Religiosity in your country's politics.

[Takel 1st MRB]

As most of you know, i am not religious at all but i know a few of you are. I get that these beliefs can be held etc etc and i don't have anything against you guys because you're religious but what i really want to know is why this should have any affect in politics? In the UK religion is almost entirely separate from politics (i know that our PM has claimed that we are a christian country, but he's the first one in years and is also not exactly my favourite person). What i want to know is why does religion colour US politics so much? Why should someones religion matter when running a country (except when it would be a bad thing, like if the president is part of some strange religion that thinks money, food and health are not necessary)? For instance, how would it matter if obama was muslim? As long as it didn't colour his politics, would it make any difference whatsoever?

This is just my opinion formed using my own personal brand of logic and some critical thinking. I just want to hear legitimate arguments otherwise.

By religion having no place in politics i mean in terms of decision making etc not in terms of 'every theist must die". Religion should have no place in politics in the same way that race, gender etc shouldn't

Edited January 8, 2012 by Takel 1st MRB

[I have no arms BAR]

Depends on who you ask. Not everyone who is religious thinks that religion should be a big part of politics. I see politics as much more about keeping the country running on a practical level, i.e. economy and whatnot as about getting involved in every little aspect of people's lives. I guess you could call me a libertarian in that regard because I think the government needs to be a lot smaller and less "nanny-ish".

[Pangilinan 1st MRB]

Not only does it depend on who you ask, but where you ask. In certain states, religion and politics may not be physically entwined, but when the huge segment of the voting block are devout Christians, they will vote for the candidate that best defines what they believe in. Be it on religious and moral matters or more Earthly concerns such as budgets, laws, and whatnot.

As no arms has said, not every religious person will vote according to a candidates' strength of moral/religious conviction, some do. It's possibly easier to see this paradox of melding and seperating church and state with the United States and possibly Canada. When it boils down to it, to understand it, you also need to go back to the history of some states, particularly the 13 original colonies, and how/why they were formed.

Jeeze last I remember, there was a week of classes devoted to the church and state in one of my university classes and History of the British Empire had a damn boatload of these cases in our primary reading. XD;;

I can't give you an easily digestible answer really. Besides what no arms said.

[Magic 1st MRB]

Religion has no place in politics. But lets look at our dear old USA:

All of our presidents are open Christians. Exception being Abraham Lincoln being an atheist.

If anyone isn't a Christian then they would not receive any of votes from the American South / Bible Belt. This means that they would forfeit a TON of votes just because they aren't the same religion as the voters.

Its ridiculous how much religion plays into politics and science in the USA. Did you know that Texas public schools now have a section in their biology textbooks ( starting in 2012 ) that creationism is a competing theory to evolution. Since Texas public schools have the majority of business in the American south, all the textbook manufacturers are sending the SAME textbook to all the states in the area ( Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas , New Mexico ).

[Pangilinan 1st MRB]

Religion has no place in politics. But lets look at our dear old USA:

All of our presidents are open Christians. Exception being Abraham Lincoln being an atheist.

If anyone isn't a Christian then they would not receive any of votes from the American South / Bible Belt. This means that they would forfeit a TON of votes just because they aren't the same religion as the voters.

Its ridiculous how much religion plays into politics and science in the USA. Did you know that Texas public schools now have a section in their biology textbooks ( starting in 2012 ) that creationism is a competing theory to evolution. Since Texas public schools have the majority of business in the American south, all the textbook manufacturers are sending the SAME textbook to all the states in the area ( Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas , New Mexico ).

See above. While it has no place, truly. It is also about geographic area and demographics as well as history. For better or for worse, a person's religion is a sort of moral compass, and in a representative, federal system such as ours, the majority of the voters will pick the candidate that best matches them to represent them in Congress and the Executive branch as well as in other levels of elected positions.

[Lafy BAR]

Anyone who believes that Creationism has any place in science should probably have died of old age 100-150 years ago.... so to the Texans who supported this, try to catch up and bury yourself in the ground.

[Pangilinan 1st MRB]

And thus Lafy here proves why they are as stubborn as they are. Granted though, my view is. God created the world. But I'm not believing that he did it in 6 of our days. Who knows, 6 days for him is 6 million years for us.

[Lafy BAR]

And thus Lafy here proves why they are as stubborn as they are. Granted though, my view is. God created the world. But I'm not believing that he did it in 6 of our days. Who knows, 6 days for him is 6 million years for us.

