Religion and Politics

[PrincessFiona]

Should we continue to have a separation of church and state or is it right for religious doctrines to influence our policies.

If it is ok and we want the church/religion involved, how are we any different from the fundamentalists in middle eastern countries who allow their religious beliefs to dictate their actions?

kris

[mommax3]

Okay, I don't have the time I need to gather my thoughts and delve into this as much as I would like......but here's something to think about.....

I think we all want our leaders to vote their conscience, right? I mean, if not that, what should be their guide? My conscience is informed by my religious beliefs and if I were an elected official (God forbid!) it would be dishonest of me to privately believe one thing but not have the guts to vote according to my beliefs/conscience when I was given the opportunity, ESPECIALLY if I had made my faith public knowledge. It is a matter of personal integrity, in my opinion. For instance, George W. and Bill Clinton espouse similar religious beliefs. I think that Clinton voted with his conscience in his stance regarding most social programs, and rightly so. However, his choices regarding abortion and homosexuals in the military did not match with what he says he believes......which makes me wonder about his integrity, and now that we know way more than we ever wanted to know about his "more personal" decisions, I think very little of his integrity at this point. In contrast, W. has not deviated from what he says he believes......whether you agree with him or not, you know the guy is going to do what he said he would. I don't think W. is perfect, but I don't think he deviates to make his party or a particular interest group happy.

For that matter, politicians who don't identify with a particular belief system are voting according to their "religion" as well, depending on the way you look at it.

Religious doctrines (or the lack thereof) are going to influence policies because they influence the PEOPLE who make the policies, and in turn, the people who vote for the people who make the policies.

For people who believe, those beliefs are integral to them and mean nothing if they are set aside when they are making decisions because they aren't popular or politically correct or perceived as the "intelligent" choice.

Kris, the fundamentalists in other countries who horrify us are not, in fact, following the accepted tenets of their professed religions any more than David Koresh was representative of mainline christianity.

All of us who identify with evangelical beliefs are not the same......it is a hard row to hoe at times. I do not identify with right-wing nut jobs who vote against homosexual marriage out of fear and a feeling of moral superiority......but the end result is the same. I abhor the idea of bombing abortion clinics and wouldn't ever march outside of one and shout hateful things at the women who have made what I hope was a difficult decision......but my vote on that issue would be the same as theirs.....as would yours.

I don't advocate that our gov't have an official state religion, and I would definitely be up sh** creek if I did......I mean, come ON.....no way would that happen when you can't even sing Silent Night in most school Christmas programs, even if you include a representative song from every other tradition. I value the separations that exist because I know that when others' religious rights are protected, mine are as well. I get riled, though, when other traditions are given preference over mine, which does seem to happen at times due to a desire to be politically correct.

A perfect politician to me would be one who embodies the best things about both parties. Christianity is really way more about grace, love, and mercy (which the dems seem to feel they have a lock on......and sometimes do, with their support of social programs) than it is about angry judgement, which many on the far right seem to focus on exclusively.

Sally

[SueC]

I only skimmed Sally's response but I think it pretty much jives with what I think. At least the last paragraph (sorry, I'm feeling a little ADHD at the moment and couldn't focus)--I want a politician who basically is looking out for the greater good, not letting big corporations persuade him or her towards one direction that might not be so much for the greater good. I guess if they are applying the golden rule towards how they act politically then it seems they would be doing a pretty good job.
I consider myself to be a religious person--I go to church, pray, talk about God to my kids, and basically try to lead my life the way in a Christian manner. I don't need Government to make laws to help me follow this path. And I don't need Government to make laws to force others down the path I chose. I know that is overly simplistic. You could spend hours debating whether "under God" belongs in the pledge of allegiance or whether or not the ten commandments could be posted on a plaque on government property.

the fundamentalists in other countries who horrify us are not, in fact, following the accepted tenets of their professed religions any more than David Koresh was representative of mainline christianity.

I'm glad Sally pointed this out.

My answer is going to be very short, but I felt like responding because Bush is addressing this very question in his press conference now.

I agree with Sally that it's impossible to completely separate your religious beliefs from your politics because it's who you are. I also agree with Sue that the government has no business telling me what to believe. This country is far too diverse to have our leader imposing religious hegemony on us.

I personally am not religious. I voted for Bush, but not because I share his faith. This means that I agree with some, but not all, of his policies. I think we're all guided by what we think is right and wrong, political leaders included. We have a lot of morals in common, regardless of our individual religious beliefs, so I think our commonalities should be the focus in the political arena, not our relgious differences.

[PrincessFiona]

Wow..these are such great thoughts!

kris

A perfect politician to me would be one who embodies the best things about both parties. Christianity is really way more about grace, love, and mercy (which the dems seem to feel they have a lock on......and sometimes do, with their support of social programs) than it is about angry judgement, which many on the far right seem to focus on exclusively.

