Politics and religion. Good or bad idea?

[Shi'ark]

We all love to slag of Bush so you might find this interesting.

Apocalyptic president

Even some Republicans are now horrified by the influence Bush has given to the evangelical right

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday March 23, 2006
The Guardian

In his latest PR offensive President Bush came to Cleveland, Ohio, on Monday to answer the paramount question on Iraq that he said was on people's minds: "They wonder what I see that they don't." After mentioning "terror" 54 times and "victory" five, dismissing "civil war" twice and asserting that he is "optimistic", he called on a citizen in the audience, who homed in on the invisible meaning of recent events in the light of two books, American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips, and the book of Revelation. Phillips, the questioner explained, "makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this? And if not, why not?"
Article continues

Bush's immediate response, as transcribed by CNN, was: "Hmmm." Then he said: "The answer is I haven't really thought of it that way. Here's how I think of it. First, I've heard of that, by the way." The official White House website transcript drops the strategic comma, and so changes the meaning to: "First I've heard of that, by the way."
But it is certainly not the first time Bush has heard of the apocalyptic preoccupation of much of the religious right, having served as evangelical liaison on his father's 1988 presidential campaign. The Rev Jerry Falwell told Newsweek how he brought Tim LaHaye, then an influential rightwing leader, to meet him; LaHaye's Left Behind novels, dramatising the rapture, Armageddon and the second coming, have sold tens of millions.
But it is almost certain that Cleveland was the first time Bush had heard of Phillips's book. He was the visionary strategist for Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign; his 1969 book, The Emerging Republican Majority, spelled out the shift of power from the north-east to the south and south-west, which he was early to call "the sunbelt"; he grasped that southern Democrats would react to the civil-rights revolution by becoming southern Republicans; he also understood the resentments of urban ethnic Catholics towards black people on issues such as crime, school integration and jobs. But he never imagined that evangelical religion would transform the coalition he helped to fashion into something that horrifies him.

In American Theocracy, Phillips describes Bush as the founder of "the first American religious party"; September 11 gave him the pretext for "seizing the fundamentalist moment"; he has manipulated a "critical religious geography" to hype issues such as gay marriage. "New forces were being interwoven. These included the institutional rise of the religious right, the intensifying biblical focus on the Middle East, and the deepening of insistence on church-government collaboration within the GOP electorate." It portended a potential "American Disenlightenment," apparent in Bush's hostility to science.
Even Bush's failures have become pretexts for advancing his transformation of government. Exploiting his own disastrous emergency management after Hurricane Katrina, Bush is funneling funds to churches as though they can compensate for governmental breakdown. Last year David Kuo, the White House deputy director for faith-based initiatives, resigned with a statement that "Republicans were indifferent to the poor".

Within hours of its publication, American Theocracy rocketed to No 1 on Amazon. At US cinemas, V for Vendetta - in which an imaginary Britain, ruled by a totalitarian, faith-based regime that rounds up gays, is a metaphor for Bush's America - is the surprise hit. Bush has succeeded in getting American audiences to cheer for terrorism.

• Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is the author of The Clinton Wars
sidney_blumenthal@**********

What I want to know is, how much influence does religion have over politics? Over here pretty much non what so ever but I’m always hearing about America, the middle east and all over the world.

What place dose religion have in 21st century politics, or what place should it have?

[Wise Child]

I don't think it should have any. Church + state = bad, in my opinion.

[tenet_2012]

What place should it have?

None.

I am afraid that it does have a place in today's American politics. A fine example is South Dakota's recent ban on abortion. I believe that this bill was 100% politicly motivated.

Hopefully in 2008 Americans will see what a bad thing it is to mix church and state. Until then I hope we survive. If not, I'm moving to Canada.

[655322]

Agreed.

But unfortunately a lot of the major issues are debated on and eventual decisions are based on views that pertain to the Bible. Also the US Supreme Court, argueable the most powerful group of people on the planet is made up of a bunch of quite religious people. It's easier for the government to implement new things or (more likely) keep things the same when they just site evidence from the Bible. They don't have to explain things as much.

This has been going on for Millenia. The Druids were the lawmakers in England. The Roman Catholic Church was the lawmaker in Rome.

But they didn't have nuclear weapons so... this marriage of church and state has the potential to be much more devastating.

[CptSternn]

Ok, if you haven't seen the speech that Shi is refering to in the article, watch it here...

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv..._speech_1.html

It's scary. And the Jon Stewert commentary there with it makes it brilliant.

But also, look at the new 'religious inititives' bush is now pushing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shfaith10.html


Bush touts funding for religious charities
By The Washington Post and The Associated Press


WASHINGTON — President Bush said Thursday that the federal government gave more than $2.1 billion in grants to religious charities last year, a 7 percent increase from the prior year and proof, he said, that his administration has made it easier for religious groups to obtain taxpayer money.

