Religion in Politics

[September]

Where do you stand on religion and the role it should play in politics?

[Freethinker]

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our very existence. We should be free to practice as we see fit. When our practices impose on the rights of others, that is where the liberty should end.

Does it play a role in politics? It serves a role in everything we do day to day. We cannot make a single decision without the beliefs religous and otherwise playing a role in that decision. It's part of who we are as individuals. It's impossible to keep separate.

[jarhead]

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our very existence. We should be free to practice as we see fit. When our practices impose on the rights of others, that is where the liberty should end.

Does it play a role in politics? It serves a role in everything we do day to day. We cannot make a single decision without the beliefs religous and otherwise playing a role in that decision. It's part of who we are as individuals. It's impossible to keep separate.i dont believe this is true for all people, i am not religious at all, as i am sure some politicians are not iether but wont say this publicly. also interesting fact, nowhere in the constitution etc. does it say seperation of church and state.

[nelson]

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our very existence. We should be free to practice as we see fit. When our practices impose on the rights of others, that is where the liberty should end.

Does it play a role in politics? It serves a role in everything we do day to day. We cannot make a single decision without the beliefs religous and otherwise playing a role in that decision. It's part of who we are as individuals. It's impossible to keep separate.I completely agree, Freethinker. Religious belief, whether theistic or atheistic, influences our outlook, decisions, opinions, convictions, and therefore everything we do.

As for your statement about religious freedom, with which I also agree wholeheartedly, let's meanwhile draw an important distinction between "when our practices impose on the rights of others" and "when our practices inconvenience, offend, or conflict with the beliefs of others."

[The_Man]

i dont believe this is true for all people, i am not religious at all, as i am sure some politicians are not iether but wont say this publicly. also interesting fact, nowhere in the constitution etc. does it say seperation of church and state.

Jarhead,
You are correct that nowhere does it say separation of church and state. In fact the term is derived by a misrepresentation of a correspondence that Jefferson had with one of the early churches in New England. Jefferson’s main concern was that the Federal government not adopt or indorse a particular denomination, and that the individual states would have no interference from the federal level as to their own laws with respect to religious practice. This is pretty much the opposite of what we have today where the Federal courts trump State decisions.

Here is a link to a good book on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814719368/103-6971411-1659831?v=glance&n=283155

[September]

As for your statement about religious freedom, with which I also agree wholeheartedly, let's meanwhile draw an important distinction between "when our practices impose on the rights of others" and "when our practices inconvenience, offend, or conflict with the beliefs of others."

So how far is too far in regards to our own practices & beliefs imposing upon others in any meaningful way?

[Teiwaz]

I think religion has a very limited place in politics. What is limited? My version of common sense tells me what is limited, and when it is getting out of hand. It is subjective, and therefore impossible to ever get agreement on. I think, as an example, when christians can't celebrate christmas without "offending" other religious groups and that results in rules or practices (maybe in the form of laws or not) that see general and traditional practice having to restrict imagery and wording, it's gone too far. Too much heed is paid to minority groups with loud voices and big agendas. Fact of life is that Western nations like the USA, the UK, Australia etc have traditionally been predominantly christian. If you, as a muslim or a buddhist come here or convert, or whatever, then you should accept that and be grateful for the fact that despite the existing makeup of religious preference being predominantly christian based, you are free to worship in whatever way you want. I have no problem with a US/.Australian/UK or whatever government having a christian underpinning, with certain reasonable flowons from that - like Christmas being celebrated as a religious holiday across the board etc.

Good Government, however, has really very little to do with religion in my opinion. It is about fiscal management, law and order, defence, taxation, infrastructure, social programs etc etc, not about the belief or otherwise of it's citizens in one supernatural being or another.

[Freethinker]

Good Government, however, has really very little to do with religion in my opinion. It is about fiscal management, law and order, defence, taxation, infrastructure, social programs etc etc, not about the belief or otherwise of it's citizens in one supernatural being or another.
Interesting Teiwaz on the thought about good government. The thought of being good is subjective. No one on the planet believes themselves to be evil. Even Hitler believed his ideas and beliefs to be good.

The issue is that Religion on a grand scale IS politics. Different religions have different ideas of what needs to be done, how it is to be done and what to do with those who don't believe. Look no further than the MUSLUM VS. Capitalism issue in the middle east.

