The Role of Religion in Government

[Empty Hands]

So I challenged Billcihak in another thread to discuss something of substance, divorced from the daily Libs vs. Cons food fight. So I figured I should follow my own words.

What should be the role of religion in government?

It's undeniable that religion is a powerful force in American government. A recent poll found that 48% of the public would refuse to vote for an atheist for President, compared with 37% for a homosexual and 38% for a Muslim. Even if they don't believe or believe strongly, all Presidents and most other candidates must dance the dance, pretending they do believe and saying all the right things. Beyond this, religion is entwined with many aspects of government sponsorship, such as tax benefits for religious organizations, the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the National Prayer Breakfast, and so forth.

Should we divorce religious belief from public service and the governmental sphere, as they do in Europe for the most part? Our Constitution certainly seems to be leaning in this direction, with a prohibition on religious tests for public office and the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment.

I believe religion should be so separated, and I think doing so is good for both religion and government. Religious minorities, such as Mitt Romney, face additional burdens when seeking higher office. Religious minorities in the past have faced sanctioned discrimination, so much so that the election of John Kennedy was a milestone in our history simply because he was Catholic.

Separation also prevents government regulation and interference in religious organizations. Already we have the government deciding what is "real" religion, and involving themselves in regulating practices. The free speech of churches is curtailed in order to retain their tax benefits (to be fair, they routinely flout the rules without sanction, on both the left and right). Government promotion or sponsorship establishes the de facto national religion or collection of religions. All of this interferes with religion.

And of course, it goes the other way too. There are many religious influences in our laws and governance, including the byzantine and bizarre rules on alcohol in many states and counties. Issues like abortion or drug laws are heavily influenced by religious concerns at the national and state level, which has a big impact on those of use who don't share that set of beliefs.

Separation of both prevents mutual interference, and allows each to go their own ways without imposing onerous conditions on the religious or on those who don't believe.

What say you?

 

[Makalakumu]

I wish that an atheist would come out of the closet and run. It would be interesting to actually see how the country reacts.

 

[Empty Hands]

I wish that an atheist would come out of the closet and run. It would be interesting to actually see how the country reacts.

Maybe, much like finally electing a black man, they would see that atheism (or religion) was the least important part of his or her character as a leader.

 

[granfire]

Maybe, much like finally electing a black man, they would see that atheism (or religion) was the least important part of his or her character as a leader.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.....

by then we would actually already elect capable people into office.

Around here you can't get elected dog catcher without belonging to church.
For actual offices and such.

Sadly, religion has always been used to control the masses. You control their souls you control their actions. Being excommunicated carried a much graver burden than the highest punishment the Emperor could impose on you.

I don't think the problem lies with the candidates though. It's the base. the sheeple.

I can't tell you how many things are not getting done because the churches don't like it:
Alcohol sales, Lottery...you name it.
If it cuts in church revenue, it's usually a no-go...

 

[fangjian]

There should never be religious influence on matters of law, government, etc. Letting superstition guide these matters is a fail of epic proportions.

 

[granfire]

There should never be religious influence on matters of law, government, etc. Letting superstition guide these matters is a fail of epic proportions.

Well, you can't help it, really.
Faith is part of ones personality.

However, if the individual can balance that within him/herself, that's ok.

However, the way I see it happening is that church is just another special interest group putting the thumbscrews on the elected officials.

 

[fangjian]

Well, you can't help it, really.
Faith is part of ones personality.

What a person believes or doesn't believe will effect decisions they make of course. I'm just saying things like our judicial system shouldn't be based on something like 'the commandments'. Stuff like 'intelligent design' should never be taught in schools as if it's science.

Things like that.

 

[Empty Hands]

There should never be religious influence on matters of law, government, etc. Letting superstition guide these matters is a fail of epic proportions.

Do you think that can actually be accomplished given our current social reality?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I accept that the reality is that there will never be a true separation between church and state in the USA. You stated it pretty clearly.

At times in my life, although I am not an atheist, I would have preferred a government utterly divorced from all of the trappings of religion. Including national holidays that match Christian holidays, moments of national prayer, imprints on our money that say "In God we Trust," non-profit status for religious institutions, and so on.

