The role of religion

[lukeiamyourdad]

No. What I'm against is not religion, nor religious people, but the reverends and others who directly influences the vote of the people.

Telling people:"A vote for Bush is a vote for God" is an example of directly influencing the vote.

However, if the reverend voted for Bush and did not mess with politics during his Sunday mass, we wouldn't have a problem.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

So what are you two (Spider and luke) saying? That religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or that their vote shouldn't count? Seems to me those are the only ways to keep religion out of politics so government could "be based entirely upon cold, hard fact, reason and logic." If religious people are the majority of the vote, then it stands to reason they'll elect officials they deem religious, and vote for or against laws they deem religious or not, doesn't it?

 

*rejoins thread*

 

election of people on religous grounds is a very good example of what i was talking about a bit earlier in the thread. Of course religion has its placein our society, but it should not be a prominent one and it most certainly should not be in government. for one thing, when you elect somebody in for religous reasons then what of those in your country that dont follow that religion? wheres their representation? especially in a society where in theory all are free to practice any religion as they will, having an official elected because he follows one religion is not fair on the quite considerable remainder of the population.

[toms]

1) A mystery?

2) Religion can be a force for good or evil in a society, but what it does it should do itself, not through government.

 

If every christian in the US decides onn their own to vote for bush, that is fine. If they decide to vote for bush on religious grounds it gets a bit shakey. If churches start supporting one candidate and condemning the other it gets very shakey.

 

The problem becomes that, if the religion gains too much power in government then any who DON'T subscribe to that religion loose a say, or worse become subject to the will of the religion. You only have to look at countries like afganistan (under the taliban) to see that.

 

Luckily, even in that situation there are a few safeguards in place to prevent, in the constitution and whatever. But it is starting to look like that might not be the protection it appeared.

 

It is fine for Bush to be religious. But he should base his actions on what is right for ALL his people, not what is right according to his religion. It is fine for people to vote for bush, but they should vote based on his positions and actions, not his religion.

 

I'm frankly amazed that the gay marriage ban hasn't been shot down in flames already. (and more so that it may have won busht he election).

I'd compare it to the forcing of women to wear veils in afganistan. It is forcing a religious ideal on those that may not even suport that religion or that ideal.

It would be fine for the CHURCH in afganistan to tell its women they should wear veils, even to refuse them if they don't abide by their rules (like any club). But any who don't want to be in that club shouldn't be affected by it's rules.

In the same way, if churches don't want to marry gay couples, that is fine, if they don't want to support them, that is fine, but it isn't up to the government to make laws based on the rule's of churches.

Marriage is important as a legal mechanic of everyday life, not as a religious institution, so to base it's rules on religious rules (whether you agree with them or not) is both wrong and against the seperation of church and state.

[kipperthefrog]

Don't worry...

 

if religious people are the majority of the vote politics will catch on and ALL politics will claim to be religious!

 

Bu$h and Kerry claimed to be religious, but kerry wqanted to be MR nice guy to EVERYONE! he wasn't firm enough! thats where he screwed up!

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by JediLiberator

If religion weren't on that job, how would society teach its members morality in a way that's sure to reach them?

 

I think that job would fall on to parents. You know, those people who birthed and reared you and pretty much taught you everything you knew before you started going to school. Seems to me that's a good place to pick up morals.

 

 

Morals can exist without religion.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Leper Messiah

for one thing, when you elect somebody in for religous reasons then what of those in your country that dont follow that religion? wheres their representation? especially in a society where in theory all are free to practice any religion as they will, having an official elected because he follows one religion is not fair on the quite considerable remainder of the population.

 

What of those in my country that don't follow that religion? Well I suppose they were in the minority. Where's their representation? My guess is just outside of the winners circle. How can you cry foul and say it's not "fair" just because religion had sway on an election, bill being passed, etc...? I thought that was a big part of what a democracy is. Everyone supposedly has a chance to vote. So where does the not fair part come in? Even if the losing side is a "quite considerable remainder of the population", they were given the same chance to vote as everyone else. And if they lost, then no matter how considerable a remainder of the population they were, they were still the minority. So is it just religious people that piss you off, or do you cry "not fair" everytime you lose?

