Republicans
Sky
Join Date: 2004-04-23 Member: 28131Members
Join Date: 2004-04-23 Member: 28131Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">religion in the USA</div> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 20 2005, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 20 2005, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Diazo+Apr 20 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Diazo @ Apr 20 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But yes, I agree 100% with you that the RCC should not affect politics. Unfortunatly, it does. It probably comes back to the fact that so many of our politicians are religious in one way or another, with a significant chunk of them being catholic, that even if the politicians try to leave religion out of the laws they make, religion still ends up influencing them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is completely inexplicable to me. Before GWB, was there any other president who referred to religion this much? When did the Republicans adopt Christianity's definition of morality as a main plank in their platform? Is it just his personal views on the presidency and his religion, and it'll all go away in 4 years, or is this how Republicans are going to be from now on? Yes, I just asked 3 questions in a row; does this even deserve its own topic? 4, dammit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the encouragement of Cyndane, I've started this topic to address these questions I have had about the current administration in the US. Now, these questions can only be completely answered by high ranking government officials, however I think it would be interesting to at least hear some ideas on the subject(s), because I am utterly clueless. Cyndane had this to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In answer to one of them, I do not recall any president referring to religion as much. Other then one of the founding fathers, and even he agreed government and relgion do not mix.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, but that doesn't help much with the questions of "Why now? Why have the Republicans adopted this stance towards religion now? Will it continue?"
So, any thoughts? From Republicans, Democrats, undecideds, neutral observers from Europe/Asia/Canada/Australia? (note to self, research this forum's demographics)
Which is completely inexplicable to me. Before GWB, was there any other president who referred to religion this much? When did the Republicans adopt Christianity's definition of morality as a main plank in their platform? Is it just his personal views on the presidency and his religion, and it'll all go away in 4 years, or is this how Republicans are going to be from now on? Yes, I just asked 3 questions in a row; does this even deserve its own topic? 4, dammit. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the encouragement of Cyndane, I've started this topic to address these questions I have had about the current administration in the US. Now, these questions can only be completely answered by high ranking government officials, however I think it would be interesting to at least hear some ideas on the subject(s), because I am utterly clueless. Cyndane had this to say:
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In answer to one of them, I do not recall any president referring to religion as much. Other then one of the founding fathers, and even he agreed government and relgion do not mix.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, but that doesn't help much with the questions of "Why now? Why have the Republicans adopted this stance towards religion now? Will it continue?"
So, any thoughts? From Republicans, Democrats, undecideds, neutral observers from Europe/Asia/Canada/Australia? (note to self, research this forum's demographics)
Comments
pffft <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I know exactly what you mean and it is very worrying, governments should be about admistration and maintaining our quality of life (including our freedoms etc), they shouldn't concern themselves with our 'morality'. I'm personally very glad I'm not an American right now as I have no desire to be a part of a theocracy. Especially as religion has a tendecy to declare war on things because they are 'evil' (completely ignoring the fact that war itself is bad of course).
Will it continue? Yes it may well. If a large enough proportion of the population supports Bush for precisely those values then the Republicans will have no choice but to continue in the same vein if they wish to keep their voters.
GWB refers to God a lot, compared to any modern president. I don't know if he beats out some of the 19th century politicans, however.
I don't think that this is the most religious government that we've ever had. I can't think of any major legislation that has been passed because of the influence of Christianity in Congress. Compare this to the early 20th century, which led to the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution' target='_blank'>18th Amendment</a>. That was a constitutional amendment, which takes a vast majority of the American Government, both at the state and federal levels, to pass. If you think about how entrenched alcohol is in our culture, then you could come to the conclusion that religion played a much larger role in politics then, than they do now.
John Savage, "The Life and Public Services of Andrew Johnson" pp. 247, 274
Page 334<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thomas Jefferson (3rd President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence) has his own words on his tombstone: "Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it temporal punishments or burdens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.
No men shall...suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively.
Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the Book of Life that that these people are to be free.
The precepts of philosophy and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. Jesus pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected his tribunal in the regions of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head."
William Linn, "The Life of Thomas Jefferson" p. 265
Page 333<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->President Abraham Lincoln issued a historic day of fasting and prayer on March 30, 1863 and he began by saying, "Whereas, the Senate of the United States devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation: And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord..."
