Politics and religion

[Borgoroth]

Religion role in countries varies a lot and I would like peoples own opinion about the topic.

Personally religion has a very small role in my country, if any at all, when it comes to politics. But my impression of other nations is that religion is often more or less required to be elected.

So is religion a positive or negative factor in politics? Should it be?

[mongrel]

Academy?

[Borgoroth]

wops, my bad, wrong forum, admin move plx

[Jom]

Done.

[Armenum]

Politics shouldn't touch religion and religion shouldn't touch politics.

Religion is a personal part of life.

[wilpuri]

Politics shouldn't touch religion and religion shouldn't touch politics.

Religion is a personal part of life.

Religion is the foundation values for religious people. Politics is about values. Thus, religion is clearly tied to politics.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I disagree. I think religion can be involved in politics. As far as I'm concerned, it is an issue that many people find persuasive and this means they should be able to talk about it in politics if they want to.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice, but that could be involved in politics if someone felt strongly enough about it. I think it is counter-productive and impedes the liberty of the individual to say something should not be involved in politics. Religion, like every other conviction, should neither be involved in politics nor not involved. IMO, every personal conviction can be reflected in politics, though there should be no compulsion either way.

So is religion a positive or negative factor in politics? Should it be?

Religion is a factor in politics (in the abstract, what I tihnk of it in my country isn't really relevant to the question). In the abstract, it is neither positive or negative and it's involvment is completely amoral.

[Squiggle]

I agree with Genius, largely, as to the role of religion in Government. I'm fine with people voting based on their conscience.

In particular for my country, I would say that religion plays a role politically, but not a massive one. We do have relatively substantial so-con's in the liberal and the conservative party, and that leads to issues of abortion [etc] every now and again. Likewise, I'm sure theres a substantial base of the electorate thats pay's attention to someones religious affiliation. We dont have the equivalent of a religious right in Canada though. I mean religion and social values arent as divisive as in America. In the past we had left leaning parties economically that were extremely right wing in social matters. Theres general trends of course, but you can find very religious people in any party, with any possible view on economics or social matters.

[Armenum]

I disagree. I think religion can be involved in politics. As far as I'm concerned, it is an issue that many people find persuasive and this means they should be able to talk about it in politics if they want to.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice, but that could be involved in politics if someone felt strongly enough about it. I think it is counter-productive and impedes the liberty of the individual to say something should not be involved in politics. Religion, like every other conviction, should neither be involved in politics nor not involved. IMO, every personal conviction can be reflected in politics, though there should be no compulsion either way.

In a secular state with a separation of church and state, no. Religion is not an issue that the government should utilize as it crosses that important line, nor does it matter what the people think, law is law.

Politicians shouldn't use religion to justify actions, or use their faith as a marker for getting elected. Nor should the government use religion to decide on issues such as abortion or gay marriage.

[Genius of the Restoration]

In a secular state with a separation of church and state, no. Religion is not an issue that the government should utilize as it crosses that important line, nor does it matter what the people think, law is law.

Why should it not be talked about? That a state doesn't favour one religion over another doesn't mean religion can't be involved in politics. If I were religious, I might want my representative to be religious like me to reflect my own views. I'd feel a bit cheated if religion couldn't be involved in political discussion. It's like people telling representatives in Parliament to leave their religion at the door when voting on things like abortion. It's absurd to think that religion can't be involved when it clearly influences they way people view the world. Having religion involved in the political discourse doesn't operate against the secular state. The exclusion of world views just because they are informed by religion is more damning of a secular state, as it indicates religion is being singled out as unworthy of engagement within the realm of politics, while other personal convictions, like vegetarianism, are permitted. A representative should have the liberty to bring issues that their constituency think about without being censored. Obviously they can't incite violence, but in the case of abortion, a representative should be able to argue against it on the basis of religion if that's what their constituency would argue themselves.

Politicians shouldn't use religion to justify actions, or use their faith as a marker for getting elected.

Why not? What is the difference with religion compared to other personal convictions? Why should the liberty of discussion on anything to do with religion be impeded?

Nor should the government use religion to decide on issues such as abortion or gay marriage.

The 'government', by which I assume you mean elected representatives, is made up of individuals elected by their constituencies. If a majority of them have been elected on the basis of a particular religious position and they form a government, I see no reason why they should leave this all behind and govern with a different perspective to that which they had when they were elected. Imposing a strict secular state is opposed to a free liberal democracy, as the freedom to express the views of the majority are curtailed. Ideally, you'd want minority rights to be protected, but singling out religion as an informer of political opinion and banning it isn't the right way to go about things IMO.

