That should tell you something about the OTHER half of Conservatives.

It's part of the reason that Governor Palin is a toxic choice.

I'm a theist and I want religion away from politics. Because the tacit endorsement taps away from the separation of church and state. It hurts all religious institutions more than it helps, and leads us down a very slippery slope. On both sides--government that accepts assistance from religious organizations is then beholden to them, and religious institutions that get a bump from the government in forms of monies, material, or bills that pastors or priests like, it sets up a reciprocal relationship that can change quickly. From being state sponsored, or church sponsored, it puts religious institutions that aren't rubbing up or playing ball in a bad way.

We don't need a state sponsored religion. While I have a lot of love for my Christian brethren and sistren, your faith isn't mine. And while I appreciate that some of you have issues you like to consider important as an exercise in your faith--I don't share that faith, and I would really appreciate it if your ministers, preachers, and priests kept out of elections. Especially when you have ministers, preachers, and priests who maybe use religion as an excuse to push an agenda that is less based on your canon, than it is about personal ambition. And the last time I checked, the Senate, the House, and the President don't work just for Southern Baptists, Anabaptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, Pagans, Buddhists, or any one faith, but for everyone.

Elect folks you think reflect your values, by all means. But moreover--especially Protestants who seem to get used a lot as pawns by ministries that have forgotten the point of personal interpretation of Scripture--question the motives of those men and women of the cloth who urge you to vote one way or another, what they are getting out of it.

Questioning authority doesn't just go for the government, but anyone who claims to speak for many, when often, that's just not the case, but it's certainly what many are hoping to do.

fenrael23: That should tell you something about the OTHER half of Conservatives.

they think it's ok, but only if the preacher is one of themselves. They don't want no Mormon or Papist telling them what to do (unless they themselves are Mormons or Papists)

PC LOAD LETTER: fenrael23: That should tell you something about the OTHER half of Conservatives.

they think it's ok, but only if the preacher is one of themselves. They don't want no Mormon or Papist telling them what to do (unless they themselves are Mormons or Papists)

Either that, or they just stick their heads in the sand and don't get involved...which is just as sad.

I hate to tell people they can't have something, I much prefer letting them learn the hard way that what they thought they wanted was actually very bad for them. That's why I'll always support any religious initiatives in government.

I only wish they'd grow a pair and really push the issue. Let's get not only Bible study back in school but mandatory prayer as well... for starters.

I think a lot of religious people are realizing separation of church and state exists as much to protect religion as it does the government.

I mean, I remember as a kid, before I finally said "Enough of that shiat" and stopped going to church, the small church I went to saw a major decline in membership when the new preacher switched the message from a more general religious one and started directly addressing political issues. I think a lot of people want their religion to be above that stuff.

Getting too far into politics drains religion of its spirituality. It drags God's name into things that I don't believe are really His/Her/Its concern.

jake_lex: I think a lot of religious people are realizing separation of church and state exists as much to protect religion as it does the government.

I've realized that for years. Putting politics in my religion had some nasty side effects in the middle ages.

jake_lex: I think a lot of religious people are realizing separation of church and state exists as much to protect religion as it does the government.

I mean, I remember as a kid, before I finally said "Enough of that shiat" and stopped going to church, the small church I went to saw a major decline in membership when the new preacher switched the message from a more general religious one and started directly addressing political issues. I think a lot of people want their religion to be above that stuff.

Getting too far into politics drains religion of its spirituality. It drags God's name into things that I don't believe are really His/Her/Its concern.

It's a point that is lost on a lot of folks.

So long as their faith is represented by the State, it's fine. But what if there is a sea change? What if Catholics grow, is the shift towards Catholicism supported by the State then going to be a "bad" thing for the same folks who want to see religion represented in government? What about Unitarians--fastest growing faith in the US? Keeping religion out of politics protects them from the winds of state--which tend to shift and gyre.

I'd feel better if it was ALL of conservatives.
And liberals.
and centrists.
Religion and politics should never mix.

SilentStrider: I'd feel better if it was ALL of conservatives.
And liberals.
and centrists.
Religion and politics should never mix.

They shouldn't, but some folks want people to hold their hand. They want the security. It's not just Christians though. Buddhists have been just as guilty of this, as have plenty of others. It's easier than thinking.

hubiestubert: They shouldn't, but some folks want people to hold their hand. They want the security. It's not just Christians though. Buddhists have been just as guilty of this, as have plenty of others. It's easier than thinking.

oh i know. I'm not saying its just us that has that issue. I'm just stating my general opinion on the matter.

hubiestubert: I'm a theist and I want religion away from politics. Because the tacit endorsement taps away from the separation of church and state. It hurts all religious institutions more than it helps, and leads us down a very slippery slope.

