Religion in Politics

[Zhuge_Liang]

It has been scientifically proven that morals outdate religious morality and therefore are completely independant of any religion. Yet still I am shocked to hear that in the "greatest democracy in the world" politicians must me christian in order to be elected (not in terms of a written law, but with regards to electability by the people).

I'm interested to hear views on this issue.

[Khosson]

We must keep religion out of politics.And the other way arround.

We all heard of terorism have'nt we?And politics out of religion is probably the reason why USA is the greatest democracy.But by the looks of it it is'nt gonna stay that way.Bush and his christian friends...

[Falconius]

I fail to see how organized religion can exist with the absence politics. I also fail to see how politics can exist with the absence of religion, or beliefs. You ask (or so I infer) why should a persons religion be a determinant to their election? Why shouldn't it? Their beliefs after all, have a direct bearing on their actions (assuming honesty, which, given the topic seems rather far-fetched I admit).

[Blau&Gruen]

Yet still I am shocked to hear that in the "greatest democracy in the world" politicians must be christian in order to be elected.

Your fear is not justified. A requirement concerning religion was never based on the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America
Article II Section 1 Paragraph 6
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been forteen Years a resident within the United States.

Comment: These are the only constitutional requirements for a person to be eligible to the Presidency of the United States. New requirements could be introduced over Amendments to the Constitution but an addition related to the religious confession of the Persident would conflict with the Amendment I of the Constitution from 1791 which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibition of the free exercise thereof; ... .

For these reasons it would be an unconditional claim to ask the President of the United States to be of a christian confession or of any confession, what of course does not exclude that the person is of one.

[Zenith Darksea]

It has been scientifically proven that morals outdate morality and therefore are completely independant of any religion.

It has, has it? Must have passed me by. Explain how (can you have a moral without morality or a morality without morals?).

Nonetheless, while it's clear that there were social patterns (though can mere social patterns be equated to morals? Is a natural inclination the same thing as a philosophically considered moral response?) before we had philosophies of morality, that doesn't mean that there was moral authority. Anyone can have 'morals', but the only thing that makes any morals absolutely acceptable is divine sanction, because otherwise morals have nothing to distinguish them in value from other morals.

Though the question as to why American presidents have to be Christian is to do with something else entirely. The vast majority of Americans claim to be religious - hence a politician, who wants the majority of votes, is probably going to be religious as well.

Anyway, we all know that politics were at their pinnacle when a Byzantine Augustus ruled the secular world on God's behalf and the Orthodox Episcopate ruled the spiritual world on God's behalf. Wonderful days, those were.

[Blau&Gruen]

Remark:
To demand the President of the United States not to be of a religious confession would hurt his right of free expression and exercise of the said as it would in case of any cititzen of the United States.

[Zhuge_Liang]

Sorry, i should have said religious morality, i will change that now.

It has been proven through various studies one of which focused on a number of tribes which until lately were completely isolated from the modern world and had no religion. When tested on examples of what was right or wrong their responces were that of any human.

There are also ongoing studies in evolution which are attempting to prove that morals came from the social situations of developing human communitites.

It is also common sense in the modern world to realise that no relgion doesn't go hand in hand with no morals. That is a major point when considering why religion seems to be an unspoken requirement for a politician to be elected in the US.

The vast majority of Americans claim to be religious - hence a politician, who wants the majority of votes, is probably going to be religious as well.

Yes, this is the point I would like to focus on. Why should it matter to the average american if their politicians are not members of a religion?

[Blau&Gruen]

--- double post ---
--- please kill ----

[Blau&Gruen]

1) Sorry, i should have said religious morality, i will change that now.

It is still a question of the privacy of the person and not of a public interest.

2) It has been proven through various studies one of which focused on a number of tribes which until lately were completely isolated from the modern world and had no religion. When tested on examples of what was right or wrong their responces were that of any human.

It depends how you define your object. It happens, definitions end up being too narrow and the conlusions too short.

3) There are also ongoing studies in evolution which are attempting to prove that morals came from the social situations of developing human communitites.

Sure, it could also well be that religious morals came from the social situations of developing human communities. Of course, in that case 2) must fall to revision.

4 a) It is also common sense in the modern world to realise that no relgion doesn't go hand in hand with no morals. 4 b) That is a major point when considering why religion seems to be an unspoken requirement for a politician to be elected in the US.

4 a) Agreed, might it not be that, morals and religions both come out of the same anthropological set of social situations of developing human communities?
4 b) It is arbitrary, considering religion to be an unspoken requirement for a politician. Isn't it arbitrary, because for every voter considering are two voters not considering such.

5) Yes, this is the point I would like to focus on. Why should it matter to the average american, if their politicians are not members of a religion?

Why shouldn't it (see first point)? Any citizen is free to have prefrences and to decide in accordance to them. At the end it is a question of majorities for a limited period of time. If Americans do not want someone with religious morals as President, they simply should not vote such a person into office. Americans obviousely vote such a person into office from time to time, then it is their common will and the voted has to prove this policy to be successfull. Is he not successfull, you can assume that the position of "Presidents should have religious morals" looses credibility for future elections.

[Irishman]

Religion MUST be taken out of politics for one reason.

Religion (mainly the western), is in its nature reluctant to change as it is meant to be perfect.

Politics must be everchanging in order to cope with changing social mores.