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

I think that job would fall on to parents. You know, those people who birthed and reared you and pretty much taught you everything you knew before you started going to school. Seems to me that's a good place to pick up morals.

 

 

Morals canDO exist without religion.

[TheLiberator34]

some good points from people. now for another monkey wretch, If parents should be the ones to teach their children morals, what happens to children who have bad parents or no parents?

 

Also, what happens when what parents teach their children conflicts with what is viewed as "moral" by the general public? Is there no such thing as a common standard of right and wrong without religious education?

 

Keep it up folks! I still don't see the theists participating that much. Come on folks, everybody's welcome.

[Samuel Dravis]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

What of those in my country that don't follow that religion? Well I suppose they were in the minority. Where's their representation? My guess is just outside of the winners circle. How can you cry foul and say it's not "fair" just because religion had sway on an election, bill being passed, etc...? I thought that was a big part of what a democracy is. Everyone supposedly has a chance to vote. So where does the not fair part come in? Even if the losing side is a "quite considerable remainder of the population", they were given the same chance to vote as everyone else. And if they lost, then no matter how considerable a remainder of the population they were, they were still the minority. So is it just religious people that piss you off, or do you cry "not fair" everytime you lose?

I saw someone else on another forum sum it up almost the same way (I'm just remembering it here, not quoting exactly):

 

The [Democrats] say that when we propose legislation based on our morals that we are imposing them on you. This may be true. However, you turn around and then try to impose your morality on us using the same tactics - attempting to pass laws legalizing what is directly contradictory to what we believe and hold dear. How is it that for you it is perfectly reasonable, but for us (the majority) to do so would be denying you your 'rights'?"

[El Sitherino]

but the rights for abortion and gay marriage don't restrict your right to your belief and your way of life. Where as if abortions and gay marriage were/are banned, it imposes your way of life, and restricts others rights to happiness. It's just that a lot of the bills proposed by the religious types are restrictions.

 

Just so you know, I'm also against those wanting all forms of prayer banned from schools (even individual students collecting on their own without enforcing their prayer on others)

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

What of those in my country that don't follow that religion? Well I suppose they were in the minority. Where's their representation? My guess is just outside of the winners circle. How can you cry foul and say it's not "fair" just because religion had sway on an election, bill being passed, etc...? I thought that was a big part of what a democracy is. Everyone supposedly has a chance to vote. So where does the not fair part come in? Even if the losing side is a "quite considerable remainder of the population", they were given the same chance to vote as everyone else. And if they lost, then no matter how considerable a remainder of the population they were, they were still the minority. So is it just religious people that piss you off, or do you cry "not fair" everytime you lose?

 

 

regardless of who wins or loses an election, people are, or should still be free to live their lives free from being judged because they dont follow a religion.

 

I see samuel davis has added to your comments with a quote supporting you regarding democrats. im not a democrat. i dont care for either party in america, i think one is useless and the other is bad news. why do people have to persist in trying to catagorise opinions? i speak only for myself and there is no political group that im aware of that speaks for me.

 

aaaanyway....

 

so what youre saying is that a majority can rule over a minority and the minority must then sit there and be dictated to as regards whats right and wrong and morally correct on religous grounds?

 

please dont take that as an attack im asking precisely what your position is so we can discuss the difference in our opinion.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

Just so you know, I'm also against those wanting all forms of prayer banned from schools (even individual students collecting on their own without enforcing their prayer on others)

 

as far as that issue goes my opinion is straightforward

 

1) student, or students who have a particular faith praying or doing whatever they believe they need to without bothering anyone else should be 100% allowed and encouraged

 

2) students having to say prayers on a compulsory basis, i.e. in classes should be illegal under all circumstances

[Samuel Dravis]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

but the rights for abortion and gay marriage don't restrict your right to your belief and your way of life. Where as if abortions and gay marriage were/are banned, it imposes your way of life, and restricts others rights to happiness. It's just that a lot of the bills proposed by the religious types are restrictions.

