Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:17 AM
36 online now:
edge, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Religion in Government
JCPalmer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 303 (111281)
05-28-2004 9:17 PM


Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering. —Eugene Peterson

At the age of 40 George W. Bush a once lost christian had an epiphany, he found God. Switching from being an alleged Christian to his wifes Methodism.

Post 9/11 Bush took action, he found a 'mission.' A mission to 'rid the world of evil'
Now, America is the new 'Rome.' It is not uncommon to hear of the 'American Empire' or of 'Bush's Regime'

Bush has become a 'Crusader' and often during many speeches asks 'God to bless our troops' and 'God to bless America.'

Although I do not believe in God, I can understand what role he plays in society among believers. However, when a nation is involved in Governmental actions, should God be apart of it? Should we as a Society, involve God in the political actions carried out?

Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a 'divine plan that supersedes all human plans.' Also statings post 9/11 that he was 'chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.'

Is this right? Should we allow a man of his stature or of any status among the Governmental/Political process to base his action on religious beliefs? Perhaps he is starting wars because he believes God is guiding him. His actions may also be fogged in a time when we need his mind to be pristine and sincere.

I have been using Bush as an example because he is an easy target, my post is mainly asking the question 'Should religion be allowed/tolerated in the Governmental and Political process?'


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2004 10:26 PM JCPalmer has responded
 Message 6 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 05-28-2004 11:20 PM JCPalmer has not yet responded
 Message 10 by riVeRraT, posted 05-28-2004 11:56 PM JCPalmer has responded
 Message 56 by Hangdawg13, posted 05-30-2004 9:36 PM JCPalmer has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Zachariah, posted 06-17-2004 12:57 AM JCPalmer has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12601
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2 of 303 (111289)
05-28-2004 9:40 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 303 (111302)
05-28-2004 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JCPalmer
05-28-2004 9:17 PM


Also statings post 9/11 that he was 'chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.'

Well, he sure as hell wasn't chosen by the people of the USA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JCPalmer, posted 05-28-2004 9:17 PM JCPalmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by JCPalmer, posted 05-28-2004 10:46 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 7 by custard, posted 05-28-2004 11:22 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

JCPalmer
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 303 (111306)
05-28-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
05-28-2004 10:26 PM


It is possible that it was the Supreme Court, but very unlikely. The facts are that George W. Bush 'won' the election, and during a time of war his approval ratings topped off at around 74%. Which is impressive considering the fact he was sending thousands of our soldiers to fight a war that may not have been our war to fight. However, this topic is not discussing George W. Bush's presidential motives/actions. It is questioning whether or not religion should be allowed in the Governmental/Political society?

This message has been edited by JCPalmer, 05-28-2004 09:58 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2004 10:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 5 of 303 (111310)
05-28-2004 11:07 PM


There is a big difference between having Religious People in Government and having Religion in Government.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by DarkStar, posted 06-15-2004 7:04 PM jar has not yet responded

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 303 (111312)
05-28-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JCPalmer
05-28-2004 9:17 PM


What I hate is people that will vote for bush no matter how bad a job he does. All they care about is having a "strong" christian in the government.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JCPalmer, posted 05-28-2004 9:17 PM JCPalmer has not yet responded

custard
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 303 (111314)
05-28-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
05-28-2004 10:26 PM


Well, he sure as hell wasn't chosen by the people of the USA.

Yeah, all those sneaky Canadians must have voted him in.

Interesting question JC. Religion is so dominant shaping rules about morality and social norms upon which so many of our laws are based, that it seems almost impossible to extricate one from the other.

Part of being in a democracy is that you have to suffer the will of the majority. If the will of the majority creates laws based on religious beliefs - abortion restriction, controlled substances, tax exemptions for religious institutions, then I don't see how one can avoid the influence of religion.