Speaking to a White House-organized conference of 1,200 charity leaders from across the country, Bush said the administration is creating "a level playing field" for religious organizations to compete with secular groups to run drug-treatment programs, homeless shelters and other social services.

Government's role is "to fund, not to micromanage how you run your programs," he said. "I repeat to you, you can't be a faith-based
program if you don't practice your faith."

So much for seperation of church and state. The thing is, of those BILLIONS bush gave to churches last year, who I might add are all tax exempt, how many went to non-Christian organisations? How many Muslim groups got part of that pie? Wiccans? Buddists? Take a guess.

So it's not funding 'religious' groups, bush has gone and started funding right wing prodestant Christian groups. And given businesses a place to hide their dirty money without paying taxes at the same time. Sort of a win/win for those republicans in congress.

Sort of a lose/lose for anyone whos not of the Christian faith and needs things like food and shelter.

Much like the 'evangelists' in Iraq. The prodstant ministers there who bring food, water, and air conditioned tents...to those who come sit for their sermons only. Everyone else can bugger off. Guess whos payrolling those lads as well? That would be alot like Muslims setting up aid tents in New Orleans after the hurricane and offering food, shelter, and water to anyone who wants to enter their makeshift tent and pray to Allah. Think anyone would be offended by that? What if the money came from say... Iran to sponsor the tents?

[Shi'ark]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchiv..._speech_1.html

I can’t watch it, I don’t have QuickTime 7 and I can’t bie anything on this PC. Where can I downlode it for free?

[emeraldlonewoulf]

On the whole church and state thing, yes, of course they should be separate. But, you must realize that peoples' beliefs dictate their political choices, their morals are shaped by religion and evidenced by politics. Or at least, people should be led in politics by what they think is right, and their faith should have something to do with what they believe. What is scary is how the leaders of the so-called "Christian" movement claim to represent all of a particular group, and how many people agree with them for fear of ostracism from their social and religious group as opposed to actual thought, or even actual faith.

[Mood]

Even Jesus said that Church and State should be seperate...and I think I'd trust Jesus (fictional or not) over Bush anyday. Though we might have a hard time convincing Bush that President of the United States is indeed inferior to Lord and Savior...but I'd give it a shot at least.

[succubus,queenofvampires]

I, like everyone, think that religion and politics can't work hand in hand.

I live in a country where a person's religion controls EVERYTHING.Every thing is linked back to religion especially politics, and this is what causes problems.
Some people can't even get jobs in certain places due to their beliefs!

[WolfMoon]

I wonder if they ever gave a thought to improving the economy with all the money they're throwing away on 'religious charities'?

I don't see a reason to donate money to churches, isn't that why they have the collection plate out every sunday? It is a bit irritating to think the our president cares more about donating money to his preferred religion than to helping the poor.

But then, a lot of charities that help the poor are run by churches, yes?

I'd just like to see more money being spent on better education and the economy. Pave some fucking roads!

[Kali Maxwell]

My answer: Religion should have no influence in politics whatsoever, other than in the mind of the individual. God and leader should not be associated; disaster will follow.

[tenet_2012]

The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

[Sobeh]

I don't know whether there ought to be a separation between church and state, because I find the debate a red herring: whether there is an 'ought', it is frankly an impossibility. Religion will always inform values, even if your religion is a comprehensive atheistic metaphysics. 'A government shouldn't officially support one religious view or another' is a common refrain, but where do you think things like Freedom of Speech come from? (It's rational humanism and Deism, by the way.)

Anyway, one of the problems I see is that the separation of Church and State makes many people in the US turn a blind eye to the fact that it doesn't exist as such, which makes religious influence harder to see. That's the problem.

[emeraldlonewoulf]

I think the term "separation of church and state" maybe a little misconstrued by some. The term referrs to religious organizations and political structure as two separate entities, not as separate decision making factors within the individual. In other words, political officials are not considered religious leaders, and vice versa. The pope wouldn't be king, or the president leader of a particular church group. It doesn't mean that a person's religious beliefs shouldn't affect their voting decisions. If someone has geniune faith that helps them decide what is right and wrong, you cannot expect them to not make decisions about laws and leaders without taking that into consideration. That's why you can vote in this country. I just wish they would add a box that says "niether" or "none of the above" on the ballot. I know they have an "other" line for write in candidates, but if you don't see anyone available that would be good for the position, you should be able to state that too.

[Ben Lahnger]

Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

- Robert Heinlein

[emeraldlonewoulf]

How true history has proven that to be.

[Disfunction]

A might bit ironic that Sternn here is anti-theocracy when his sacred home was until recently a Catholic state.

