God and religion should have nothing to do with politics -- Period.

The only way politics should relate to religion is protecting the right of everyone to believe and practice whatever religious values they hold in their own lives, or to have no religious values. That is important.

Otherwise, it should be taken out of the equation on both a national and international level. We'd all be a lot better off.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

n/t

You've got crazy Conservative Christians praying for the imposition of their values and thge defeat of all others. Meanwhile you have liberal Christians praying for humanistic values and tolerance. You have Republicans praying for GOP supremacy, and Democrats prayoing for democratic resurgance. Meanwhile you have Muslim etremists praying for the death of all infidels....etc. etc. etc.

If I were God, I'd just throw up my hands in frustration and say "Shut up all of you and take some responsibility. Stop coming to me with your petty bs."

it just sickens me when athletes thank jesus for a touchdown.

:blush:

Heck, if he didn't learn to stop listening to all that petty crap he probably would have lost his temper and starte smiting people left and right by now.
"I want a new car" *BAM* Bolt of lightning knocks a 50 foot tree on their old car on the same day they forget to pay their insurance.
"I want money" *BAM* Bolt of lightning right up the ass. Go work for your living, ya freeloader.
"I want to be rich and famous." *BAM* They get famous... for having the police raid their home and find child pornography. The rest of their life is 'enriched' by staying at an exclusive resort, where all the other murderers and rapists look down on them as being the worst kind of criminal.

Y'know what, I think I could do this god thing. Somebody give me smiting powers... I wanna try 'em out... >: )

The law has to step in when religions break the law. For instance, I know that fundies practice child abuse and I hope the law steps in when there are cases of this.

Someone abuses a child, engages in sacrifice, vandilizes or otherwise breaks the law in the name of religion, it's the same as anyone else doing it.

often hesitant to interfere when a practice is considered a religious practice. If they enforced the laws with the unification church, Reverend Moon would be back in Korea if not in jail for violation of labor laws.

I understand your point. That falls under my own exception in my original post, of protecting religious freedom.

It's always a difficult balance. But if that were the only aspect of religion we had to deal with politically, we'd still be better off. That's much more specific and managable than those who try to impose their own religion on everyone else.

enforcing it? Yet, I see flagrant violations of religion interjecting themselves in politics all the time. Any websites you go to that are operated by our present fundie nutjob have all kinds of political content, from endorsing certain candidates to demanding government funds for their schools and charities, not to mention teaching intelligent design as science. IMHO they shouldn't get any tax money because they are supposed to be self-sufficient.

We need some legislators that are bold enough to draw up a list of do's and don'ts that apply to the intent of the Constitutional concept of separation of church and make them into law. They also need to list the appropriate fines and penalties to be imposed if they break those laws. I say removing their tax free status for violating the law could be a start.

We on the other hand have to be careful to make the laws fair, not to institute a state religion from the other side by not appointing clergy and creating acceptable ritual practices. This is what the communists have done with Christianity and Buddhism. When they found out they couldn't wipe out religion, they took it over. Hitler did the same in Germany. One Nazi even wanted to replace the Bible with "Mein Kampf", but more level headed Nazis thought that was going too far.

Heck, do you know how many Catholic monasteries and missions there are around the world?

Do you think that *they* make minimum wage?

:applause:

Sid

cause it will never happen.

You will never be able to divorce politics and religion, since religion affects people's values. Many religious DUers base thier support for the downtrodden on thier religion, for example. I am an Atheist myself, but we should not let the fundies tarnish the image of other religious people. Religion more then anything else that can unite people around a common goal.

...and if that has a political dimension in their own lives, fine.

But if you are, say, a liberal Christian, you are ultimately a liberal for secular reasons ultimately. If not, you'd be a conservative Christian.

And if one is a conservative Christian, they are that way because they are conservatives personally, and that is expressed in their version of religion. They want to practice restraint and those values in their own lives and among their friends, fine. But don't use Christianity as an excuse to impose their conservatism on everyone else.

The term morality comes from "mores" or folk customs and the practices that are acceptable within a tribe or ethnic group. For a long time religion was about appeasing the gods or asking for favors, like a good crop and nothing else. The morality you got from your people. It's okay I believe for relgion to propagate the mores as long as they know all concepts are subject to questioning and change.