Religion HAS to address political issues, or it becomes like the Church of England - just a forum for old ladies to have cups of tea together.

Abortion is a perfectly appropriate topic for a church to address. The failing in the US is that the politicians haven't responded, and have left it up to the supreme court to make the decision. In most other Western countries, the main political parties have negotiated a joint position, and written laws or amended their constitutions accordingly : it's the politicians that are the problem here, not the churches.

Issues such as prayer in school, or teaching of creationism are also appropriate topics for debate. Just stupid ones. They're not moral issues that affect the well-being of citizens. Jesus would have told the creationists to STFU and start talking about how to clear the drug addicts out of prisons, and getting them into work. Says me. The Parable of Jesus and the Stoner.

/ There were plenty of politicians in the 19th century who said loudly that the churches shouldn't have a policy on slavery, and plenty of businessmen who said they should shut up about child labour. This isn't a new issue.

opiumpoopy: hubiestubert: I'm a theist and I want religion away from politics. Because the tacit endorsement taps away from the separation of church and state. It hurts all religious institutions more than it helps, and leads us down a very slippery slope.

Religion HAS to address political issues, or it becomes like the Church of England - just a forum for old ladies to have cups of tea together.

Abortion is a perfectly appropriate topic for a church to address. The failing in the US is that the politicians haven't responded, and have left it up to the supreme court to make the decision. In most other Western countries, the main political parties have negotiated a joint position, and written laws or amended their constitutions accordingly : it's the politicians that are the problem here, not the churches.

Issues such as prayer in school, or teaching of creationism are also appropriate topics for debate. Just stupid ones. They're not moral issues that affect the well-being of citizens. Jesus would have told the creationists to STFU and start talking about how to clear the drug addicts out of prisons, and getting them into work. Says me. The Parable of Jesus and the Stoner.

/ There were plenty of politicians in the 19th century who said loudly that the churches shouldn't have a policy on slavery, and plenty of businessmen who said they should shut up about child labour. This isn't a new issue.

In this, I am going to respectfully disagree.

While faith does impact political decisions--morality and ethics fall equally into play here--as a reflection of faith, and religious institutions can certainly have positions on issues, they need to keep their noses out of the process.

Which does occur with many--urging a congregation to vote, and vote their conscience is one thing, urging them with a whole raft of reasons backed up by Scripture--often with convoluted, and even contradictory positions from canon and just plain wrong from a historical standpoint is on one hand humorous, and on the other, sad.

When, for instance, folks try to tie Revelations to Islam and to specific leaders--mind you Islam is a religion that hadn't even been founded for several hundred years after the book was written--then you have to wonder about the theological scholarship of the folks making these exorcations.

Faith forms a foundation. It is moral bedrock, and that certainly helps root folks to their communities and their ties to it, but religious leadership has to have some faith of their own, that they are doing their own job right, as opposed to trying to use their congregations as a political bloc.

When religious organizations try to whip their people into a froth and point them someplace, it smacks of a lack of faith on their part. Inspire folks certainly to live good lives, to practice their faith and live within it, but ESPECIALLY in Protestant churches--who sheared away from the Catholic--urging a hive mind mentality is contradictory to the foundation of those churches is hypocrisy and dangerous to those foundations.

Private interpretation of Scripture is one of the cornerstones of the Protestant movement.

opiumpoopy: Religion HAS to address political issues, or it becomes like the Church of England - just a forum for old ladies to have cups of tea together.

addressing it is one thing.
Influencing peoples votes and public policy is a whole different kettle of fish.

The Religious Right hamper the maneuverability of conservatives that are actually trying to get real shiat done in government.

Here's my post from a different thread, I think it applies here as well.

I think there should be as little religion in govt as possible. In fact, isn't there supposed to be a legal separation of church and state? Our govt interferes too much and tries to force their religious stance on everyone in the country.

i don't think our country should make political decisions based off religion. I don't think we should inhibit medical advancements or procedures because of religion. I don't think we should teach abstinence when it doesn't work, all while avoiding the discussion ofbirth control. We're biologically created to breed, good luck 'teaching' that out of someone.

Why?

