God Has No Place In Politics

[kmiller1610]

If someone is a more caring and responsible person because of their religion, good on them. But those religion are obviously not less caring or responsible than those with it.

I challenge this assertion. Let's google the following: Christian schools, Christian orphanages, Christian hospitals, Christian relief agencies, Christian homes for unwed mothers, Christian Universities. Add em up. We should be in the thousands of cites.

Now replace the word Christian with any other word tied to privately funded, non-religious institutions. See if you can find something even close.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Morality requires religion?

 

[RamFel]

You seem to be misunderstanding what the "seperation of church and state" means. It doesn't mean that people should ignore their religious beliefs (and religiously based moral beliefs) when making laws. It merely means that the *govt* may not favor one religion over another

That's exactly RIGHT !!

 

[iguanaman]

People are allowed to vote as their religion compels them... unfortunately.

Majorities voting the rights away from minorities is supposed to be overuled by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

 

[Surtr]

Majorities voting the rights away from minorities is supposed to be overuled by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Civil Rights are protected by federal law, not the Constitution.

 

[Fiddytree]

-No sale of alcohol on Sundays in some states
-Illegality of abortion in some states
-Illegality of gay marriage in some states
-The drug war
-Excuse for abusing our military power (god's will and all that bull****)

All of these are influenced by religion. And I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state. Guess not. And it's all based on christianity too. If a school encouraged christian ideals, nobody would have a problem with it. And yet, if a school encourages Muslim ideals, an angry mob would burn it to the ground. And you all know it's true.

On the first point, there is always some contention, even in blue law states, as to the extent one ought to have them in place. While it was true that religion essentially created and gave justification for the cease of commercial enterprise on Sunday, the debate as to whether or not continue the laws takes place on entirely secular and civic grounds.

If one reads about the current events surrounding various communities throughout the country wrestling with blue laws, you can easily find some generalities that impact the debate. The local business community and the employees generally respond in the negative with regard to being open on Sundays, delivering whatever services were currently or previously outlawed. Rarely would one hear about the need to give pause in order to hear a sermon or contemplate God's ways. Rather, you would hear "we want a day of rest," "it doesn't pay to be open on Sunday," "we don't want that clientele."

Around here, there was a dramatic blizzard that hit in 1990 or so. The following year the state allowed certain businesses to be open on Sunday due to the possible dangers of weather. When the liquor stores opened up around here, it was because a business owner from out of town was annoyed that he could not buy liquor on a Sunday. He did not live in the community, but decided to take it to the next step. Then it received more public support, but was resisted by local businesses and the employees of the stores.

One year after the law passed, one can sense that indeed they are open, but they are not pleased about being open.

 

[Darrell]

"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion."-John Adams, 2nd US President

 

[American]

"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion."-John Adams, 2nd US President

That's right not FOUNDED, but can't survive without a religious and moral people.

 

[Bobcat]

-No sale of alcohol on Sundays in some states
-Illegality of abortion in some states
-Illegality of gay marriage in some states
-The drug war
-Excuse for abusing our military power (god's will and all that bull****)

All of these are influenced by religion. And I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state. Guess not. And it's all based on christianity too. If a school encouraged christian ideals, nobody would have a problem with it. And yet, if a school encourages Muslim ideals, an angry mob would burn it to the ground. And you all know it's true.


First of all, I agree with the point in the OP, but the metaphore is flawed. The Christian school is ok because most of the general community is Christian and most parents in the area already apply christian ideals in their homes.

The Muslim school wouldnt be burned down, too few people would send their kids there. they would recieve too little funding, so it would close down and eventually people would start rumors that it was haunted by an ancient suicide bomber.

have you read the declaration of independence and the constitution? If you want a Godless country, move to north korea.