5 days after the Civil War had ended, Abraham Lincoln went to Ford's theatre with his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln. She recalled his last words as they sat there: " He said he wanted to visit the Holy Land and see those places hallowed by the footprints of the Saviour. He was saying there was no city he so much desired to see as Jerusalem. And with the words half spoken on his tongue, the bullet of the assassin entered the brain, and the soul of the great and good President was carried by the angels to the New Jerusalem above"
March 30, 1863. James D. Richardson "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents" Vol. 6, p. 164.
April 14, 1865. The Last Words of President Lincoln As Recalled By His Wife. Minor. Lincoln. p. 52
Page 383, 391
William Federer, "America's God and Country" Encyclopedia of Quotations. Coppell, Texas. Fame Publishing 1994<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Adams, Second President
(Speaking of July 4, 1776) - "I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty." Letters of John Adams, Addressed To His Wife, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. I, p. 128, July 3, 1776
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, June 21, 1776
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the pivilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." The Correspondence and Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 393, Oct. 12, 1816 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Alex de Tocqueville, Historian (1800's)
"Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspeect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention...The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their mindds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other... Religion in America...must...be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country,,, From the earliest settlement of the emigrants, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved." The Republic of the United States of America and Its Political Institutions, Reviewed and Examined, Henry Reeves, trans. (Garden City, NY: A.S. Barnes & Co., 1851), Vol. I, p. 335 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Quincy Adams, Sixth President
"[T]he birth-day of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour [and] forms a leading even in the progress of the gospel dispensation..[T]he Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth [and] laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Noah Webster, Founding Father
"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, ¶ 578
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and law... All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339, ¶ 53<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Thomas Jefferson, Third President
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->George Washington, First President
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1927, 1965), p. 18<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
"But for [the Bible] we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare...are to be found portrayed in it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler, ed. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Union Press, 1853), p. 542, September 7, 1864 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Harry S. Truman, President
"The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a...government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!" God's Providence in America's History (Rancho Cordova, CA: Steve C. Dawson, 1988), p.13<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The good news is, you don't have to agree with any of them.
Now that I think about it, doesn't the dollar bill say 'In God We Trust' or something similar? I'm glad we have a monarchy, at least all we have in our history is incest <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm</a>
He even made his own version of the Bible, with all miracles and supernatural acts excised:
<a href='http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/' target='_blank'>http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/</a>
I find it strange that, if the Founding Fathers were so Christian, I haven't seen anything out of the Constitution that is conclusively based upon the Bible, rather than on a secular document or institution.
UK has had plenty of religions rights infiltrate their history, just look back at the medieval days when they burned "witches" because they went against the "word of god." Not to mention the Crusades into the holy lands which the Pope ordered and many of Englands lords/ladies/etc agreed to.
In addition, just because a few of the presidents supported government and religion assisting each other does not mean that the whole basis of the consitution rests on it. In fact it is actually quite contradictary to what it states.
Which is why there is the whole "seperation of church and state."
(Side note, "jesus" preached not combining religion and government.)
<!--QuoteBegin-bible+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (bible)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," he said, "and unto God the things that are God's."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG, I actually quoted the bible.. for something positive. Hell, has in fact, offically frozen over.
*cough*churchofengland*cough Yea...
Anyway, there are a lot of religious people in the US. I'm not one of em, but I can agree that most Christian morals are good. However, people are affraid of what's different, and if they are religious, and tought that their religion os the right way, then that's how they will think. Along the same lines people will go out of their way to spperate themselves from those who are different by using obscure quotes from religious texts to back them up, because they beleive that those texts are correct.
Anyway, it makes sence, that in a democracy, a person who people (no matter how they gain their beleifs or weather you happen to agree with them) connect to will be more popular than somebody who they don't. To many, religion is just that important, and government comes second.
Just look at our good (banned) friend AvengerX for an example of this.
We still don't have creationist schools though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 20 2005, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 20 2005, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do not recall any president referring to religion as much. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Born the same year I was ( 1981 ), neither of us really has the experience to back up or refute such a statement. Lets see... We can discount Reagan... Unless you were ( are? ) some super genius prodigy type kid... So at the earliest there is Bush Sr. and then Clinton and now GWB.
According to Sky's profile, he has even less experience. Gotta take Bush Sr. off his slate... The first term of Clinton should go as well. It would be generous to leave the second term, but hey... I can be generous at times, even when it comes to a 9-13yr old that was interested and had a basic understanding of politics.