This is our problem. Religious people are taking mores that were necessary for the survival of the tribe maybe four thousand years ago, but the times have changed and so must the concept of what is moral and immoral.

And I, for one, won't abandon it.

themselves of that.

Jimmy Carter is, in my opinion, the most religious man that we've had in the White House at least since the start of the 20th century. But back when he ran for president, nobody gave a shit about how religious he was. If anything, the people in Washington were uncomfortable with how deep his faith was.

martin luther king
the quakers
ghandi
the nun from dead man walking fame

etc.

the reality is that most people are fine with people's religious convictions affecting their politics, and the nation's politics if they AGREE with those religious convictions

lots of the strongest advocates for abolition of the death penalty are very religious, and their opposition to the death penalty comes from a religious basis

i went to a quaker school. quakers are pacifists, who VOTE that way, and make their opinion and politics known

the state of Rhode Island was founded by quakers fleeing religious persecution iirc

MLK... well. need i say more.

No one was ever forced on a peace march by King. He persuaded people. No quaker has ever told anyone that they have to be a pacifist or forced them to pay lip service to their ideals. Instead they have gone about implementing their ideals and putting them out there for anyone who wants to listen. Ghandi took his ideals from a variety of religions not just one. The purpose of any nun's life is self-sacrifice so she can make a difference in the lives of others. No one is forcing you to become a nun or even let a nun in your life if you choose not to. The Catholic Church though is a perfect example though of what happens when the church runs government. Just look at history.

all of them

all of the above people INFLUENCED, or have tried to influence policy and the law - based on religious conviction

nothing you said disputes my point

were the above people/groups wrong to use public opinion, civil disobedience, politics, and the courts to forward their RELIGOUSLY inspired points of view?

the answer is no

the point stands

if a religiously inspired person forwards a policy that one agrees with, it's ok. otherwise, it's not

that's called hypocrisy

it's just bald faced hypocrisy.

So do those for social justice and caring for all people.

If people choose to do this within their religion without proselytizing then it's really not a religious issue. I do agree they shouldn't influence anyone's vote and if they are doing this then they need to be fined for it.

pro-choice people transcend all religions too

so do pro-death penalty people

on almost ANY issue you can find people of various religions, and various non-religions

that completely ignores the point. the point is that MLK;s adherence to civil rights WAS based in a large part and intersected with his religious beliefs. that did not make his beliefs or actions any less valid.

and there's a million other examples of this (not an understatment)

influencing ANYBODY's vote ***before the polling place*** is the right of ANY citizen. that's what political debate is for

yes, it is correct that a church leader cannot do it IN church IF he wants to retain non-profit status (although many conservative AND liberal churches do JUST that)

but it is not correct that a person informed by religion (to whatever extent) has ANY less place in the public debate than an atheist, agnostic, or whatever

johnny smith the pacifist atheist's POV counts no more or less than the johnny doe the pacifist theist's view

again, people want to say that religiously inspired ideas are groovy as long as they are the same ideas they hold.

that's just logically inconsistent and hypocritical

loving and charitable person. Sometimes it's harder when your preachers tell you that you should harass doctors and women at family planning clinics, or people who are trying to die peacefully at a hospice and turn it all into a trailer hitch Jesus circus.

who the heck said you need religion to be peaceful?

that's not the point.

nobody said any such thing

There were a couple of instances in ancient Greece where pacifism was alluded to, but modern Pacifism derives directly from Christianity and religious socialism. Even Gandhi, who wasn't a Christian, formulated Satyagraha from the Sermon on the Mount. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were religious socialists, and Dr. King patterned his protests from Gandhi's example.

That isn't to say that pacifism hasn't spread out beyond its roots- all great ideas do. But people vote their values, and their religous beliefs are inseparable from them.

Greek philosophy into their new religion to flesh it out so to speak.

In my experience most societies try to be peaceful. Unfortunately, there are the greedy few who make war and make it necessary to have a warrior class for defense of their people.

I think this is well illustrated in the old movie "Seven Samurai" where a village of farmers, who are tired of being sacked and having everything taken from them by bandits and other bad guys hire out of work Samurai warriors to protect them so that they can farm and live in peace.

Your warhawks are really a small percentage of any population. This is why heroes were so important in ancient mythology. Any warrior who attained the status of hero for fighting for their people gained very high status. This was because the majority of the population could go about their business and raise their families in peace because the hero took care of things.

It doesn't take religion to make people moral. I think what is going on today with religion is anything but moral.

great post.

i also take issue with a common meme, that some people are voting against their self-interests, and that this is a bad thing

i vote against my self-interests all the time

voting for your self-interests is the politics of selfishness

i vote for what i think is right for the country, and right within the framework of the rule of law, the constitution, and american values

often, what is in my best interests (as an individual or member of a racial, ethnic, or other demographic group) is NOT something *i* would vote for

perfect example is smoking bans

smoking bans would be in my best interests - a ban in all private businesses like WA state passed

i hate cigarette smoke, hate being around it, etc.

such a law is CLEARLY in my best interests

but it strongly goes against my values, my understanding of the law and the role of govt. to BAN it in private businesses. so, given the chance, i would vote against it. and i emailed my state representatives to let them know i was strongly against their passage of that law

that's an example of my values outweighing my self interest

It is obviously impossible to totaslly seperate religious beliefs from ones's political stance.

However, in the political/governmental/social sphere, it is still the secular values and morality that matter.

Martin Luther King obviously combined his religious beliefs with his social activism. However, in terms of political action, his message was responded to and put into action by people of many different faiths and non-faiths -- Because his ideals were baserd on a morality that transcended any specific religion.

On the other side of the fence, the same goes for those who would impose censorship of sexual material to protect "family values." The fundie Christians may cite Jesus and some mythical spiritual reason to stifle sex in society. But the core of it is based on a morality that is outside of religion. That is basically a secular goal, that many people outside the religious right may agree with. It is more a matter of personal taste and values.

The problem is that using religion as a cloak for political goals mixes up church and state, and also confuses the real impact and purpose of politics.

whether or not a policy goal is a GOOD goal and one supported by one's religion can intersent - or not

that MLK goals' benefited the commonweal are not in doubt. that they were religiously inspired is ALSO not in doubt

that is not always the case, but it is sometimes the case. and religiously inspired views have the same right to the "table", which is the open debate of ideas, and the ultimate gauge of opinion into policy - voting, as non-religiously inspired views

i agree that those who CLOAK their beliefs are problematic.

and the intersection takes place in that one can think that the death penalty is wrong, and be a devout catholic and there is no way to seperate what %age of that conclusion came from the religious vs. the non-religious part of the brain, so to speak

my primary point holds though. everybody wants to say that religion and politics don't mix, except when they do (iow, when they agree with the political decisions based on the religion a la MLK, etc.)

the state should not be authorized to tell you who to worship, who not to worship, whether or not to worship, make any statements about who is or isn;t the "one true god" etc. the state should vigorously protect the rights of ALL religious people to worship, and all nonreligious people NOT to worship

it does not follow that religious people do not have a seat in the public debate, that their vote is any less valid, or that their ideas are discounted merely because they have religious basis

Growing up in a small New England city, religion played a big part in life -- But it was seperate from politics.

I knew liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, secular Jews, conservative Protestants and liberal Protestants.

And many of the liberals and conservatives of these faiths attended the same church. They disagreed politically, but they shared the same religious perspective.

That to me is the idea. Individuals and society form conclusions based on a variety of factors. Religion may be a part of it for one person, while anotehr person may have the same conclusion based on a totally different spiritual belief system (or non-belief system).

When taken on that basis, comproimise, coalitions and partial agreements become possible. But as soon as they are yoked to religion in the political sphere they become more divisive and absolutist.

i grew up in NE as well

as far as your compromise thing goes, let me get all religious "compromise is the language of the devil" (can't recall the movie)

if one truly believes something is a wrong (or right) should one compromise?

if person X believes that the death penalty is absolutely wrong, or a "sin" should he say "well i'll compromise and say it's ok in the case of multiple murderers"

etc.

i don't think that the fact that idea is yoked to religion means that compromise is necessarily more or less possible than if it's yoked to "militant atheism", or militant ANYTHINGism

i have known plenty of VERY doctrinaire and completely inflexible people/ideas held with NO religious basis whatsoever. one of my fave friends is a MILITANT (to put it mildly) atheist, who is pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-bush (to a large extent), pro-drug legalization, and one of the strongest "lock em up and throw away the key" law enforcement types i have ever met. he is NOT going to compromise, and he is the most devoutly atheist (and that is not an oxymoron) people i have ever met.

