Religion + Politics = Disaster(?)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Prof., Feb 20, 2008.

  1. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    Okay. I have been following this presidential election closer than I have previous elections. Now, I have to admit, I am only eighteen so I do not fully understand the complexity of US politics. However, I have to disagree with mixing religion, primarily christianity, with politics.

    Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee wants to implement The Bible with the United States constitution and I personally think that is wrong. Huckabee said that he wants to "apply the rules of god with the rules of government" (something like that). He may follow the rules of God, but that doesn't mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, have to. In my honest opinion, I don't think it is right to implement divine laws into the US constitution. We have to remember that not everyone in the United States is christian and not everyone follows those divine laws.

    I may be wrong but doesn't mixing religion with politics interfere with the Separation of Church and State?

    This is just my honest opinion and I am not asking anyone to agree with me (but it would be nice:D).

    For the record, I am a non-practicing christian.
     
  2. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
    #2
    Yes I agree. Huckabee actually sounds like a decent politician when he leaves out the religion aspect (at least recently from what I've heard of him), but since he's a preacher that's impossible to do completely. Fortunately he's not coming close to winning the nomination.
     
  3. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    religion + politics doesnt equal disaster necessarily
    using power to force religion on other is what causes disaster

    that said; i like huckabee because he simply refuses to die
    everyone says to him "just drop it" and he wont
    he said "yes its a very difficult and nearly impossible road to victory but its a very easy road to defeat. all i have to do to lose is walk off the field"
    i like that attitude. if i had to vote republican it'd be him.
     
  4. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #4
    Religion + politics is nothing our Country needs. The Constitution keeps them separate, and rightly so. Huckabee is a neo-conservative who wants to establish a theocracy in America. He is very dangerous and has the worse support group in America; Pat Robertson, et al. Yes, he is a total loser.
     
  5. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #5
    You guys do know that M. Huckabee has been mathematically eliminated, don't you?
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Yep- and thank God! ;)
     
  7. iJesus macrumors 6502a

    iJesus

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    #7
    Hehe... these are a couple of quotes from the "Best Liberal Quotes Ever" book that I posses.

    "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." -George Washington

    "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." -John Adams

    "Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired." -Robert F. Kennedy
     
  8. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #8
    I would argue that he's not mathematically eliminated, more probabilistically eliminated.

    McCain does not have enough delegates to have the nomination outright, yet. So mathematically it is possible, with the winner take all nature of the GOP primaries, that Huckabee could win all of the remaining states and get the nomination. The probability of that is close to zero, however, it is mathematically possible.

    But yes, he's been eliminated, he just doesn't know it yet... much like Gravel on the Democratic side who is still listed as running by CNN... although he's taking the more economic approach of not campaigning for a lost cause so I see him as being more fiscally responsible than Huckabee.

    As for the original topic, religion used to be a fairly small side note with politics and over the last 20 years it has become more and more invasive. Bill Clinton did not help anything with the publicity surrounding his affair and being seen as highly immoral (and let's be honest, how many presidents do you think did not have an affair while in office?). This quickly shifted to a religious=moral attitude that Bush used to his advantage in courting the religious right in his efforts to get elected, I think the pendulum is swinging back to a point where the religion will matter less and less in upcoming elections, and as the younger generations start to pay more attention to politics and participate more we'll (hopefully) see the grasp religion has had on politics end within the next 20-40 years. That doesn't mean that the whole mess couldn't be screwed up by the right scandal, but it would have to be a phenomenal scandal.

    The first atheist president will be elected in 2072...
     
  9. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    Religion relies on faith, and as soon as your start implementing policy based on faith you absolve yourself of any responsibility or even challenges to your morality. And if you are going to use the Bible as inspiration for your policy, then which sections of the wildly diverse text are you going to choose, and why?

    Religion and politics? I say keep the two apart.
     
  10. Qoxiivi macrumors regular

    Qoxiivi

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #10
    In my mind it is imperative for a free society that religion and politics are kept separate. Quite how it can't creep into American politics however it unclear given that you pretty much have to be almost deeply religious to even be considered electable.

    A question for American contributors, I've heard it from several sources, but is it really an accurate assertion that an atheist simply couldn't get elected in the USA? While this wouldn't surprise me, I would consider it, if 'true', absolutely astonishing and, quite frankly, also depressing.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    It's true. Be astonished and depressed. There are a lot of stupid people here.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    The Huckster might be hanging around in case the story about McCain lack of zipper control gains enough traction to sink him.
     
  13. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #13
    Yeah, ever since the red scare it is completely okay to run around saying that atheists are devil worshipping communists or whatnot. Yeah for the mob being against critical thinking.

    (Waits for someone to make the wild accusation that I am saying religion = lack of critical thinking/missing the point.)
     
  14. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #14
    Yes, combining religion and politics is unquestionably, unavoidably disastrous.

    People in religious majorities tend to think it would be a spiffy idea to have their religion linked to the power of government. They think how nice it would be to have religion in their government, but they aren't thinking about how problematic it is to have government in their religion. It sounds nice when you think of your priest becoming a politician, but it doesn't seem so nice when you think of a politician becoming your priest. You cannot have one without the other, but advocates of breaking down the barrier between church and state only think of what, from their perspective, is the good part.

    Even within a religion there are disagreements about doctrine, and being religion, nobody has a monopoly on truth because there's no proof of any sort for any of it. For religious people, probably people in your own church have at times expressed sentiments you thought were a little too extreme or a little too loose. It's like the old Carlin joke about driving speed: no matter how fast you're going, anyone going slower than you is a moron and anyone going faster than you is a maniac. Once your religion becomes your government, you've selected one speed, and going any other speed is heresy, which, when your religion is your government, is a serious crime.