Still, its amazing how little history records about famous people. Concentrating instead on the important actions and then weaving that person around said actions. I have to wonder how much has been lost and so it is a good query... How religious were our past Presidents? Hrmmm... A good query indeed.
As to a politician referencing religion a lot... Big deal. That is what freedom of religion and free speach protect. You cannot expect an individual to keep that which helps him define his morals out of discussion. Whether it be the Pope or the President. With GWB, as long as he is following the law and a theocracy we do not become, he is free to reference his religion as a foundation for his beliefs and morals all he wants. As a matter of fact, more power to him. Contrary to what you believe, this is a Christian nation ( i.e. the majority are Christian... ~54% is an estimate ), so it should be no surprise that religion has an impact on our society and culture, which is reflected in our policies and laws.
This does not mean that there cannot be a separation of church and state, which is something I do believe in ( which is more than I can say about a religion ), but it also means, which I suppose is a bit of a paradox, that government and religion are intertwined. This is not limited to the good ole US of A though... It is an aspect of the vast majority of nations.
You've claimed others are elitist because they openly express their faith and their views which are shaped by that faith... The ironic thing is that that is hardly any different than what you are doing here. Looking down on others, not necessarily becuase they have a differing opinion on quite a few subjects as you, but more likely because you cannot seem to understand or do not like how their religion helps to form their world view.
Religion is a beautiful thing... It has been used for great good throughout history... Unfortunately, just like many other things, it has also been used for great evil. Religion is not infallible, but it is a great unifying force and should not be dismissed as irrelevant or anachronistic, whether it be at the local, national or global level.
The Pope has every right to preach to the followers of his religion and those followers, in many countries, have every right to express their views and run for public office should they so desire. Expecting any of them to not have their religion affect their opinions is comparable to me expecting you to pick a girlfriend and not let your attraction for that individual have any bearing on the decision.
What I expect from a politician is someone who does the best they can for <i>all</i> of the people they have been tasked to look after whatever their preferences. Otherwise what is next, burning books that are seen as dirty? Stopping video games because they warp our values? I'm pretty sure the pope wouldn't be keen on GTA3 or Doom3 and Bush would probably agree with him. Does that mean they should be banned too?
[Edit] I'm tired, I have a feeling that what I've just written doesn't quite make sense in a few places but I'm in no position to correct it. I hope the general gist is still understandable and that you'll forgive me if some of it isn't clear [/Edit]
Also, just because our birthdates are recent, as are almost everyones on this forum. You and I might be in the older majority, I could be wrong on that one. Doesn't mean we couldn't have taken some sort of history class, since it is offered at even the elementary school level. Some of us were curious about the history of the nation, let alone the theology behind it. Which is why they offer classes as such in college.
There were many presidents has spooge has pointed out that have said they believed in god. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. (Thomas Jefferson was NOT one of them though.)
Its when they use their religion as a way of affecting someones rights, aka war in iraq. If Bush really is so arrogant to think he is carrying out "gods" will, then we have a major issue that needs to be solved, and quickly.
One of the main reasons this nation is so great is because it does offer religious freedom, anyone can be anything they want when it comes to beliefs. (My parents left Egypt so that they could practice Catholism without worries of Muslim extremists "purifying them") I absolutely hate when people force their beliefs on others using laws that actually take away the rights of people as a whole.
Wow.. looking back.. some of this is redundant... but I shall leave it as it is anyway. I do not think there are any spelling errors this time. At least I hope not.
*edit* I found an error...
I understand your meaning but I think your choice of words is incorrect. He wasn't "anti-religion", he was anti-religious conscription.
@CMEast
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In many ways yes, however a politician must do his best for the peoples quality of life, not the quality of their after life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many people who believe that one does not go without the other here.
@Cyndane
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its when they use their religion as a way of affecting someones rights, aka war in iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see what you mean here but I would point to the abolitionist movement. Abolitionists connected themselves to various religious revivals early in the 1800s as a way of appealing to Christian values. In this way, they could affect legislation with religious believers. Women's rights movements also attended these revivals.