The problem is that those acts are seen as inherently evil (or at the very least gravely immoral), and even allowing such things would mean that they actually participated in permitting the acts to come about. Don't think that the people involved are trying to be strict without reason or to be senselessly sexist/homophobic/discriminatory; many of them actually do care for you, and would not have you go to hell for things you would do if they had you not been stopped first.

 

I see samuel davis has added to your comments with a quote supporting you regarding democrats. im not a democrat. i dont care for either party in america, i think one is useless and the other is bad news. why do people have to persist in trying to catagorise opinions? i speak only for myself and there is no political group that im aware of that speaks for me.

The quote was simply to illustrate that there is no 'concrete' view of the right or wrong in such a situation. It does not apply only to US Democrats.

so what youre saying is that a majority can rule over a minority and the minority must then sit there and be dictated to as regards whats right and wrong and morally correct on religous grounds?

No. When the majority feels as if its rights have been infringed by the minority, who also feel that their rights have been infringed, how shall it go? There doesn't seem too much room to compromise, either. You have a better solution?

 

Originally posted by Leper Messiah

as far as that issue goes my opinion is straightforward

 

1) student, or students who have a particular faith praying or doing whatever they believe they need to without bothering anyone else should be 100% allowed and encouraged

 

2) students having to say prayers on a compulsory basis, i.e. in classes should be illegal under all circumstances

I agree.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Samuel Dravis

No. When the majority feels as if its rights have been infringed by the minority, who also feel that their rights have been infringed, how shall it go? There doesn't seem too much room to compromise, either. You have a better solution?

 

well, i will agree its not an easy situation and people will lose and thats why we have elctions. however i think that in this situation playing a religous standpoint on such issues really makes things a thousand times worse. Religion isnt great at logical and calm argument, and is not terrificly flexible in a dispute, and any politician using it is playing with fire. not necessarily at the risk of harming himself but at the risk of inflaming the situation. it comes back to what i said before. Relgion should not be prominent in society.

[Lady Jedi]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

but the rights for abortion and gay marriage don't restrict your right to your belief and your way of life. Where as if abortions and gay marriage were/are banned, it imposes your way of life, and restricts others rights to happiness. It's just that a lot of the bills proposed by the religious types are restrictions.

 

Just so you know, I'm also against those wanting all forms of prayer banned from schools (even individual students collecting on their own without enforcing their prayer on others)

 

I'm not a religious person, but I do read the Bible, and there are many, many places in the Bible that refer to same sex marriage. It is never said that it is right. In fact it says that it is a sin. Now this isn't an exact quote but it comes to the same result. "A man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman. It is a sin."

 

About the abortion; I don't know if it's in the Bible, but I personally think that it is wrong. Killing the unborn is still killing. Just because a human is not born does not make it non-human.

 

Forcing prayers in a school seems wrong to me, just as banning free prayer in school seems wrong.

 

Well there's my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Leper Messiah

aaaanyway....

so what youre saying is that a majority can rule over a minority and the minority must then sit there and be dictated to as regards whats right and wrong and morally correct on religous grounds?

 

please dont take that as an attack im asking precisely what your position is so we can discuss the difference in our opinion.

 

Hey, no offense taken here man. We're just talking. It's a debate forum, so you're going to find people you don't always agree with.

 

"aaaanyway...."

No. That's not exactley what I was saying. By all means, the minority should not "sit there and be dictated to, etc..." They should go vote. Keep trying to change things to what you percieve as "better". But if you don't get your way, don't cry about how it ain't fair. I personaly feel I have no stake in voting, and that the whole system is a pretty bankrupt concept in the first place. So I don't vote. I honestly don't think it makes any difference. But that's just me.