    Then, because greater fidelity to the Faith is assumed to be in all cases superior, the religion tends to become more fundamentalist, driven by priest-politicians engaging in the one-upmanship that is universal among politicians. Next thing you know, the Superdome has been repurposed for public executions.

    It is for this reason that organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State tend to be staffed with at least as many believers as unbelievers. A state too involved in religion is bad news for everyone.
     
  15. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #15
    That fabrication by the usual suspect, The NY Times, won't even be a story be next week.
    Disgruntled, unnamed sources don't hold up for long.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    You'd have thought righties might have mentioned that when Judith Miller was writing. Of course, back then, the Times was spouting Gospel, wasn't it?
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17

    Yes, sadly, thats a very accurate statement. The only presidents we'll ever have will be christian because too many people in this country use religion as the only qualification for a candidate. It's just like those e-mails that were being sent out stating that Obama is a Muslim to get people to not vote for him. He isn't, those e-mails are a lie, but if he was a Muslim, what's the big freaking deal? Who cares if a candidate is christian, Atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Buddhist, Scientologist or Pastafarian? If they can lead the country in the right direction, why does their religion matter? Its when a candidate uses their religion to make policy that it becomes a problem.
     
  18. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #18
    Have you read David Kuo's book? It touches on that from his not so great experiences in WH working on "faith based initiatives". I try to quote it when these subjects come up, because that's a good point so few think about. Imagine if someone like Romney was Pres. He could make general statements about God and not back them up like Bush does, and it might work with some people, but if he decided to act on his own beliefs, and start making laws based on his interpretations that could be trouble for the religious and nonreligious alike. Worse if a majority of the country goes along with it. If you're a Catholic or Baptist, or any form of Christianity, let alone another religion or none at all, you definitely won't be happy having to have your religion dictated by the gov. That's what a Theocracy is. When Huckabee says something about it, he generalizes to a small audience. Most of us would not want that though. We have our own religious beliefs thank you very much.

    While liberals and even moderate Dems seem scary with their supposed lack of religious conviction (both candidates in the running attend Church regularly though of course), at least they'd leave everyone to their own personal beliefs unlike the farther end of far right fundies, who would be happy with Theocracy as long as it's their Theocrat in charge.

    I don't know if I believe all of it, but there was definitely something going on there. If nothing else, she was a lobbyist who got him to change his position on at least one vote. She was bragging about the ability to get him to change more. And it's not like he didn't cheat on his first wife. Repeatedly. Who he later divorced. If you think this won't get play though, you haven't been paying attention. People care about sex related stuff. The lobbying doesn't faze most people, even though he just claimed again that he didn't do that type of thing, but a good sex scandal will make people pay attention. Especially since the fundies already don't like him that much. Was wondering how you'd defend it, but I knew you would. Wondering if you felt the same way about the Clinton scandal in the beginning when he was still denying it. Being consistent and not a partisan, I was angry about that, and will be if this turns out to be true too. Actually, I'm giving McCain more leeway than I gave Clinton. I'm sure you'll still be calling us all partisans anyway.

    It's too bad, I used to like McCain, I really did.
     
  19. walangij macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Location:
    MI
    #19

    As a Christian, I agree wholeheartedly. I wouldn't care if the president was of any religion as long as he/she is qualified. People in this country are way to ethnocentric. Many view a non-protestant candidate negatively. Even though we'd like to deny it, religion still plays a role, hopefully that will change as race and gender have.

    And when a candidate or party or special interest group imposes their religion to make policy, that is a big no no no matter what religion.
     
  20. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
    #20
    We bring God's rules to to table, then say hello to slavery, racism, and wife beating.

    Whether or not he exists or not, you can't agree that all his rules are right on. He's an effing crazy mofo.
     
  21. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21

    no not true
    if he can keep mccain from getting 1191 then neither will have that number and it will go to the convention
    at that point all bets are off - the people votes count for zero and delegate vote for whoever they want
    that way he can win
     
  22. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #22
    Watching politics over the last two decades has brought me to the inescapable conclusion that non-critical religious thinking is so prevalent in this country that we are not demonstrably all that different from the fundamentalist Muslim parts of the world we think of as ignorant, xenophobic and fanatical. IOW, we really need to take a good look in the mirror.

    Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of mainstream religious people in this country, many even scholarly (Jesuits, for example) who are happy to study and practice their faith without any deleterious political effect on their country. But it's the others, the Christian fundies, the most stubborn yet least intellectual of the religious community, who hold a sick, warped view of the Constitution and their country, and who see their faith mainly as a means of gaining political power.

    Of which I'm sure Jesus approves. :rolleyes:

    I'm familiar with how far right conservatives believe every media source that doesn't agree with them can't possibly be neutral, it has to be liberal...but how is the story a fabrication?

    Mark Felt.
     
  23. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #23
    You just answered your own question. Because they're "liberal". Especially when they hired that bastion of the left, Bill Kristol. They're obviously lying because they're liberal and they're out to get McCain. Doesn't matter why either, they don't have to have a reason. They're just evil. Of course, a lot of conservatives hated him anyway, and there's actual proof, and he's been caught letting lobbyist use him before, and actually did cheat on his previous wife, but why let any of that get in the way of the conspiracy to destroy a good man for some reason.

    That's about as reasoned a response as you'll get.
     
  24. iJesus macrumors 6502a

    iJesus

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Reno, Nevada
    #24
    Well, I'm getting this made into a bumper sticker... It'll go great with my "OHJESUS" nevada license plates...
     

    Attached Files:

  25. forafireescape macrumors 6502a

    forafireescape

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #25
    I wonder what you mean by "atheist." Because I would argue that a lot of people just call themselves Christians by default, but don't actually know what it means at all. Just a thought.
     

Share This Page