Religion and Politics

[Jarnhamar]

How much influence should "the church" have in politics and how a community is run? Should religious beliefs and laws effect someone who is not of the same religion or an athiest? Is it pushing beliefs on a non-believer?

In my hometown the Catholic church is up in arms over a group (whom are homosexuals) who want to use a public park for a BBQ / party. Different groups use this park all the time. If im not mistaken a biker gang even used the part of day for a little  get together bbq, no one said too much. Since it's homosexuals the church is going nuts over it.

Further more i just read an online petition from a church group who are demanding the US Congress ban the release of a game called Doom 3. It has satanic symbols in the game and a bunch of other stuff they think will corrupt kids. "Children are more anxious to play this game than they are for the second comming of christ!" Personally i think these guys just look for crusades. They look for ways to say "Hey were such and such religion and were against *whatever*!"

Just how important should "The church's" opinion be in what goes on in a community, in how we live our day to day lives and what the government does.  Considering how multi-national Canada is, should one Churches opinion hold sway over over another? Which church should make make decisions and which shouldnt?

Considering the track record some Church's (or religions) are getting in the news, do they really have a moral foot to stand on?

Just to give my example a point, below is a link to a scandal that happened in my city.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_cornw.htm

Everyone you'll speak with here will agree it's a cover up and I personally know people who's lives were destroyed by this. (If you read the article you'll probably agree). Looks like everything is swept under the rug now.

To see the same organization turn around and make a stink over homosexuals using a park for a BBQ really attacks my senses.

Religion i think should be a personal choice. You believe in whatever you want to believe. A religions beliefs should not dictate a modern societies actions. I remember Stockwell Day getting attacked on TV because he went to church every sunday. Religion should NOT have a place in politics.
Opinions?

 

[winchable]

I've never been one for actively selling my religious belief's, I've never been the one giving the Call or invitation to Islam(Dawaa), but I still think religion (ANY religion) should always be able to voice their opinions in an attempt to sway public and political opinion just about every religion has some clause where they are required to "recruit" for lack of a better word.
It's anyones right in a  democracy to do that.

But religion should certainly not be able to directly decide legislation or the like(IE the church deciding legislation on gay marriage or birth control)
In a perfect world religion and politics could be entirely seperated and ones religion wouldn't affect ones chances at public office, but I'm pretty sure I'll never get elected to a high public office and it's not due to lack of interest on my part.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The influence of religious faith is no more or less appropriate than the influence of irreligious faith (ie. secular political policy unfounded in rational moral philosophical analysis).  For example, some religions teach that a fetus effectively has human rights from the moment of conception because the religion says so, and some people say a fetus does not have human rights from the moment of conception because they say so.

I feel much more strongly that the state must be completely barred from imposing any restraints or constraints on religions, than that religions should be barred from attempting to influence the state.

And for the record, I'm irreligious.

 

[dutchie]

I agree with everything Ghost and Che said, but would add the following.

No government decision should be based on the religious beliefs of the legislators, but rather the values, ethics, and principles of the constituents. Having said that, if the vast majority of the constituents are of one religious group, then the constituent's ethics, morals, and principles will be influenced by the values of the church (or whatever). In that case, it WOULD be OK to have policy reflect the views of the people, provided the basic human rights (including freedom of religion) are not infringed on. Basically, what I'm saying is that its the people's values, not the church's, that should dictate policy.

In the case pointed out by Ghost, I would say the church and it's people are definitely infringing on this group's rights to freely assemble, and their right to freedom from discrimination.

 

[1feral1]

As long as the group has applied and paid any fees etc, I dont know what the problem is with the exception of the obvious. As long as the group obeys the local laws and cleans up after themselves, who really cares ( and this coming from a Saskatchewan raised redneck).

And to think I was raised a RC, and I think the pope and the entire catholic church is a great big dirty giant farce.  To think that a organisation as large as it is even turned away some Jews in WW2, dont support the use of condoms/safe sex, and then wont allow their priests to marry, and then cover up any child abuse... I think you understand my point. You'll only get me in a church for weddings and funerals these days.

On the other hand, right here in Sydney a group of rebel Aboriginies have rudly taken over a public park, threatening anyone with violence who challenges them. even the police are steering clear.

They are in violation of many laws from camping in a public place to littering, making fires. etc, and causing a distrubance, and our pisss weak council of the City of Sydney does nothing, and the mayor stays silent while the residents near the park have to put up with it.