[Icarian Decoding]

My idea is this: Religion should play a part in politics.

I believe that while you can't run a state entirely on religion, you do need the trust and backing of the majority of the people. I can understand the need for seperation of Church and State, but I don't understand why they have to be completely seperate.

For instance, say you have a population of 70% Christians. Would it not make sense to pass laws that are based on the morales of Christian law?

Now, you also have minorities. I would contend they have rights as well. Why not simply factor their ideals in as well. Say you have the other 30% be atheists. Should they not have the right to influence the laws as well? Perhaps governments should not be an absence of all religion, but a metling pot of every single one.

[Magpie_Tendencies]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

For instance, say you have a population of 70% Christians. Would it not make sense to pass laws that are based on the morales of Christian law?

I disagree. Religion is a personal choice. If you let your religion and your religious beliefs influence your law-making then you are effectively forcing your religion onto people. I think that people's religious beliefs should be taken into account when passing laws but laws should not be BASED on any specific religion or religion generally.

[Icarian Decoding]

Understandable, but isn't the goal of government to force a set of standards onto the people?

I agree that you shouldn't directly force religion onto people, but I still contend that it would make sense to tailor the laws to the majority of the people. When passing the laws, I believe it would make the most sense to base it off a selection, and have the people choose which laws they would like. The majority would rule, which would mean that one's views, religious or not, would be emplaced.

If the laws are based on the laws of religion, then is that not just a benefit?

[Saya]

But the rule of the majority would suppress the minority. Like, lets say, abortion laws. Say the 70% Christians outlawed abortions, but the remaining 30% want abortion legal. Its technically forcing your beliefs on other people.

[Icarian Decoding]

Then how does a government like the US, and the world in general, keep the majority of the people from ruling the country? I've heard America is 75% to 95% Christian. Wouldn't it make sense for the people to influence others to follow their religious beliefs, and make it law?

Wait, I think I've answered my own question. I'm guessing the Constitution forbids this in the bill of rights, and there is more of a majority willing to follow the constitution, rather than their Church.

Then, how could you make it so that the majority and the minority would both have impacts, relative to their size?

[Magpie_Tendencies]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

Understandable, but isn't the goal of government to force a set of standards onto the people?

The standards forced on people should be in the peoples best interest. If you constantly base laws on religion then you cannot guarantee that. Also if you base your laws on a religion then you could very easily end up going against other peoples religions.

I agree that you shouldn't directly force religion onto people, but I still contend that it would make sense to tailor the laws to the majority of the people. When passing the laws, I believe it would make the most sense to base it off a selection, and have the people choose which laws they would like. The majority would rule, which would mean that one's views, religious or not, would be emplaced.

So if the majority of the peole are atheist then there should be no religion in politics? Having the majority doesn't make the minority go away. And it may not be a majority, for example if the population was:
Christian - 40%
Muslim - 30%
Atheist - 30%
See? The population has the most Christians but the majority may disagree with their laws.

If the laws are based on the laws of religion, then is that not just a benefit?

Yes, but only if it's based on YOUR religion. If it's not your religion then the law could be infringing on your religious beliefs.

[Magpie_Tendencies]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

I'm guessing the Constitution forbids this in the bill of rights, and there is more of a majority willing to follow the constitution, rather than their Church.

You would probably be right. There are some people who do believe in their religion and follow it to the letter. However I know just as many people who go to church on holidays, have been confirmed to their specific religion - but have only done it because it's what their parents did. These people would be just as annoyed to find their religious beliefs influencing laws as anyone else because, while they are a member of that religion, they don't agree with those teachings. Therefore, while the statistics may say 75-95% christian, I think you'll find that a lot of those people don't want their laws based on their religion either.

Then, how could you make it so that the majority and the minority would both have impacts, relative to their size?

Maybe you could have religious representatives (relative to the size of the religion) in parliament? They can put forth their input on behalf of their religions but wouldn't be the ones with last say on the laws. Just a thought.

[CptSternn]

Dis -

True, but for the most part policians here are breaking out of that mold. Religion although is very prevelant everywhere you look on all aspects of Irish daily life and culture is still probably the most tolerant I have ever seen of all other cultures, well with the exception of the brits and their 6 counties, but thats political, not religious as they try to hype.

Everyone here is still Catholic, but in the past 3 years we legalised abortion AND now legalised condoms. Thats right, birth control including condoms were illegal two years ago.

However common sense and science had prevailed and now you can buy rubbers in the jacks of every pub in Ireland! For a fiver each. (Didn't say they were cheap).

I've been bootlegging love gloves fer a few years now. Just call me the Bandit. Bringin' 'em in fer big and little Enus!

*Cue Jerry Reed music

o/~ eastbound and down, loaded up and trucking... o/~

-S