There is no way to discuss politics without religion. IMVHO

I don't think religion is limited. Infact, I believe it to be a huge point of leverage in politics through the world. Religon crosses political borders. Every sovergn state in the world has multiple religous components and they can in and of themselves be driving forces in the shaping of political policy and government decisions.

The fact that Christmas is now the Holiday Season is the fault of the Christians. If the christians would mobilize and stand up and say in a unified voice, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The elected officials would hear. The fact is the christians have for whatever reason decided not to make any mention. The vocal minority has won that battle.

[Teiwaz]

Interesting Teiwaz on the thought about good government. The thought of being good is subjective. No one on the planet believes themselves to be evil. Even Hitler believed his ideas and beliefs to be good.

The issue is that Religion on a grand scale IS politics. Different religions have different ideas of what needs to be done, how it is to be done and what to do with those who don't believe. Look no further than the MUSLUM VS. Capitalism issue in the middle east.

There is no way to discuss politics without religion. IMVHO

I don't think religion is limited. Infact, I believe it to be a huge point of leverage in politics through the world. Religon crosses political borders. Every sovergn state in the world has multiple religous components and they can in and of themselves be driving forces in the shaping of political policy and government decisions.

The fact that Christmas is now the Holiday Season is the fault of the Christians. If the christians would mobilize and stand up and say in a unified voice, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The elected officials would hear. The fact is the christians have for whatever reason decided not to make any mention. The vocal minority has won that battle.


By "Good" government, I meant effective, democratic and open as opposed to secretive and corrrupt and ineffectual. I was not applying a moral "good -v- evil" judgement. Government is a delegated function that is either performed well, or badly in infinite degrees.

I think people who are religious tend to have the view that religion is extremely important in the lives of everyone because it is in theirs, and no doubt certain moral teachings in religion make religious voters see certain issues a certain way. I think that is peripheral to the core function of government however. Religious groups can influence governments, sure - so can senior citizen groups, animal rights activists etc etc. They are just another interest group seeking to advance it's agenda and acheive it's goals. Nothing wrong with that in itself, although as with all "groups" often the extremists control things, or they just get a little too passionate and lose perspective.

I don't think every belief, for example, that we should treat others as we want to be treated ourselves is a Christian thing - it is just common sense that found it's way into religious teachings concerned with basic human morals. You find that sort of thing is common to a lot of religious, as well as humanistic belief systems and ancient cultures as part of their belief and philosophical structures. Even the Dobe Kung in the Kalahari and the Yanomami in the Venezuelen rainforests have comparable teachings within their tribes.

You can't divorce religion from politics, certainly, but neither should it be viewed as more important in the political framework than it is.

["shazbat"]

The "Golden Rule" through history, still a pretty good idea where ever it started.
Christians do not have a monopoly on morals or "family values"


Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" (ie. Golden Rule) passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:

Bahá'í World Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3

Hinduism: "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself." Mencius Vii.A.4

Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3

Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5

Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6

Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.

Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga

Sikhism: Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Unitarian: "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.

Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede

Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29




Some philosophers' statements are:
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)

["shazbat"]

The previous post was an example that the understanding of moral behavior has been with us as humans from the inception of civilization.

That awareness of rationale and our reasoning abilities are some of the many things that sets apart from the lesser animals.

As a social animal we have had to evolve, or for this dicussion perhaps it is better stated "develope" a moral or "civil" mode of behavior in order to thrive as a species. Today more than at any other time in history it is that which keeps us from totally anihilating ourselves.

Therefore it is only natural that such idylls would manifest themselves in our beliefs and from that into our laws.

I fully understand and readily concede that our nations forefathers were "men of faith", that they were predominately christian and that morals and teachings from their judeo/christian upbringing helped to establish the tenants of this nation.

They were also learned men and understood that a secular government with only minimal token references to religion was the only type which could provide the tolerance for a fair a balanced government which could be impartial to all faiths.
Being either european immigrants or first/second generation decendants of immigrants they had a much more direct memory of things like the "Inquisition" and nations that were directly ruled by monarchs who were either given power by "divine right" or were the head of the church of the particular nation.

I'm a professed agnostic but I have no qualms about slogans like "In God We Trust" imprinted on our currency, I have no issues with a display of the "10 Commandments" in our courts, I have no problem if students want to have private prayer in school and nothing against public "Christmas" displays during the holiday season. We are a predominately christian nation established by christians and I see none of these examples as particularly pressuring or influential in themselves.