As in any group of unemployed troublemakers, regardless of the colour of their skin who blantantly takeover a park and threaten its users and local residents, the trouble makers should be asked to leave, and if not, they should be removed, charged, and fined/gaoled etc. Because thats what would happen if you or I did the same.

Meanwhile you can get a $200 fine for having a non lit cigarette resting behind your ear at any Sydney metro train station.

Go figure.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[atticus]

I think it's completly wrong that Stockwell was getting bashed for going to church every Sunday. I also think its completly wrong that Muslims have suspision thrown their way just because they are muslim. I think religion has a small place in government. I think this because religion is what gives some people their morals that they stand up for and live by. I don't think I'd want to live in a place lead by somebody who has no morals of what is right or wrong.

 

[nbk]

Organized religion should have as much place in politics as "Lord of the Rings" or "The 120 Days of Sodom" or any other fictitious work. Which is to say it should have absolutely zero part in policy making that will have an influence on real people in the real world.

Believe whatever you want to believe, hell the Marquis de Sade had some delightful stories, but know where and when to seperate private leisure beliefs, ideas and fantasies and real life beliefs and ideas. Especially when the beliefs and ideas have real consequences for real people.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Real people in the real world make policy.  Very few people are coldly rational beings that can remorsely reason every policy from first principles of essential human rights to a single logical conclusion.

Some people inform their views from a basis of religion; some from a basis of secular moral philosophy seeking greater good; some from pure egoism; some from the self-appointed belief they know what is right and a desire to impose it on others.

A Christian or Muslim who pursues policy influenced by religious belief is no more to be feared than a leftist influenced by dogmatic sociopolitical principles.

Consequently, I consider it useless to attempt to remove people's religious - or other faith*-based - beliefs from government, nor would I deny churches the freedom to lobby along with any other self-designated group.  What I think we can and should control, is to deny government the power to interfere with essential liberties - freedoms of belief, association, expression, etc.

*faith - belief or conviction in the absence of proof

 

[McG]

Don't mix religion, politics - Blair
Edmonton Journal, 26 Mar 05

London/ Britain should avoid the U.S.tendancey to use religion in the political process, says Prime Minister Tony Blair.  "I do not want to end up with an American style of politics, with us all going out there beating our chest about our faith," Blair told a gathering of religious groups.

 

[tomahawk6]

The American colonies were founded by folks who had left religious persecution in Britain. Those values are very deeply ingrained in the US. Although our liberals are trying hard to eradicate any vestage of religion. Our liberals like those in Europe want a secular society. The communists made it very difficult for people to practice their religion and yet religion survived. I think religion is the foundation of a country. I am not sure I would want to live in a society where religious freedom is inhibited. Take the case of Mexico, they went to the extreme of making it illegal for priests to wear the roman collar and vestments outside the church and other restrictions that have only been relaxed in recent years.

Going back to the original post about a gay group wanting to use a public park for a cookout, I dont see a problem as long as city ordinances are obeyed.

 

[jmacleod]

The Nova Scotia Liberal Party was founded by religious immigrants whose beliefs were unacceptable
to the Tory establishment of the time (1870's). The Irish and Scotch Roman Catholics in particular
have had a profound influence on the politics of not only Nova Scotia, but Canada as well. The
support of many religions, Christian and non-Christian for traditional marriage is going to cause a
number of politicians in Canada to go onto to a new life after politics. Elected representatives of
various political parties forget that they are ultimately, expendable, and serve at the whims of
the electorate, many of whom have deep and abiding religious beliefs, well beyond political
loyality. Regards, MacLeod

 

[TCBF]

"A Christian or Muslim who pursues policy influenced by religious belief is no more to be feared than a leftist influenced by dogmatic sociopolitical principles."

Well said.  Communism, Socialism and Liberalism are their own religions, and can tolerate no competition from churches in the long run.

Tom

 

[Zipper]

Oh man...

Ok, here we go.

Since when is secular and non-religion considered Left wing? Was Hitler left wing? I think not.

There are many cases of left wing priests/ministers. Tommy Douglas for one.

Sigh. Religion has no place in politics. However since most people have some kind of belief that influences them, whether religious or not, it will have some bearing on how they vote/make decisions as far as politics. There is no getting around that, nor should there be.

So for the leader of a country to meet with a group of religious leaders, and then say a decision was based upon either what they advised or that "God" told him/her to do it is wrong.

