• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God Has No Place In Politics

rocket88 said:
To clear up a misconception that's going around on both sides in this thread. Separation of Church and State is NOT preventing religious people from voting, or keeping anyone from voting their conscience. Non-separation IS the establishment of a religion as the "state religion," and that is prohibited explicitly in the First Amendment. Therefore, it is in the Constitution, even though the words "separation of church and state" never appear.

Legislating morality is NOT the same thing. If you want to argue about whether that's a good idea or not, have at it, but it is NOT Separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...

Using this definition(which given the thread title[rather than what is discussed in the first post]) makes sense.

Given this definition of the topic at hand for discussion: God absolutely has a place in politics for the one soul reason that he has a place in People. One cannot well and truly sepperate faith and politics. Regarding the actions of the 3 Branches of Federal Government, or the 3 tiered system and actions of the Fed, State, or local government: the government cannot make an action that promotes one religion over another. This means that a government cannot DENY a bill(discussing legislation in this instance) based on the RELIGOUS stance of the political LEADERS unless the MAJORITY OF THE CONSTIUENCY is AGAINST the bill...be it religous or political reasons. The reverse of that statement is true as well. Cannot ACCEPT based on Religous stance of LEADERS unless MAJORITY OF THE CONSTITUENCY is FOR the bill...be it for religous or political reasons.

The 1st Amednment is STILL about the Government...as it should be. The people can make their decisions based on a dart board if they wish(and it seems like they do), there is no requirement for anything to vote. Being a non-felon and a citizen give you the privledge to vote. You lose the privledge to vote when you commit a felony, and a non-citizen should not vote based simply on the fact that they are not a citizen, and therefor not a part of the social contract.
 
I have no problem with laws being enacted that happen to fall in line with the beliefs of a religious group. However, I feel that enacting any law solely because it is the belief of a religious group goes against the spirit of the constitution. If a law needs to be enacted for the public good, it should not be necessary to quote any religious text to show why it should be enacted - there should be other proof.
 
prometeus said:
I do not believe anyone said that.

Nor that.

Yes indeed. It is more often than not that "measures" adopted by societies coincide with "religious values" and there is nothing wrong with that. Religions do not have exclusivity or monopoly on what is right. The problem is when "something" that is particular only to one religion is impopsed or attempted to, on the entire society.
Click to expand...

This was a few days ago but not that far back so I'll still go ahead and note how ridiculous of a position this is. You understand someone voting their conviction and when many have this conviction, it's a problem to do so when you do not have this conviction? What exactly is your solution here?
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
I have no problem with laws being enacted that happen to fall in line with the beliefs of a religious group. However, I feel that enacting any law solely because it is the belief of a religious group goes against the spirit of the constitution. If a law needs to be enacted for the public good, it should not be necessary to quote any religious text to show why it should be enacted - there should be other proof.
Click to expand...

Nor is it ever done. Ever. Nobody has stood up (in the U.S.) and said "This is the beliefs of such and such believers and in such, let it be law"

Now perhaps you can show me where it goes against the spirit of the Constitution to decide that someone is wrong to vote for higher taxes and tells others to stop complaining because the Bible notes to "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars"?
 
1Perry said:
Nor is it ever done. Ever. Nobody has stood up (in the U.S.) and said "This is the beliefs of such and such believers and in such, let it be law"
Click to expand...
Then how did laws like no alcohol sells on Sunday get on the books? Is there any reason for alcohol to be sold every day except Sunday other than religious belief? The US once had many such laws on the books, but most have been repealed. There are factions today that would seem to want such laws to become commonplace once again.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Then how did laws like no alcohol sells on Sunday get on the books? Is there any reason for alcohol to be sold every day except Sunday other than religious belief? The US once had many such laws on the books, but most have been repealed. There are factions today that would seem to want such laws to become commonplace once again.
Click to expand...

Really? I had no idea! Which groups want to bring back "blue laws"? Link me up please.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Then how did laws like no alcohol sells on Sunday get on the books?
Click to expand...

A majority of people voted them on the books. The same way the vast majority have been voted off the books.

Is there any reason for alcohol to be sold every day except Sunday other than religious belief? The US once had many such laws on the books, but most have been repealed. There are factions today that would seem to want such laws to become commonplace once again.
Click to expand...