I absolutely have issue with any faith shown preference in facilities supported by taxpayer funds and faith based fundamentalism utilized to legislate away our personal freedoms.

[nelson]

This is an interesting topic and some good points have been made.

After reading the posts I think I have a decidedly more "pro-Christian" take on US Government and politics. Not enough time right now to fully explain why but I'll take a shot at a summary.

The way I have read it, our founders distrusted a national establishment of religion and ensured such a thing would not take away the religious freedom of American citizens. But they did not minimize their religion from involvement in government or politics; I think that minimization occurred much more frequently (i.e. during our most recent generations, with the help of a very powerful liberal establishment intent upon destroying the influence and judgementalism of religion). Despite it having long been whitewashed from our history books, there were in fact separate establishments of religion at the state level in 6 of the original states, and most of the other states required candidates be Christian in order to hold elected office.

I agree that no religion has a monopoly on morals. But I also believe Western culture owes far more to Judeo-Christian values and principles than to secularism for its catapulted rise toward success and prosperity. I think it's silly and a recipe for mediocrity to whitewash politics of the fundamentals that have brought about our success. It is politically correct but a fallacy to say that every culture and religion is equal in value -- clearly some have been more successful than others. In my mind, from a historical perspective it's very clear that the West grew into its premier role among the world cultures as the result of a reformed but still disciplined Christianity. Now, barely a generation after the wacky sixties, we're going to throw all that away because we don't want anyone to feel as though their behavior is being "judged" by "morally superior" Christians? I have never understood that attitude of hatred and jealousy toward Christianity. This is our heritage, it has contributed to our success, and I think that's valuable, especially in politics.

["shazbat"]

It can successfully be argued that the rise of the western civilization has occured because of a more open and secular attitude.
Much of which was advanced by the Greco-Roman cultures which philosophies spurred the ideas of democracy and individual rights & freedoms we hold so dear as opposed their monarchical predecessors which had developed from tribal origins.

I believe that the popular art, writings and architecture of the period (Greek revival) are examples that our founding fathers fancied themselves as Neo-Classisists, and their legacy in the government that they created as aspiring to ideals of a noble, open and democratic republic free of the encumberences of doctrine and dogma.

In truth western culture began with Athenian democracy, followed by Roman culture with their Senate. The next great steps in government occured with the Magna Carta and then the creation of the two Houses of English Parliment.
Our own three armed system, Executive, Legislative and Juducial in which no one branch posseses controlling power was perhaps the next logical step in that evolution.

I am no more anti-Chrisian than anti-Druidic, anti-Zoroastrian or anti-Buddist. It is clear that Christian ideals and virtues evolved from the beliefs that came before. They were good rules of conduct then as they are now.
In that vein to espouse that only Christians and their ideals are truely virtuous and are solely responsible for the advancement of western society is to turn a blind eye to the historical facts.

In the middle ages, post Roman empire (AD 500) to Rennaisance (1500) the western christian church did more to hinder enlightenment with fundamentalism than advance society. Gallileo recanted his discoveries about the nature of the solar system to keep from being excommunicated from the church.

Again, we are indeed a predominately christian nation founded by those raised in the Judeo-Christian faith. I do not espouse expunging references to God and the divine from our documents and edifices.
The secular nature of our governmental structure is there to temper the influences of any extremes in faith from overt influence in the operation of the nation and not to legislate what one must believe.
I have yet to see any law in our nation to require what one must believe or limit what level of piety one must exhibit. We are absolutely free to persue and practise the faith of our choosing.

Churches of all faiths and denominations operate with relative impunity and the congregations therein to practice their faith without fear of governmental restrictions.
For a period the "buzz" was all about "family values" and family begins in the home. There again we are free in our homes to teach and espouse the values of our faith without reprisal.

I hear the christian right complain about their freedoms being restricted but I personally see more freedom from persecution and freedom of religious belief than there has ever been in the history of mankind.
They just don't have the freedom to tell me what I have to believe and that is just how it should be.

I admit there are a relative few crazies out there that try and spoil the world for the rest of us. I can't help it if you think they actually have that much influence or that judges and lawyers don't have the common sense to tell them to "just shut up and get over it".

[nelson]

Shazbat, you have made a good argument. And yours is a take shared by many. Here is my response.

First, I think you give too much credit for modern prosperity to our ancient predecessors, the Greeks and the warrior Romans. It is absolutely true that their new ways of thinking shifted that age's approach to society, government, civilization, even everyday living, and that their influence was wide and impacted the world. But that was long ago; they may have paved the early road, but they could not have brought about our relatively recent prosperity.

