Thread: Politics and Religion - should they mix?

It's just that politics and religion are such touchy and wide-ranging subjects, that they can get out of hand more easily than anything else.

I think there should be a separation of church and state as far as the Presidency is concerned; Bush can be a Christian, but he shouldn't base every decision on "well, it's what Jesus would do...isn't it?"

I have a question for you. If you knew nothing at all about bush's personal life and went strictly by what he has done in office, could you honestly say that they are all the actions of a christian instead of say a jewish person?

Tell me what you think. Maybe this shoulc be in the philosophy section... I dunno.[/b]

we'll see how it goes for now

i think it would be best to keep it separate. btw..has there ever been a non-christian president before?

As far as I know, there hasn't.

The problem with mixing religion and politics can be seen in our good friend Mr.Bush, who does seem to base every desision on:

"What would Jesus do?"
"Ah thats it, invade Iraq."

http://monotheism.us/ might be all bull...but....

haha alex that is true.... my two favorite bumper stickers during the election were "what would jesus bomb" and "bush + dick = screwed" hahhahaaa

anyway who did you quote there roller... on the, how did jesus become pro- rich, pro-war, and only pro-american? sounds so familiar, I know I've heard it said ..... ah I figured it out, where I saw it at least.... he was on the daily show with Jon Stewart.........I have heard it

Anyway, I can see why religious presidents get elected.... the have the same supposed values as many of our citizens... but at their core those values are hypocritical and backwards...... like for example, all the people who voted for Bush because he is pro-life. Pro-life yet murdering thousands of innocent in his war on Iraq. Pro-life yet at the same time working to reduce government means of helping those with children, ........ ahhh it is all so evil.

Ultimately, when you see society trying to implement changes to remove church from state in ways that seem trivial, such as removing the word God from the pledge, you would think that people would in turn seperate these two areas when choosing something as important as a leader.....

Originally posted by Anahata
http://monotheism.us/ * might be all bull...but....

haha alex that is true.... my two favorite bumper stickers during the election were \"what would jesus bomb\" and \"bush + dick = screwed\" hahhahaaa

I must see if eBay has some of those. God, I just have to see one.

http://www.cafepress.com/shop/bumper-stick...-1509+1332_bt-2

errr and I am still looking for the other.....

here's on just for fun...
http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.7979384

I'll pm ya if I find it haha.....

separate.

with a religious state others will indefinitely be oppressed due to their beliefs.

I don't think that they should miw, it says in the constitution seperation of curch and state. It is not fair to keep some religions seperat and some not,

Last time I checked there was no law saying you had to be atheist to hold a public office. So bush can believe whatever he wants.

i don't think you grasp the concept here. think.

Daydream Paw's right -- it's not about people who are religious or nonreligious being in politics, but the two abstracts getting in the way of each other.

He doesn't preach any religion though and as you already pointed out he doesn't follow it in every decision he makes. So where is the problem? He doesn't push his religion on anyone, he uses his religion as a moral guide.

Lets take stem cells or abortion as an example. Hes against them both because of his religion. Making a law to stop them both wouldn't be pushing his religion though, as anyone no matter what religion they may, or may not have can find them both to be morally wrong.

Or are you mad because he brings up god in a speech? If you are for freedom of speech you could hardly have a problem with someone for that. Saying something like "may god bless you" is hardly hurting anyone, no matter what they believe in.

So I guess your right, I kind of missed the point of the topic because I don't see any problem.

i never said that religion couldn't be used as a moral compass... but religion is a extremely bias... creating inequality if used past a certain moral boundary... making it better if decisions are made with what's best for the country in mind, not what best for a god. i'm not saying bush does this, i'm simply saying that this is what makes mixing the two bad.

*moved*

Alric: the problem I see is that by presenting himself as a devout Christian, and by bringing up a Christian agenda (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights) he effectivley assures himself a very substantial Christian vote, allowing him more power. The negetive side to this (he can do this if he wants, there's no law against it) is that he then pursues an agenda that is against Christian teachings, and against the concerns that many church leaders have voiced. You cannot present yourself as a Christian come election time and then use this power against the teachings of the Christian faith. In this way it can be seen that he is merely manipulating faith and a whole religion for his personal plitical benefit.

If you are an Christian (which I assume you are) you should be very angry about this.

In this way it is shown that politics and religion should be kept seperate due to the conflict of interest. A president should seek moral guidance, as should every leader, yet presenting yourself as belonging to a religion merely to gain support surely is a crime against any religion it may happen to.

Oh and btw sorry for posting this in the lounge, kinda new to this site and I didn't realise it should have been in the philosopy section. Sorry, lesson learned though.

the 1st ameadent states that we can express our religion. just because a person is of great importance like the preasident doesnt mean that he cant say he prays for our troops?

