NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just trying to get a feel for this. Please state your political and religious stances before discussing what effect religion should have on politics.

>conservative christian (protestant)

I think if we keep separation of church and state, it should work both ways. The church has little pull on the state as far as lawmaking goes, but the state can force things on the church, like restrictions on charities.

Atheist populist liberal
My atheism has no influence on my political stance except when others try to use god to justify their political beleifs. This angers me to no end.

Atheist Liberal. I hate to admit it, but I'm not beyond using either in a debate about the other one as long as it furthers my opinion and is relevant. The two are too intertwined to stay seperate.

I'm a progressive and am religious.

The separation of Church and State isn't just to protect the state from corruption by religious authority, it also protects the *churches* from the corruption that comes with political power.

There *are* restrictions that state money can't be used to promote a certain religion, even if they use food to get people in the door.

That's why the 'Faith-Based Initiative' is so controversial.

Frankly, mechanisms have long been in place where religious groups could run charitites, and get federal funds, as long as the religion is kept separate from the government money.

Bush wants to break this barrier down so that Federal money can be spent by people who believe people need the Bible more than food.

Which some Christians will say is in fact true, but that really doesn't help you when you're homeless, hungry, and short of the nutrition to even *think* straight, never mind choose between your idea of your soul and your stomach.

If Christian charity is about the *charity*, not the *religious and political coercion* possible in this way,

...Then separation of church and state money shouldn't be a problem.

Atheist Liberal. I hate to admit it, but I'm not beyond using either in a debate about the other one as long as it furthers my opinion and is relevant. The two are too intertwined to stay seperate.I have to agree. The government can't not have a stance on religion, and I have cited my religion on several occasions.

I have no problem with athiests, they include two of my best friends. What I don't like are athiests who feel they are somehow better than religious people, but you feel the same way about in-your-face zealots, I assume. (I myself think televangelists are too full of themselves.)

I'm religious and fall under the common definition of conservative.

Clarification- Religion and Politics are intertwined. But what I relaly meant is they shouldn't be.

And I agree, also- I have no problem at all with Christians (Edit Well, come to think of it, you really can't have a problem with Christians or you're restricting yourself to quite a small portion of America.), but when they flaunt their religion I feel the urge to reply with my own zealotry. Also somewhat because I like debating on a knife edge.

I have just realized that this topic could easily explode. Topics that are just about one or the other can get too hot to touch. I haven't seen any warning signs yet, but I think everyone should be careful not to get too confrontational.

Thank you.

Liberal, atheist.

I think if we keep separation of church and state, it should work both ways. The church has little pull on the state as far as lawmaking goes, but the state can force things on the church, like restrictions on charities.

Religion is a choice; you choose what religion to follow, if any. Attempting to form a religious doctrine into law would deny people the right to practice different religions, or none at all. In comparison, laws are an obligation on members of a society. You inherently agree to follow them by living in your city/state/country.

Just my two cents, not intended to sound quite as harsh as it does. o_o;

--Edit--

I think you mean "confrontational". ^_^;

I'm a progressive and am religious.

The separation of Church and State isn't just to protect the state from corruption by religious authority, it also protects the *churches* from the corruption that comes with political power.
Amen to that, my brother! :)

I am a Christian Communist myself, and I fully agree with Kinsella Islands's comment on the separation of Church and State.

Although I feel that Communism is the natural political choice that goes with being a Christian, I keep my political and religious arguments well separated - unless I'm talking to a fellow Christian.

"Confrontational" is the word, Rey.

(oh, and while we're at it, Constantin, 'Sister' would be the word, too. :) )

Hard to tell that when you're posting as an archipelago, but I'm realizing how nice the 'edit post' function can be. :)

Though I'm not actually a Christian, btw.

"Confrontational" is the word, Rey.Whoa, I have a nickname? I guess I'm not a background figure on NS anymore. :D

Hey, if you want a nickname, it should be like, 'The Reyster,' ...I just tend to shorten names cause I'm one of those people with a lousy memory for them. :)

But, enjoy.

