Role of God in politics

[Corcaigh]

and freedom from religion here means the ability to use public resources to promote the minorities non- religious view.

What public resources are promoting a non-religious view?

[alexey]

Not really. It's no different from the mental gymnastics that sees support for gay marriage as an attack on heterosexuals.

"Religious freedom" here means the ability to use public resources to promote the majorities' religious view.

I think people usually like to take stances on issues based on principles (or at least they like to appear that way). I found it strange for somebody to openly say that they will take a stance on an issue just to drain some group's resources. It looked like an uncommon acknowledgement of deviousness and lack of principles.

---------- Post added September-10th-2012 at 04:26 PM ----------

and freedom from religion here means the ability to use public resources to promote the minorities non- religious view.

then ya team up to really impose for the greater good.

I guess your point is that by not promoting a religion we would be promoting non-religion?

[twa]

What public resources are promoting a non-religious view?

schools,courts

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/december_holiday_guidelines.asp

mandated inclusiveness by it's nature gives a outsized representation of minority views....including non-religious ones

Alexy , it is a common tactic of atheists and environmentalists to drain resources

just guerrilla warfare

[Corcaigh]

schools,courts

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/december_holiday_guidelines.asp

mandated inclusiveness by it's nature gives a outsized representation of minority views....including non-religious ones

That's a stretch even by your standards. Acknowledging existence = promotion?

[alexey]

Alexy , it is a common tactic of atheists and environmentalists to drain resources

just guerrilla warfare

Oh never mind then, it cannot be a devious tactic if atheists and environmentalists use it

Do you have any issues about which you will only care to spite somebody? Do you not try to base your positions on ideas and principles?

[endzone_dave]

There's no requirement that all sins be made illegal. If that were the case, then being Muslim would be illegal (not that there aren't people trying to do that).

A Catholic Democrat can believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, that it is a sin, but that it should not be illegal under the US Constitution. A Catholic may believe that judgment will come from God, but that it should not come from the government.

John Kerry on this issue: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2004/07/John-Kerry-On-Faith.aspx

I don't see how a Catholic Democrat can believe that abortion is the taking of a human life but it should be legal for a million murders to take place in the US every year.

[Destino]

Individuals are free to make choices, but they are not free from consequences of choices that they make. In a similar way, individual choices of voters have an effect on the whole soceity. We have responsibilities towards each other, our country, and our society. Yes you can take your ball and go home saying that you don't have to justify anything to anybody. Hopefully not too many other people will treat their responsibilities that way.

I didn't expect a sermon from you. Fun!

I would like to know where exactly I suggest that people are able to avoid consequences or that we don't have responsibilities to each other? I certainly didn't mean to imply that. My position is simply that voters do not need to pass their personal values through an approval process. I'd likely have unkind words for anyone that felt qualified to dictate just how much weight an individual should give their personal values or religion on election day.

Strange to see somebody openly acknowledge something like this.

I prefer to think of it as courageous. Strange is too judgey.

[alexey]

My position is simply that voters do not need to pass their personal values through an approval process.

Thank you for stating your position.

Voters that would like to share their personal values and opinions on the topic of this thread are welcome to do so. Voters that disagree with them are welcome to engage in a discussion.

(non-voters are welcome to participate too, of course... I just do not see a point in joining a discussion just to say that you do not have to participate.)

[Destino]

Not really. It's no different from the mental gymnastics that sees support for gay marriage as an attack on heterosexuals.

"Religious freedom" here means the ability to use public resources to promote the majorities' religious view.

There are no mental gymnastics needed to oppose anti-religious groups. I support religious tolerance, via mutual respect, and my views on the subject are distinctly different than those of a group cheerfully offering deBaptism certificates. I'll let you decide where I stand on gay marriage and public resources to promote religious views being that you've gone ahead and done so already.

[DjTj]

I don't see how a Catholic Democrat can believe that abortion is the taking of a human life but it should be legal for a million murders to take place in the US every year.