[Borgoroth]

@Genius

You make several good points, I would like to thank you, my view on the matter has changed somewhat.

A question, the only country besides my own and our neighbors, that I have any insight about is USA, so anyone from there, feel free to answer this one.
A person of a belief other then christianity or no belief, agnostic, would have more difficulties advancing in the political system then a person of christian belief.
Is this an accurate statement? If yes, is this good or bad? All thoughts, opinions and thoughts are highly appriciated.

[Borgoroth]

@Genius

You make several good points, I would like to thank you, my view on the matter has changed somewhat.

A question, the only country besides my own and our neighbors, that I have any insight about is USA, so anyone from there, feel free to answer this one.
A person of a belief other then christianity or no belief, agnostic, would have more difficulties advancing in the political system then a person of christian belief.
Is this an accurate statement? If yes, is this good or bad? All thoughts, opinions and thoughts are highly appriciated.

Bumping the question, opinions on it wanted!

[Armenum]

Why should it not be talked about? That a state doesn't favour one religion over another doesn't mean religion can't be involved in politics. If I were religious, I might want my representative to be religious like me to reflect my own views. I'd feel a bit cheated if religion couldn't be involved in political discussion. It's like people telling representatives in Parliament to leave their religion at the door when voting on things like abortion. It's absurd to think that religion can't be involved when it clearly influences they way people view the world. Having religion involved in the political discourse doesn't operate against the secular state. The exclusion of world views just because they are informed by religion is more damning of a secular state, as it indicates religion is being singled out as unworthy of engagement within the realm of politics, while other personal convictions, like vegetarianism, are permitted. A representative should have the liberty to bring issues that their constituency think about without being censored. Obviously they can't incite violence, but in the case of abortion, a representative should be able to argue against it on the basis of religion if that's what their constituency would argue themselves.

In a true separation of church and state, you cannot allow religious doctrine to conduct or influence policy. Even if it's a little bit. The reason that religion is excluded from politics and government while something like vegetarianism isn't is because of the history that religion has played in government throughout history. During the years of the enlightenment and secularism, people saw that the union of both institutions was counter productive and harmful to the interests of the states. Something like vegetarianism has not had such an effect so obviously it won't be excluded. Next, while there are people who may subscribe to such religious doctrine, others may not or may belong to a different religion. Out of respect to this fact, why should the state favour one religion or doctrine over the other? Again by doing so it crosses the line.

Finally, issues such as abortion should not be justified by religion, but justified by science. No one is forcing religious people to get an abortion, it's just an option available to all.

Why not? What is the difference with religion compared to other personal convictions? Why should the liberty of discussion on anything to do with religion be impeded?

Because there was a specific movement to separate religion from government in the advent of modern secularism and separation of church and state. If such a discussion is held in government or by governmental officials, it should not include religious doctrine. What's preventing someone from saying "God told me that lower taxes will be good" or "As Jesus said we should not do..." and so on, those statements clearly cross that boundary.

The 'government', by which I assume you mean elected representatives, is made up of individuals elected by their constituencies. If a majority of them have been elected on the basis of a particular religious position and they form a government, I see no reason why they should leave this all behind and govern with a different perspective to that which they had when they were elected. Imposing a strict secular state is opposed to a free liberal democracy, as the freedom to express the views of the majority are curtailed. Ideally, you'd want minority rights to be protected, but singling out religion as an informer of political opinion and banning it isn't the right way to go about things IMO.

The fact that they are elected based on a particular religious position is wrong. Those politicians are going to work in the government not the church.

You may express your views however you want. However, it all has to be done according to the rules of such a liberal democracy which includes the separation of church and state. There's a good reason that such a fundamental rule was concieved and implemented in Western society. Laïcité is and should continue to be the cornerstone of Western governments.

[Genius of the Restoration]

In a true separation of church and state, you cannot allow religious doctrine to conduct or influence policy. Even if it's a little bit. The reason that religion is excluded from politics and government while something like vegetarianism isn't is because of the history that religion has played in government throughout history.

The history of religion in relation to the state isn't a good enough reason to prevent it being talked about in politics IMO. The Catholic Church is no longer the dominant centralised power that it once was. I think it's time everybody moved on and stopped dismissing religion.

