More religion in Politics?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

More religion in Politics?

Post #1

Post by 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
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #11

Post by Monta »

[Replying to Furrowed Brow]


"(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."

I hope it does not happen but it would not be shock if it did.
We've done some unforgivable things to Muslim countries and what are they
supposed to think when their families have been killed and their lives destroyed.
They have to fight back somehow same as we would.

Jews have been lucky as they sway much monetary and political power around the world that is how they can kill thousands of Palestianians year after year.

Redhawk
Banned
Banned
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:58 am

Post #12

Post by Redhawk »

Monta wrote: [Replying to Furrowed Brow]


"(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."

I hope it does not happen but it would not be shock if it did.
We've done some unforgivable things to Muslim countries and what are they
supposed to think when their families have been killed and their lives destroyed.
They have to fight back somehow same as we would.

Jews have been lucky as they sway much monetary and political power around the world that is how they can kill thousands of Palestianians year after year.
It is not Mulsims as people that are getting "picked on". There is much confusion caused by the media about this. It's either deliberate or the result of ignorance, because all the media presents is flashing images of people - not the intent of a religion and certainly not the devious methods it uses to influence those who do not wish to participate in their spiritual perversions.

It's not the Muslim people, its the Muslim religion. It cannot be trusted because its based upon lies. In fact Islam is the only religion on the planet that condones lying.

Consider the following from Islamic sources.....

----------------------
Lying and Deception ok
----------------------
"Believers when in a weakened stage in a non-Muslim country should forgive and be patient with People of the Book when they insult Allah and his prophet by any means. Believers should lie to People of the Book to protect their lives and their religion. - Ibn Taymiyah "THE SWORD ON THE NECK OF THE ACCUSER OF MUHAMMAD"

Anyone who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith - but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty. - Qur'an Surah 16:106

"Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity." - Imam Al-Ghazali (Muslim theologian and philosopher)

"The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts." - Abdullan Al-Araby (Muslim theologian, philosopher and leader)

2 doctrines of religious deception:
taqiyya - (concealment) A muslim may lie about what they believe, denying aspects of their faith that are offensive [to others]. Qur'an 16:106

kitman - (mental reservation, the telling of partial truth with intention to deceive or mislead)
"the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse." - Ibn Kathir

----------------------------------
Most religions use politics to secure their own right to practice their faith and tradition apart from the general population. Islam always seeks to impress its values, its laws, and its tradition upon everyone else. Methods employed to do so are intimidation, violence, taxation upon those who refuse and death.

Islam is not your typical religion. Care must be taken by the reader to understand that although Muslim people are presented in a sympathetic light, the Islamic religion is murderous and repressive.

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

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: More religion in Politics?

Post #13

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Elijah John wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: 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.
Religious people have every legal right to gather together and form political voting blocks in our republic. Religious people also have every legal right to use their religious beliefs as a foundation for their political beliefs.

Religious people however should NOT then protest that they are being "persecuted" when those who disagree with their political beliefs attempt to discredit their religious beliefs as a result. Since the two go hand in hand. Once religious beliefs have been used by a voting block of the religious to promote their political agenda, those religious beliefs have become fair game.

Many religious people are now loudly complaining that their beliefs are unfairly under attack. But they let that genie out of the bottle when they choose to use their religious beliefs to promote their political agenda. And the result has been the steady erosion of Christianity, which has dropped from a 90% majority belief to about 70% in the last 20 years. The genie, having been set loose, is not going back into the bottle I am afraid.

If current trends remain constant, Christians will be in the minority by the middle of this century. Something which might not have occurred if Christians had followed the example of the JW's, and stayed out of politics.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: More religion in Politics?

Post #14

Post by bluethread »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
If current trends remain constant, Christians will be in the minority by the middle of this century. Something which might not have occurred if Christians had followed the example of the JW's, and stayed out of politics.
I disagree with the contention that this trend would not have occurred if Christians had followed the example of the JW's, and stayed out of politics. It is only since the middle of the 20th century that there has been a call for Christians to not take part in influencing government. The principle of separation of church and state refers to an institutional theistic organization dictating legislation, not a limit on involvement in influencing legislation.

How this principle was enacted in the first amendment of the constitution is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: . . ." This is a restriction on the Congress of these United States, not the citizenry. In fact, it prohibits Congress from interfering with what theists do. Also, theistic arguments were used extensively in establishing the socialist New Deal and Great Society legislation. Therefore, if theism should not be used by the citizenry to influencing legislation, one should be calling for the repeal of all of those "social welfare" programs.

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: More religion in Politics?

Post #15

Post by Monta »

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

"Religious people however should NOT then protest that they are being "persecuted" when those who disagree with their political beliefs attempt to discredit their religious beliefs as a result. Since the two go hand in hand. Once religious beliefs have been used by a voting block of the religious to promote their political agenda, those religious beliefs have become fair game. "

Any Forum you went to and voiced your opinion that you are not for Gay Marriage you are authomatically attacked for you religious beliefs even though you rel. beliefs were never mentioned.
You are being put in a box by a politically correct crowd whether the shoe fits or not.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: More religion in Politics?

Post #16

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]
bluethread wrote: I disagree with the contention that this trend would not have occurred if Christians had followed the example of the JW's, and stayed out of politics.
You may be right in this particular assumption. The more we learn and understand the actual workings of the natural universe, the less relevant and more ridiculous religious claims appear to be. Religions are based on ancient concepts which have no actual connection with the working of the natural universe, and so are fated to sputter and die out simply as a natural result of humans becoming more knowledgeable. Which unavoidably causes religion and superstition to become more transparently unrealistic.