Reading that is painful to me. Unless by "god" you mean "natural processes"...

[Magic 1st MRB]

And thus Lafy here proves why they are as stubborn as they are. Granted though, my view is. God created the world. But I'm not believing that he did it in 6 of our days. Who knows, 6 days for him is 6 million years for us.

Reading that is painful to me. Unless by "god" you mean "natural processes"...

Ok guys lets not attack each other's religous beliefs.

This thread is about :

What i want to know is why does religion colour US politics so much? Why should someones religion matter when running a country (except when it would be a bad thing, like if the president is part of some strange religion that thinks money, food and health are not necessary)? For instance, how would it matter if obama was muslim? As long as it didn't colour his politics, would it make any difference whatsoever?

It doesn't matter that he is or is not muslim if it does not change his politics. But that's the thing, it DOES change his politics. For example: if there are 2 people, and person A is on the A side of all the topics while person B is on the B side of all the politics. (Think topics = abortion, stem cell research, war on drugs, same sex marriage) Can both A and B have the same religion? NO. Having a religion = having that religion be your guidelines in your beliefs. Now lets go down this step by step:

Politician------------------A--------------B

Abortion----------------Con-----------Pro

Stem Cell research ---Con-----------Pro

War on drugs-----------Pro-----------Con

Same Sex marriage---Con-----------Pro

Since A's religion dictates that Abortion is a sin and he will go to hell for it, A is against abortion.

Since A's religion dictates that Stem Cell Research is a sin and he will go to hell for it, A is against abortion.

Since A's religion dictates that Using Drugs is a sin and he will go to hell for it, A is against Drugs.

Since A's religion dictates that Same Sex Marriage is a sin and he will go to hell for it, A is against abortion.

How can B follow the same religion but go against that religion in all of his beliefs?

Answer: Impossible, you define your religion by your beliefs. If you Believe in XXX then you also have XXX's beliefs

[Pangilinan 1st MRB]

Reading that is painful to me. Unless by "god" you mean "natural processes"...

Not really. Belief in a higher power who over millions of years, shaped the cosmos and turned his attention to a newly formed sun, creating several planets from the remnants of the birth of said sun, and set into things motion to eventually grant this Earth life.

You could say I susbscribe to the old "God is a clockmaker" kind of religious belief. And in the Catholicism I grew up in, it's similar. God provides the strength we use to achieve our own goals, etc.

[N. Walts]

Religion may not have a place in politics, or at least most of us agree it shouldn't, but it's difficult for it not to be. A persons religion and beliefs of any kind resonate in the decisions they make. Give somebody power over others as a politician? The presence of a religious belief or lack thereof is gonna be seen in their stances on certain topics. Most peoples' belief systems are founded on faith, or no faith. All their opinions and thought processes down the line are affected by it.

And I'm with Pangilian in my beliefs. Personally, I hate church and have never read the Bible. But I believe there is something out there that keeps us going.

[Peaker]

Well, i'm personally at the very least, an Agnostic (Grossly, I don't know if there's a god or not out there), leaning heavily towards atheism. However, I do respect people who have faith, and I don't think God and evolution are incompatible (If god is indeed omniscient, you'd think giving his creatures the ability to evolve and adapt would be a pretty clever thing to do right?).

That said, let me bring you back 60 years in the past, in Quebec (where I come from). Maurice Duplessis and the church ruled the province with an iron fist, unions were basically outlawed, morals were those that the church dictated and the already strenuous separation of church and state that existed was all but inexistant. That is why in the 60s, with the quiet revolution, Quebec became an utterly laicized state. Fact is, what is best for the soul (In many religions' opinions) is very rarely efficient for running a country in this day and age, with the liberation of morals and expansion of freedoms, along with an era of scientific developement. It is, again in my opinion, the duty of a politician to separate what religious beliefs he has from his decisions and the stances he takes. It takes a strong man/woman to be able to make choices that might not be immediately popular with the public, or that go against established beliefs, but are ultimately for the good of the nation, and I think that is the style of leadership we should be tending toward, progressive and innovative, rather than conservative and retrograde.

Does god have a place in that new way of thinking? He very well may, but we should be thinking about everyone's good, not just christians, or just muslims, or just atheists etc... And earthly politics should remain far away from divine theology.

