah, there was an original post here wasn’t there. :slight_smile:

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.

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.

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. :wink:

I’ve rambled enough for now.

22

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 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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.

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?

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…)

26

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.

27

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. :slight_smile:

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 :smiley: ) 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.

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.

Thanks, always looking for a friend. Especially in a place like this where I’m a VERY small minority. :slight_smile: 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.

28

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.