Because religion is blind belief. No one has proof a god exists. I'd believe if I saw proof. I simply believe in things that can be proven beyond a doubt. Stem cells? They seem to help quite a bit, that's been proven. People that believe so blindly and strongly in religion frighten me, especially when they're in a position of great power.

People used to worship Zeus. What if they were right and those that follow Jesus or Mohammad are wrong? How do they KNOW??

No one who believes in the Rapture should be allowed to dictate foreign policy.

ConservativesBlow: No one who believes in the Rapture should be allowed to dictate foreign policy.

yeah...and no one that believes that 72 virgins will great them in the afterlife should be allowed near explosives.

same same if you ask me.

Diapproves

hasty ambush: Diapproves

ooops Disapproves

Is this another thread where real conservatives talk about real conservatives so they can pretend that they're responsible for what's been done by those false conservatives that control the conservative party, the conservative agenda, and the implementation of conservative ideas in American Politics?

Or has it not gotten that far yet?

hasty ambush: Diapproves

yeah today it's all:

"God says gays are bad!"

instead of what it should be:

"Love thy neighbor...love them deep and hard"

I pity the true conservatives. Must suck to have your pet political party overtaken by Armageddon junkies.

hubiestubert: opiumpoopy: hubiestubert: I'm a theist and I want religion away from politics. Because the tacit endorsement taps away from the separation of church and state. It hurts all religious institutions more than it helps, and leads us down a very slippery slope.

Religion HAS to address political issues, or it becomes like the Church of England - just a forum for old ladies to have cups of tea together.

Abortion is a perfectly appropriate topic for a church to address. The failing in the US is that the politicians haven't responded, and have left it up to the supreme court to make the decision. In most other Western countries, the main political parties have negotiated a joint position, and written laws or amended their constitutions accordingly : it's the politicians that are the problem here, not the churches. Actually, it's the churches the politicians attend that preach abstinence that are the problem. Sex is "morally" wrong until you are married. Ask any religious person and they'll agree. See the "moral foundation" comment below.

Issues such as prayer in school, or teaching of creationism are also appropriate topics for debate. Just stupid ones. They're not moral issues that affect the well-being of citizens. Jesus would have told the creationists to STFU and start talking about how to clear the drug addicts out of prisons, and getting them into work. Says me. The Parable of Jesus and the Stoner. That's avoiding the subject. You can't say "jesus" would do this or that, because non-religious people don't believe in Jesus, and religious people have no proof Jesus existed. You shouldn't teach something in school that can't be proven and, in fact, can be disproven by science.

/ There were plenty of politicians in the 19th century who said loudly that the churches shouldn't have a policy on slavery, and plenty of businessmen who said they should shut up about child labour. This isn't a new issue.

In this, I am going to respectfully disagree.

While faith does impact political decisions--morality and ethics fall equally into play here--as a reflection of faith, and religious institutions can certainly have positions on issues, they need to keep their noses out of the process.

Which does occur with many--urging a congregation to vote, and vote their conscience is one thing, urging them with a whole raft of reasons backed up by Scripture--often with convoluted, and even contradictory positions from canon and just plain wrong from a historical standpoint is on one hand humorous, and on the other, sad.

When, for instance, folks try to tie Revelations to Islam and to specific leaders--mind you Islam is a religion that hadn't even been founded for several hundred years after the book was written--then you have to wonder about the theological scholarship of the folks making these exorcations.

Faith forms a foundation. It is moral bedrock, and that certainly helps root folks to their communities and their ties to it, but religious leadership has to have some faith of their own, that they are doing their own job right, as opposed to trying to use their congregations as a political bloc. The problem is the "foundation" is a religious foundation. I'm not religious, never have been. But I have a moral compass. I know right from wrong, I don't need other people to decide for me. I'm sure there are many others like me.

When religious organizations try to whip their people into a froth and point them someplace, it smacks of a lack of faith on their part. Inspire folks certainly to live good lives, to practice their faith and live within it, but ESPECIALLY in Protestant churches--who sheared away from the Catholic--urging a hive mind mentality is contradictory to the foundation of those churches is hypocrisy and dangerous to those foundations.

Private interpretation of Scripture is one of the cornerstones of the Protestant movement.

I think a lot of religious people are realizing separation of church and state exists as much to protect religion as it does the government.

MORE, actually. This is a point I can't seem to get across to my friends. When they say they want religion in the schools, I ask, "Whose religion ? And what happens when another religion becomes the majority in this country ?"