 

Allow me to give you a situation that did concern me slightly that might help better illustrate my point.

I smoke cigarettes. In my home state, on this last vote, there was a bill that was going to hike the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $.55. Supposedly it's to fund the building of a cancer research and treatment facility (yeah, smokers should have to pay for that, even if we won't be the only ones using it), and to give Native American smoke shops a competitive edge, since sales tax do not apply to them. Oh, and to deter kids from smoking. Like money's an issue for smokers or kids. If you're addicted, and want to smoke, you'll get the money. Anyway, I'm getting off track.

 

I knew when this bill was first being shuffled around, that if I kept smoking, one way or the other, I would wind up paying an extra $.55 a pack. We're talking about ****ing with the states revenue, afterall. And sure enough, when the bill came up for vote, it was damn near a land slide. Amazing, since I'm sure not many smokers would've voted for it. Now on to my point.

Sure, I can complain as loudly as I want that it passed. But what for? It was fair. Everyone had a chance to stop it, but the majority decided to pass it. And while I'm free to think it sucks, it was %100 fair.

 

[EDIT] Oh, and I wasn't trying to categorize you as democrat or otherwise. I was addressing your post. That's all.

[Kain]

Whoa Capn, that was like deep man.

 

I voted for a smoking ban in my state - it passed so hardcore.

[toms]

The question seems to be... should a leader govern for the people that voted for him... or for everyone (even those that didn't)?

 

Of course, he is entitled to carry on the policies and ideas that got him elected... but he should be basing his decisions on what is best for the people... not what HE likes best. That is hard enough to do at the best of times... add in religion to the mix and it gets very hard for him to do what is in the best interests of the people.

 

It just gets hard to take when people are making laws based on a book that has nothing to do with you.

[Spider AL]

That religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or that their vote shouldn't count?

Frankly yes. Any vote made on the basis of religion SHOULD be discounted, just as any vote made completely at random, should be discounted...

 

Sadly, There is no way for us to make sure that people are voting for the right reasons, (e.g: logic, economic and foreign policy issues) especially in the frankly ignorant fringes of American society that vote solely on the basis of biblical rhetoric. That's the fatal flaw in the concept of democracy. Always has been. You can give every man the vote, but you can't stop any man from being brainwashed by political parties.

 

If religious people are the majority of the vote, then it stands to reason they'll elect officials they deem religious, and vote for or against laws they deem religious or not, doesn't it?

Of course, but that's the death of democracy and the birth of a religiously-fundamentalist state. Hardly desirable.

 

So is it just religious people that piss you off, or do you cry "not fair" everytime you lose?

Religion is outdated and undemocratic by its very nature, Capn. Democracy and religion cannot coexist as they currently do in the US, as democracy has become a mere tool for the fundamentalists.

[CapNColostomy]

Well, you replied exactly the way I thought you would. What I didn't expect was for you to make my points for me. The problem, like you said, is nobody would be honest. Oh well. That's how things are. I don't see a change coming any time soon.

[Spider AL]

What I didn't expect was for you to make my points for me.

I made my points, friend. If you agree with me, so much the better.

 

The problem, like you said, is nobody would be honest.

Honesty? I don't know. The wonderful thing about democracy is that it gives every adult the vote. The fatal problem with democracy is, that it gives every adult the vote, even the stupid ones, the easily influenced ones and the hateful ones. In specific terms as regards this US election... it gives religious fundamentalists the vote.

 

Democracy is a flawed method of governance. Having said that, if either the UK or the US had a REAL democracy, it would be a better system. But still fatally flawed.

[Writer]

Originally posted by JediLiberator

some good points from people. now for another monkey wretch, If parents should be the ones to teach their children morals, what happens to children who have bad parents or no parents?

 

Also, what happens when what parents teach their children conflicts with what is viewed as "moral" by the general public? Is there no such thing as a common standard of right and wrong without religious education?

 

Keep it up folks! I still don't see the theists participating that much. Come on folks, everybody's welcome.