 

[Harshaw]

"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion."-John Adams, 2nd US President

Single, cherry-picked quotes are useless, and most often bespeak of either dishonesty or a total incuriosity as to any larger context. To wit:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams, 2nd US President

 

[Sherman123]

Whether or not a particular founding father believed religion or God was or is necessary for the founding of a constitutional Republic and its continued existence is not really relevant to the argument. People have been citing back and forth, picking quotes from individuals that suit their particular perspective. It's especially easy to do considering how many people we have to draw from. But again, it's irrelevant. Because arguing about whether or not religion has a place in politics or in government cannot be proven by appealing to the good name of a more than two centuries dead founding father. If you think religion is or is not required or should or should not have a place in our civil society you need to make arguments based upon contemporary merits. Forgive my irreverence but George Washington didn't know what a blood cell was let alone the finer points of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. Considering the veil of ignorance our founders operated under, it might not be wise to use them to assert our positions.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

have you read the declaration of independence and the constitution? If you want a Godless country, move to north korea.

I thought Kim Jong-Il was their God. At least we know he existed...

 

[Margie]

That really is not a fair evaluation. Even though my choice is to be part of a religion. That doesn't always follow me into the ballot box, or decisions. That is between me and my God, to have that discussion down the road. Or rather at the end of it. Nothing compels me, but rather a well thought out decision made from all the facts. Give the religious masses a little more credit, we are not led blindly, we also have the right to walk away from our leaders (pastors or preists) or vote them out. I don't think we should try to seperate thoughts but instead gather more information to the masses in a kind well prepared way. Unfortunately rant always paves the way. Can't caution with an emphasis on cultural or rather non-cultural discussion be the beginning words. You must understand religion is part of the people in their culture, can't really seperate with a strong division. It is a good thing people draw on those positions taught to them in a moral way. It is part of the American strength that so many have, but also the strength of those who have no religion at all that posses moral conviction too, much respect to those also. Our schools don't discuss religion like so many infer, and states only move with the drive of the masses, move to where your ideals are related.

 

[Paschendale]

You seem to be misunderstanding what the "seperation of church and state" means. It doesn't mean that people should ignore their religious beliefs (and religiously based moral beliefs) when making laws. It merely means that the *govt* may not favor one religion over another

And this includes not being able to favor any religion, or religion in general, over no religion.

 

[Wittgenstein]

Opinions have rights to be in politics and God is another opinion. The overall view will change in America over time though. Paganism lost it's credibility with the rise of Christianity the same will happen but with Christianity and Atheism. Atheism will rise because science will move forward.

 

[Surtr]

The first sentence of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli says it all. Written by Joel Barlow, approved by John Adams.

 

[American]

This country has already had the honor of setting an example of civil freedom, and I trust it will likewise have the honor of teaching the rest of the world the way to religious freedom also. God grant both may be perpetuated to the end of time!

– James Iredell, debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788; Elliot 4:196

No doubt this man was run out on a rail, if they had had a rail.

 

[billmaher]

excellent point. I heard this argument taken even further the other day.

I am against a public high school holding a graduation ceremony in a church. However, apparently yoga has religious origins. Would you be against a city or town allowing its residents to sign up for government run yoga classes? I thought yoga was simply about relaxation, but other constitutional lawyers take offense to it being run by a municipality. So is there a difference between yoga and islam?

 

[imgooley]

excellent point. I heard this argument taken even further the other day.

I am against a public high school holding a graduation ceremony in a church. However, apparently yoga has religious origins. Would you be against a city or town allowing its residents to sign up for government run yoga classes? I thought yoga was simply about relaxation, but other constitutional lawyers take offense to it being run by a municipality. So is there a difference between yoga and islam?

There's a huge difference between yoga and Islam, mainly because yoga is a part of (primarily) Hindu traditions, and has nothing to do with Islam, whatsoever.

 

[wolfman24]

bravo Very well put

 

[wolfman24]

Absolutely correct. If we say we are a Christian nation we are ignoring all the other faiths that exist in this country as well as those who have no faith. To say such a thing is to me somewhat narrow minded.

 

[wolfman24]

Hello

The founding fathers wanted to emphasize separation of church and state because they saw the influence the Church of England had on the way the government was run in the Colonies. And they wanted to insure that no one religion could or would control or influence the government of this one.

