More religion in Politics?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

I think JW's have the right idea. Unfortunately for JW's, a large portion of American Christians have essentially declared that God is a Republican. This opens up Christianity to being tarred and feathered by Republican policies, and makes Christian beliefs and Christian claims a legitimate target for those who oppose Republican policies.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by JehovahsWitness]

So long as religions retain their tax exempt status (which is bunk IMO - tax 'em all!) there should be zero religions in politics.
But that's a perfect world. So long as people feel the need to believe in, and base their lives on, mystical things, there will, unfortunately, be religion in politics.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

I think JW's have the right idea. Unfortunately for JW's, a large portion of American Christians have essentially declared that God is a Republican. This opens up Christianity to being tarred and feathered by Republican policies, and makes Christian beliefs and Christian claims a legitimate target for those who oppose Republican policies.

JWs go well beyond separation of Church and State. They prohibit their members from participating, even on the voting level.

Or are you saying, TotN, that religious people should not be allowed to vote at all?

Also, you conflate religions with Republicans. I have heard President Obama and Hillary Clinton invoke God too.

And many Christians are also Independents and Democrats as well as Republicans.

[Kenisaw]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

JWs are quite wrong in this matter in my opinion. Every single person brings their entire personality with them when they run for office or vote. No elected official checks their personal moral code at the door when they walk unto a senate floor, and no voter puts aside their standards when contemplating a vote.

More voices and more information are always better than less. Always. Even though I obviously disagree with the supernatural conclusions of most Americans, it's still important for a democracy to hear from all.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 5 by Kenisaw

JWs are quite wrong in this matter in my opinion. Every single person brings their entire personality with them when they run for office or vote. No elected official checks their personal moral code at the door when they walk unto a senate floor, and no voter puts aside their standards when contemplating a vote.

More voices and more information are always better than less. Always. Even though I obviously disagree with the supernatural conclusions of most Americans, it's still important for a democracy to hear from all.

You are correct that ALL people in a community should be heard from -- if for no other reason, the community will find more guidance in future endeavors/policies.

What is troubling though, is when matters of religion take precedence over commu-
nity/national issues. Politicians that take advantage of piety to achieve elective office are hypocritical (chanting that the Bible is their favorite book, etc.). Respect for our national tenet: Separation of church from state , should be our national creed.

[OnceConvinced]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

I think JWs are right in that religion and politics should be kept separate. Whenever religion comes into politics all it does is cause trouble (just look at the days when the Catholic church were in charge of everything).

However, as a democratic society, we all have the responsibility for electing our leaders. We are responsible for who we elect into power and if all one does is sit on the fence and not even put in a vote... IMO it makes one look very apathetic.

We all have to live in this world together. We all have the responsibility to vote.

[Redhawk]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

It must be understood that religion in politics is a SHOW - like kissing babies, references to mom and apple pie or references to patriotism. These are all recognized tools in the game of propaganda that politicans have used for centuries.

Many fear and loath any reference to religion in American politics, but fail to understand it's a toothless dragon. To date no effective political movement has been sponsored or supported by Christians to oppose issues such as abortion, gay rights, or international American military aggression.

In the 1980's, TV preachers with hyper inflated egos attempted to organize their own version of conservatism using religion as a banner. It failed for a number of reasons, but its fruit was to de-legitimize the gospel and to give Christians a bad name in America. Those who sincerely follow Christ now carry the stigma of those days and there is NO CHRISTIAN LEADER willing or able to remove it.

Christians in particular and the American people in general have been betrayed by religious leaders whose only concern is the furtherance of their own bank accounts.

Christian leaders have one hand on the Bible and the other in someone else's pocket. Honest sincere Christians exist in the same political trap that has snared the rest of the country - godless fascism inspired and enabled by ignorance of the personalities that guide them.(*) The pity of it is that their greatest hope is not the establishment of the Kingdom of God, but that the white America of 1955 will be restored to them. This is the principle reason for their support of Donald Trump - a snake that will lead all of us AWAY from the golden years that only a few of us remember.

Religion in politics is only an empty reference - like mom, apple pie and patriotism. It is bait on a hook to get us to support unfavorable government policy.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

(*) Christian organizations like the family ministries of Dr. James Dobson are superficial labels for fund raising efforts that support organizations like those of Erik Prince. Google Erik Prince to find out where Christian donations really go. This is one example of what I mean by Christian political ignorance.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 8 by Redhawk]

I still feel we need some genuine, honest peace loving people in governments that is why I feel JW should be involved; not in preaching their religion but in acting according to the teaching of justice and peace.

As an example, if we had a JW in White House it is most likely that perhaps couple of million Muslims would not have been killed in our recent history.

[Furrowed Brow]

Overt religiosity has largely been kept out of the front and centre of British politics until recently. However it has always been there. In her early years Margaret Thatcher had had been a lay preacher and much of her ideology was due to her religion. Religion as a motivating factor was ignored or down played but it was there. Whilst religion has mostly been handled softly there are examples where atheism was openly lobbied against. Neil Kinnock was the atheist leader of the Labour Party and there was a media campaign lead by the Daily Mail that pilloried him for it. In part they had a point because it would be constitutionally awkward to have an atheist Prime Minister. If there have been any they have kept quiet. Despite being mainly of the religious sort on the whole our Prime Ministers and major politicians have mostly felt it was more apt to mute their religion. However this does not mean they are not making decisions informed by their religion. Tony Blair's press secretary once famously quipped "we don't do religion" despite his boss being religious and clearly Blair was motivated by his religion. There has been a shift more recently since Cameron who did talk albeit softly about religion having a role in public life. The present Prime Minister is open about her religion but does not seem to over play it. In America it seems very unlikely an open atheist will ever be elected President. The Republicans particularly fall over themselves to declare their religion. Trump just swore an oath of office on a bible.

The point is that it does not matter if the JW opt out of voting or running for office, religion and religious people have always played a part in politics. The irony is that if all religions followed the JW it would be left to the atheist to run the show. And as an atheist I can say I don't want that. Empowering any single ideology without meaningful opposition is a bad idea, whatever the ideology in question. The problem is allowing organisations and ideologies political office that are essentially exclusive and unwilling or unable to accept the legitimacy of the the political platform of those that oppose them. And religions have a history of a tendency towards authoritarianism. Whilst an adherent of one religion may say my religion is not like that...the problem is setting a threshold as to what kinds of ideologies threaten a democratic and open society.

(On a slightly different note. Holland a traditionally liberal if not ultra liberal country has an election this March. There is an outside chance the extreme right wing candidate Gert Wilders could find himself in office. He has promised to ban the Koran. I think the rise of the right across Europe whilst targeting immigrants, refugees and Muslims is more down to economics and bad foreign policy going back decades. If there we no Muslims to pick on it would e the Jews or Africans. They just need to scapegoat someone. The point is that we could see a de facto banning of a major religion in a Western democratic country. If this happens shame on the Dutch and to be honest I don't think ti will get that far, but we live in turbulent times).