Politics and religion. Good or bad idea? - Page 2

Disfunction · 03-30-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

The origins of the concept of seperation of church and state is tied in with religious observation; the people who signed the constitution were, for the most part, religious individuals. Their reasons for inserting that clause into the constitution was based on what was going on in England. Freedom of religion and the freedom to not be oppressed by other forms of religion.

Pathogen. · 03-31-2006, 11:54 AM

NONE. Period.

I oppose any form of a theocracy, any organised merging of the forces of government & organised religion. I already had 3 bad experiences in my life with organised religion because my folks forced it on me, so I sure as hell don't want any agent or group of the State forcing Protestant fundamentalist dogma on me either!

A U.$. hardline Christian theocracy. The right's been attempting that shit since singer Anita Bryant's/ultraconservative Phyllis Schlafly's campaigns against abortions & [mainstream] feminism in the 1970s; since the 1980s with the advent of televangelist Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority group [they should've been called "the Morality Squad"]. Since I was knee high to a roach.

I see Bush's funding of "faith-based organisations" instead of using it for education/other sectors of the national budget and disdain of science as no different from the things I've mentioned in the last paragraph. The G.O.P. should be horrified! Look at what they've lent their support to!

Religion should remain an individual thing. Someone's personal/spiritual relationship with their diety-of-choice. To become a fully institutionalised thing, all it has done throughout world history is create sorrow for the people it's allegedly helping. Adding insult to injury, the sorrow is often done in the name of some fucking diety. Middle Eastern nations like Lebanon & Kuwait are good examples of this theocracy-dynamic at work.

Queenofdarkness57 · 03-31-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pathogen.

. Middle Eastern nations like Lebanon & Kuwait are good examples of this theocracy-dynamic at work.

Lebanon rocks!!

Quote:

Religion should remain an individual thing. Someone's personal/spiritual relationship with their diety-of-choice.

This is probably a bit out of topic, but what the hell. So, I read an article today about a young girl who was diagnosed with diabates. Her parents were Christian Scientists, so they wanted to treat their child using the unconventional method. They decided to pray for her instead of taking her to the doctor. Her health was deteriorating quickly, until she died. Her parents were led to court for third degree murder. And the doctors stated that if her parents treated her medically a few hours before she passed away she would have survived, and the lawyers affirmed that children must have the right to choose the religion they prefer. I think the parents made the dumbest mistake I could ever think of. What do you guys think?

succubus,queenofvampires · 03-31-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queenofdarkness57

This is probably a bit out of topic, but what the hell. So, I read an article today about a young girl who was diagnosed with diabates. Her parents were Christian Scientists, so they wanted to treat their child using the unconventional method. They decided to pray for her instead of taking her to the doctor. Her health was deteriorating quickly, until she died. Her parents were led to court for third degree murder. And the doctors stated that if her parents treated her medically a few hours before she passed away she would have survived, and the lawyers affirmed that children must have the right to choose the religion they prefer. I think the parents made the dumbest mistake I could ever think of. What do you guys think?

Yeah, this was the article that we got in our English exam.
What really intrigued me is that the parents knew that only conventional medicine could save their child, and yet they decided not to subject her to it!

Disfunction · 03-31-2006, 12:59 PM

In parts of Africa there are some witch doctors who have been teaching that they way to cure AIDS is to have sex with a virgin. The popular idea is also that men cannot pass on the virus, only women.

So basically, there will be a bunch of men with AIDS who are of the impression that having sex with a virgin will save their lives AND that if they have sex with that virgin, they will not pass on the disease. Kind of makes **** excusable if you look at it from their perspective.

Subjective thought is a dangerous thing when represented from an egalitarian point of view.

succubus,queenofvampires · 03-31-2006, 01:30 PM

Yeah, Xng, but they also said that they're doing everything in order not to harm their daughter, and killing her is one of, if not the, cruelest forms of harming.
What I think is that they shouldn't be extremists. They should neither leave everything in the hands of God and the Christian "practitioners" and be completely independent of medicines nor be so addicted to conventional medicine to the extent that they pop a couple of pills everytime something minor occurs.
Faith in God is good, but they shouldn't believe that he will take care of everything and try to do nothing about the problem.

Anyways, sorry for threadjacking.

succubus,queenofvampires · 03-31-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Not in their eyes. The cruelest thing they could do, in their eyes, is force an innocent child, whom they love, into doing something that would make her to go to hell.

What were they forcing their child to do? To take medications?
They didn't say that the girl had a problem with medicine or something.The only reason behind her abstaining from medicine is her parents religious beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xnguela

I can't help but wonder, though, why did the doctor who diagnosed her allow it to go so far that she died? I mean, her parents were crazies, was it possible that the doctor didn't see that? Why didn't he/she at least schedule several follow-up appointments? I'm not blaming him/her, just wondering..

I took these from the article that was given to us :
" They decided to heal the child with prayer rather than seek a doctor's aid. Two days after the Christmans saw her, Amy died of diabetes."