Why should it matter to the average american if their politicians are not members of a religion?

Many religious people hold the absurd view (supprise) that without God, one cannot be a GOOD person. This is horribly biggoted if you ask me.

[Lord Bohemond]

Sorry, but you can't simply order the other 95% of the population to conform to your moral beliefs. If a person has religious morals, he is obviously going to apply them to his political decisions.

[Tom Paine]

Sorry, but you can't simply order the other 95% of the population to conform to your moral beliefs. If a person has religious morals, he is obviously going to apply them to his political decisions.

And argue that the population should conform to his! Interesting scenario here. Either way you are legislating morals - the difference is, making something legal does not mean people have to do it, only that they can if they feel it morally right. Important distinction.

[Irishman]

Sorry, but you can't simply order the other 95% of the population to conform to your moral beliefs.

Ideally morals should be based on what is most beneficial to the nation as a whole. Most religious views follow these. People need to learn that morals of 2000 years ago may not be best for the world.

The catholic people actually argue that invitro is wrong, because it is not natural. They officially claim that people born of this method do not HAVE SOULS!

Antiquated views like this need to be changed.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, in a democracy, if the people want a religious man then they'll get a religious man. We liberal intellectuals should not go down hypocritical roots. I remember a recent comedy sketch in which a woman finds out that the person whom she has invited into her house for a cup of tea is racist:

"I'm a liberal, and I won't tolerate people who don't share my liberal beliefs!"

[Tom Paine]

But the problem is, if the majority of the people want a religious person, do they have the right to curtail the liberty of a minority? Which is what we are talking about: making abortion, homosexuality, &c legal curtails no one's right. Making it illegal does.

[Blau&Gruen]

But ... do they have the right to curtail the liberty of a minority?

They do not have the right, of course. The separation of powers is thought to prevent that. One aspect that needs to be considered is that the rights of minorities have not been established as an act of grace but through political struggels. Civil marriage, or a civil-marriage like institution for non hetero-sexuel orientated persons is an object of debate, because it has been made to such an object, and it is fair to say, that the debates have not been fruitless in the sense of the initiants until now.

[Zenith Darksea]

Well what else is democracy for? Policies are always going to alienate someone. Your only other option is to declare yourself monarch and attempt to force everyone else to share your own particular moral viewpoint.

[Tom Paine]

Well what else is democracy for? Policies are always going to alienate someone. Your only other option is to declare yourself monarch and attempt to force everyone else to share your own particular moral viewpoint.

Active rather than passive alienation? Alienation by permissiveness rather than oppressiveness? Alienation by creating an open not a closed society? I'd far prefer that, thanks... so, apparently, would a majority of Brits, thankfully.


felicissimus, I see nonsequiter... maybe make it a sequiter?

[Zhuge_Liang]

Some people seem to have taken this thread to mean something very different from what it does. I have no interest in stopping politicians from having religious beliefs, and have nothing against christian politicians, rather i would like to know why an atheiest politician is such a turn off for americans.

In a survey conducted lately americans were asked about their preferences for different minority groups.

I can't find the copy of the exact results . But I can remember roughly the percentages.

The percentage given is the number of americans who would vote for a person of the following:-

Woman - 90%
Gay - 90%
Christian - 99%
Black - 90%
Athiest - 50%

Why such a big difference for atheists?

But it's not just a question of what we have - it's a question of what we want. What we actually have is a civil service oligarchy that is fronted by a bunch of politicians that basically all do and say the same things. Neither freedom to govern or freedom from being governed are current realities, they are just wishes for the future. And in my view, order always beats chaos, so I'll go with freedom to govern rather than freedom from government.

So why should a lack of religious faith merit a person not being elected? When does personal choice infringe on discrimination? If it were black, woman, or gay people that we were talking about would your responce be the same? In each case, athiest, gay, woman, black, none of this has any bearing on their political abilities. It shouldn't even be considered, but it is.

[Tom Paine]

But it's not just a question of what we have - it's a question of what we want. What we actually have is a civil service oligarchy that is fronted by a bunch of politicians that basically all do and say the same things. Neither freedom to govern or freedom from being governed are current realities, they are just wishes for the future. And in my view, order always beats chaos, so I'll go with freedom to govern rather than freedom from government.

I tend to disagree: The civil service has no real power, and has been demonstrated to prefer strong SoSs and MoSs to weak ones, because they are interesting to serve under and actually have ideas; we are governed by those we elect, unfortunately it is too few of us who do the electing and even fewer who choose the majority government - 2005, only bout 20% of the electorate voted Labour.

Some people seem to have taken this thread to mean something very different from what it does. I have no interest in stopping politicians from having religious beliefs, and have nothing against christian politicians, rather i would like to know why an atheiest politician is such a turn off for americans.

In a survey conducted lately americans were asked about their preferences for different minority groups.

I can't find the copy of the exact results . But I can remember roughly the percentages.

The percentage given is the number of americans who would vote for a person of the following:-

Woman - 90%
Gay - 90%
Christian - 99%
Black - 90%
Athiest - 50%

Why such a big difference for atheists?

Is this a reflection, though, of the truth of those people's opinions....?

How true, it is a matter of ensuring the rights in a consistent fashion, what ever perspective has actually been choosen and where. It needs not always to be the same, does it?

No, it doesn't, but it does need to be enforced in consistent fashion. Since the rights at present are not, for some communities certainly...