Recovered Republican: I think a lot of religious people are realizing separation of church and state exists as much to protect religion as it does the government.

MORE, actually. This is a point I can't seem to get across to my friends. When they say they want religion in the schools, I ask, "Whose religion ? And what happens when another religion becomes the majority in this country ?"

No kidding...just because white christians are the majority now, doesn't mean they will always be. Heck, we cater to the minority so much now, they'll have to teach all religions or none in school to cover all the bases.

I'd prefer none actually...stick with the facts.

Recovered Republican: I think a lot of religious people are realizing separation of church and state exists as much to protect religion as it does the government.

MORE, actually. This is a point I can't seem to get across to my friends. When they say they want religion in the schools, I ask, "Whose religion ? And what happens when another religion becomes the majority in this country ?"

Bingo. Can we teach the Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path while we're at it? What about the Four Pillars of Islam? Talmudic law?

I'm a Buddhist, and I don't expect folks to walk my particular path. It's not for everyone. It's not right for everyone. But, likewise, I don't want anyone else trying to press their views of salvation or theology into public policy.

Oddly enough, the freedom of speech and religion are the rights to be pissed off at others. That the government is not going to get into your squabbles, and let you sort your differences, save when it gets into matters of harming others. Otherwise, debate, talk, and disagree, but don't try to get the gub'ment to side with you one way or another, because that's not the government's job.

In most of the developed world religion is seen as a private affair between you and your maker. Only in the United States do you have to assure people you talk directly to God on a nightly basis in order to hold public office. It's kind of ridiculous.

I'm glad we're comparing MLK Jr. who used his faith to preach equality and love to the likes of Jerry Falwell who used his faith to preach hate and discrimination.

I remember when I was a teenager my pastor straight-up told the congregation that the party that most resembled Christian virtues was the Republican party. The sad thing is I believed him and I'm sure most of the people there still do. I'm very pro-life, so I'll give the GOP that, but there is nothing Christian about not giving a shiat about the poor, starting wars, jailing marijuana users, etc.

I think it's more likely that half of all conservatives want the half of preachers who don't agree with them to stay out of politics. I imagine the percentage of liberals is slightly more, since a great deal of them are hostile to religion itself, at a slightly higher ratio than conservatives.

hubiestubert: ESPECIALLY in Protestant churches--who sheared away from the Catholic--urging a hive mind mentality is contradictory to the foundation of those churches is hypocrisy and dangerous to those foundations. Private interpretation of Scripture is one of the cornerstones of the Protestant movement.

SilentStrider: addressing it is one thing.
Influencing peoples votes and public policy is a whole different kettle of fish.

Agree with both.

I still say it's the job of politicians to lead, and not just to parrot the nuttier churches.

A lot of people who argue about religion and politics seem to think that religion is *there*, and politics is over *here*. Ain't so.

A huge amount of politics often boils down to issues of ethics and morality, and for sincere believers, that means that their opinions on these issues are going to be seriously affected by their beliefs.

Some issues are (should be) easy, like prayer in schools. But if your opinion that we need to expand AFDC is driven by Jesus' command to share and take care of the poor is that also out of bounds? I'd argue no, because then you start getting into arguments of when and which ethical systems are allowed to drive non-sectarian policy and that way lies madness.

I should add that churches should not tell their members how to vote.

JammerJim: I should add that churches should not tell their members how to vote.

They risk losing tax-exempt status if they actually do that.

JammerJim: A lot of people who argue about religion and politics seem to think that religion is *there*, and politics is over *here*. Ain't so.

A huge amount of politics often boils down to issues of ethics and morality, and for sincere believers, that means that their opinions on these issues are going to be seriously affected by their beliefs.

Some issues are (should be) easy, like prayer in schools. But if your opinion that we need to expand AFDC is driven by Jesus' command to share and take care of the poor is that also out of bounds? I'd argue no, because then you start getting into arguments of when and which ethical systems are allowed to drive non-sectarian policy and that way lies madness.



No shiat?

JammerJim: A lot of people who argue about religion and politics seem to think that religion is *there*, and politics is over *here*. Ain't so.

A huge amount of politics often boils down to issues of ethics and morality, and for sincere believers, that means that their opinions on these issues are going to be seriously affected by their beliefs.

Some issues are (should be) easy, like prayer in schools. But if your opinion that we need to expand AFDC is driven by Jesus' command to share and take care of the poor is that also out of bounds? I'd argue no, because then you start getting into arguments of when and which ethical systems are allowed to drive non-sectarian policy and that way lies madness.