But to say the same thing of an individual who may have talked to his/her priest/whatever and then "prayed" about it before making their decision is their own business, and none of ours/societies.

Thus the Homosexuals and their party should be allowed to go on regardless of what the "church" says. But if an individual wishes to complain because of their belief's, then that is their right to do so.

 

[Slim]

I think that the two should be kept apart at all costs...

Throughout history religion, or other motives disguised as religion, have been the single biggest cause of armed conflict in the written history of mankind.

In this country we have a population of many different religious backgrounds and faiths...Which one do we promote at the expense of marginalizing the others?!

Church and state need to be kept seperated.

Slim

 

[Armageddon]

I am deeply opposed to the idea that religion should have a place in modern day politics.  Although I do respect all religions and those who believe them.  I myself think that while it is completely up to the individual (who should never fear any form or persecution) what they believe they should not try and ask for policy changes because "it is not what God wants"  I know that many on this board are highly religious and might often disagree with me; however, I am atheist and I feel that if you are just to use sound judgement then you are totally in the right to try and push for that in the political realm.  This is not to say that your personal beliefs may not reflect upon your religion, but to use your religion as a crutch for policy change I feel is wrong and rather archaic.

 

[muskrat89]

I think Bush made a wise decision in NOT intervening in the Terry Schiavo case (taking into the care of the state etc). He would have set a dangerous precedent for the future.

Huh? He did get involved... and about 70% of the population is unhappy about it... he signed the law that Congress passed specifically created for this case. Much of the population considered this as anything but a Federal Issue, but the Feds intervened anyway...  It's just that when the Courts reviewed it again, er the Federal Law, they reached the same conclusion as all the other Courts had...

 

[pbi]

If religious beliefs are to be anything other than window dressing, they have to inform a person's moral and ethical outlook, and provide some guidance to the way they lead their lives. A faith that does not do these things is, IMHO, a dead thing. What is the purpose of it?

Now, obviously, we want people involved in politics, (whether they are politicians, voters or advisors), to act in a moral and ethical way, right? In a country such as Canada, a great majority of whose population identify themselves with an organized religion (Roman Catholicism being the strongest), it seems inescapable to me that most of the people involved in the political process will have religious beliefs. If these are genuinely held religious beliefs, then they must inform the lives and actions of these people. If that is true, then it is unavoidable that "religion is involved in politics" because people are involved in politics. If religious beliefs are so transient and disposable that we can separate them from how we view social and political issues, then I suggest they are just a sham and we should get rid of them.

The only way to keep religion out of politics, IMHO, is to outlaw religious belief.

Cheers.

 

[muskrat89]

I see. I was under the impression that he could have taken her into State care, thereby preventing her from dying. Thats what I mean by not getting involved. He made statements regarding his position, and went through that deal with Congress, but he did not go against the ruling of the court and used some pretext to take her into Federal (or in the case of the State gov't) State care. Thats what I meant, he did not actually DO anything to prevent her from dying...he respected the ruling of the court and gave the choice to her husband, although it is obvious he did not agree with it and will probably in future try to pass a law regarding euthansia.

Not sure how well versed you are in the laws of the US, but you seem to have some funky notions. He didn't DO anything because he COULDN't do anything. The Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the US Government cannot override the desires of the other. They are all exclusive. The President cannot, in most regular cases, ORDER something that is not law. The Supreme Court could not for example, order the President to do something.  It's kind of a misconception that the President is this omnipotent force, doing whatever he likes, across the US. In another example, an interesting scenario was shaping up in that Governor Bush had ordered an armed team to go and retrieve Ms. Schiavo, whom County Sheriff's Deputies were standing watch over. After a Federal ruling was handed down, those folks were called off....

From the Miami Herald

Police 'showdown' averted

BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER

[email protected]

Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called ``a showdown.''

In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.

''We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.

''The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''

The incident,known only to a few and related to The Herald by three different sources involved in Thursday's events, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Participants in the high-stakes test of wills, who spoke with The Herald on the condition of anonymity, said they believed the standoff could ultimately have led to a constitutional crisis and a confrontation between dueling lawmen.

''There were two sets of law enforcement officers facing off, waiting for the other to blink,'' said one official with knowledge of Thursday morning's activities.

In jest, one official said local police discussed ``whether we had enough officers to hold off the National Guard.''

''It was kind of a showdown on the part of the locals and the state police,'' the official said. ``It it was not too long after that Jeb Bush was on TV saying that, evidently, he doesn't have as much authority as people think.''

State officials on Friday vigorously denied the notion that any ''showdown'' occurred.

''DCF directed no such action,'' said agency spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez.

Said Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre: ``There was no showdown. We were ready to go. We didn't want to break the law. There was a process in place and we were following the process. The judge had an order and we were following the order.''

Tim Caddell, a spokesman for the city of Pinellas Park, declined to discuss Thursday's events.

SHELTER FOR SCHIAVO

The developments that set Thursday morning's events in motion began the previous afternoon, when the governor and DCF chief Lucy Hadi held an impromptu news conference to announce they were considering sheltering Schiavo under the state's adult protection law. DCF has been besieged, officials say, by thousands of calls alleging Schiavo is the victim of abuse or neglect.

Alerted by the Bush administration that Schiavo might be on her way to their facility, officials at Morton Plant Hospital went to court themselves Wednesday, asking Circuit Judge George Greer, who ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube last week, what to do.

''It's an extraordinary situation,'' said Beth Hardy, a hospital spokeswoman. ``I don't think any of us has seen anything like it. Ever.''

Greer signed an order Wednesday afternoon forbidding DCF from ''taking possession of Theresa Marie Schiavo or removing her'' from the hospice. He directed ''each and every and singular sheriff of the state of Florida'' to enforce his order.

But Thursday, at 8:15 a.m., DCF lawyers appealed Greer's order to judges at the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.

That created the window of time to seize Schiavo. When DCF filed its appeal, it effectively froze the judge's Wednesday order. It took nearly three hours before the judge found out and canceled the automatic stay, shortly before 11 a.m.

Administrators of the 72-bed hospice, who have endured a withering siege of their facility by protesters since Greer ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed on March 18, declined to discuss Thursday morning's events in any detail.

''I don't really know, or pretend to know, the specifics of what is going on behind the scenes,'' said Mike Bell, a spokesman for Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which operates Woodside.

DCF INTENTIONS

According to sources, DCF intended to take Schiavo to Morton Plant Hospital, where her feeding tube had been reinserted in 2003 following a previous judicial order allowing its removal. But hospice officials were aware that the hospital was not likely to perform surgery to reinsert the tube without an order from Greer.

''People knew that taking [Schiavo] did not equate with immediate reinsertion of the feeding tube,'' a source said. ``Hospital officials were working with their legal counsel and their advisors, trying to figure out which order superseded which, and what action they should take.''

Hardy, the hospital spokeswoman, said she does not believe the hospital was made aware Thursday morning that DCF and state police planned to bring Schiavo in. ''We were not aware of that three-hour period,'' she said. ``It's not a discussion we even had, really.''

George Felos, Michael Schiavo's attorney, said he does not think DCF officials knew of the window of opportunity they had created until well after they filed their appeal.

''Frankly, I don't believe when they filed their notice of appeal they realized that that gave them an automatic stay,'' Felos said. ``When we filed our motion to vacate the automatic stay . . . they realized they had a short window of opportunity and they wanted to extend that as long as they could.

``I believe that as soon as DCF knew they had an opportunity, they were mobilizing to take advantage of it, without a doubt.''

Herald staff writers Phil Long and Marc Caputo contributed to this story.

 

[Zipper]

The only way to keep religion out of politics, IMHO, is to outlaw religious belief.

Good post PBI (as usual). However I think your looking at it to black/white. Religion (and lack there of) or "morals" play apart in everyones lives and help them make decisions. No contest there. There is no way to ban such things.

However it is naive to say that each religion or ideology is without political will. Hence why we have so many religious based wars over the centuries. So we say that religion cannot take part in politics as a organization since they would then be in conflict with other religious ideologies. And thus we play the balance game where each individual brings their "belief's" into the political game, but the religion behind the person is not in control of the agenda.

Which is why we are seeing such a move away from traditional Christian ideals towards something else. Those in politics are no longer a majority of the Christian faith. It will be intersting to see how things go now that we have someone of the Islamic faith in Parliament. It also explains why the "traditional" Christian "right" is screaming bloody murder.

Also why the "traditional" Jewish "right" is screaming bloody murder (and committing it) in the occupied territories.

And why we are having so many problems with the "traditional" Islamic (fundamentalism) in most of the world.

No "traditional" ideology likes to be challenged. Whether right or left.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Was Hitler left wing?

Yes, he was.  Contrary to what you posted elsewhere on this board, fascism is a branch of the marxist/communist/socialist tree.