Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Dec 1, 2002.
what do you think?
Oh, please, like it isn't already!
Anything that is used to govern people will be political in nature, whether its intended to or not.
I agree with dukestreet.
Religion and politics are old bedfellows.
Did you know that the (nearly) 2000 year old expression "Jesus is Lord" is political?
The Romans used to say "Ceaser is Lord" so it was an out and out political statement to switch the wording.
(I'm not a Christian, just thought it was an interesting fact.)
If you're asking "Should religion be entangled with politics?", my answer is no. Can the western hemisphere hold them separate? No.
When Pres. G.W. Bush said that he wanted to include faith-based organisations to distribute care programmes, I thought that he might as well say Christian-based instead. I don't believe that there will be any Buddhists or other religions involved. This would create an atmosphere that Christianity is one of many religions, which it is. I would surmise that there are far fewer Christians in the world than there are Buddhists, but in the U.S.A., they certainly push everyone to do what they want. Putting the ten commandments into public buildings here in Florida certainly was a sign of that. Our state assembly wasted $40,000 per day doing that.
politicizing religion is one way to keep people from realizing who or what runs the religion...the politics become central and in the way
in the case of christianity, the christian right (bernie ward on abc/kgo radio calls them the christian white) is building republicans but not repenting sinners who need to embrace christ to be christians
does politicizing religions get converts...no, not many...but it chases tenfold away
satan would be happy with any politicized religious group...left or right
thus the need for the separation of church and state
america's founding fathers had it right the first time
tell that to Cal Thomas!
thats a BIG word.... Great now I'm confused...
thats a BIG word.... Great now I'm confused...
Can someone use a smaller word so I may understand? Or tell me what the word meens.... As of now I think the word has something to do with the Cops...
Wasn't this country founded on the ideals of religious freedom? Somewhere along the way we've forgotten about that. I have no problems with christianity itself, I just hate it when it's forced down people's throat. That whole "holier than thou" (pun intended), we-are-always-right, everyone-else-is-wrong and your opinions-don't-count attitude.
Isn't that what they do in "those other countries" we're fighting?
I always thought that fighting over religion was kinda stupid anyway. How do you prove a belief system? I wonder how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot. How do you fight over holy land!?!
Well, politicized?... hmmm do you mean politicized in terms of becoming a part of the state, or forming a part of an administration concernced with personal interactions between two private parties, or as in taking sides in political issues, or do you mean as in becoming concerned with status and power rather than morals and principles?
For the first issue, it is a part of the state, whether anyone believes it should be or not by simple virtue of its legal existence within the state. The state gives it permission to exist, so it is a part of the state.
Second, it belongs to a spiritual adminstration concerned directely with personal interactions between private parties.
It also takes sides, not only within the state, but within the body politic itself of the church. There are at least two forms each of Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and Muslim, Budhist, Hindu, and all other faiths for that matter. These forms usually polarize around state political issues of right and left wing politics, and right wing means very different things in different countries for example.
Last, and perhaps most controversial is the politicizing that pertains to shifting focus to issues of status and power rather than moral principles. I believe this is not the type of politicizing you were asking about.
I think you may be asking about taking sides in state against state issues, like the United States against Iraq, or China.
As for me, I'd like to know a little more about what you mean by "politicized". Interesting post jefhatfield, and interesting responses to a tough issue.
Religious freedom was a catalyst, but the separation of church and state was a doctrine.
I get enough religion watching people blow each other up on CNN, I certainly don't need the already corrupt and immoral world of politics further poisoned by religion.
(Most of) you enjoy the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, or not to practice any. (Most of) you enjoy the freedom NOT to have religion crammed down your throat (unless you're gay, perform abortions, not a Muslim, a Muslim, live in the Bible belt, open a hotel drawer, incarcerated, or are someone Mormons are not afraid to approach).
As soon as religion get its evil grip on politics, you'll have the freedom to practice whatever religion you choose, but if the Majorities are Catholic, there will be a new deduction for donations to the Catholics. Abortion would become illegal again, and you can kiss 30 years of progress in gay rights goodbye.
How 'bout keeping your ****ing religion to you ****ing self, and out of the muddled mess that is politics?
BTW, I am neither gay, nor religious. I am not a neo natal surgeon, nor a Muslim. I am certain that if you want religion, you have the right to choose one, and that if you don't, you have the right not to. Let's not change that...
I hear that 100%. Religion is a personal thing, and doesn't need to be forced down anyone's throat.
Religion IS politics...
It's just an ineffective method of politics.
The real power is in secular politics; real change happens in secular politics. The world is becoming a better place through secular politics. If both religion and politics can be seen as attempting to build the ideal community, I think the secular is decades ahead of the religious.
colin powell basically said it best when he said god is not here for a legislative agenda
btw...powell is a christian and belongs to a mainline denomination but understands the separation between church and state
he is the one republican in our government, through an appointed position, that i trust 100 percent
the others, to varying degrees, scare me because of their ignorance to the powell doctrine which basically states that we should not sent our soldiers in harms way without overwhelming force, and a practical escape and retreat plan
we can't attack iraq and stay there forever walking around with M-16s occupying the defeated foe
the problem is... religion and general spirituality influence/form morality very often. therefore, while the president maybe shouldn't be leading us in prayer, he/she (ha!) is inherently going to have their morals influenced by religion/spirituality.
and while some "morals" shouldn't be forced on people per se, there are those that (at least to some) appear black/white. for instance, abortion. that is just the most obvious one.
therefore, it's tough to totally separate them. i mean, truly religious/spiritual people will be influenced by these things and have them as a part of everyday choices and such.
but yes, should be separated as much as possible.
ha, and its one of the most controversial! It might be black and white for you, but you're not a woman, so you already are at a disadvantage on making a call on this one.