THIS is Madness...

hasty ambush: Diapproves

Indeed

Of course.
Jesus was a Liberal.

One hundred percent Even half of conservatives want preachers to stick to preaching and stay out of politics. Fundamentalist whack jobs want a theocracy.

FTFM

What ever this thread becomes...

Thank you Farkers for the reminder of Madness and tacitly The Specials and The Young Ones too. Thanks Youtube too.

Made my Saturday almost...religious.

Pastors have the right to take sides on a political/social issue, but they do not have the right to endorse someone running for office.

See also: Dr. Rev. Martin Luthor King, Jr.

ConservativesBlow: I'm glad we're comparing MLK Jr. who used his faith to preach equality and love to the likes of Jerry Falwell who used his faith to preach hate and discrimination.


So your argument is that it is OK for a "preacher" to preach about politics if the agenda is to your liking but not OK if you find his points of view objectionable?

Unfortunately, the other half are just as happy to keep the preachers in politics - cuts down on their pesky Holier-than-thou routine when it comes to taking bribes, ruining the environment, etc.

Seeing how only 11% of the population regularly attend a house of worship, I have no idea how people think any religious sects have any sway in national elections...

ihatedumbpeople: Here's my post from a different thread, I think it applies here as well.

I think there should be as little religion in govt as possible. In fact, isn't there supposed to be a legal separation of church and state? Our govt interferes too much and tries to force their religious stance on everyone in the country.

i don't think our country should make political decisions based off religion. I don't think we should inhibit medical advancements or procedures because of religion. I don't think we should teach abstinence when it doesn't work, all while avoiding the discussion ofbirth control. We're biologically created to breed, good luck 'teaching' that out of someone.

Why?

Because religion is blind belief. No one has proof a god exists. I'd believe if I saw proof. I simply believe in things that can be proven beyond a doubt. Stem cells? They seem to help quite a bit, that's been proven. People that believe so blindly and strongly in religion frighten me, especially when they're in a position of great power.

First, your wrong about religion being blind belief. I have yet to meet the religious person who has a blind belief in anything. Rather most religious people have very good reasoning to back up what they believe, reasoning that's just as valid as yours (I'll get to that in a minute). That you characterize it such indicates you know next to nothing about actual religion (which is kind of amusing considering your accusing others of blind belief). I'm not surprised; ignorance about actual religion, especially among atheists, is widespread these days.

Second, your standard is ludicrous. "I simply believe in things that can be proven beyond a doubt." Okay, that means you don't believe in evolution, global warming, the big bang theory, the theory of relativity, the rights and philosophical basis for not only the US but democracy itself, the ideas of Adam Smith and John Locke, and the fundamental basis for law let alone the various laws themselves.

You do believe in things that cannot be prove, else they would have locked you up in a mad house long ago. You just don't like that someone is disagreeing with your reasoning so you want to discredit their reasoning (reasoning which you apparently don't even understand). You desire your beliefs to hold tyranny over all others. It's the same old BS from time immemorial.

As to the separation of religion and politics? If you actually believe in your religion, that's nonsensical. Christianity for instance embodies very profound political ideas. Ideas such equality, social justice, and a society that rejects the model of imperial oppression for one of mutual goodwill are all fundamental beliefs for anyone who truly believes in it. To turn your back on them saying those considerations are outside the realm of politics means you pay only lip service to your religion.

But where do these beliefs come from? They don't come from a book. I have yet to meet the Christian who gets his faith from the Bible. Rather that reasoning usually comes from the same place your reasoning probably comes from. The Bible just acts as a guide for Christians, not the source.

But their should be a separation of Church and state? As I've already pointed out, it does not mean the tyranny of one belief over another as many would desire. In fact, that's the very opposite of what should be. Instead, separation of Church and State should mean no religion - be it atheist or not - should be shown favoritism or special consideration.

The idea that some beliefs should not even be considered because the come from a belief system that has a God is the exact opposite of separation of Church and state - it's making atheism the country's official religion.

Perhaps if the government removed tax-exempt status from churches that engaged in this kind of behavior, the churches would not engage in this kind of behavior.

AR55: Seeing how only 11% of the population regularly attend a house of worship, I have no idea how people think any religious sects have any sway in national elections...

Where were you in 2004?

Absolutely,

So please tell Wright, Moss and Phleiger to shut thier farking pie holes.