• 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!

Should Religion Be Removed From Politics?

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Something I see as a way forward in a world filled with conflict, others I know will disagree. This is an English gentleman of Muslim descent who sees religion - all faiths - as dangerous in the modern political theatre.

Why I'm starting a global campaign to remove religion from politics
The world’s leading powers have made grave mistakes when dealing with ideological conflicts, playing into the hands of extremists. That's why it's time for an international treaty to ban the political use of religion
by Salam Sarhan

It is an understatement to say that the political use of religion has had a corrosive influence throughout human history. It continues to ignite and sustain the most intractable global conflicts. Unfortunately most of the worst abuses of religion in politics today are carried out in the name of Islam, but the political use of any religion has led – and will always lead – to the same results.

The theocratic revolution in Iran, which is centred on exporting sectarian ideology, was a turning point: it has ignited, over four decades, the rise of dark forces across Middle East and beyond. The situation has only got worse since the destabilising of Iraq by the American-led invasion in 2003 and the subsequent uprisings in many countries in the region in 2011, which opened a Pandora’s hox, as any anarchy always does.

The trend towards theocracy is taking hold in countries including but not limited to Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Nigeria. And it holds a significant influence over social groups and individuals across the world, including western nations. It's easy to place all the blame on exclusionist, impetuous regimes, but that would ignore the way the world’s leading powers have regularly made grave mistakes when dealing with these ideological conflicts, playing directly into the hands of sectarian and extremist groups.

The international community is dedicating enormous effort and resource to dealing with the consequences of the political abuse of religion. But it could be much more effective if it orchestrated a meaningful, global response to the root causes.

There is now a need to move towards an international consensus to prevent any invocation of religion – from mainstream as well as extremist religious groups – to support national and political agendas. It is time for a campaign to create an international treaty to ban the political use of religion.
 
Are there any Constitutionally supported laws that interfere or prohibit individuals from practicing their religions?

What other laws are there that might? I know there are some, for instance, that prohibit the use of peyote. (as an example)

What laws do we have currently that do not concur/parallel with similar tenets in the major religions?

Let's start with some examples to frame a discussion around?
 
Something I see as a way forward in a world filled with conflict, others I know will disagree. This is an English gentleman of Muslim descent who sees religion - all faiths - as dangerous in the modern political theatre.

Wildly impractical I'm afraid. No predominantly Muslim state would sign such a treaty. Nor would the US - where would American pols be without the ritualistic "God bless America"? And where would moderate parties like Sweden's Christian Democrats be ? (Slogan: You don't have to be religious to vote for us).
 
Something I see as a way forward in a world filled with conflict, others I know will disagree. This is an English gentleman of Muslim descent who sees religion - all faiths - as dangerous in the modern political theatre.

No one can be banned from practicing their Faith, whether or not they hold public office.
 
I think it's a tricky line, because to what degree is it measured, Religion, perhaps not being the direct inspiration for a particular law or policy, but people who grew up with a religion that has perhaps shaped their world view.

I mean there is no black and white necessarily on this subject.

However, Evangelical Talibornagain Christians are definitely a group you could look to as an example of people who directly inject Heroine A Grade Religion into their politics in the most unhealthy way possible, bastardizing their religion in order to enforce their version of morality on others whilst propping up an economic and justice system built on greed, injustice and exploitation.
 
Something I see as a way forward in a world filled with conflict, others I know will disagree. This is an English gentleman of Muslim descent who sees religion - all faiths - as dangerous in the modern political theatre.

You cannot separate religion from faith. Religion permeates through us everyday, through our society, our culture, etc..
 
It just depends to what point one wants to remove religion. I don't think this movement is going to get very far in countries like Iran or Afghanistan, considering the average person there thinks people who leave the religion should be killed.
 
It just depends to what point one wants to remove religion. I don't think this movement is going to get very far in countries like Iran or Afghanistan, considering the average person there thinks people who leave the religion should be killed.

Why does the "average person" in a theocratic state think heretics and non-believers should be killed? Might it be due to the control of basic education by a religion which calls for death to the unfaithful, a religion which is controlled by the central government?
 
You cannot separate religion from faith. Religion permeates through us everyday, through our society, our culture, etc..

Mores the pity. Anyway I think that it should be " ... through SOME of us....". Religion plays no part in the lives of the great majority of Swedes - and I would guess a significant minority of Americans.
 