And? You can certainly have a different opinion. Am I missing something here?
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Then how did laws like no alcohol sells on Sunday get on the books? Is there any reason for alcohol to be sold every day except Sunday other than religious belief? The US once had many such laws on the books, but most have been repealed. There are factions today that would seem to want such laws to become commonplace once again.
Click to expand...

People also make dumb laws for non-religious reasons all the time.

Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws!

When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Then how did laws like no alcohol sells on Sunday get on the books? Is there any reason for alcohol to be sold every day except Sunday other than religious belief? The US once had many such laws on the books, but most have been repealed. There are factions today that would seem to want such laws to become commonplace once again.
Click to expand...

What about a law...like...say...against slavery? Religion was mainly against it (in the South religion was not used as often to justify it). How about an even easier connection?

How did marriage become law in the United States? Marriage has no basis but in religion. Yet it is made a huge deal of? Why in fact does the government make ANY comment on religion? For, against, tax deduction, no-tax deduction? Without religion many laws would lack ANY justification. Why is murder wrong?
 
stonewall50 said:
How did marriage become law in the United States? Marriage has no basis but in religion. Yet it is made a huge deal of? Why in fact does the government make ANY comment on religion? For, against, tax deduction, no-tax deduction? Without religion many laws would lack ANY justification. Why is murder wrong?
Click to expand...
The Bible does not prohibit slavery - in fact the Old Testament says that a thief who cannot make restitution is to be sold to pay the debt. Exodus 22:2-22:3 NIV - If a thief is caught breaking in at - Bible Gateway

Murder is a crime in virtually every society so it stands to reason that religious edicts are not the only reasons that murder is a crime.

As for marriage, I've long held that the government should only license civil unions to grant legal rights. Marriage should be what churches do for religious reasons.

As for churches and taxation - if a church can qualify under non-profit rules, then treat it as a non-profit. If it can't, treat it as a business (That thud you heard was James Dobson fainting)
 
Last edited:
stonewall50 said:
What about a law...like...say...against slavery? Religion was mainly against it (in the South religion was not used as often to justify it). How about an even easier connection?

How did marriage become law in the United States? Marriage has no basis but in religion. Yet it is made a huge deal of? Why in fact does the government make ANY comment on religion? For, against, tax deduction, no-tax deduction? Without religion many laws would lack ANY justification. Why is murder wrong?
Click to expand...

Laws criminalizing murder can be justified based on their effects on the social order without any reference to morals. So can the laws prohibiting slavery and allowing marriage
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
The Bible does not prohibit slavery - in fact the Old Testament says that a thief who cannot make restitution is to be sold to pay the debt. Exodus 22:2-22:3 NIV - If a thief is caught breaking in at - Bible Gateway
Click to expand...

That is a really out of context usage of that passage. The OT uses slavery based on a method of payment of a debt. It would be MORE along the lines of indentured servants. This was an economic reality back then because MONEY was not the system, but rather a barter system(and any money to be had was not really used by common people). This form of "slavery" was also not based on race or sex, but rather on money.

The Bible also is against slave traders and does...in Timothy if I am not mistaken...compare them to murderers. I do know that the Bible does not make a whole lot of commentary on slavery being good or bad, but DOES talk about it more in the context of a fact of life kind of way.
 
I think I get where this guy comes from in a way. I dont think he worded it right. But I think what he means is religion likes to force its way to some things. You even have some that take it so far they disrupt the funeral's of dead soldiers to preach nonsense about how a none existent god hates America. And the dead soldier who fought for their right to talk this senseless bull is going to a none existent place of terror (usually referred to as "hell") cause he fights for a country that allows gays in society. I live in the "bible" belt and Jesus some how is mentioned in some way. Plus, another factor I learned form my AP American Government and Politics class is Agents of Socialization. These are outside factors that affect our individual political ideology. Examples of these agents are schools, work, family, and religion.
 
stonewall50 said:
That is a really out of context usage of that passage. The OT uses slavery based on a method of payment of a debt. It would be MORE along the lines of indentured servants. This was an economic reality back then because MONEY was not the system, but rather a barter system(and any money to be had was not really used by common people). This form of "slavery" was also not based on race or sex, but rather on money.