In modern society this has translated into the idea that we are all equal (We the People) and therefore no one person or group should impose their beliefs on others via the ballot box or the function of government. Personally I don't care what you believe or if you believe anything. But the only way we can stay a pluralist society is to maintain a government which allows each person to believe as they like without undo influence on others.

thanks

Wolfman24

 

[4Horsemen]

Indeed this country has many, many faiths in it. BUT if the decisions made for this country were not of Christian base, this would not be a Republic, but instead a 3rd world mess ruled by Tyrants, Agnogs and Atheistic morons with no moral compass on which way to lead the country, thus leading it into destruction and turmoil.

So in that regard, be happy you live in a majority CHRISTIAN country.

 

[American]

Hello

The founding fathers wanted to emphasize separation of church and state because they saw the influence the Church of England had on the way the government was run in the Colonies. And they wanted to insure that no one religion could or would control or influence the government of this one.

In modern society this has translated into the idea that we are all equal (We the People) and therefore no one person or group should impose their beliefs on others via the ballot box or the function of government. Personally I don't care what you believe or if you believe anything. But the only way we can stay a pluralist society is to maintain a government which allows each person to believe as they like without undo influence on others.

thanks

Wolfman24

This whole business about the term "Christian nation" is getting silly. The founders believed in a "separation" in the legal sense. That means the govt cannot legally establish a state religion for the entire country (like the Church of England), but they never said that they couldn't pray or practice their own religion. It is true that Christianity is the most popular religion in this country (before, during and after the establishment of our current federal govt), so in that sense our values as a country have been primarily affected by Christianity, in the sense that a religion can have indirect influence. I don't think this has been a bad thing. In fact I believe a good example has been the strong faith of the black population in this country, whose faith probably benefited them during the time they were treated as a substandard class. I have no doubt that they would agree that their faith brought them comfort when they were surrounded by their political enemies. Nevertheless we are not a theocracy, and I've never heard anyone suggest that we should be. We can attribute those principles of justice found in Christianity (as in some other religions) to some of those we have cast into law (murder, theft, etc), simply because the majority of this country is Christian and has been from the beginning. If we had mostly been Muslim from the beginning I would expect that our general values as a nation would be leaning in that direction. It just wasn't the case. Personally I think our personality as a nation, and our sense of justice and establish law has been influenced by both Christianity and Republican principles first introduced in ancient Greece and Rome.

It is clear that our founders were well educated and versed in the history and philosophy of ancient republics, and the European philosophers that espoused liberty and the rule of law. I believe their personal Christian values likely augmented their belief in liberty and justice to some extent. I think they also looked at the history of England, and how the separation of England from the Roman Catholic Church was a first step in the separation of church and state, though not a complete one. But I think it did pave the way for future govt revision such as those established by our founders. They saw the Church of England as still to powerful in the halls of govt, and attempted to move the church completely out of any legal influence. But you can't take away a person's personal beliefs, and thus built a protection against a govt test of religeous belief as a qualification to serve.

So the bottom line is this, God has no legal status in our govt and wields no direct power through a church, but our religious representatives are still influenced by their religious beliefs and that will always guide some of their thoughts. This guide is different from politican to politician, and some can separate themselves completely when making their decisions as representatives of the people. Frankly I think this happens in the vast majority of cases, where a strong religious influence is a minoirty. Furthermore, a religious influence does not always have an adverse affect on the non-religious because of common beliefs (e.g., murder, theft). Conversely one could argue a similar concern for non-religious politicians having adverse effects upon the constitutional rights of the religious. But we have to decide to live with some risk.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Indeed this country has many, many faiths in it. BUT if the decisions made for this country were not of Christian base, this would not be a Republic, but instead a 3rd world mess ruled by Tyrants, Agnogs and Atheistic morons with no moral compass on which way to lead the country, thus leading it into destruction and turmoil.

So in that regard, be happy you live in a majority CHRISTIAN country.

Do you have evidence for this? I feel like this is going to start another "Stalin / Pol Pot were atheists."

And, atheists don't lack a moral compass, we lack the Christian moral compass.