and moreover, if an idea is truly the RIGHT one, SHOULD one compromise? i mean, POLITICS is ultimately gonna involve compromise, in terms of results. i am NEVER gonna find a candidate that comes close to (unfortunately) what positions i think a candidate should support.

so, i compromise.

but i disagree with the notion (if that is what you are implying) that religious folks are necessarily more or less prone to compromise, OR if compromise (in many cases) is even a good thing

and civil rights, and most policy decisions, are gonna involve tradeoffs.

minimum wage does not just increase the rights of one group: workers. it decreases the rights of another: employers. free speech necessarily means that some will be exposed to virulent, disgusting, aborrent, hateful ideas that make them feel terrible. abortion rights increase the rights of pregnant women, but decrease the "rights" of fetuses (and i;m pro-choice but i don't pretent the fetus is a nonissue), etc. it's a tradeoff. more lenient parole boards increase the convict's chance of getting out and starting over, but decrease the justice meted out and given to the victims, etc. etc. etc.

Rigity, extremism, etc. are human traits, based in human nature. So it will cross all religious and non-religious boundaries.

The problem is that when religion gets thrown into the mix, it does give things an extra dimension of absoluteness. It also tends to make a view exclusive.

As in the right-wing fundies who believe that anything remotely outside of "God's plan" for marriage is a sin. That position both makes it impossible to bargain. It also takes it out of the realm of those who may have moral standards that don't mesh exactly with that.

As I said above, I am not claiming that peopel with religious values should not participate in politics. However, I do think the political framework ought to minimize the religious side of issues, and concentrate on how things work in the here and now. That is more inclusve and rational, IMO.

there is a difference between believing something, and believing it should be policy

for example, probably basically all fundies (and probably most religious and non-religious people) believe adultery is a sin

VERY VERY few people believe adultery should be a crime under civil law

so, just because a religious (or nonreligious) viewpoint is absolute does not mean one should put it into policy

i personally think cigarette smoking is disgusting, i detest cigarette smoke, and i'd love a world whereh people CHOSE not to smoke

i benefit from indoor smoking bans in private businesses

but i do not SUPPORT such *legislation* because i believe it is not the state's place to tell private businesses they must ban smoking (as my state nannygovt. does)

i do agree that many religious sorts have their nocompromiseorthodoxies (tm)

i see the same on some issues from nonreligous or nonfundie types.

i just stand by my point that religious folks have greatly contributed (on all sides) to various debates, movements, etc. and that this is a big part of democracy.

they are part of the marketplace of ideas

...but usually it is because they personally make those contributions.

One of the people I admire and agree with most in the world was Rev. William Sloane Coffin.

However, I don;t necessarily agree with him on religion. His actions and beliefs as a human being are what made the difference, and would hae no matter how he personally connected it to his religion.

Hell, if only our own country agreed...

Unfortunately politics and religion have been intertwined since the inception of those concepts.

There is not much we can do to separate the two today.

In my own lifetime, we have gone from having a basioc balance and seperation of religion and politics to the current state where in the US thaty balance has been thrown out of whack.

And globally, it is getting worse, not better.

We need to at least seek to restore some measure of balance.

The Christian extremists are gaining power here, Muslim extremists are gaining power there, all in all not a pretty picture. I wish I knew the answers.

...need to be more assertive.

The extremists gain power because the rest of us allow them to.

Nearly all abolitionists in the 18th & 19th century were fighting slavery for religious (specifically, Christian) reasons, and Martin Luther King Jr. drew people to the civil rights movement because he was able to frame the issue as one of following the teachings of Jesus.

I agree that horrible, terrible things have been done in the name of "religion". However, we should not, I believe, discount the power of religion to inspire people to do good for their fellow man.

As you said, religion can be used for good or evil.

But ultimately what people respond to is their own personal moral code. If someone is opposed to slavery, it is ultimately because it offends their own sense of decency -- regardless of whether they are Christian, Buddhist or athiest.

While individually people can make tht connection or not, IMO it would be much better to deal with issues on their own merits in terms of morality, without the added level of religion.

Religion can and often does serve as a conduit for a moral code. And when that moral code stresses taking care of the weakest among us, I think that very good things can result.

In general, I like Jim Wallis' take on the issue.