As a side note, it isn't like governments that were professed athiests were any more liberal, e.g. Soviet Russia, China.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 05-28-2004 10:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 05-28-2004 11:36 PM custard has responded
 Message 27 by nator, posted 05-29-2004 4:54 PM custard has not yet responded
 Message 31 by DBlevins, posted 05-29-2004 6:02 PM custard has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 8 of 303 (111316)
05-28-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by custard
05-28-2004 11:22 PM


custard writes:

Part of being in a democracy is that you have to suffer the will of the majority.

Which is why it is fortunate that the US is not and hopefully will never be, a Democracy.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by custard, posted 05-28-2004 11:22 PM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:25 AM jar has not yet responded

JCPalmer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 303 (111320)
05-28-2004 11:49 PM


jar writes:

There is a big difference between having Religious People in Government and having Religion in Government


Perhaps, but it is those religious people who bring religion into government, when is the last time you can recall a president running a campaign stating he was atheist?

Rand Al'Thor writes:

What I hate is people that will vote for bush no matter how bad a job he does. All they care about is having a "strong" christian in the government.


Very true, it is pointless to only vote due to religious affiliations.

custard writes:

Religion is so dominant shaping rules about morality and social norms upon which so many of our laws are based, that it seems almost impossible to extricate one from the other.


True, however, do you believe we should atleast try? Do you believe it is right to take the words 'under God' out of The Pledge to the Flag? Although a small change, it will bring forth a chain reaction of religious disputes. Once the tides shift, there would be no stopping it.

custard writes:

art of being in a democracy is that you have to suffer the will of the majority. If the will of the majority creates laws based on religious beliefs - abortion restriction, controlled substances, tax exemptions for religious institutions, then I don't see how one can avoid the influence of religion.

You do raise a good point about the majority rules, which makes any changes in these areas improbable, unless we decide to vote for a politician who is an athiest as our next president. Which makes me wonder have there ever been any politicians that high in the ranks that have said they were athiest?

This message has been edited by JCPalmer, 05-29-2004 04:07 PM - Mistake made, referred to the words 'under God' as being in the National Anthem

This message has been edited by JCPalmer, 05-29-2004 04:10 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 05-29-2004 4:58 PM JCPalmer has responded
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-29-2004 5:20 PM JCPalmer has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 84 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 10 of 303 (111322)
05-28-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JCPalmer
05-28-2004 9:17 PM


This nation was founded in the name of God. It was and is its freedom that allows you to "not believe in God"

Funny, without God you might have never had that chance to "not belive in God"

The real problem isn't God anyway. Its mans interpretation of him. If a man was capable of interpreting God's word wrong, then he is possible of interpreting anything wrong. So a president would be an idiot if he belived in God or not. Same for anyone else in politics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JCPalmer, posted 05-28-2004 9:17 PM JCPalmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JCPalmer, posted 05-29-2004 12:34 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 05-29-2004 7:17 AM riVeRraT has responded

JCPalmer
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 303 (111325)
05-29-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by riVeRraT
05-28-2004 11:56 PM


This nation was founded in the name of freedom. God did not grant any right to the freedom of our nation, he 'came along for the ride.' If he did, well then I would not be an atheist, because that would have been proof that he was real.
As a side note, whose God is it founded for now? There seems to be so many in our nation. In fact, whose to say it was founded, although I'am not positive of the religion of the Native Americans, I believe they had different Gods as well.

riVeRaT writes:

Funny, without God you might have never had that chance to "not belive in God"


I can only assume you mean, because of God I was given the chance to not believe in him. Granting me the freedom of thought? Well, I do not believe in a God, so there was no one to grant me this freedom. Funny how without God, humans would never have fought in all those 'crusades.'

riVeRraT writes:

The real problem isn't God anyway. Its mans interpretation of him. If a man was capable of interpreting God's word wrong, then he is possible of interpreting anything wrong. So a president would be an idiot if he belived in God or not. Same for anyone else in politics.