[Petri]

I usually don't chime in on the politics and, religious stuff but this is a fun one. It is a very simple answer really. Religion for a political candidate works as both a platform and, description of said candidate and their beliefs and morals. Example if you approach a voter and, tell them you are christian one of the first things that will probably pop up in their head is you are anti-abortion. If a candidate calls themself Atheist they would most likely sound more liberal minded to the average voter. In the very fast paced world most Americans live in most of us don't spend too much time researching our candidates past what we see or, hear in passing. So, whatever tool you can round up to describe yourself in passing to voters that would vaguely answer most of the common questions easily is going to be used the most. Religion happens to be one of the best go-to's. Also, with the majority of American's claiming to be christian its an obvious reason to push the religious agenda to make you appear more "in-line" with the average person if you at the least share their belief.

On a flip side to that concept it brings up an intriguing idea. If you do have someone who would vote against their own morals what does that say about the person? If they are able to turn on their own beliefs what would make a person believe they will uphold yours (meaning I would see someone who would turn on their own beliefs as spinless)? I will honestly say for myself that even if the people I represented wanted me to vote for something I morally disagreed with I wouldn't do it. Thankfully for voters I have no intention of ever running for any office (except maybe supreme overlord of the world right next to pinky and the brain). (note: this section has little to nothing to do with orignial post but, i wanted to put it in anyways)

Hope thats a very easy answer to a common question.

/step off soap-box

[Peaker]

Religion for a political candidate works as both a platform and, description of said candidate and their beliefs and morals. Example if you approach a voter and, tell them you are christian one of the first things that will probably pop up in their head is you are anti-abortion. If a candidate calls themself Atheist they would most likely sound more liberal minded to the average voter. In the very fast paced world most Americans live in most of us don't spend too much time researching our candidates past what we see or, hear in passing.

So basically, because it's a shortcut to instead bothering to read the news and what your candidates say, it's a good thing? Certainly, we live in a fast paced world, but is it an excuse to become lax in exercising a right that our ancestors struggled and sometimes died for? As far as I know, there are christians that are not against gay marriage, christians that believe abortion is a personal choice and christians that believe women should be allowed to be priests (Granted, this already exists in the Anglican church). And then you got the whole other end of the spectrum who believe the exact opposite. Is being a christian a good argument in favor of someone becoming president of the United States or premier of Canada for example? Is being Budhist, Shintoist or Muslim a spot on one's ability when running for this office as well?

It was previously mentioned that Abraham Lincoln was an atheist, and yet he was one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States, I somehow don't think he ran using Atheism as a platform. Being Canadian, one might think my opinions on the USA's political system are moot, but I rather find it fascinating in fact, and have spent quite a while reading about it. Weren't the USA built on progressive ideas, and didn't the fathers of the constitution wish for a progressive country? One would think so, reading said document.

All in all, I think the overall point i'm trying to make is that we ought to quit being lazy and slap either party or religious etiquettes on candidates, and instead bother to research who we're voting for. If this isn't worth it, I don't know what is.

[Pangilinan 1st MRB]

So basically, because it's a shortcut to instead bothering to read the news and what your candidates say, it's a good thing?

Well, I dunno about others, but I'm a conservative and I honestly think half the traditional news media are a bunch of idiots (Fox News) or telling me absolute shite (MSNBC) and that the only traditional news sources I read are arguably right-wing in bias (Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Telegraph, etc...) and that my alternate media is more issue specific. So arguably unless you approach a candidate on various sources (multiple news sources, open public records, bills sponsored/cosponsored (via THOMAS)) and see if he/she fits YOUR preferences ( Mine: liberal (to a point) in terms of personal freedoms, decreased government, hawkish foreign policy, Austrian School/Hayek-ish economic policy), taking a quick glance at what the talking heads on the tube and seeing what is presented to you may be even worse.

Certainly, we live in a fast paced world, but is it an excuse to become lax in exercising a right that our ancestors struggled and sometimes died for?

I find it hard in that most Americans only care about state, even just the national elections. Sometimes, the most important election is deciding who will be the next Sheriff of your local area, who will be on the board on what position, and whatnot. Local elections matter as well.

As far as I know, there are christians that are not against gay marriage, christians that believe abortion is a personal choice and christians that believe women should be allowed to be priests (Granted, this already exists in the Anglican church). And then you got the whole other end of the spectrum who believe the exact opposite.

Damn right. I don't give a rat's ass if you wanted to marry your same gender (as long as it's the same species really), while abortion to me is deplorable unless significant danger is to be had to the mom/child/both. Catholic, so our priests are all male and women are nuns.