I'm not Catholic, but my personal belief is this: Under the US Constitution, individuals have certain rights, and the government has limited power to infringe on those rights. These rights include a right to privacy and control over our own bodies, and the current limitations of medical science are that the life of a fetus is not viable separate from the body of a pregnant mother until the second or third trimester. Prior to that point, the rights of the mother preclude the state from any Constitutional action. Late in a pregnancy, or obviously, after a child is born, the state can separate the child from the mother (even by initiating proceedings to remove a child from unfit or abusive parents), but before that point it cannot.

Even if I believe that an abortion is the taking of a life, and is a sin, I can also understand that the Constitution precludes me from dictating by law what a woman does with her body. To prevent the loss of human life within the Constitution, I may have to act through other means, such as trying to convince mothers to change their minds, or to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

You could ask the same question about how Christian Democrats can support gay marriage while believing that homosexuality is a sin. State Constitutions may require states to give homosexuals equal rights in marriage, and a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin would thus have to act in other ways rather than through legislation.

An analogy on the other side of the spectrum may be gun control. There are many pacifist religions, and a person's religious beliefs may preclude the ownership of guns for any purpose, or in particular for the killing of other people in self defense. But the Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has recently embraced that right as justified by a right to self defense. A pacifist would thus be forced to work through other means, rather than legislative gun bans, to promote their nonviolent beliefs.

[Destino]

Thank you for stating your position.

Voters that would like to share their personal values and opinions on the topic of this thread are welcome to do so. Voters that disagree with them are welcome to engage in a discussion.

(non-voters are welcome to participate too, of course... I just do not see a point in joining a discussion just to say that you do not have to participate.)

You are most welcome, however I thought the discussion was the role of God in politics in general. Am I correct in assuming that you mean religions when you say God? If so some attention should be given to the shocking degree of ignorance displayed by elected officials on the subject of religions other than their own. The the bizarre anti-Islamic statements we commonly see these days are embarrassing and yet they come from powerfully placed political figures! Generally the way we deal with issues like this is by increasing diversity and education so that by becoming more familiar the barriers and bad feelings start to subside.

If the government should avoid the subject of religion entirely are we simply to accept continued and expanding ignorance?

[alexey]

You are most welcome, however I thought the discussion was the role of God in politics in general. Am I correct in assuming that you mean religions when you say God? If so some attention should be given to the shocking degree of ignorance displayed by elected officials on the subject of religions other than their own. The the bizarre anti-Islamic statements we commonly see these days are embarrassing and yet they come from powerfully placed political figures! Generally the way we deal with issues like this is by increasing diversity and education so that by becoming more familiar the barriers and bad feelings start to subside.

If the government should avoid the subject of religion entirely are we simply to accept continued and expanding ignorance?

The question of whether God = religion is an interesting one. My personal view is that these terms mean different things, but there is some overlap. I think that references to God generally indicate Abrahamic monotheism. There is no God in Buddhism, there are multiple Gods in Hinduism, etc. So I think that "In God We Trust" attempts to establish Abrahamic monotheism and does violate the Establishment Clause. Hindus may have written "In GodS We Trust", Buddhist may have written "We Trust That Buddha Figured It Out" and atheists may have written "We Trust Nothing" (just kidding).

I think that if current demographic patterns continue and percentage of unbelievers continues to grow, having references to God on government currency and pledges will eventually be found unconstitutional. I wonder how long that is going to take... 20 years? 50 years? Maybe I will get to see it in my lifetime. I am also hoping to see hover chairs, the space elevator, awesome safe portable energy sources, and flying personal rapid transit vehicles. It would be nice to check all this stuff out. Unsatisfied curiosity is one of the worst things about dying... hey maybe they'll figure out how to safely freeze people by the time it's my turn to go.

Children should be taught about all religions in school, history, tenets, etc. Religion should be a private thing with as little government involvement as possible. This protects both believers of different faiths and non-believers. Mentions of religion in politics should be as deadly as mentions of atheism... or at least mentioning God should not constitute a viable political strategy. Unfortunately it looks like we are still a long way from that.