I never stated a problem in God, I was stating a problem within religious beliefs and the Government. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'am not too familiar with the Governmental and Political Process of God, does he have any? Is his word relevant and or should it be relevant in a time of war? I don't ever remember him negotiating a peaceful process to solve World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom... the list goes on... and on... Or perhaps as you stated he intended this nation which was founded in his name to allow slavery for so many years? So until he as intervened, which, well looks unlikely to me, I believe is word should not be taken into consideration on how to govern our nation.

(Note - I in no way intended this topic to question the 'word of God' I would appreciate it if you would reply based on previous questions, but if you must correct me, or comment feel free. Also by intervened I mean physically, I know many say God has intervened spiritually.)

This message has been edited by JCPalmer, 05-28-2004 11:36 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by riVeRraT, posted 05-28-2004 11:56 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by riVeRraT, posted 05-29-2004 11:07 AM JCPalmer has responded

custard
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 303 (111366)
05-29-2004 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
05-28-2004 11:36 PM


splitting hairs
Which is why it is fortunate that the US is not and hopefully will never be, a Democracy.

OK, ok technically we're a republic, but look at states were referendum has become the norm: Oregon for example. That's about as close to democracy as it gets.

In any case, citizens of Republics are subject to a similar 'will of the majority' that democracies are. That's why some states still have morality laws (can't buy alcohol, cigarettes, panty hose on Sundays, etc.) and some don't.

You state doesn't approve of legalized marijuana? Move to California. Legalized suicide? Move to Oregon. No way these measures pass in Utah.

I agree that governments should be secular, it's certainly in anyone's best interest who is not a member of the religion that is in the majority, but the fact of the matter is, most of the laws and morals in the US are derived from the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 05-28-2004 11:36 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:31 AM custard has not yet responded
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 5:39 AM custard has responded

custard
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 303 (111368)
05-29-2004 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by custard
05-29-2004 5:25 AM


Re: interesting
Thought you all might find this interesting. This purportedly comes from the Tennessee state constitution. I trust the source as it is dedicated to truth and it corrects any misrepresented facts promptly.

From www.randi.org:

ARTICLE IX — Disqualifications {for public office}:
Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

So you can't be an active minister of the Gospel (wonder if that precludes rabbis? Oh wait, this is Tennessee... never mind), but you also can't be an athiest or someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife.

This type of thing seems to bolster the argument our govt was established in the name of Christianity as well as freedom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:25 AM custard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2004 5:42 AM custard has not yet responded
 Message 32 by DBlevins, posted 05-29-2004 6:44 PM custard has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 303 (111371)
05-29-2004 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by custard
05-29-2004 5:25 AM


I agree that governments should be secular, it's certainly in anyone's best interest who is not a member of the religion that is in the majority, but the fact of the matter is, most of the laws and morals in the US are derived from the bible.

Are they? Or are they derived from the same source the Bible derives from - a recognition that societies prosper when certain behaviors are restricted. (Obviously, not everyone agrees on what those certain behaviors are supposed to be.)

I mean, it doesn't take a genius, or divine inspiration, to make killing and stealing seem like a bad thing to allow. The fact that the Bible is the most popular book in America that says that, I think, is incidental to the fact that we have laws that would seem to agree. If nobody had ever read the Bible, killing and stealing would still be illegal, because that's just sense.

Also, you might notice that moralistic perscriptions that are unique to the Bible - like the prohibition against clothing of mixed fiber, or eating shellfish - always fail to make it into law. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that our laws are based on practical necessity, not the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:25 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:52 AM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 303 (111373)
05-29-2004 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by custard
05-29-2004 5:31 AM


This type of thing seems to bolster the argument our govt was established in the name of Christianity as well as freedom.

Well, it certainly bolsters the argument that a number of people have thought that was the case. Like, the folks in Tennessee who made that law.

Honestly, though, I suspect that law wouldn't survive any court in this country. It's clearly unconstitutional on the face of it. Maybe our government was established for Christians. The courts and Constitution, though, seem to have been established for everybody.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2004 04:42 AM


"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by custard, posted 05-29-2004 5:31 AM custard has not yet responded

1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019