Mores the pity. Anyway I think that it should be " ... through SOME of us....". Religion plays no part in the lives of the great majority of Swedes - and I would guess a significant minority of Americans.

An atheist did tell me to go to hell, which I initially I found offensive and then confusing.
 
Why does the "average person" in a theocratic state think heretics and non-believers should be killed? Might it be due to the control of basic education by a religion which calls for death to the unfaithful, a religion which is controlled by the central government?
but how did this central government get power, if not from the many religious people? look at iran, it was entirely secular before, and nearly over night, it became a theocratic state to cheers and applause, with political enemies killed or sent into exile.

you can't debate with that. I daresay the people have proven that they don't care about debate. They care only if you are muslim, and if not, not even moderates would listen to you.
 
Thread: Should Religion Be Removed From Politics?


Yes...money as well.
 
Something I see as a way forward in a world filled with conflict, others I know will disagree. This is an English gentleman of Muslim descent who sees religion - all faiths - as dangerous in the modern political theatre.

There is now a need to move towards an international consensus to prevent any invocation of religion – from mainstream as well as extremist religious groups – to support national and political agendas. It is time for a campaign to create an international treaty to ban the political use of religion.

What would this treaty say?
 
No one can be banned from practicing their Faith, whether or not they hold public office.

On the contrary, Senator Feinstein, Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono believe so. Progressive Marxist Socialist Leftists don't want individuals expressing charity toward individuals in their own community. PMS Dem Leftists want everyone to look toward and depend upon the government for charity which is paid for thru forced giving from the taxpayers. It's all about the collective which alleviates individuals' responsibility of caring for their neighbors. Another Biblical principle ignored in this age of godless humanism.
While there is recorded and definitive proof that Sens. Feinstein, Hirono and Harris have violated the tenets of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and law questioning someone’s religion, as usual, even a Congressional reprimand is out of the question....because, you know, ah, they’re Democrats.




Democrats Crusade Against Knights Of Columbus For ‘Extreme’ Works Of Christian Charity
Democrats Suspect Knights Of Columbus For ?Extreme? Works Of Charity
Jan 04, 2019 ~~ "I was concerned that such an extremist organization could exist right under my nose. I decided to use my contacts and do an investigation into this mysterious, problematic group". … Unfortunately, historical truth and charitable work don’t matter much in the eyes of the left. From the anti-Semitism of the Women’s March to the state of Colorado’s attempts to destroy cake baker Jack Phillips to the anti-Catholicism of a growing percentage of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, anti-religion bigotry seems to be the last accepted prejudice.
 
You cannot separate religion from faith. Religion permeates through us everyday, through our society, our culture, etc..

I would rather it didn't permeate through us everyday, it's a bunch of crap for people to argue over and kill each other. All I ask is stop coming to my house trying to save me. If a person is reborn, does that add years to your life?
 
but how did this central government get power, if not from the many religious people? look at iran, it was entirely secular before, and nearly over night, it became a theocratic state to cheers and applause, with political enemies killed or sent into exile.

you can't debate with that. I daresay the people have proven that they don't care about debate. They care only if you are muslim, and if not, not even moderates would listen to you.

A large part of the revolution in Iran was due to the actions of the Shah and his secret police. Remember the Shah was put in place when his democratically predecessor was overthrown by a US/UK action as a result of fear about increasing Soviet connections with the Iranian government and Western oil companies losing contracts for iranian oil.
 
On the contrary, Senator Feinstein, Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono believe so. Progressive Marxist Socialist Leftists don't want individuals expressing charity toward individuals in their own community. PMS Dem Leftists want everyone to look toward and depend upon the government for charity which is paid for thru forced giving from the taxpayers. It's all about the collective which alleviates individuals' responsibility of caring for their neighbors. Another Biblical principle ignored in this age of godless humanism.
While there is recorded and definitive proof that Sens. Feinstein, Hirono and Harris have violated the tenets of the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and law questioning someone’s religion, as usual, even a Congressional reprimand is out of the question....because, you know, ah, they’re Democrats.