The Bible also is against slave traders and does...in Timothy if I am not mistaken...compare them to murderers. I do know that the Bible does not make a whole lot of commentary on slavery being good or bad, but DOES talk about it more in the context of a fact of life kind of way.
Click to expand...
This is a passage about the father of the twelve tribes of Israel. Do you honestly believe this Egyptian woman was paying a debt?:
Genesis 16:1 Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

The book of Ephesians was written as instruction to the members of the church in Ephesus: It does not say 'don't owe slaves' it says:
Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians was a letter written to the church members in Colossae about behavior. Again, it does not say 'don't own slaves':
Colossians 4: 1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

I could provide examples all night long.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Unfortunately religion and politics are not like oil and water, they merge quite nicely.
Jetboogieman said:
Not when one assumes an almighty, all knowing, all wise and all loving god has a favorite country and a social agenda.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” ~ Sinclair Lewis
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Unfortunately religion and politics are not like oil and water, they merge quite nicely.
Click to expand...

They do go together nicely. But in the wrong hands, they go together like a match and a molotov cocktail.
 
dixiesolutions said:
"ONE NATION UNDER GOD, FOR WHICH IT STANDS"
Awesome words.

You all know it, and were that sentance comes from.....
Those that don't, well then your in that same 'No Clue' catigory along with Obama.
Click to expand...

I agree with you......... One nation under God. But I am a Pastafarian, who believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is God. Therefore, Pastafarianism should be forced into schools, and children should be forced to touch the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. I don't believe in evolution either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that we see, and American's should be forced to wear parmisan cheese in their hair to remind us of that fact. Science textbooks should also reflect the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created man out of the primitive ooze of marinara sauce. Makes just as much sense as worshiping a zombie, and praying to an image of a tool that was used for an execution.
 
danarhea said:
I agree with you......... One nation under God. But I am a Pastafarian, who believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is God. Therefore, Pastafarianism should be forced into schools, and children should be forced to touch the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage. I don't believe in evolution either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that we see, and American's should be forced to wear parmisan cheese in their hair to remind us of that fact. Science textbooks should also reflect the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created man out of the primitive ooze of marinara sauce. Makes just as much sense as worshiping a zombie, and praying to an image of a tool that was used for an execution.
Click to expand...
Ramen and pass the Parmesan cheese!
 
stonewall50 said:
1)Religion plays a role in the individual and how they vote.
Click to expand...
Yes at times it does and that is why it is a problem.

It SHOULD.
Click to expand...
I am sure you would welcome sharia law with open arms.

It would be Unconstitutional to DENY someone the right to vote as they see fit.
Click to expand...
That is true. Good thing that there is a SCOTUS that can act as a check for that when the bounds of the constitution are overstepped.

3)The fact is that a Society has a right to dictate by majority what they can follow.
Click to expand...
There may be some but certainly not the US. The Constitution IS a good thing.

Without stepping on my soapbox about State vs Federal Government and where laws like Gay Marriage and Abortion belong...if a majority of a society vote for something then it is law.
Click to expand...
If it meets constitutional muster, as anyone who is a 'civics buff' to paraphrase you can tell you.

4)Once more politics has no place in Religion. People outside a faith and inside of government should not comment ON religion. Why? That would be a closer violation of the Constitution than the people voting for laws based on their religion.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to be too familiar with the constitution.

If a private group or citizen donates a statue of the 10 commandments to a public place, then it should stand because the PEOPLE put it there. If the government placed it there that is another story. THAT would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Except when they try to build a mosque, or was that being built by the government?
 
stonewall50 said:
God absolutely has a place in politics for the one soul reason that he has a place in People.
Click to expand...
Actually that is true only in theocracies. Maybe you fancy living in Iran.

One cannot well and truly sepperate faith and politics.
Click to expand...
It is a function of intellect and integrity. Some people can and some can not.

This means that a government cannot DENY a bill
Click to expand...
You seem to be confused what the government is and its role. No matter what law congress passes, it MUST meet constitutional requirements, even is there is a single person who's rights may be violated. All that matters is what the law says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom