Religion and Politics

[McG]

Socialism is actually the extreme right, but it does have much in common with the extreme left (notably the totalitarian governments).

 

[Zipper]

>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.

Actually if you really look at it. Whether you go extreme right or left, you still end up in the same ballpark.

http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/facism.html

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

As for socialsim. Man, there are way to many sites...

Heres one that hits them all.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook33.html

Have fun. Good reads...

:dontpanic:

 

[pbi]

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.

It was really a bit of rhetoric. The point of my argument was really to challenge the point of view of many secular people that "religion" is a kind of hat we put on, or banner we wave, so that we can push some extremist agenda. Of course, this is IMHO rubbish: an extremist agenda can be pushed very effectively with no religious faith at all.

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.

I think that the political will is in the minds and actions of people, rather than in the religion. Since most religions hold out very high ideals for human behaviour and decency (I offer Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism...) I hope that there is some political expression of religious faith. Our problem is that we have been conditioned to make a knee-jerk connection between "religion" and some drooling, book-burning fanatics who want to wage a moral crusade/jihad/etc against anybody they don't like. I fail to see the connection between that and the tenets of most religions or the way most people choose to practice them.

As for religious wars: as I have said elsewhere, I think that this is a grossly overstated case as an actual "cause" of war. It is IMHO far more likely that religion is a convenient banner or a justification for war. However, as the Bolsheviks and Hitler showed us, we do not need religion for that either.

So we say that religion cannot take part in politics as a organization since they would then be in conflict with other religious ideologies.

But religion takes part in politics every day, for the reason I gave. I think you are envisioning the actual organized religious bodies entering the political arena with a specific narrow sectarian agenda, because otherwise your statement that religious faiths would be in conflict with each other doesn't really make any sense: there must be a good half dozen or more major faiths represented in our Parliament and in our political community: I don't see any sectarian strife. Further, an organized religious body can have ann important role in the political arena: look at the pronouncement of the late Pope on issues of political freedom and human rights. Is is not the duty of organized religion to speak out on social and political issues? Or is it better to be silent and detatched, like the Serb Orthodox Church in FRY, or the Roman Catholic Church in WWII?

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.

I suspect that you are equating religious faith only with Christianity. But, anyway, I am not sure that Christian religious practice is declining, except perhaps amongst middle class Canadians of Western European descent. IIRC most Canadians are in fact identified as Christians, and most of them are identified as Catholics. Check out a Catholic church next Sunday: I bet you will find it full, and that many of the parishioners are new Canadians from various visible minorities. I am not sure how you have arrived at the statement that "those in politics are no longer a majority of the Christian faith". What is it based on?

It will be intersting to see how things go now that we have someone of the Islamic faith in Parliament.

I doubt it will make much difference. Remember, up until Catholic Emancipation, this is how we thought about having Roman Catholics in office in Canada. Were they loyal to the Crown, or to Rome? That has faded away, and so, IMHO, will this fear.

It also explains why the "traditional" Christian "right" is screaming bloody murder.

The "Christian right" will scream bloody murder as it always does, but again I submit that it represents only a very small section of those who hold Christian beliefs, and an even smaller proportion of those who hold religious beliefs in general. Too often, however, we raise the bogeyman of religious fanaticism as a way to justify the argument that there is no room for religious faith in politics. I suggest that fanaticism can do quite well without religion at all: excluding religion does very little to exclude fanaticism.

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

[/quote

Agreed. And in that list I would include the "traditional" ideology that is so popular amongst many North Americans and Western Europeans: that there is no room for religious faith in politics. What there is "no room for" IMHO is fanaticism and hatred, whether it is religious or secular in motivation.

Cheers.

 

[PPCLI MCpl]

Just curious as to why our flags are flying at half mast for the Pope.  Many individuals I spoke with today disagree with it.  What are some of your feelings?

 

[Trinity]

Why not

Its a sign of respect.  He was a well known and respected world leader in his own right.

I'm not roman catholic, but I in agreement of it

Its a small gesture, it doesn't hurt us, and unless it's offesive, I can't see the problem.

 

[camochick]

Its a respect thing. It's such a non issue, why would people be up in arms about it? Some people have too much time on their hands.  >

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just curious as to why our flags are flying at half mast for the Pope.   Many individuals I spoke with today disagree with it.   What are some of your feelings?

According to heritage Canada at: http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/etiquette/2_e.cfm the flag is to be flown at half mast as follows:

The flag on the Peace Tower and flags at the Lester B. Pearson Building (headquarters of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) are flown at half-mast from sunrise to sunset the day of the funeral of a foreign Head of State, a Head of Government of a Commonwealth country, or a Head of Mission accredited to Canada who dies while in office at Ottawa.

Flags at federal government buildings and other locations are also half-masted subject to special instructions on the death of members of the Royal Family other than those related in the first degree to the Sovereign, a Head of a Foreign State, or some other person whom it is desired to honour.

The Pope was, in addition to being the head of the Roman Church, a Head of State: the Vatican is a nation-state and the Pope is its head, just as the Queen is head of state of Canada.

 

[a_majoor]

Religion and politics can mix, this example is from the Solidarity crisis of 1982, but can be generalized to cover other situations:

Wilson's account of Silvestrini's remarks, in a January 6, 1982 cable to Haig, offers a rare window on the Vatican's philosophy of church-state relations.

    The Vatican recognizes that the U.S. is a great power with global responsibilities. The United States must operate on the political plane and the Holy See does not comment on the political positions taken by governments. It is for each government to decide its political policies. The Holy See for its part operates on the moral plane. The two planes (politics and morality) can be complementary when they have the same objective. In this case they are complementary because both the Holy See and the United States have the same objective: the restoration of liberty to Poland.

Anyone who has followed the news for the last 27 years should be well aware that His Holiness was vitally concerned with meshing the moral and political planes in the service of liberty, human rights and peace.

The geopolitical dynamic would of course soon change, during Reagan's second term, with the 1985 ascent of Gorbachev. Historians will debate the extent to which Soviet changes were sparked by the insistence, of both Reagan and John Paul, on the fundamental importance of the dignity of the human person. But when the Soviets faced these two leaders of shared purpose and conviction, they faced their worst-case scenario: a moral-political meta-power. As Cardinal Silvestrini had said, â Å“The two planes (politics and morality) can be complementary when they have the same objective.â ? That there was no formal Vatican alliance with the West only gave the pope's moral stance all the more weight. Perhaps, ultimately, that was part of the essential genius of his policy.