It is interesting that there is such a disconnect between what most people think and what happens in our political process. It looks like as far as the topic of the thread goes, everybody is pretty much on the same page. Yet our political process is not forced to adjust. It seems that the two party system really lets people get away with stuff. All we get is extremism on the sides and "im not them" in the middle.

[PeterMP]

So I think that "In God We Trust" attempts to establish Abrahamic monotheism and does violate the Establishment Clause. Hindus may have written "In GodS We Trust"

I think if you asked many (not all) Hindu's they'd tell you that they have no problem with the phrase in God we trust from a generic religious perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism

[Springfield]

I don't mind god in my politics as long as it doesn't go too far. I do prefer my politicians to come to their views based on critical thinking and not what they read in some book. It's OK for US currency to use the word god in my opinion and it's OK for elementary school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm a man of tradition, even though I'm a non believer I think that many of our traditions that use the word god or invoke god are good.

What I do not like are politicians that claim that god called on them to run for office. Bull****, bull****, bull****. We all knows that you're running for office because you're a money grubbing scum bag that wants to use god's name to get you votes and make you look like a good person. God doesn't tell me to go to work in the morning, god doesn't tell alexey to post anti-religion threads on ES and god doesn't tell Jumbo to write to use complex words that others may or may not comprehend. It's dishonest and I look down on it. God doesn't speak to anyone, except for the crazy (and that's not really god).

I also don't like organized religion in my politics. Fundamentally, we founded this country to keep organized religion out of politics. I don't think that churches should be able to make political donations, organize political rallies, nothing. Too many times has the good word of god been used to squash a minority group. Allowing churches to become more and more active in the political system is perhaps the worst possible move that this country can make.

[twa]

Do you have any issues about which you will only care to spite somebody? Do you not try to base your positions on ideas and principles?

1 Yes, but it is usually based on the somebody

2 Yes,but not exclusively

[Jumbo]

The wiki links oh Hinduism (which I've read before) state much more about both the diversity and commonalities within Hinduism (which includes an atheistic element as much as a monotheistic element and many more distinctions to be made) than they offer specific support for speculation of what percentage of "Hindus not minding" represent the religion at large, or the use of "many" in any meaningful manner--other than with a billion Hindus, even if only 10, 000 of them agreed, that would be "many." I hope I'm being precise enough in my comment.

Just anecdotal (but still real), my experience with a large Hindu (Desi) community in Seattle doesn't support such a contention, though, either. Not that they'd likely be militant about it any more than Buddhists. Fwiw many I know do speak regularly of the "God mentioned in the U.S. means Christianity and Jesus, of course" angle.

Folks I know who are of other religions (including some well-respected posters here), as well as non-religious types, often see the U.S. government as very much "hand-in-hand" with Christianity beyond a real comfort zone. Yet they convey (as do I) being grateful we are not some seriously oppressive theocracy, though many reasonable non-Christians do have related concerns given much of our national political discourse and demographic groups--as seen n reaction to the candidacies and popularity of the Palins, Bachmans, and Santorums.

This is another reason why to me, people of strong religious faith (and are Christians for that matter) like Destino, PeterMP, TB, ASF and so on are so important, in that even if there's disagreements at some fundamental levels with those of different views on religion, and even if its pretty serious, they are nothing like the fundie extremism of even the candidates I just mentioned and would never vote for people like that---this is soemthing to remember IMO when we argue with each other.

I think one point here is that in the U. S. "God" means the Christian God to most Christians (not exactly a reach there), hence the often fervent but always widespread support of it being "ok" or "no big deal" to have it (and similar examples) around.

If the government had "in Brahman we trust" (close to a general "God" term in Hinduism) the Christians would have a cow (my wild speculation and pun intended :pfft:). If we took oaths in court or on taking office with our hands on a Koran (remember that one?) or the Book of Mormon or on a writing by Twain on honesty, it would be "a big deal."

So, in my view, this "we're just being general, so its cool" can reasonably be quite suspect with many who claim it to be their stance.

The bigger point (if we're focusing on stuff like the money) is why is the government should seemingly endorse either a belief or a disbelief in any religion or religious theme at all.