During the years of the enlightenment and secularism, people saw that the union of both institutions was counter productive and harmful to the interests of the states. Something like vegetarianism has not had such an effect so obviously it won't be excluded.

History shouldn't be so influential, and isn't particularly relevant to the topic. The topic is whether religion should be involved in politics, not why it is/isn't. Ideally, religion would be involved just as much as anything else.

Next, while there are people who may subscribe to such religious doctrine, others may not or may belong to a different religion. Out of respect to this fact, why should the state favour one religion or doctrine over the other? Again by doing so it crosses the line.

A state may favour one religion over the other if the majority of its inhabitants vote for candidates that say,"I want a religious state". If that's what 99% of the population want, who am I to tell them that they're perverting the system? The state doesn't have to favour one religion, but it can if the government is elected on those grounds, and in my mind, it should if elected on those grounds.

Finally, issues such as abortion should not be justified by religion, but justified by science. No one is forcing religious people to get an abortion, it's just an option available to all.

Personally, I agree with you. I think abortion is a matter for the individual and I would prefer to the choice to decide. But that's only my view on the subject. Others will hold different views and their vote will carry an equal weight to mine. They may think it's immoral, but not prohibit it, allowing people to make their own choices. Justifying abortion by religion is perfectly acceptable as it informs the religious person's worldview. It makes no sense to attempt to ban religion's influence on particular worldviews, while allowing other influences. Marxism? Anarchism? They're both accepted and can influence how a government would run a society, but religion is singled out as the naughty one.

If such a discussion is held in government or by governmental officials, it should not include religious doctrine. What's preventing someone from saying "God told me that lower taxes will be good" or "As Jesus said we should not do..." and so on, those statements clearly cross that boundary.

If the elected government is elected with strong recourse to religion they have a mandate to implement it. I'd like to think nothing would prevent someone saying "God told me that lower taxes would be good", because people should be able to express their own opinions on things.

The fact that they are elected based on a particular religious position is wrong. Those politicians are going to work in the government not the church.

How is it possibly wrong? They are appealing to what people want. If people want a religious candidate, then so be it! The thing about the government is that it attempts to be representative.

You may express your views however you want. However, it all has to be done according to the rules of such a liberal democracy which includes the separation of church and state.

I still think implementing a separation of church and state to the point that religion cannot enter politics flies in the face of a liberal democracy (I keep putting this in italics so as not to confuse with the term 'liberal democracy'). A truly 'liberal' democracy would allow discourse on everything with no censorship and would have a better chance of representing the people than a democracy with an enforced separation and a blackout on particular ideological issues but not others.

There's a good reason that such a fundamental rule was concieved and implemented in Western society. Laïcité is and should continue to be the cornerstone of Western governments.

Again, the history of the movement is not really relevant to what the ideal state should be. I think we're ready to move past it now anyway. Tolerance should be practiced, but that should be achieved through means other than distorting a democracy to not include the will of particular people.

To return to my vegearianism example, the state should not favour vegetarianism or not, because it's a personal choice. It doesn't matter that influences our worldview, the vegetarian still has a right to put their views forward. Vegetarianism should not be forbidden from entering the political discourse though. That would be retarded. As Doc Croc pointed out, it's the singling out of the religious ideology, but allowing other ideologies, even though the results from a majority vegetarian government might include enforced vegetarianism.

[Dr. Croccer]

Politicians shouldn't use religion to justify actions, or use their faith as a marker for getting elected. Nor should the government use religion to decide on issues such as abortion or gay marriage.

But it's okay if they use ideology to justify it?

[Armenum]

But it's okay if they use ideology to justify it?

what do you mean by ideology? When it comes to issues such as abortion science should be used for justification.

[Dr. Croccer]

what do you mean by ideology? When it comes to issues such as abortion science should be used for justification.

Politics consists entirely out of people molding facts to support their ideologies, not the other way around.

[RZZZA]

politicians should ideally be intelligent and rational. Religion is the opposite of that, so I think religion should pretty much stay hunched over in some dark corner and never be allowed to speak.

[Squiggle]

Mov, we already got into this discussion and I destroyed you. Are you really going to try and operate under this fallacy again? I'm ready to smack you down again if you are...

[Armenum]

Mov, we already got into this discussion and I destroyed you. Are you really going to try and operate under this fallacy again? I'm ready to smack you down again if you are...

destroyed me? Did I miss something??