If you wanted to set up a morality based set of laws, more like guidelines, I think you'd have to start with something a little more easily defined - abortion isn't easily defined for everyone and we shouldn't shanghai the thread to go into a debate about it here.
Stealing, murder, assalt - these to me are obvious.
you're missing my point.
those things you listed are obvious to nearly everyone. my point is that some things (abortion, death penalty, etc) are obvious to SOME people, one way or the other, and therefore that is where the controversy comes in, and for a lot of people, these controversial morality calls are influenced by religion/spirituality. therefore, it's inherent. is my point
your commenting about it being black and white for me, and not being able to make a call because i'm not a woman, is merely baiting me into a debate, which this isn't the place for. and i've done that already.
i never said how i feel about it, just brought it up as an example, which is a prominent one, and thus easily understood for most people.
I reread it and it still says to me that you think the abortion issue is obvious - maybe my altavista translation filter isn't working very well today, or maybe yours is a little off.
No big deal, I understand now what you're saying and we both basically see it the same way. I wasn't trying to incite anything....
The second session of Congress attended a church service together. While Jefferson was president the largest church in America was held in the Capitol Building.(This is a long article, this fact is mentioned about halfway down in a bulleted list.) Jefferson was credited with the separation of Church and State remark, yet he fully supported a church service in the Capitol Building??? Something's wrong here. The fact is, Jefferson meant that statement as a safety net against the situation the founder's had only recently faced in England, that is persecution by the Government for their religious beliefs. None of the founders wanted to get rid of religion (not even Thomas Paine), they fully supported it, realizing that God has a lot to do with everything (even government) but that Government can never tell you what you should believe. To them, God's guidance was essential in their every decision, they just wouldn't tell you how God was guiding you. It seems we've gotten things backwards in the past century.
what i said initially was:
what i meant by "this is just the most obvious one" was not that to me abortion is black and white. but rather, to me, it is obvious that to some people abortion is black and white.
same can be said of a lot of things. capital punishment, even something like legalizing pot
to some people. those issues are black and white. therefore, it's not like it's whether they are forcing morals, but rather, how most of us feel about murder/stealing. "those things are wrong". we don't say that people who claim those things are wrong are pushing their morals, but rather, that that's how it is. those things actually are wrong
ahh. it's confusing. hope some peopel can make sense of it
by all means, it shouldn't be. But it already is politicized and my
guess is that it always will be. Such is the nature of politics and
what you said could be taken very, very wrong
think carefully for those that read this opinion...it can be taken both ways
Given the multitude of religions, how could you have a state religion, unless is was something like the Church of England that's forced down your throat. No I have to dissagree here with Kyle. I'm sure the founding fathers believed in the separation of the Church and State, their recent history had seen too much abuse from the Church being the State.
With emmigration over the centuries bringing together all religions, equal under the law, there is no way that today you could combine the two.
As I said in my previous post, the founders did believe in separation of church and state. However, my point was that separation of church and state meant something else to them. I don't think we've seen many bills at all making religious opinion law.
My point is that religion will and should affect the decisions of political leaders. After all, they are individuals as well. What I meant is that religion does have the right to join in politics, since they are citizens of our country as well. Just because a religion has a belief about something does not make it a moral issue. It should be judged for its value, not that it is religious and so it should automatically be thrown out.
Basically, political leaders as well as other citizens are entitled to their own beliefs. I know you don't disagree with that. Government should stay out of religion. You would agree with that too. What we don't agree on is that religion should affect government.
Now here is something interesting, you have many of the same morals as religion (murder, stealing, greed, etc.). You feel free to lobby the government (not you, specifically, since you don't have enough money) to follow these moral beliefs of yours. Now here's the interesting part. Let's say you feel that people don't care enough for the environment. You want to pass laws that restrict how much gas cars are allowed to use, you want to halt logging efforts, drilling efforts, fishing efforts.
You have a set of beliefs formed about a core ideology, your concern for the environment. Christianity is a set of beliefs set about the core ideology that God formed the world and sets the laws (some seem logical, some are hard to understand). Buddhism is a set of beliefs formed about the core ideology of inner oneness (or something like that). Other religions have other beliefs formed about other core ideologies.
When you try to get laws passed as an environmentalist are you stopped because you are trying to force your beliefs on someone else? The point is, every one has a set of beliefs based on their personal core ideology - that's what religion is - and they are not stopped as an individual from trying to get others to accept their core beliefs.
The first ammendment is to stop the government from forcing a core ideology on you. When the nation collectively agrees on an external belief, then it becomes part of everyone's core beliefs and soon will become law. When a religion tries to convince you to accept a core ideology, that is their religious duty.
When they try to convince you to accept an external belief, they have every legal right like every other citizen to try to pass it as law. They are no more forcing morality than when you try to pass some environmental bill.
Sorry I got so long-winded. I'm interested in your further thoughts on this subject, so please keep it coming!
well said kyle... that's a bit of what i was saying earlier
some peoples' morals are partially or totally formed based on religion/spirituality. therefore, the religion is kinda getting into the politics (through the morals of the politicians) in a roundabout way. no way to avoid that. nor should there be
however, the direct support of religion A over religion B has no place of course.
ps. who cares what the founding fathers thought? sure, brilliant guys who started this country, but not flawless....