"A state social worker in Sarasota took a call from Amy's aunt. The worker's notes sketched a chilling picture: " Over the last two weeks (Amy) has lost 10 pounds, drinks constantly, eats large amounts of food, muscle tone is virtually gone, eyes are sunken and funvtioning separately. Child can barely walk and has to be carried- All indications point to diabetes but parents refuse to take said child to the doctor as they are Christian Scientists."

" After performing an autopsy on the child, Associate Medical Examiner James C. Wilson concluded that medical treatment up to just hours before her death probably could have saved Amy. The Hermansons have acknowledged they never sought such treatment."

They didn't seek a doctor or any professional medical help. Their daughter was properly examined after her death...

succubus,queenofvampires · 03-31-2006, 02:15 PM

Yeah, maybe that's how they thought of it, but I don't understand why do they consider taking medications as sinning.
God wants us to be happy and healthy, and in order to do so, we should use chemicals and medicines.

Anyways, you're right. We're on the same side.
I was just a bit surprised by their way of thinking.

CptSternn · 04-01-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Wait-- I thought Ireland was perfect?

It is! I mean, condoms are still a foreign idea here and are rarely bought or used.

For a guy, this is a very good thing for many reasons

MrMaelstrom · 04-01-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

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

Er....What the Fuck?! Dude, did you read what you wrote?

It would take a fair bit to explain it all, so, to simply answer your question: NO!

Jeeeeezzz....

MrMaelstrom · 04-01-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by succubus,queenofvampires

... the parents knew that only conventional medicine could save their child...

No, they didn't.
They (for one) weren't faking their faith.
They were just shoving it down the throats of a minor, and were certainly convinced that their faith in their lord would help them AS WELL.

Should they be imprisoned? Fuck yeah!!!!
I can imagine the child arriving at the Gates going to St Pete:
-Why did you let me die?
-Well, we put about a gazillion Hospitals, Clinics, Health Centers, Ambulances and qualified phisicians more than on any other nation on Earth.
What else did your or your parents need from us?

Point being: pray when the doctors have nothing else to go on.
Pray while the doctor does his/her job,
Pray before, during or after, but not INSTEAD OF!!!!

corporalaccident · 04-01-2006, 02:18 PM

Mood, did Jesus really say that?

And, I absolutely detest Bush. Mainly, I detest Christianity. That's another story. I just really don't think it's a good idea to be mixing politics with religion. Look where it's getting us! Bush even proposed and amendment to the constitution declaring gay marriage illegal. What a BUTT!!

I think it's horrible to have a president who only represents a portion of our country. We should have a political leader who can represent our ENTIRE nation, not just the Christians. Our leader should be able to hear ever voice in this country, accept every idea, not discriminate based on his own personal religion. That's not a president.

WolfMoon · 04-01-2006, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disfunction

In parts of Africa there are some witch doctors who have been teaching that they way to cure AIDS is to have sex with a virgin. The popular idea is also that men cannot pass on the virus, only women.

So basically, there will be a bunch of men with AIDS who are of the impression that having sex with a virgin will save their lives AND that if they have sex with that virgin, they will not pass on the disease. Kind of makes **** excusable if you look at it from their perspective.

Subjective thought is a dangerous thing when represented from an egalitarian point of view.

This is exactly the reason so many babies(and I mean babies not even a year old!) are being ***** so frequently over there right now.

WolfMoon · 04-01-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

No, they didn't.
They (for one) weren't faking their faith.
They were just shoving it down the throats of a minor, and were certainly convinced that their faith in their lord would help them AS WELL.

Should they be imprisoned? Fuck yeah!!!!
I can imagine the child arriving at the Gates going to St Pete:
-Why did you let me die?
-Well, we put about a gazillion Hospitals, Clinics, Health Centers, Ambulances and qualified phisicians more than on any other nation on Earth.
What else did your or your parents need from us?

Point being: pray when the doctors have nothing else to go on.
Pray while the doctor does his/her job,
Pray before, during or after, but not INSTEAD OF!!!!

AMEN!

.

.

Godslayer Jillian · 04-01-2006, 11:52 PM

Combining Church and the State is like giving rice to a pigeon... not a good idea!!

MrMaelstrom · 04-02-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Combining Church and the State is like giving rice to a pigeon... not a good idea!!

I don't get it. What happens if you give rice to a pigeon? Enquiring minds want to know.....REALLY!!!

MrMaelstrom · 04-02-2006, 10:18 AM

Does it make the shit on my car any easier to wash off? I WANT TO KNOW!!!!

WolfMoon · 04-02-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

I don't get it. What happens if you give rice to a pigeon? Enquiring minds want to know.....REALLY!!!

They swell up and explode, silly. Kinda like giving alka-seltzer to seagulls.

DUH!

CptSternn · 04-03-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xnguela

You are SUCH a fucking PIG.

Seriously.

Women say men are pigs. Well, men ARE pigs. Just too damn bad we own everything...

-Tim Allen

CptSternn · 04-03-2006, 05:05 AM

I think the best way to sum up the argument is this: You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

As far as someone asking about Jesus and his views on seperation of church and state, there are a few passages, but the most prevelant is:

"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36)

This is commonly refered to in various seperationo of church/state arguments as Jesus says to his followers not to fight over the kingdoms of the world, for they are not his kingdoms. This is not the fight people should be fighting. You should be focusing on the next life, not fighting over whos religion is correct.