Democrats Crusade Against Knights Of Columbus For ‘Extreme’ Works Of Christian Charity
Democrats Suspect Knights Of Columbus For ?Extreme? Works Of Charity
Jan 04, 2019 ~~ "I was concerned that such an extremist organization could exist right under my nose. I decided to use my contacts and do an investigation into this mysterious, problematic group". … Unfortunately, historical truth and charitable work don’t matter much in the eyes of the left. From the anti-Semitism of the Women’s March to the state of Colorado’s attempts to destroy cake baker Jack Phillips to the anti-Catholicism of a growing percentage of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, anti-religion bigotry seems to be the last accepted prejudice.

WOW! I think you should start a thread on this in the Conspiracy Theories forum.
 
An atheist did tell me to go to hell, which I initially I found offensive and then confusing.

Maybe the said atheist thought that YOU believed in hell and went along with your delusion out of politeness?
 
Something I see as a way forward in a world filled with conflict, others I know will disagree. This is an English gentleman of Muslim descent who sees religion - all faiths - as dangerous in the modern political theatre.

No. People should be quite free to openly espouse their religion, even if they're a politician. To do otherwise is to create a second class citizen that has no ability to voice their concerns. It is a violation of a persons freedom of speech, and freedom of (not from) religion.

I have no problem making sure that there is a separation of church and state. Meaning that no law favors any particular religion. I readily support such. But I'll be damned if I'd support something that suppresses religion.
 
No. People should be quite free to openly espouse their religion, even if they're a politician. To do otherwise is to create a second class citizen that has no ability to voice their concerns. It is a violation of a persons freedom of speech, and freedom of (not from) religion.

I have no problem making sure that there is a separation of church and state. Meaning that no law favors any particular religion. I readily support such. But I'll be damned if I'd support something that suppresses religion.

How does removing religion from politics equate with suppression of politics?
 
Utter load of nonsense. The problem with religious politics isn't the first word, it's the second. Give any group power over another group, and that power will be abused. Taking religion out of politics would do nothing to prevent abuses by governments, it would just force them to find a different excuse, and as the 20th century showed in Germany, Russia, Rwanda, South Africa, Cambodia etc. there's plenty of secular ways to oppress people.
 
How does removing religion from politics equate with suppression of politics?

It's suppression of religion. And speech. A person has just as much Right to express their religion while politicking as one that does not practice religion. To do as suggested in the OP is wrong.
 
WOW! I think you should start a thread on this in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

~~~~~~
I guess then when Senators Feinstein, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono speak out against Catholic's in respect to the judiciary it's ok, but speaking out about Progressive Marxist Socialist bigotry now is a conspiracy theory? Feinstein’s comment is jarring, though, because of how blunt she is in framing deep religious conviction as problematic. What she’s worried about here, very clearly, is abortion. What concerns me, is the Progressive Marxist Socialist Liberal dogma that lives VERY LOUDLY within the Democratic Party.

Dianne Feinstein's War on Christian Judges
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/51242-dianne-feinsteins-war-on-christian-judges
Sep. 13, 2017 ~~ Seems that for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, being a believing Catholic is enough to disqualify a candidate for a federal judgeship. " “Let’s remember… the seminal statement by Sen. Feinstein — she said the dogma screams loudly in you,” Donahue told Ingraham. “That’s coming awfully close to establishing a religious test.”
 
It already is. What can be of it. Minus say a moment for prayer.

Religion consists of three things.

1. Belief - ontological, metaphysical, eschatological constructs
2. Ritual
3. Ethics

1 and 2 are removed aside from as I said, a moment of prayer.

3. Cannot be. You cannot remove a person's ethics from their decision making. Impossible. Where they derive those ethics, morals, and norms is none of anyone's concern and not up for debate or discussion. I should rather say, it shouldn't be.

Wanting to remove people, their opinions on matters of the public because you don't agree with or care for, or are actively opposed to where their ethics were born is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to delegitimize their beliefs and is usually the last effort of the intellectually bankrupt. As most ethics are perennial there is no reason why their origin should be made an issue. It is only in wanting to introduce an unethical act or behavior, -- that cannot be justified and which goes against the stream of this perennial ethical system that has generally been accepted -- that the notion of delegitimizing the origin of said ethics would even be considered. Simpler said, you want to do what you want to do, and you don't like being told "No".
 
I'm puzzled that some leftist want to get rid of religion but talk about "what America is all about". Must not study much history or they would know that faith and Christian religion has been the strength of the U.S. since its inception. "Who we are" is rooted in belief in God and the church.
 
Back
Top Bottom