However, over time, I have come to see that we are what we are. We were founded by Christians (for the most part, and with respect for those who point out that some of our Founder's 'Christianity' was mighty odd by some standards). We were also founded not to be a Christian nation in any sense, but a secular one. However, we humans are many things, and we bring those attributes with us when we do anything, including holding public office.

We also have a legal history of observing our traditions, and some of our traditions are religious. Pretending that they do not exist is nonsensical. Paying them homage and giving respect and deference is fine with me, so long as they do not cross the line into appearing to establish a state religion, a preference for one religion over another, etc.

It's a tightrope, to be sure. A minefield.

But in honesty, I could not expect a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist to NOT have some of those values in their heart and mind when they run for office, when they cast votes for people who are running for office, or when they express their preferences on how our nation ought best be governed. How could they not?

So, candidate A thumps a bible in a certain way and some people respond to that, because to them, it's shorthand for saying that candidate A holds similar values as they do. I don't know what could be done to prevent that. I don't know why we should even want to. Life goes on. We're imperfect, and driven by our emotions and beliefs, including the religious (or atheistic) beliefs. I doubt we can legislate that out of our government; but we can take steps to ensure we keep that wall up between the government endorsing religion or a religion and the people who make up the government holding earnest religious beliefs.

 

[WC_lun]

I don't have ay issue at all with politicians with strong religious beliefs. I do have serious issues with politicians trying to use thier own religious beliefs to dictate to other citizens what they should believe. For instance the now pretty much antiquated no bussiness on Sunday laws. If part of your belief system is that Sabath is holy and no one works on it, then don't work on it. However to pass laws to keep others from working on Sunay infringes upon thier rights and crosses the line between seperation of church and state. I use this example because it isn't so emotionally charged as some others.

Add to this desire of some people to legislate morality from thier own religious perspective, you have people claiming religious titles and beliefs that want political power. They are happy to take advantage of such things as non-taxable status, but at the same time they want a hand in political decisions. They want thier cake and to eat it too. These same people seem very quick to point out the attempts of anyone from another religion attemoting these same type of power grabs. Mixing religion and politics can become ugly quickly.

I also have real issues with people basing laws upon such things as the bible...or for those Islamaphobes out there, Sharia law. An example for me is denying equal protections for our gay citizens. Ask some religious folk why they are against equal treatment and it is because the bible tells them so. However the bible also condones things such as slavery, sellig you daughter, and stoning people to death. So these religious folk, with complete seriousness say equal rights for gays is not desireable because the bible, the word of god, decrees it. However god didn't really mean things such as slavery being okay or not eating that piece of bacon. This means that people only follow those things within the bible that fall within thier own personal rejudices. This is not a good place to base law upon. Many of our founders realized this

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

It doesn't matter.
the only people it matters to are the same types of people that similarly unnecessary traits are important to when they elect someone...
people are more interested in getting someone who looks or acts on the surface like them, that they fail to invest the time to elect someone who thinks the things they feel is important in leaders...

its why a percentage of people voted for Obama simply because he was black.
its why a percentage of people voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman.
its why a percentage of people voted for Romney simply because they shared a religion.
its why a percentage of people vote for, or vote against, whoever based on race, religion, appearance, accent, group association... I am almost wanting to add party here, because being democratic or republican does not mean you fall in line on all aspects of what was a fairly common and uniting theme in each party... now people say they are republican or democrat but in many cases share only a small percentage of the overall belief system of the party...

I do not think that people care enough, or ever will care enough to spend the time necessary to research who they elect, and will take the easy way out and vote in something similar to them and hope that it is enough to push forward their ideas...
I also do not think that politicians themselves will ever change, because even if one or two did, and tried to get by simply on their message, their opponents would take advantage of that and use it to bury them..

even when someone gets into office, their religion really should not be able to effect their choices in any way that is going to cause a conflict with the freedom OF religion.

 

[crushing]

Maybe, much like finally electing a black man, they would see that atheism (or religion) was the least important part of his or her character as a leader.

Kind of along the same line...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html

If an agnostic runs, will anyone ask if she is atheist enough?

 

[fangjian]

Do you think that can actually be accomplished given our current social reality?

Generally, people are getting less and less superstitious. It may happen 1000's of years from now, if most places are more into education than superstition.

 

[Carol]

Do you think that can actually be accomplished given our current social reality?