I never once mentioned after life. Although Spooge may be correct, that at times you may not be able to separate the two... I think for the sake of this discussion that the two can be separated. The basis for ones morals and beliefs of what is and is not right is where religion comes into play. Just because they may also believe that it will help someone in the afterlife has no real bearing, its really just a 2-for-1 deal, but the inclusion of the afterlife bit does not detract from the the morals or beliefs that individual has.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As homosexuals are still human and treated as such in every other way why should their way of life affect others if it doesn't hurt them. Lots of people dislike tattoo's but for some they are an important part of who they are, they are allowed to continue even though many would wish them to stop as it doesn't harm anyway. I'm sure alcohol causes far more damage than someones sexual preference does and yet the prohibition was lifted in america.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->All well and good, but whether or not something harms others is not the only reason why something can be considered good or bad. The line of reasoning chosen by individuals differs depending on their beliefs ( this also applies to non-religious people ).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I expect from a politician is someone who does the best they can for <i>all</i> of the people they have been tasked to look after whatever their preferences.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that is what we expect out of any politician, but religion having an influence on an individual's morals and beliefs does not bar them from public office or saying what they believe is right and wrong. You're expecting individuals to ignore the foundation for their morals... You're expecting them to forsake their beliefs because their belief system conflicts with your own in specific areas.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Otherwise what is next, burning books that are seen as dirty? Stopping video games because they warp our values? I'm pretty sure the pope wouldn't be keen on GTA3 or Doom3 and Bush would probably agree with him. Does that mean they should be banned too?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Each a good incident to consider, but also not new. Do I agree that any of those should come to pass? Hell no, but that does not mean those individuals do not have the right to believe that... Nor does it mean they do not have the right to express those beliefs or to propose laws based on those beliefs. That is what a democracy is... Every law will not be liked by every person. You have to take the "good" with the "bad", but what is "good" and what is "bad" will differ from individual to individual. The pendelum will swing one way for a while and then it will swing the other way. In the investing world this would be known as dollar-cost-averaging.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Edit] I'm tired, I have a feeling that what I've just written doesn't quite make sense in a few places but I'm in no position to correct it. I hope the general gist is still understandable and that you'll forgive me if some of it isn't clear [/Edit]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nothing to forgive... Sweet dreams (of me!).
-------------------------------------------------
And the next one... Along a similar vein I believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Othell, there is nothing wrong with a world leader believing in christianity or any other religion. That is not the problem, it is when they use said religion to back up their policies that are becomming law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said above, you're basically requiring that no individual that follows the tenets of his religion is able to serve in public office, seeing as they would be able to express their beliefs, which are shaped from their religion, to others... And propose laws that are shaped from their beliefs that are shaped from their religion. A true follower of a relgion follows that religion at all times to the best of his/her ability. You do not ignore religion when it becomes inconvenient. You do not ignore religion when it conflicts with the beliefs of others. Other wise, what's the point of following said beliefs?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sky made a very valid point with the whole Iraq war and the homosexual marriage topic as well. Bush has stated he is carrying out what he believes is "gods" will. That is where the line is drawn.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm not going to comment about the Iraq war comment, as I am not up to speed on that one... But when it comes to homosexual marriage... It is his right to have such beliefs and to express them... A lot of the population apparently agrees with him also, so he is, as scary as it seems at times when hearing him speak, in some form representative of a large proportion of this nations citizens. If everyone had the same beliefs, then the only thing that would matter when voting for an individual would be abilities... But we know that is not what happens, nor will it ever be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, just because our birthdates are recent, as are almost everyones on this forum. You and I might be in the older majority, I could be wrong on that one. Doesn't mean we couldn't have taken some sort of history class, since it is offered at even the elementary school level. Some of us were curious about the history of the nation, let alone the theology behind it. Which is why they offer classes as such in college.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which would be great. Did you take one? More than one? Are there differing opinions about said subjects? Were these covered evenly? Although I'm sure there are a number of college courses on the subject, I doubt there are very many such courses in high school... Nor do I believe that such a subject is covered in any respectable manner in grade school. My wife is a 4th grade teacher, so I am well aware of how teachers have to rush through so much damn material. There's just no way such things could adequately be covered.
You and I are probably not in the group of old fogies just yet ( GRENDEL!!!!!!!! ). I'd think that a large percentage of members on this board are very close to our age. Still, experience on subjects does not have to be assumed and can be expected to be backed up. I apologize if what I said was insulting, it was not meant to be. I was just surmising about how we are on what... The 42nd President and so wondered about comments such as those. That is why I made the comment about what history remembers... History may record, but there are numerous speaches and expressions of opinion that are not repeated, so making such a comment would require quite a bit of scholarly work.