Sally

Amen, sister!! :ra:

Your opinion is well-stated, Sally.

[Sheherezade]

Here is my problem

I think we all want our leaders to vote their conscience, right? I mean, if not that, what should be their guide? My conscience is informed by my religious beliefs and if I were an elected official (God forbid!) it would be dishonest of me to privately believe one thing but not have the guts to vote according to my beliefs/conscience when I was given the opportunity, ESPECIALLY if I had made my faith public knowledge. It is a matter of personal integrity, in my opinion.

Do we elect officials to represent the beliefs of the voters or to vote what they believe? I have always viewed a representative as MY voice in government, not someone chosen to make choices for me. How does someone like Senator Kerry --someone who says he is personally against abortion but represents a majority pro-choice electorate-- reconcile this? I would expect him to represent his people, not himself. That is his job.

Angie

[SueC]

How does someone like Senator Kerry --someone who says he is personally against abortion but represents a majority pro-choice electorate-- reconcile this? I would expect him to represent his people, not himself. That is his job.

Angie

I know people chide him about that. I take it to mean he wouldn't personally get one ( ), but he supports others right to do so. I wouldn't go get an abortion tomorrow either, I hope my daughter's never experience it, but I don't want that right taken away.

[Sheherezade]

I guess what I mean to say is I believe an elected official doesn't have the right to follow his own belief if it differs from his constituents'. He/she is obligated to represent the people, no matter how it pains him/her. Is this incorrect? If a representative of 100 people gets 100 phone calls saying you have to support hypothetical Issue 1, is the representative honor bound to vote Yes, even if his/her personal stance is No? I have always thought this is true. Am I wrong? Or is this one of the fundementally different beliefs that divides our country? I hold a representative at fault if he/she doesn't represent the people accurately. If they are not held to this standard --to me --it is like electing a dictator or monarch. In my previous post, I would be against Kerry if he voted pro-life when representing a pro-choice state--even if that is his opinion.

Angie

[spotty_dog]

Angie, I actually do think that's incorrect. In our representative democracy, we vote in a human being to make his or her own human decisions on ALL the issues. Some of these things that we individually haven't even necessarily considered nor do we want to. The best way to get our opinions represented is to vote for the guy who's the most like us on the issues we care most about. If you are totally totally against legislation that defends abortion, and this is a stance you cannot and will not bend on, then you need to vote for someone who will promote legislation you do approve of -- not elect somebody else and then try to change his mind through phone calls.

Now, there's *some* influence from the electorate, but mostly just if the representative expects to seek re-election and needs to keep people happy.

If he doesn't have another term ahead of him -- like, for example, the newly elected President -- there are no longer any checks on the decisions he makes. He's got carte blanche to make decisions the way he sees fit. That's what the majority elected him to do.

[Sheherezade]

Yeah--I was just reading the Constitution. Too bad. I like being in charge . The populace changes its mind too often.....That's why we get representative elections every two years but have to keep our senators for 6. Still, I would prefer a representative of me to answer to the voice of the people (or at least be responsive) and not strictly decide on their own.

Interestingly I also read this in the Constitution:


Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Angie

[Sheherezade]

And now we are back on topic

Nicely done

[Rapunzel]

I liked Sally's post and I don't think I have much to add to it.

Jennifer

[PrincessFiona]

A couple of disjointed thoughts..

Sally, many of the fundamentalists that we don't like (think Islam) do things like opress their women, etc...Didn't we celebrate that we were bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan for example. Are we right to interfere with their religion and beliefs because we deem ours to be superior or should we allow them the freedom to continue to practice their faith? If not, are we any different from them by forcing our religious practice on them? Also, many 'fanatics' despise us also becuase we put money above people....if they were to say...preemptively strike us in the name of freeing us to believe as they do, would we be outraged?

Is it ok to bring faith and feelings into law? If we feel, for example that abortion is morally wrong and decide to ban it do we? If so, do we follow through to make it possible for people to live without abortions? By this I mean...(again...I'm writing with a baby nursing on my lap, forgive the confusion) if we are going to outlaw abortion then do we establish programs to help families pay for long-term care for their handicapped children, good adoption programs and lifelong counseling for rape victims, etc.

Take it a step farther...if we outlaw abortion on moral grounds, do we also then say as christians that God is the final arbiter and outlaw the death penalty? After all, it is only He that should chooose between life and death both physical and eternal....If not and we can choose when someone dies, can we choose then to also terminate new life?

And one step farther...if we want to outlaw abortion because it is goes agianst both God and our moral compass, do we ask ourselves WWJD when it comes to our foreign policy and policies of preemptive wars? Do we ask WWJD when it comes to deciding whether healthcare is a right or a privilege or in those instances where it could potentially affect our pocket book do we decide that Jesus would turn the other way?

I used abortion as an example because it was a hotbutton topic, but you could do this with any major issues.

That's my disjointed ramble..

kris