It will take a paradigm shift. Technology has played a substantial role in politics.

In radio broadcasting, there was a huge boom of Country (format) radio stations around the country in the early 90s. Why? Technology.

Originally, album sales were tracked by survey. Record store owners were called and asked what their top selling albums were. Many store owners gave default answers (Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, etc). Barcoding albums began in the early 80s, but varied by record label. As barcoding became more and more consistent (culminating with the advent of Nielsen/SoundScan), strange things happened. Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon ended its 15 year run on the charts, and media outlets learned that one of the hottest formats in the nation was Country. Surprise! This is the technology that drove radio stations to convert to Country -- so fast that there were lawsuits over marketing phrases such as "Hot New Country".

The same database/data-tracking/data-mining technology has been used in politics. While the major parties have not barcoded their voters (yet), there has been significant research by political analysts in to the area of voting blocs. As the RNC learned in the early 90s that their largest bloc (in terms of voter turnout and monetary donations) is evangelical Protestants in southern states, the politicians moved to a much more evangelical-Prostestant-focused position.

Reagan has been the most iconic president for modern conservatives, but he was before the database era -- and did not make Christianity a part of his platform.

[yt]NpwdcmjBgNA[/yt]
[yt]EU-IBF8nwSY[/yt]

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I accept that the reality is that there will never be a true separation between church and state in the USA.

I dunno. The US does a pretty good job of keeping church our of our politics. No religious organization dictates policy. Keeping faith out of our politics is impossible, since what you believe will always influence how you behave. Even if, 1000 years from now, we're a country mostly of atheists, the "faith" of atheism will influence policy.

But overall, US does better than most when it comes to keeping organized religion from setting policy, and protecting the religious freedoms of faith minorities. Sure, it nags a bit that my money says "In God We Trust," but Muslims and Hindus can spend that money any damn place they want...and for the most part have been able to throughout the history of our country.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I dunno. The US does a pretty good job of keeping church our of our politics. No religious organization dictates policy. Keeping faith out of our politics is impossible, since what you believe will always influence how you behave. Even if, 1000 years from now, we're a country mostly of atheists, the "faith" of atheism will influence policy.

But overall, US does better than most when it comes to keeping organized religion from setting policy, and protecting the religious freedoms of faith minorities. Sure, it nags a bit that my money says "In God We Trust," but Muslims and Hindus can spend that money any damn place they want...and for the most part have been able to throughout the history of our country.

Well said. I stand corrected. I should have used the term 'faith' instead of 'church'.

 

[Twin Fist]

constantly referring to religion as "superstition" isnt helping your case

the majoity of americans consider themselves members of some religios group, wether they practice it or not.

and if i may quote Carl Sagan, "someone who thinks the majority of us are delusional" isnt going to resonate

so no, i would never vote for someone who didnt believe in some sort of hereafter.

you can be jewish, or morman, or catholic, hindu or buddist, but if you dont have the vision and humility to imagine that this is just one part of a complex system that was designed, not just the product of random chance, i cant relate to you. And you cant represent me.

 

[fangjian]

constantly referring to religion as "superstition" isnt helping your case

Yes, I often refer to it that way so people can see it for what it is and to stop 'tip toeing' around peoples' beliefs in fear of offending them.

so no, i would never vote for someone who didnt believe in some sort of hereafter.

you can be jewish, or morman, or catholic, hindu or buddist, but if you dont have the vision and humility to imagine that this is just one part of a complex system that was designed, not just the product of random chance, i cant relate to you. And you cant represent me.

There is no evidence that suggests 'a hereafter' exists or that everything was 'designed'. A 'lack of belief' is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to.

 

[Twin Fist]

like i said, a lack of vision and or humility

the arrogance of the unbeliever is sad and disturbing

 

[bushidomartialarts]

To be fair, TF, you can say the same thing about "the arrogance of the believer."

I dislike fundamentalism, no matter who it comes from. The holy roller who tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in the Baby Jesus is deluded and limited. So is the atheist who tell me I'm an idiot because I practice spiritual beliefs.

Whenever somebody from either side resorts to snide comments like "superstition" or "heretic" -- [(edit) or "deluded" for that matter] -- rather than a rational discussion, everybody loses. Which, of course, is the problem with religion in particular: it's difficult to have rational discussion about a situation that defies rational examination.