I personally don't like lots of things but until they start hurting people I won't start calling for censorship.
Oh and if you believe something is a sin but that it affects no one but the sinner then how do you justify trying to stop them except by saying 'You won't go to heaven'? Surely not liking something isn't a good enough excuse to stop others who do like it? I <i>really</i> don't like counterstrike but I let my friend play it on my computer because it doesn't affect me. I dislike 'bubblegum pop' music but I don't start protests outside record shops or force others to listen to the things that I like. How is that any different?
Who's do they have to conflict with? yours? the liberal left? Santa Clause? I may well say the opposite - someone's lack of morals is easily a conflict - should Clinton have stepped down when the scandal broke out?
I mean, honestly - play with an even hand here... statements like that are rediculous.
I wouldn't care what a politician thought about in the privacy of their own head, they could be strict vegans, nazis, anything. As long as they made sure that everyone was equally treated and that no-ones chance at a good life was reduced by them then fine.
That means clinton's private life is his own and as he didn't start making laws that added to the duties of all the other secretarys or rewriting the constituion so that 'oral doesn't count' then he could continue to do his job. It's only when his morals start affecting the decisions he makes for the country that he should step down.
I wouldn't care what a politician thought about in the privacy of their own head, they could be strict vegans, nazis, anything. As long as they made sure that everyone was equally treated and that no-ones chance at a good life was reduced by them then fine.
That means clinton's private life is his own and as he didn't start making laws that added to the duties of all the other secretarys or rewriting the constituion so that 'oral doesn't count' then he could continue to do his job. It's only when his morals start affecting the decisions he makes for the country that he should step down. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
the problem is that "sin" is seen as detrimental to society - no mater who it supposedly affects or doesn't affect. They are doing their job to the best of their ability by trying to make laws that reflect their religious belief. To try to get them to stop doing that (quit making anti-homosexual marriage laws for example) is to get them to deny their religion. You can't ask that of them... lest you be imposing your world view on them.
BRILLIANT!!!
There's also this famous quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->History furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt (1813)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How about this: If you don't want an elected official to infuse their religious beliefs into legislation, don't vote for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When was the last time an atheist ran for a national office? Has an atheist ever ran for a national office? Even a state office? I remember reading a survey where more than half of the respondents said that they'd never vote for an atheist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->George H.W. Bush: No, <b>I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens</b>, nor should they be considered patriots<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this pretty much sums up the views of those respondents.
The best that I can do is vote for a Christian who is less Christian than the other Christians running.
Spooge: So in other words I should refuse to vote for anyone with a religion? Anyone with a set of morals different from my own... I think that would be me voting for just myself then to be honest. My point, the whole point of this thread, is that a politician shouldn't be making laws based on what he likes and dislikes, only by what is best for <b>everyone</b>.
It shouldn't be a matter of not voting for them, religion and government shouldn't mix. I should be able to vote for buddists, islamics and satantists without worrying about them tearing down society. As I said, does that mean that a vegetarian political leader should instantly make laws against eating meat?
When was the last time an atheist ran for a national office? Has an atheist ever ran for a national office? Even a state office? I remember reading a survey where more than half of the respondents said that they'd never vote for an atheist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd don't think I've heard of an openly Athiest political candidate. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'd guess there probably have been. There are a number of factors that go into how a candidate goes about seeking office but considering the percentage of people in the U.S. who classify themselves as religious in one form or another, it doesn't surprise me that an Athiest wouldn't do well.
Complaining about an official who brandishes their religion after taking office without presenting it during the campaign is one thing, but expecting openly religious individuals who are elected to office to deny that part of their decision making sounds to me like a renouncing of democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->George H.W. Bush: No, <b>I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens</b>, nor should they be considered patriots<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this pretty much sums up the views of those respondents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This quote gets passed around from time to time and the validity of it has been controversial, but assuming it's a real quote: Did GHWB ever propose legislation to deny citizenship to Athiests? Not that I'm aware of, which means he would have been seperating his personal beliefs from his proposed legislation.
