Church and State

[devonin]

Re: Church and State

Religion should have NO hand in the government.

I'd almost like most leaders to be Agnostic or Atheist, to be frank.

Each religion has it's ups and downs, but if one religion could control of government, there would be a LOT of backlash; I'd almost say it would be a 2nd Civil war for America.

If one religion's followers were able to be elected to the house, senate and presidency sufficient to have a firm majority across the board, that would be a strong indicator that the country seems to -want- religion and politics to go hand in hand. I'll note that his hasn't happened.

Politicians being require to be agnostics or atheists doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should they? Citizens of America are allowed to practice any religion they like, and forbidding religious people from holding office is a cut-and-dry violation of their constitutional rights.

[WeissPraline]

Re: Church and State

Politicians being require to be agnostics or atheists doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should they? Citizens of America are allowed to practice any religion they like, and forbidding religious people from holding office is a cut-and-dry violation of their constitutional rights.

Never said that had to be. I said I'd almost LIKE for them to be agnostic or atheist; never said I think they should be forced to be those. =]

[devonin]

Re: Church and State

But why? Do you think that a religious person is incapable of acting in a way that perhaps they find somewhat disagreeable if that is what their elected constituents want?

I have immense respect for the politicians in Canada who, when there was the big push here to legalise gay marriage (which we did) came forward and explicitly stated "I personally think it is abhorant and inappropriate, but as my constituents support it, I will support it with my vote" and just as much respect for the couple who seriously considered resigning their position because they were against it, in a riding where the people were in support of it.

There's a very big difference between "Religion and State" and "Church and State"

[WeissPraline]

Re: Church and State

But why? Do you think that a religious person is incapable of acting in a way that perhaps they find somewhat disagreeable if that is what their elected constituents want?

I have immense respect for the politicians in Canada who, when there was the big push here to legalise gay marriage (which we did) came forward and explicitly stated "I personally think it is abhorant and inappropriate, but as my constituents support it, I will support it with my vote" and just as much respect for the couple who seriously considered resigning their position because they were against it, in a riding where the people were in support of it.

There's a very big difference between "Religion and State" and "Church and State"

Why? Because that's just how I feel. I personally feel that I'd rather have our leaders not be religious, just because I feel that most religions have...I can't think of a way to word it. I guess you could say most religions have practices that might get in the way of being a 'good' leader.

NOW. Do NOT get me wrong, you can be a VERY great leader and be religious. JFK was catholic, and honestly, I'd have to say he was one of the best presidents the US has ever had.

That's just MY opinion. What I think. I can't really, nor do I wish, to explain every little detail of why I think that- it's just what I think.

[sgkoneko]

Re: Church and State

But why? Do you think that a religious person is incapable of acting in a way that perhaps they find somewhat disagreeable if that is what their elected constituents want?

I have immense respect for the politicians in Canada who, when there was the big push here to legalise gay marriage (which we did) came forward and explicitly stated "I personally think it is abhorant and inappropriate, but as my constituents support it, I will support it with my vote" and just as much respect for the couple who seriously considered resigning their position because they were against it, in a riding where the people were in support of it.

There's a very big difference between "Religion and State" and "Church and State"

Religious people tend to take their religious beliefs into their opinions and judgements. Imagine if a radical muslim got into office. It's their political belief that people should die so they can go to heaven. Is that good for this country? A lot of religious beliefs may be in the majority's opinion, but that's not to say it's good for the country as a whole. Agnostics, not atheists, are fairly balanced people or people who don't care about religion, they will base thier judgements on the actions of people around them and life experience, not what their religion says. Atheists are not a good choice either, because quite frankly atheism is a religion whether they want to admit it or not. They *believe* their is no God. They are a group of people with a belief. They have organization, they are a religion. Plus atheists would probably outlaw religion.

[devonin]

Re: Church and State

Religious people tend to take their religious beliefs into their opinions and judgements.

Non-religious people bring their non-religious beliefs and opinions into their judgement. You're doing it right now, and do so quite egregiously in the remainder of your post. Stones->Glass houses.

Imagine if a radical muslim got into office. It's their political belief that people should die so they can go to heaven. Is that good for this country?

Last I checked, you need to campaign to be elected anything. Generally when you campaign you are required to describe your platform, and your beliefs on a variety of important topics of the day. If someone ran fro president on the platform of "Kill the infidel, Martyrs are good, Women must go covered head to toe, and if you steal, I'll chop your hand off" Pardon me for saying that I really don't think America is going to elect such a person.

And if someone manages to successfully "Fake" a legitimate platform enough to get elected, if they then started trying to act in some absurd way, they would suffer a vote of no-confidence and be impeached.

You're trying to point to an absurd extreme end that has no business being brought up in a reasonable discussion of the situation.

Agnostics, not atheists, are fairly balanced people or people who don't care about religion, they will base thier judgements on the actions of people around them and life experience, not what their religion says.

Actually that's quite untrue. I'd say a good number of people who call themselves agnostics don't even actually know what agnosticism entails, and even if we assume they all do, how does a -belief- that questions of metaphysics and religion are inherantly unknowable by humanity somehow automatically mean that they are "fairly balanced"?

Atheists are not a good choice either, because quite frankly atheism is a religion whether they want to admit it or not. They *believe* their is no God. They are a group of people with a belief. They have organization, they are a religion.

Atheism is not a religion. Simply having a belief in something (In this case, that there is no evidence for the existence of the divine) make them a religion? I believe all kinds of things, does that mean I have a religion based on my belief that gravity is a universal constant? Do I have a religion based on the fact that I think broccoli is gross? Of course not.

Simply "believing" something doesn't make it a religion. Also...I'm unaware of the existence of a "Church of Atheism" organisation to which all atheists belong. Last I checked, when you don't believe in the divine, you tend not to see the point in gathering together all the people who share that thought to...what? Stand around and go "Yup...no God..."

Plus atheists would probably outlaw religion.

I have no idea where you get this idea from, but wow...that's a pretty stunning misrepresentation of atheism. I'd say that more religions would be outlawed by other religions than would be outlawed by atheists.