However, the decision by the religious right to use their religious beliefs as the basis of their political goals has made their religious beliefs a fair target. And is currently accelerating the process of the erosion of the basis for religious claims from the ground up.
bluethread wrote: It is only since the middle of the 20th century that there has been a call for Christians to not take part in influencing government. The principle of separation of church and state refers to an institutional theistic organization dictating legislation, not a limit on involvement in influencing legislation.
It has only been since the middle of the 20th century that a convincing alternate explanation to religion (science) has begun to permeate into the conscientiousness of the general population. The response of many believers has been to dig in their heels and simply deny what they do not wish to believe. The advancing tide of knowledge is washing over them however. And not even the most fiercely committed believer will live forever.
bluethread wrote: How this principle was enacted in the first amendment of the constitution is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: . . ." This is a restriction on the Congress of these United States, not the citizenry. In fact, it prohibits Congress from interfering with what theists do. Also, theistic arguments were used extensively in establishing the socialist New Deal and Great Society legislation. Therefore, if theism should not be used by the citizenry to influencing legislation, one should be calling for the repeal of all of those "social welfare" programs.
There is no prohibition against people choosing to believe whatever appeals to them. The prohibition is against the government appearing to take a position on a particular religion, or no religion at all, one way or the other.

Social welfare programs are not religious in nature. Such programs simply offend religious conservatives. No one is challenging anyone's RIGHT to be offended. Or to subscribe to the nonsense of their choosing. Or do you deny that many people, perhaps even a majority of them, believe in varying forms of nonsense?
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense on Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: More religion in Politics?

Post #17

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Monta wrote: [Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

"Religious people however should NOT then protest that they are being "persecuted" when those who disagree with their political beliefs attempt to discredit their religious beliefs as a result. Since the two go hand in hand. Once religious beliefs have been used by a voting block of the religious to promote their political agenda, those religious beliefs have become fair game. "

Any Forum you went to and voiced your opinion that you are not for Gay Marriage you are authomatically attacked for you religious beliefs even though you rel. beliefs were never mentioned.
You are being put in a box by a politically correct crowd whether the shoe fits or not.
Any declaration that anyone of ANY persuasion should not be accorded the same rights as everyone else, is an attack on personal freedom. People who are attacked typically seek to attack back. Anyone who feels that gay marriage is wrong has a right to say so. But they should also expect to be disparaged by those who disagree.

People who feel that gay marriage violates their religious belief have a perfect right to not only feel that way, but to stand up and say so. They should also be aware however, that we live in a FREE society and not a religious theocracy .
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

TheBeardedDude
Scholar
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Connecticut

Post #18

Post by TheBeardedDude »

Religion in politics is one of our biggest problems right now, IMO. Religion isn't politics. Politics aren't religion. We live (in the U.S.) in a secular nation, so involving religion in politics is antithetical to our political system.

In a country with a religious plurality, the only feasible way to protect all religious opinions is to ensure that there is no religious opinion given any preferential treatment over any other. This is in conjunction with ensuring that no religious opinion is targeted either. This is to ensure that no religious groups are discriminated against via politics and government.

Everyone is protected in a secular nation, regardless of religious opinion (including what denomination of any given religion you associate with). The attempts to turn the US into a theocracy should scare every freedom-loving American.

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: More religion in Politics?

Post #19

Post by Monta »

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]


"Any declaration that anyone of ANY persuasion should not be accorded the same rights as everyone else, is an attack on personal freedom.

***That a non-agreeing person should not be accorded the same rights as everyone else is an attack on that person's freedom.


People who are attacked typically seek to attack back. Anyone who feels that gay marriage is wrong has a right to say so. But they should also expect to be disparaged by those who disagree. "

***Not agreeing is not attack and why should they be disparged for it?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #20

Post by bluethread »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote: (T)he decision by the religious right to use their religious beliefs as the basis of their political goals has made their religious beliefs a fair target.
I do not contest that. All beliefs are a fair target as far as I'm concerned. In the same way all beliefs are permissible politics. Certain policies are off limits. However, the proper place to examine the motivations of the citizenry is in the public square, not the statehouse. Though I do not share your views, I do agree that are an increasing number of people who do. That said, popularity is not a primary concern of mine.
The prohibition is against the government appearing to take a position on a particular religion, or no religion at all, one way or the other.
I do not think that is true. The constitution does sates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: . . ." The Congress is required to take a position and that is to make sure there is no legislation respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . The exercise of religion includes electioneering, and even speaking on the floor of Congress. It is only the actual legislation that is restricted.
Social welfare programs are not religious in nature. Such programs simply offend religious conservatives. No one is challenging anyone's RIGHT to be offended. Or to subscribe to the nonsense of their choosing. Or do you deny that many people, perhaps even a majority of them, believe in varying forms of nonsense?
Admittedly, the actual programs are neutral with regard to theism and SOME conservative theists are offended, depending on what kind of programs and what kind of conservatism. However, many nontheistic conservatives and libertarians are also offended by many social welfare programs. My point is that theistic arguments were integral to the passage of New Deal and Great Society legislation. So, if one is opposed to theism being involved in electioneering and the passage of legislation, one would need to be opposed to New Deal and Great Society legislation.

Post Reply