When a politician takes his religious views and battles it out to prove they are right, ironically enough he is doing exactly what Jesus tells his followers NOT to do.

Do right, do onto others as they would unto you, and turn the other cheek. These are principles that can be embraced and are taught by all religions.

Only the anti-christ speaks of peace while starting war. (Daniel 8)

The problem is not that it's hard to be fair and impartial if yer a politican, the problem is the voting base which has the most money and influence in congress/elections/white house are all faith based groups comprised of white, middle aged, prodestants.

And with them pulling the strings and throwing around the money, then you will see a direct influence into the policies.

I say the seperation of church and state is alot easier to achive if you get the money out of politics. If Pat Robertson didn't have a million followers watching him daily, bush might not be inviting him to the white house as much. But since he does, he along with all those other nut-jobs are having a huge influence on American policy.

Now the worst part is, this does mean religion, not politics and policy, are running the government. When you have bush on the news telling the world 'God' told him to invade Iraq, and passing laws to outlaw abortion and stem cell research because of 'God', then when the Iraqi's claim that bush is attacking Islam, they are correct. If his god is leading him to war against them, and his god says wearing burkas by women is NOT required, and his god says 'this and that' then he is directly attacking Islam.

It would be like some alien race coming down to the planet, using new technology to conquer the world, then tell the bush admin 'hey, gay sex is ok, so is polygamy, coveting yer neighbors wife, worshipping whoever you want, and yeah, adultery is now in as well'. Would people not rise up and claim the new rulers are attacking Christianity?

But in their society those laws seem archaic, and really don't harm anyone. Much like the burkas and other various Islamic customs. But to take over lands owned by a group, and eliminate laws based on their religion IS a direct attack on their religion.

Whoever is in charge is going to force their views on you. The best you can hope for is that they at least respect the oppising group of persons views, or are skilled enough to work out some median group where everyone is happy.

CptSternn · 04-04-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Props for quoting Tim Allen. He's the one who made a Home Improvement show where the "funniest" moment is where he called yourself a man and then grunted? Definitely worthy of being YOUR hero, pig.

Actually he is one of my hero's, but not because of that show. I really didn't care for it. I did however love his real-life preformances.

First, he got popped right after going big with a kilo of coke coming across the border. Did little time as he was on his way up.

Then he gets his second wind in 'The Santa Clause'. Now, I watched him on Jay Leno the night he was on there promoting it. When asked by Jay what he wanted for Christmas, he said a new 911 limited edition red Porsche.

That night Disney had one flown in via helicopter and put on his lawn with a big bow.

Two weeks later he was arrested doing 190 through LA, off his feckin' tits, with a kilo of coke sitting beside him and a bottle of Jack between his legs blaring the radio.

Disney forced him to make a statement to the press the next morning after being released.

He didn't even clean up, he staggered out, much like his character in Galaxy Quest, still half pissed, sunglasses on, look at the cameras and mikes in front of him, and say 'yeah, I did it. Good nite - I'm going home to bed' and walked off.

They never said WHAT he had to say, just that he had to make a statement to the press. I almost died laughing watching that on CNN.

Class.

CptSternn · 04-04-2006, 09:27 AM

Not wearing a condom is sexist? Wow, we were discussing how wearing a condom was the product of an over religious government, now that I point out that we have the freedom to not wear condoms, and women here still prefer they don't, I'm sexist.

Ahh, how I miss the states. If you do 'X', yer a dirty conservative, but if you don't yer a dirty liberal.

I don't wear 'em cuz I don't like 'em, not because it's against my religion, although it is (I'm semi-practicing). Women here don't like 'em, and I like that. Find me a man (or woman) here who thinks that is 'sexist' and I'll post ye a cookie!

Morrigan_Dubh · 04-04-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Women here don't like 'em, and I like that. Find me a man (or woman) here who thinks that is 'sexist' and I'll post ye a cookie!

Not sexist, but maybe a generalisation. Can I ask when you say "women here", do you mean women in Ireland as a whole or just women in Co. Clare? If you mean Ireland as a whole then I'd like to say that as a woman from "here" condoms are fine. Protection from nasty STIs and unwanted pregnancy, plus lubrication and/or extra sensations.

CptSternn · 04-04-2006, 10:24 AM

Let me rephrase that then. As a rule, women here are not at all opposed to sex without condoms. I mean, if they are there, thats great, but most don't ask, as here they still are hard to find and not readily available.

I was making a broad generalisation, not a generalisation about broads.

</Dante Voice>

Sobeh · 04-04-2006, 11:29 AM

Condoms aren't the result of religion in government at all; when Sternn mentioned that "we were discussing how wearing a condom was the product of an over religious government" I was a bit shocked, as religion suggests condoms are simply passes for sin. Hang on, let me go back and read this discussion, I'm suddenly interested.

EDIT: ...and confused. No mentioned of the role other than that they had to be legalized... so basically, I don't get the point. Ah well.