 

 

You say everybody's welcome, but when we appear, our heads get bitten off. No thanks.

 

 

 

WJ

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Hey, no offense taken here man. We're just talking. It's a debate forum, so you're going to find people you don't always agree with.

 

"aaaanyway...."

No. That's not exactley what I was saying. By all means, the minority should not "sit there and be dictated to, etc..." They should go vote. Keep trying to change things to what you percieve as "better". But if you don't get your way, don't cry about how it ain't fair. I personaly feel I have no stake in voting, and that the whole system is a pretty bankrupt concept in the first place. So I don't vote. I honestly don't think it makes any difference. But that's just me.

 

Allow me to give you a situation that did concern me slightly that might help better illustrate my point.

I smoke cigarettes. In my home state, on this last vote, there was a bill that was going to hike the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $.55. Supposedly it's to fund the building of a cancer research and treatment facility (yeah, smokers should have to pay for that, even if we won't be the only ones using it), and to give Native American smoke shops a competitive edge, since sales tax do not apply to them. Oh, and to deter kids from smoking. Like money's an issue for smokers or kids. If you're addicted, and want to smoke, you'll get the money. Anyway, I'm getting off track.

 

I knew when this bill was first being shuffled around, that if I kept smoking, one way or the other, I would wind up paying an extra $.55 a pack. We're talking about ****ing with the states revenue, afterall. And sure enough, when the bill came up for vote, it was damn near a land slide. Amazing, since I'm sure not many smokers would've voted for it. Now on to my point.

Sure, I can complain as loudly as I want that it passed. But what for? It was fair. Everyone had a chance to stop it, but the majority decided to pass it. And while I'm free to think it sucks, it was %100 fair.

 

[EDIT] Oh, and I wasn't trying to categorize you as democrat or otherwise. I was addressing your post. That's all.

 

well the difference is that in the example you describe its not an issue that involves religion. It involves individual opinion, facts and figures. The problem when religion becomes a factor in societies decision making is that its so much less flexible than individuals. oftentimes it will not be moved from its standpoint and widely condemns everyone of an opposite point of view. Religions presence in any given debate can make things a great deal worse and alienate both sides from each other even more and prevent the possibility of compromise on an issue.

 

on the other side of the coin

 

bySpider AL

Any vote made on the basis of religion SHOULD be discounted

 

well it depends to be honest, voting for a candidate because they share your ideals is not unacceptable i dont think. why else do peolpe vote? where the problem comes in is when people vote basically for a religion to be in charge, there is a difference.

 

For instance, in Britain we have Tony Blair, a strong christian, but his government does not produce religous arguments on major issues, so you might vote for Mr. Blair (allthough i wouldnt, for many reasons) because he's a christian and an upstanding family man, admirable qualities that you might want to see and identify with in your leader. He doesn't for instance attempt to make abortion illegal (dont jump all over that its just an example, im sure that there are many other factors in the abortion argument, id rather not get into them here) in line with a religous ideal. I disagree with any official who would do that and those who would vote for them because they would. unfortunately discounting their vote isnt an option, but there is still the right to disagree.

[Spider AL]

well it depends to be honest, voting for a candidate because they share your ideals is not unacceptable i dont think.

Only if your ideals have been reasonably arrived at. If some preacher tells you to believe something, and you believe it without question, I wouldn't call it a rationally arrived-at ideal.

 

Thus, voting for a candidate who professes to hold the same ideal, is at best, a vote for a very suggestible candidate... at worst, a vote for someone who knows exactly how your preacher's been brainwashing you, and is playing on it.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Only if your ideals have been reasonably arrived at. If some preacher tells you to believe something, and you believe it without question, I wouldn't call it a rationally arrived-at ideal.

 

Thus, voting for a candidate who professes to hold the same ideal, is at best, a vote for a very suggestible candidate... at worst, a vote for someone who knows exactly how your preacher's been brainwashing you, and is playing on it.

 

your saying that all religous individuals are irrational then?