You can have an athiest who believes that life is a completelyu random accident with no larger purpose and meaning. That athiest may also have a very strong moral code, and believe that it is important to care for one another and all of that, even though they do not believe there is any larger reason to do so.

In fact, an athiest may be even more moral, because they see no supernatural incentive to behave morally.

I am not referring simply to an absence of religion. I am referring to an absence of developed moral thought and instruction. Atheists can certainly have that kind of moral framework, whether it comes from secular humanism, Kant, or a host of other sources.

My point is that religion has and can continue to be one the most effective of these moral sources. I believe it would be mistaken to discount the positive aspects of religious morality while focusing on the inarguably real and inarguably horrible negatives.

But people want to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Because the truth of the matter is-like you said-we'd all be a lot better off!

Why are some people so blind to the truth?! :argh:

when talking about the middle east.

Nei-Cons see the Middle East as a battleground between the forces of Judeoi-Christian Civilization and Islam.

They may couch it in a lot of euphamisms, but that's ultimately boils down to. And it's what makes the tribal/ethnic tensions worse.

My religion dictates that I be involved. It also dictates that Ibe a democrat even when I do not agree with everything in the liberal pantheon.

What you may not understand is how one's faith can shape one's view of justice and individual responsibility. To ask one to make a choice between a political life and a religious life is unreasonable.

I don't dispute that it is problematic but don't throw out the baby with bathwater.

I completely understand how one's faith and spiritual views can shape a person's view of justice and individual responsibility. I was not disputing that.


My point was that, in a collecttive sense,politics and policies should not have that as a framework. I may totally agree with someone on the moral and practical merits of a particular issue, while having arrived at that belief via a completely different road.

What matters in a political sense is the actual values and morals of a position. That should not have to be justified on religious grounds in terms of politics.

And the converse is also true - get politics out of religion. Nothing corrodes religion more than politics... with the possible exception of money. And nothing corrodes politics more than religion, with the possible exception of money.

Good post by Armstead.

Those of us who believe that radical religion is a con game salute you.

Tell you what, I don't give a hoot what religion (or not) the president is as long as s/he's a decent human being. NO religion has cornered the market on that yet AFAIK. Just look at the man currently squatting in the WH who's single-handedly set the perception of Christianity back centuries.

What would be really nice is to go back to presidents and administrations that don't proselytize. The current group seem to think they have the right to marginalize people who don't believe as they do. IN AMERICA.

Why doesn't that set off alarm bells in more Americans?? Because the biggest pitfall of using religion in politics is the same thing our founding fathers tried to guard against; it tends towards cliques, and that divides people -- as we see today, thanks to little boots and his phony bible-thumping entourage of sadistic neocons. It's exactly what they wanted and religion gave them the tool to do it.

No matter what the Right say, America wasn't built on the premise of marginalizing and excluding those who don't believe in the Christian god. It may well die from that shameful misconception, however. And if it does, the blind acceptance of overt faith in politics (and policy) will be to blame.

but there is no way to keep it out of politics.

Whatever the source of values that people take into public debate/politics is less iumportant than the values themselves.

If a person believes in capitalism as the best economic system, fine. But to claim that unbridled cowboy capitalism is sanctioned by God, and liberalism is "Godless" as people like Anne Coulter claim, is a bunch of hooey.

In otehr words, issues and policies should be advocated and argued for on their own merits. It matters not a whit whether someone is a liberal or conservative because of their religion. What matters is the substance of what they advicate for in the human sphere in which we live.

is superior to every other economic system. So, I suppose that makes me a godless capitalist.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you say. The substance of what one advocates is what should matter. (People should vote for ideas rather than men/women).

But how many votes do you think the politician who disavows the notion of god will get? (That's why religion will always be entwined with politics).

should have nothing to do with politics. Signing off with pride in a closed mind is a sure sign that you will convince no one.

Using your logic, I assume that means you have such an open mind that you're willing to be convinced that the conservative/GOP agenda has been good for America and that Bush has really been a great president.

At some point, unless one is completely wishy-washy, a person has to come to basic conclusions and beliefs that end with a "period."

Not your comment, which I don't care one way or the other. It's my experience that most people discard the rantings of someone who expresses a closed mind, like you do.

Especially, the politics of pipsqueeks on a puny planet, circling an minor sun, in an insignificant galaxie, among trillions of other galaxies.

Invoking a God/Gods to further political ambitions is rather silly when you stop to think about it.