Is being a christian a good argument in favor of someone becoming president of the United States or premier of Canada for example? Is being Budhist, Shintoist or Muslim a spot on one's ability when running for this office as well?

Almost all of the presidents can be characterized as Christian, at least by formal membership. Some were Unitarian or unaffiliated with a specific religious body. Some are thought to have been deists, or irreligious. No president thus far has been an Atheist, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion.

Well, for one. A good deal of our history has been Christian. Most of our presidents were Christian (primarily Episcopalian and Presybterian) while a good deal are scattered. From Atheistic Lincoln and Deist Jefferson, Catholic Kennedy and Quaker Hoover, and even Unaffiliated Obama; most of our presidents were Christian. It is a de facto requirement. Either state it or keep it quiet. And in today's information everywhere society, you can't really keep your faith a secret.

Now, trying to elect someone of a different religion besides Christian, would be hard, and most likely buried deep or they lose nomination in their Party's national convention. A reason why Obama is unaffiliated is because Jeremiah Wright has said pretty damning things that we Conservatives raised a fuss about. A Buddhist might be able to obtain state office and even congressional office. But it won't pass even in the primary campaigning.

A Muslim man trying to be president will be very, very, very, VERY difficult. Considering Islam and the West's past history. Going back from the Middle Ages to now. Granted, the first people to recognize us were Muslim states. I also remember that our first foreign deployment of Marines was against the Barbary states in 1801 (hence the line 'Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli'). A full 11 years before the War of 1812. So our relationship with Islamic states had been rocky, and our recent forays into the Middle East has made it hard for a great majority of Conservatives to allow that to happen.

==In All==

Back to topic. This is a rather complicated subject, since it deals with the personal preferences of the voter and candidate/elected official. A person's moral backing can come from his/her own convictions, or from a higher power. And if he/she chooses to or not to use it, it can go either way. It's quite complicated, but frankly, to me. I'm more worried in other things.

Like a candidate's voting record and experience prior to achieving elected office. I find those bits more...important than religion...or race...

[Peaker]

Well, I won't quote your whole post because it's rather long, but i'll adress some points within it by paraphrase and quotes.

Well, I dunno about others, but I'm a conservative and I honestly think half the traditional news media are a bunch of idiots (Fox News) or telling me absolute shite (MSNBC) and that the only traditional news sources I read are arguably right-wing in bias (Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Telegraph, etc...) and that my alternate media is more issue specific. So arguably unless you approach a candidate on various sources (multiple news sources, open public records, bills sponsored/cosponsored (via THOMAS)) and see if he/she fits YOUR preferences ( Mine: liberal (to a point) in terms of personal freedoms, decreased government, hawkish foreign policy, Austrian School/Hayek-ish economic policy), taking a quick glance at what the talking heads on the tube and seeing what is presented to you may be even worse.

So are you saying you agree with me there, or not? I admit I used «news» in a very broad sense to encompass the entirety of available sources on a candidate, but whether you're conservative or a liberal (Or any mix thereof), surely it shouldn't impact your intellectual curiosity? (AKA, both conservatives and liberals can use published sources and media they trust to inform themselves on the various candidates, rather than simply rely on the religion of said candidate)

I find it hard in that most Americans only care about state, even just the national elections. Sometimes, the most important election is deciding who will be the next Sheriff of your local area, who will be on the board on what position, and whatnot. Local elections matter as well.

Well, I never said local elections didn't matter, democracy isn't about size. Being informed before you make a political choice, no matter how small, is the duty of a citizen (We get rights, but we shouldn't forget we also have obligations.)

As for your last adress pertaining to the religious affiliations of presidents, my previous post wasn't adressing the question whether or not religion mattered or impacted an election, I feel that point has already been proven (Religion definitely affects the political debate in the US). My (admitedly rhetorical) question was whether or not it should. Does religion have a place in modern politics? I feel that it doesn't, no matter the history behind it, tradition for the sake of tradition is a logical fallacy (also known as a sophism). Do not mistake my meaning, traditions are important, as long as they perpetuate something positive and useful, but I do not feel that religion, either in the USA or Canada has that use in the political realm, given the increasing number of faiths, sects (Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy are all sectarian movements according to the original meaning of the term) and variations of beliefs available to the average north-american.

All in all, keep religion inside churches and statecraft in parliaments.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

[Takel 1st MRB]

For a second, i just thought it was dawspam in action.

[Dawson 1st MRB]

[Yamagata 1st MRB]