I'm arguing that religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact that the religious keep on trying is obvious, as was the fact that bush would be extremely trying. That doesn't mean that it is good even if people voted for it. That just means a whole load of people vote for religious reasons too.
I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft.
I'm arguing that religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact that the religious keep on trying is obvious, as was the fact that bush would be extremely trying. That doesn't mean that it is good even if people voted for it. That just means a whole load of people vote for religious reasons too.
I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you implying that 51% of the country is uneducated and shouldn't be allowed to vote? - just going for clarification before I make elitest remarks...
I'm arguing that religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact that the religious keep on trying is obvious, as was the fact that bush would be extremely trying. That doesn't mean that it is good even if people voted for it. That just means a whole load of people vote for religious reasons too.
I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you implying that 51% of the country is uneducated and shouldn't be allowed to vote? - just going for clarification before I make elitest remarks... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think he means that people are, in general, too stupid to run the country. A person with 100 IQ is average. I wouldn't want a person with 100 IQ to run the country, or even decide who gets to run a country. Public opinion about politicians is easily swayed by things that don't matter. For example, why did Bush's approval rating jump from ~50% to ~90% from 9/10 to 9/12, since Bush didn't do anything during that period of time that drastically effected how well he had done his job? Let's take another example: let's say that 90% of economists believe that free trade is better for America (I don't know if this is true or not), but 60% of Americans believe that protectionism is necessary in order to keep American jobs. Those 60% will probably vote in a protectionist president, even though free trade is probably the right policy decision.
Many (if not most) people voted for Bush rather than Kerry or Gore, because Bush had a clear, confident, decisive, black and white view of the world, rather than a nuanced, detailed, boring, shades of grey view of the world. The voted for Bush because he was more down to earth and folksy rather than an upper crust intellectual. Note that these things don't have much effect on the two most important facets of a candidate, that candidate's policy or on the candidate's ability to carry out that policy. (It also goes the other way in the Democrat-Republican political spectrum; see Nixon losing numbers in polls because he didn't look as handsome on TV as Kennedy).
Churchill said that democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others that have been tried. I'm inclined to agree.
I'm arguing that religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact that the religious keep on trying is obvious, as was the fact that bush would be extremely trying. That doesn't mean that it is good even if people voted for it. That just means a whole load of people vote for religious reasons too.
I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you implying that 51% of the country is uneducated and shouldn't be allowed to vote? - just going for clarification before I make elitest remarks... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what the founders thought....but they've also been quoted heavily in this thread as being supporters of religion. Make of that what you will.
I'm arguing that religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact that the religious keep on trying is obvious, as was the fact that bush would be extremely trying. That doesn't mean that it is good even if people voted for it. That just means a whole load of people vote for religious reasons too.
I say democracy sucks because too many people vote for stupid reasons. Democracy relies on too much on people knowing what they are doing with their vote which is obviously daft. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you implying that 51% of the country is uneducated and shouldn't be allowed to vote? - just going for clarification before I make elitest remarks... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats exactly what I meant thank you Clam and Snidely.
If I want an opinion on a medical condition I'd talk to a doctor, if there was something wrong with my pipes I'd speak to a plumber, if I needed help on a maths problem I'd ask a mathemetician. Who would I speak to if I was trying to decide who should run the country? Certainly not the 'average person' who doesn't care about politics, doesn't think about it and votes for whoever sounds best.
If that makes me elitist so be it but I like of people who know what they are doing being in charge, since when has the 'mob' done anything but riot.
Originally, only members of the House were elected directly while Senators and the President were elected indirectly. Andrew Jackson used his grass roots campaign approach to revise the Electoral College design to have the electors chosen by popular vote. It wasn't until the 17th amendment in 1913 that the senate would be voted on directly.
However, this is also the mentality that only allowed white landowners to vote, disallowed women's suffrage, and created poll taxes. Be careful what you wish for.
Elected officials will be influenced by their religion, they are only human after all.
For me personally, the line is drawn when said elected official starts using "God wills it", or similar logic, when he's trying to get a new law passed. This is because it's not "God wills it", it's a case of "YOUR (elected official's) God wills it".
An official can be openely religious, even be guided by religion in his actions, as long as he backs his actions up with real world logic and facts.
If an official doesn't back up the law he's trying to create with real world figures and logic, and uses the reason of "God wills it", he should be out of office yesterday as far as I'm concerned.
Diazo