I recently watched a series about the life of Jesus with my church group.
In the last one, they talked about the last days of Jesus' life, and the roman government.
The overall feeling i got was this.
The romans were running the show the way they wanted to, with slavery and what-have you.
Jesus didn't like this, so he got a few friends together, and tried to basically do things fairly and right, in order to help the unfortunate people.
Unfortunately, the head of the roman government didn't listen, so Jesus had to be slightly more drastic, which resulted in him being crucified.
He felt that they weren't listening, so because he believed so strongly, he had to make his point.

Some of the English people might have seen it, it was on BBC 1 a while back.

This is an interesting topic. I strongly believe that religion and politics should be kept far apart.

As far as Bush is concerned, yes, he IS pushing his religion on us (frankly, I don’t think he’s a very good Christian… but that’s another topic altogether). For example, he has stated that Wicca is not a valid religion and should not be practiced/allowed in the Army (and I can’t find the speech for those of you cut and paste nazis). He is also against gay marriage on the premise that it “defiles the sanctity of marriage”. What the hell? How does two people in love violate the sanctity of marriage? And another thing, I am a witch. I don’t marry like a Christian marries. My ceremony and concept of acceptance in the eyes of the Goddess is way different from a Christian ceremony and concept of acceptance in the eyes of their god. No president should be able to make such personal decision like that. (And the fact that he nullified all those marriages strikes me as absolutely evil.)

To be honest, Bush scares the hell out of me. He uses the Christian religion for his own needs, not as the Christian God (and/or Jesus) intended. Do you really think Jesus would have said “Hey! Go kill all these people in my name because they believe in a different version of me!” Jesus was a pretty damn cool guy. I doubt he would have been happy with politicians flinging his name around so selfishly. Jesus wasn’t a politician and quite frankly, I’m not sure he would have wanted to be. Spiritual guidance and political guidance are two completely different things and I think it’s a big mistake to mix the two.

hey, i never meant to cause offence to anyone.
sorry.
it was just my thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by irishcream
hey, i never meant to cause offence to anyone.
sorry.
it was just my thoughts on the subject.

no need to apoligize, this is a friendly debate and you just stated your opinion

people are asking whether religion and politics should mix, but does anyone else think that they are a little intertwined?
what is politics but laws and statutes that the country tries to live by, set in place by a higher order.
To me, it seems that religion is no different.
Laws and rules, all set by someone none of us have ever seen.
Okay, so you see tony blair on the telly, but how many of us have actually met him face to face?
How many of us has he given his time to, to actually listen to what we really want?
I think it's the same with religion.
the laws are there, but at the end of the day you have to make the decisions that sit best with your conscience.
I think religion is political, in that you have people of different faiths, believing in different things, just as you have different political parties.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by A Lost Soul
Do you really think Jesus would have said “Hey! Go kill all these people in my name because they believe in a different version of me!”

I'm just wondering who it is you think said this. It wasn't President Bush. And no he isn't pushing his religion on anyone. He is simply trying to live a good life as a Christian which every true Christian does. He isn't forcing people to believe in God, He didn't start the war for religious reasons (or for oil as so many convoluted people out there believe). Unlike certain previous presidents, I see this man as doing what he believes is best for the United States of America. We can see that for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a chance for the people of Iraq to be free citizens and practice free speech without the fear of being tortured to death. I'm very thankful that we have a leader with the conviction and fortitude necesary to bring freedom to the middle east.

I'm going to do my best to keep my answer as short and to the point as possible by addressing the original post only.

Roller wrote:

I have always wondered with the swearing in of politcal leaders - would it be accepted if the president of the usa was sworn in \"to serve and protect the country, so help me Allah\"? If not then does religion have a place among politics? Spirituality and morality maybe, but set religion? [/b]

The US is currently undergoing a war on ideologies, which is subsequently polarizing its citizens into two seperate factions...those who believe that the Constitution was written with a secular intent and those who believe that the founding fathers had a Judeo-Christian agenda. We have to remember that the Constitution strongly emphasizes the separation of church and state and any infringements on this principle will only plague this "melting pot" that we (as US citizens) reside.

I believe that Bush has used his "born again" status and newfound "enlightenment" as a political tool to cultivate his agenda (both at home and abroad). He is certainly entitled to views and is within his rights to initiate policies that he feels is "right"...I mean we do have a "check & balance" system in place by way of Congress right?

However, I completely disagree with the motivation towards the invasion of Iraq. I believe that the current administration purposely misconstrued intelligence and rallied as much US support (82% Christian populace - http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html ) with his Christian rhetoric for a number of politically motivated goals towards Iraq.

I have extensively debated the reasons why the Bush administration has gone to war with Iraq on other debate forums...and if you believe the sole and/or main purpose was to liberate the Iraqi people then you are tragically naive.