You could say,

"You could call me Rey..."

And I could severely date myself....

And... Ah, nevermind. :rolleyes:

I firmly believe that the church is subordinate to the state. If the state see it fit to tax the collect they should. I accept the church as an institution within the state but it may hold no power over the state.

Example. in many countries there are Christian, Jewish, Islamic Parties, this to me is a complete NO-NO. Just like Labor Parties which affiliated with Unions.

(oh, and while we're at it, Constantin, 'Sister' would be the word, too. :) )
Erm... oops... Sorry. :) It was just a figure of speech, though.

Pagan Progressive Liberal

The government needs to keep its stinkin' hands off of mine and others' religions. Period.

My religion, as well as all others, needs to keep its stinkin' hands off of my government. Period.

Athiest and Marxist- with an A-Level in Christian Theology. I don't believe in the literal truth of any religion but I do believe in the power of the storys contained therein.

I don't think that any religion should interfere in secular politics. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that I think any supposedly religous person who does is prostituting their faith.

And while I agree that broad based faith charities (who provide aid to everyone without being influenced by what religion they are) deserve their charitable status, faith based schools and charities which have goals that involve any type of proselytising should not get the advantages (tax breaks etc.) that come with charitable status.

Please find for me in the Constitution where it says "separation of church and state".........................
I'll answer it for you...............nowhere.

It's all a bunch of crap.

"We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings."
-Ronald Reagan

Please find for me in the Constitution where it says "separation of church and state".........................
I'll answer it for you...............nowhere.Firstly, we're not all Americans. Secondly, find me the bit where it expressely forbids alien overlords.

It's all a bunch of crap.I wouldn't go that far. I know some quite intelligent people who follow a religion. :D

"We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings."
-Ronald ReaganPlease tell me you're not claiming Reagan as an impartial source. (And the main argument against the meshing of church and state, at least in Christian terms, is Jesus' comments that his kingdom was of the next world, not of this one. In other words while you might claim to be a Christian, if you try to impose your Christianity into secular politics it is expressly against what the Bible actually says).

it's the one for today (12th August) that i want to show you all:

http://www.sinfest.net/

I am an atheist, liberal Conservative, I am a member of the UK's Conservative (Tory) party.
Tamkoman
Please find for me in the Constitution where it says "separation of church and state".........................
I'll answer it for you...............nowhere. Do you know who created that term? Thomas Jefferson, about the US constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The "wall of seperation between church and state" to which he refers, which became the shorthand "seperation of chuch and state" people refer to are not the exact words in the US Constitution, but it is what the First Ammendment means.

I'm a religious conservative, but a political liberal. Ok, a political libertarian. o_O

bump...?

I'm a very religious person who has recently come to understand that I'm very liberal socially while fairly conservative fiscally.

Religion and politics have become intertwined, but this is not good and certainly not the intent of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Simply because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not mean this wasn't the goal. The First Amendment is pretty explicit: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Meaning Congress shall not adopt a national religion or religious stance while not outlawing any potential form of private worship. To say separation of Church and State is incorrect because it's not explicitly outlined in the US Constitution, using those words, is the height of semantic rhetoric.

Religion is not the province of government, just as government is not the slave of religion. The two serve (or, at least, should serve) entirely different roles and while some sort of religious principles may have served as some basis for the establishment of the US, it was made quite clear by the people who wrote the documents that they were not "Christian" religious ideals and there is no justification for using them now.

I'm politically conservative and I'm more liberal as a Christian (Catholic, to be exact). I believe in the separation of church and state as a way to preserve both groups.

agnostic liberal.

religion should have no place in politics. laws should be based in common sense and human rights not what some people thousands of years ago wrote in a book.

hell, i don't even think that politicians should be able to advertise their religion for an election like they do in the states.

