Religion and Politics

[C-Force]

Originally posted by EkFugo
I agree with Andrew, the second post: YES, religion and politics DO mix.

Especially in a country like the USA, where the people are empowered to have a voice, it is one's duty to be socially responsible.

Personally, I believe that a person of Judeo-Christian background has an OBLIGATION to present his moral and ethical values into the political arena. I believe that he shall be held accountable for his political activity, or his lack of activity.

It's easy for you and me to say that when it is our religion that is the majority in politics. I bet you wouldn't care if the US was a Buddhist or Islamic state. Your not thinking about others.

[andrewblow]

Yu'all are arguing over USA politics : not my scene but all I wanted to say was -

If a person follows a known major religion in this world, those religions (query Islam?) have a peaceful, moral, ethical and humanitarian quotient.

If that combined responsible attitude is carried through into their political life - it must impact their policies in ways advantageous to mankind.

I cannot argue any one nation has it right....or wrong. I'm just answering the original question from a theoretical point of view.

I know I would rather live in an England that has laws based on Biblical principals, rather than the outrageous extremes perpetrated by so-called minority groups.

Andrew

[Niquie]

Originally posted by Booger
There is no proof because it's not true, Upslider. Same with the election. Bush won fair and square. The Supreme Court simply verified what was already a FACT. The evidence is overwhelming.

Booger, I have no idea where you live, but it has to be where there are no televisions, no radios, no newspapers, no news magazines, no public speaking going on.

There is a wealth of proof out there on BOTH counts. Voter fraud in Florida is a FACT.

Go to: http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html And please, take the time to watch it all.

About Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, the man whose hand is up Bush's back making him walk and talk (obviously, not too well on either count)....have you really no clue?

Go to: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1957697

...or how about this: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/week...contracts.html

I can go on and on and on and on and on.....

[Niquie]

Originally posted by EkFugo
I agree with Andrew, the second post: YES, religion and politics DO mix.

Especially in a country like the USA, where the people are empowered to have a voice, it is one's duty to be socially responsible.

Personally, I believe that a person of Judeo-Christian background has an OBLIGATION to present his moral and ethical values into the political arena. I believe that he shall be held accountable for his political activity, or his lack of activity.

So you think American athiests, agnostics, Muslims, etc. have an obligation to present to YOU, THEIR moral and ethical values in the political arena? You think YOU should be subjected to THEIR rhetoric?

Do I have this right? This is what you are advocating?

[upSlider]

Andrews... ditto for me (except for I'm in the USA).

Quite a bit has been learned from the Crusades. But that was another time and place.

---Pope Urban II, Proclamation at Clermont, 1095 – “From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears: namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation, forsooth, which has neither directed its heart nor entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by sword, pillage, and fire. . . .”

---Karen Armstrong, Holy War, 1988 – “The Crusades, like so much of the modern conflict, were not wholly rational movements that could be explained away by purely economic or territorial ambition or by the clash of rights and interests. They were fueled, on all sides, by myths and passions that were far more effective in getting people to act than any purely political motivation. The medieval holy wars in the Middle East could not be solved by rational treatises or neat territorial solutions. Fundamental passions were involved which touched the identity of Christians, Muslims and Jews and which were sacred to the identity of each. They have not changed very much in the holy wars of today.”

So discussing the Crusades in relation to the 21st century wont’ get us anywhere except angry at each other.

---------------

Before I was Christian my moral laws came from my parents. The problem was I didn't understand why, it's just the way things were. If I steal something I answer to the man's law. If I talk back to mom, but get a rap in the mouth!

As a Christian I understand that my moral laws come from God which is a higher standard than man's laws. I understand that I have to answer to someone for my decisions and choices. If I steal something, I answer not only to man's law, but to God's law as well and must suffer the consequences of both. If I talk back to mom, I violate a commandment of God. Mom doesn’t have to give me a rap in the mouth.

If there is no one to answer to but one's own conscience, then we have no moral absolutes. Everyone is free to decide what is right and wrong. That’s when the difference between rape and the word “no” erased.

Why then bother with laws?

Anyone here with a degree in government?

Praytell... what is, or should be, the roll of government in society?

And if there is a definitive roll, how should it be guided?

And if the answer is guided by conscience... how are those rules arrived at?

There MUST be moral absolutes and leaders of nations SHOULD answer to higher authorities than themselves.... otherwise we have Hitlers and Sadaams, etc.

It is known that Sadaam was not a believer in his nations religion.
It is known that Hitler's beliefs were not Judeo-Christian.

I can't speak for other religions. I would hope that there are moral absolutes within their philosophies as well. But frankly, if there aren't, then those religions require a reevaluation by their followers. But do they have the freedom to inquire about other philosophies?

Though the USA isn’t perfect in any way, at least there IS a FREEDOM to inquire about other philosophies? … and that’s the case in England. Please fill in the blanks where other countries have those same freedoms.

And if anyone knows anything about the New Age and the One World Government... that's when these freedoms will no longer exist.

----------------

I have no problem with unity, and sometimes ecumenism doesn't sound like a bad idea...
but what is the cost of total unity?
Is the danger a nameless and faceless robot-like earth at the mercy of ONE government?

Is this the ultimate progressive ideal of the left?

To whom does this ONE government answer to?

[Niquie]

From my professional bible, Black's Law Dictionary

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM The constitution embraces not only the right to worship God according to the dicates of one's conscience, but also the right to do, or forbear to do, any act, for conscience sake, the doing or forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. Barnette v. West Virginia State Bord of Education, D.C.W. Va., 47F.Supp. 251, 253, 254; Jones v. City of Moultrie, 196 Ga. 526, 27 S.E.2d 39 (for those of you with access to a legal library in the United States.)

The key clause in this statement is .......which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society...

Now, who, pray tell, is the societal arbiter of morality in the United States?

I have a neighbor with an out-of-countrol kid. He does NOTHING to discipline this poor child. When confronted by the neighbors with this juvenile delinquent's transgressions against the neighborhood and especially women, the man says "It's society's fault."

I don't want anybody blaming society for their personal failings. But neither do I want society's morality structured around religion...or heaven forbid, ONE PARTICULAR religion -- and vice versa.

The state should never require two people of differning genders and who are not blood related and who cohabitate together to get married. But the state should enforce laws against bigamy and polygamy. Why? Because the first example doesn't hurt any third party, but the second most certainly does.

And while interracial marriage was against the law in many states in the U.S. during the 50's and 60's, it isn't any longer. Did society's sense of morality shift? Or was this law ENACTED BY WELL MEANING "RELIGIOUS" POLITICIANS always in direct contravention with the freedoms guaranteed by Constitution?

Politics is dirty enough. Mix in religion (any of them or all of them) and you really have a nasty, festering boil on face of your nation.

[upSlider]

Now, who, pray tell, is the societal arbiter of morality in the United States?

I guess that would be YOU!