I think one has to look at much more recent history to see how the West actually ascended to power - the Industrial Revolution, which began as early as the 1760's in Britain, had much more to do with spawning our modern prosperity than did the ancients. If you think some people are "religious" today, you would be amazed (and many today would actually take offense) at how important a role religion played in the lives of everyone during these critical times. The I.R. occurred after a long period of religious reform in Britain following Henry VIII declaring himself the head of the Church of England, the resulting Protestant Reformation, and subsequent counter-reformations during the Elizabethan Era. When Elizabeth's "Religious Settlement" didn't really satisfy anyone, larger groups sought to finally depart from the corruption of the established church - this was the Puritan movement. Puritanism was by no means the end of the evolution of Christianity, but it may be the beginning of how we recognize it today. Puritans firmly rejected the divinity of the monarch - they believed the state operated without divine authority, that government did not create virtue but simply rewarded it (and punished the unvirtuous) as defined by the true religion. It was, of course, Puritans who first sought life in the New World and achieved tremendous economic success here. French political philosopher and explorer Alexis de Toqueville was the first to write about the disciplined, educated, hard-working nature of the Puritans providing the foundation for America's democracy and its success. His view was later supported by many others.

But it is difficult to make a scientific case that says Christianity -> Western advancement without writing a novel, or even an encyclopedia. For now suffice it to say that this revolutionary religious environment directly preceeded the Industrial Revolution and later advancements. Secularists love to return to the middle ages to deride Christianity for its dark times, neglecting the revolutions that such dark times force, and conveniently forgetting that so much has happened since then. Some religions have been relatively static for centuries (Islam, for example); not Christianity, which was the central tenet of the lives of nearly everyone when the Industrial Revolution took off and later. Christ was everyone's primary inspiration, He provided the example for living and striving to be better. Organized religion reinforced His rules and brought discipline.

Here in the United States, our Puritan roots are unmistakable. We essentially borrowed our society from the British, removing the divine authority of the state. Our founders knew directly that a government mandated religion did not work, and they wanted nothing to do with it. Their reaction was to ensure our religious freedom; this in an environment when nearly all different faiths were still Christian.

I do not understand the feeling of persecution held today by secularists, atheists, agnostics. We are all free to believe whatever we choose. Nobody is holding a Bible over anyone's head forcing them to accept Jesus Christ. Nobody in America is forcing anyone to believe anything. On the other hand, we do all have the right to espouse our beliefs -- and that includes Christians as well as non-Christians. But when Christians evangelize, people are not forced to accept what they say - they may if they choose. It is my guess that the false sense of persecution felt by non-Christians has resulted from decades, now generations of anti-religious propaganda from the left.

Which is so defeating because even a brief look at our history reveals how much credit is due religion, specifically Christianity, for our success and prosperity.

["shazbat"]

Here we differ. I believe that advancement and prosperity have much more to do with ambition, vision and circumstance than divine intervention.
It is human nature to strive for more, of anything.
The puritans were largely ostracized in Britain and had little to do with the industrial revolution.
The "Colonies" yes gave them a place to tp practice freely which is more inspiration for advancement than any other.
The Puritans largely only settled in New England, further south the Dutch, Quakers and in the south Cavaliers.
America was not only a freer environment to allow expansion but had abundant natural resources to be exploited. I believe these had more to do with the success of america than any other influence.

[nelson]

Here we differ. I believe that advancement and prosperity have much more to do with ambition, vision and circumstance than divine intervention.I agree, and have not made the case that divine intervention led to prosperity, nor that Puritanism led to the Industrial Revolution. In contrast, I think it is a complicated matter that would take far more than a post or two to summarize. I would note, however, that the ambition and vision which precipitated our prosperity were not found in non-Christian societies of the day. You and I may differ shazbat in how we believe the West (i.e. America) arrived at its current level of prosperity, but there is no mistaking the religious environment of the day nor its importance in daily life. One simply cannot overstate the significance of Christianity in the West during the 17th and 18th centuries; I do not envy anyone who finds themself in a position to have to dismiss or in any way belittle the effect of the Christian religion upon anything during this time, including upon the roots of the Industrial Age.

[Teiwaz]

"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state."

Bit of interpretation going on there isn't there? And yes, I got to the ACLU from the other thread.