I think that religion and politics are hopelessly intertwined. They have strong influences on each other. However, I have learned through painful experience that if you use one to debate the other, things just get more and more hostile. Polite debate can break down into one side overwhelming the other (from the poll it appears that liberals and athiests have a better chance, but I've seen the opposite) and then degrading to cheap shots and personal attacks going back and forth. Then ze modz step in and a couple people leave DEATed with the topic locked, and nobody remembers what the original debate was about. Then a plane crashes, halley's comet collides with the moon, the Titanic rises to the surface, aliens overwhelm Cambridge, and *OOOF!*

I think that religion and politics are hopelessly intertwined. They have strong influences on each other. However, I have learned through painful experience that if you use one to debate the other, things just get more and more hostile. Polite debate can break down into one side overwhelming the other (from the poll it appears that liberals and athiests have a better chance, but I've seen the opposite) and then degrading to cheap shots and personal attacks going back and forth. Then ze modz step in and a couple people leave DEATed with the topic locked, and nobody remembers what the original debate was about. Then a plane crashes, halley's comet collides with the moon, the Titanic rises to the surface, aliens overwhelm Cambridge, and *OOOF!*

Well, that's just the point. The reason that things break down is you have two very touchy points that rely on different premises to support themselves being cross-applied in an inappropriate way. While, in a religious sense, it may be perfectly permissable to say, "Don't do that," with the only justification being, "Because Jesus said so." However, in government, it's simply not. So you have people starting to name call as they get frustrated because they're trying to incorrectly apply a set of standards to the wrong institution.

The situation isn't hopeless, though, unless we just sort of give in and give up. It takes work, yes, but I do believe we can separate out the two.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Okay, I've decided I like the US Constitution; I don't like the way it's been degraded. I am a liberal atheist, and I believe people should be able to practise religion however they please (and I mean that wholeheartedly), but they ought not have their religion interefere with other people's religion (or lack thereof) and ought not appeal to the government to be disproportionately advanced or advantaged. Okay, I didn't say that right, but I have no clue how to, so I'll just be shutting up now.

Political and religious sceptic. I'm aware of the theories, I've heard the stories, but I'm yet to be convinced by any of them...

There is a strong 'implication' of a separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

There is talk of freedoms... the freedom of speech, the freedom of public assembly, the freedom to worship. Unfortunately - those that worship seem to forget that this also should allow the freedom to NOT worship, or to worship differently.

From the point of view of Christianity - I don't understand the current wave, in the US, of wanting to tie politics to religion. I was reading just the other day, about George W Bush apparently saying that he felt he had been appointed by God, in order to lead the American people through this 'troubling time'. As with his 'christian definition' for marriage, the President is allowing his own personal religious belief influence the decisions he makes for 300,000,000 people - not all of whom share his religious perspective.

The problem Christians should have is, the whole viewpoint of trying to tie government and politics is against the teaching of Jesus - and, if you are a Christian, surely he's the guy you should listen to? Matthew 22:21 "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

I'm moderately liberal on social issues and moderately conservative on fiscal issues and I'm a practicing mildly heretical Catholic. The government should not respond in any way to the question of the existence a deity or deities etc. The government should not make laws based on religious thought. "The law is reason without passion" (well, it should be).

To me Liberal means a centrist, or centre-right politician and conservative means right wing, so I don't really identify with either.

I'd call myself a social democrat. Personally, I am a Lutheran Christian, but I don't think that should have any real relevance in politics - a person's religion should be kept out of politics as much as possible in my opinion.

Politics and Religion are so intertwined, I just had a thought- the only way to remove religious politicking is the abolish organized and/or public religion. Otherwise people would continue to vote based on their religion (how many Right-Wing Chrisitans would vore for a self-professed Atheist, even if he was a right-winger himseld? How many reactionary atheists* such as myself would vote for a president who mixes his religion with his politics?). As we all know, that has no chance and it would not be conductive for anyting but sparking a mass rebellion, so it seems on the negative view we're stuck in this religio-politico morass for a while while politicians subtly adjust their views to fit Dogma while maintaining a secular nation.