The biggest point to me is that in the most honest support of concepts of social equability and freedom and mutual respect of all citizens, the government should ideally just stay out of it as an institution. But I remain extremely grateful for what we have in these regards, have always respected and support religion (and studied them for decades) and advocate serous effort at mutual respect (with some exceptions--I'm talking to you, Cruise and Travolta :evilg:) and hope for an even better future.

As a note, the symbol chosen by India for the rupee is secular.

[Stadium-Armory]

I'm not Catholic, but my personal belief is this: Under the US Constitution, individuals have certain rights, and the government has limited power to infringe on those rights. These rights include a right to privacy and control over our own bodies, and the current limitations of medical science are that the life of a fetus is not viable separate from the body of a pregnant mother until the second or third trimester. Prior to that point, the rights of the mother preclude the state from any Constitutional action. Late in a pregnancy, or obviously, after a child is born, the state can separate the child from the mother (even by initiating proceedings to remove a child from unfit or abusive parents), but before that point it cannot.

Even if I believe that an abortion is the taking of a life, and is a sin, I can also understand that the Constitution precludes me from dictating by law what a woman does with her body. To prevent the loss of human life within the Constitution, I may have to act through other means, such as trying to convince mothers to change their minds, or to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

You could ask the same question about how Christian Democrats can support gay marriage while believing that homosexuality is a sin. State Constitutions may require states to give homosexuals equal rights in marriage, and a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin would thus have to act in other ways rather than through legislation.

An analogy on the other side of the spectrum may be gun control. There are many pacifist religions, and a person's religious beliefs may preclude the ownership of guns for any purpose, or in particular for the killing of other people in self defense. But the Constitution guarantees a right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has recently embraced that right as justified by a right to self defense. A pacifist would thus be forced to work through other means, rather than legislative gun bans, to promote their nonviolent beliefs.

In short: The Constitution trumps religion wherever there is conflict. I like that. After all, rule-of-law is the one common denominator that we all *must* share.

[PeterMP]

The wiki links oh Hinduism (which I've read before) state much more about both the diversity and commonalities within Hinduism (which includes an atheistic element as much as a monotheistic element and many more distinctions to be made) than they offer specific support for speculation of what percentage of "Hindus not minding" represent the religion at large, or the use of "many" in any meaningful manner--other than with a billion Hindus, even if only 10, 000 of them agreed, that would be "many." I hope I'm being precise enough in my comment.

Just anecdotal (but still real), my experience with a large Hindu (Desi) community in Seattle doesn't support such a contention, though, either. Not that they'd likely be militant about it any more than Buddhists. Fwiw many I know do speak regularly of the "God mentioned in the U.S. means Christianity and Jesus, of course" angle.

I know of no Hindus that would claim to be monothestic based on the normal western defintion of the word (I also don't know any that would describe themself to be atheist).

I don't of any Hindu's that aren't monism with respect to their beliefs and believe that everything extends from a single source (i.e. Brahman).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

And that in the context of their relgion a term like God, most easily translated to Brahman, and they do not have a problem with the idea of God (Brahman) we trust.

In the purest sense, In gods we trust doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of Hindu any more than in God we trust.

If we allow for a little bit of interpertation of the words into words that make sense in Hindu, then based on the Hindus that I know, they don't have an issue with a conversation of a God in terms of a single source of power.

**EDIT**

No more details of my understanding of Hindu in this thread. Just wanted to make the point that, in my experience, Hindus, while not monotheistic, do translate the term and idea of a single entity from which all else comes into a relevant term in their religion.

People tend to get caught up and think of Hinduism as ONLY and SIMPLISTICALLY a polytheistic religion, which isn't really true (based on the normal western defintion of the word) and my experience.

Based on my knowledge of Roman and Greek mythology, the concept of Hindu gods is not consistent with the concept of gods in those religion and what we normally think of, in terms of western thought, simply a polytheistic religions.

In many aspects (based on my knowledge), Hinduism is more similar to the Abrahamic religions then the pre-existing western poly-theistic religions (i.e. those of Roman and Greek mythology).

Have at it Jumbo!