NationStates Jolt Archive

Both political parties in the US now appear to be "playing the religious card." Republicans have been talking about God for some time and now it appears that the Democrats, desperate to get back in power, are seriously considering talking about God too. However, once back in power, Democrats will have about as much impact on moral and social conditions as Republicans do now: none at all.

"Both parties now shamelessly invoke God to bless public policies with which they agree - and frequently invoke him wrongly - but ignore his instructions when he speaks clearly about matters with which they don't agree. In other words, they use only enough of the Bible or their Christian convictions to accomplish their political objectives." [ Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services columnist ]

What do you think about this, particularly if you are a person of faith ( regardless of what faith that might be )?

It is clearly political For instance just yesterday Hillary Clinton said she supports faith-based inititives and sees nothing illegal about the Government to help in supporting them??? People on the left have condemned Bush for saying these things, will they now condemn their new Saviour, Hillary Clinton?

Both political parties in the US now appear to be "playing the religious card." Republicans have been talking about God for some time and now it appears that the Democrats, desperate to get back in power, are seriously considering talking about God too. However, once back in power, Democrats will have about as much impact on moral and social conditions as Republicans do now: none at all.

"Both parties now shamelessly invoke God to bless public policies with which they agree - and frequently invoke him wrongly - but ignore his instructions when he speaks clearly about matters with which they don't agree. In other words, they use only enough of the Bible or their Christian convictions to accomplish their political objectives." [ Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services columnist ]

What do you think about this, particularly if you are a person of faith ( regardless of what faith that might be )?

*nominates Eutrusca for President*

Everyone picks and chooses when speaking of theology and anyone who has bothered to actually think for themselves has their own personal religious beliefs. That said, *any* politician attempting to invoke their particular version of a deity as support for a bill/initiative/what-have-you is abusing not only God, but the political position to which they have been placed. If it is truly good policy and not simply establishment of religion, there is no need to bring religion into it at all.

Hah. You guys need new political parties ASAP.

He is God. Don't worry. H ;) e can take the abuse.

If a person's religion is genuine it can't help but color every part of their life. It is the foundational belief structure upon which their opinions and ideas hang. It will have an impact on what a politician does legislatively and otherwise.

IMO, when it is genuine and the individual is acting/speaking on the principles of what they believe in, in good conscience, it is a good thing and little else can be expected.

That said, I agree with the statement in the article that both parties are shamelessly using "God" to pander to constituants. It is hard to pick an chose which politician that applies to, but given the amazing corruption in politics, I remain skeptical of any politician's "religous" fervor. I think, in most cases, it is simply another means of maintaining power and find that reprehensible.

Both political parties in the US now appear to be "playing the religious card." Republicans have been talking about God for some time and now it appears that the Democrats, desperate to get back in power, are seriously considering talking about God too. However, once back in power, Democrats will have about as much impact on moral and social conditions as Republicans do now: none at all.

YU see considering to use God is the same as abusing God like the republicans have been. You voted for te guy who is abusing God so its rather stange to say the least that you are complaining.
The democrats aren't playing the religious card. Considering something isn't the same thing as doing it.

"Both parties now shamelessly invoke God to bless public policies with which they agree - and frequently invoke him wrongly - but ignore his instructions when he speaks clearly about matters with which they don't agree. In other words, they use only enough of the Bible or their Christian convictions to accomplish their political objectives." [ Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services columnist ]

What do you think about this, particularly if you are a person of faith ( regardless of what faith that might be )?

I think since Democrats aren't, its highly illuminating about the republicans. Cal has always been a conservative that liked republicans so he tries to defend them by saying the other guy does it too. But it doesn't change the fact that considering isn't doing till after they do it.

I don't like it when Bush talks about God told him to do this and that. Personally because God didn't. He did'nt want anyone to exaggerate any claim or threats like Bush did. I know because I've asked and prayed over it.
While I don't think Bush is confusing the Devil with God...I have to wonder who he is talking to...

*nominates Eutrusca for President*

Wow! Now THAT was an unexpected compliment! :D

[ refuses to accept because he loves being independent too much! ] :D

Everyone picks and chooses when speaking of theology and anyone who has bothered to actually think for themselves has their own personal religious beliefs. That said, *any* politician attempting to invoke their particular version of a deity as support for a bill/initiative/what-have-you is abusing not only God, but the political position to which they have been placed. If it is truly good policy and not simply establishment of religion, there is no need to bring religion into it at all.[ emphasis added ]

I KNEW there was some reason I liked you! :D

Great post!

If a person's religion is genuine it can't help but color every part of their life. It is the foundational belief structure upon which their opinions and ideas hang. It will have an impact on what a politician does legislatively and otherwise.

IMO, when it is genuine and the individual is acting/speaking on the principles of what they believe in, in good conscience, it is a good thing and little else can be expected.

That said, I agree with the statement in the article that both parties are shamelessly using "God" to pander to constituants. It is hard to pick an chose which politician that applies to, but given the amazing corruption in politics, I remain skeptical of any politician's "religous" fervor. I think, in most cases, it is simply another means of maintaining power and find that reprehensible.

I agree but would broaden your first statement to include everyone.

What do you think about someone [ political or not ] who has an epiphany, and claims they have been "converted," or whatever terminology they may use to describe a life altering spiritual experience?

What do you think about this, particularly if you are a person of faith ( regardless of what faith that might be )?

The Dems have been talking about God for quite some time, actually. There is a difference, though.

Republicans talk about God as if they have exclusive passes to God's private club and that God gives them instructions on everything that they do to the exclusion of those who either do not believe in God or do not believe in their particular brand of God.

Democrats talk about God as a matter of personal affairs and do not strive to impose a religious agenda on those who either do not believe in God or do not believe in their particular brand of God.

John Kerry said himself, "I am a deeply religious man. I believe in God. However, my religious beliefs are not a reflection on you."

You see, we have a little thing called freedom of religion and, while it is debated what that means, I believe it means this: all or none.

The only way I can accept your right to be Christian is by virtue of you accepting my right to be Muslim. What that means is you have to remove the Christian symbols and 10 commandment statues and whatnot from publicly owned property because such idolatry is offensive to Muslims - and to Jews and to many Christians, actually. You can keep the "under God" in the pledge because we don't say the pledge anyway - our allegiance is to Allah, not to a piece of cloth - but that "under God" is offensive to people who do not believe in God and offensive to people who believe in other gods.

By forcing people to invoke *your* God, you are telling them that they do not have the right to their own personal relationship with the Divine. That's a personal issue, of course, until it becomes a matter of legislation. When it becomes a matter of legislation, then it is in violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, something both you and I swore an oath to defend from enemies both foreign and domestic. I don't know about you, but I still live by my oath.

In short: Republicans invoke God to spread an agenda, Democrats invoke God because they can.

I agree but would broaden your first statement to include everyone.

What do you think about someone [ political or not ] who has an epiphany, and claims they have been "converted," or whatever terminology they may use to describe a life altering spiritual experience?

I would say that is accurate as well, however your original post was pertianing directly to "God" and/or religion as I understood it, so I answered from that perspective rather than including all possible belief structures.

In short: Republicans invoke God to spread an agenda, Democrats invoke God because they can.

I think it a tad nieve to say that one party does it right and another does it wrong. There are probably members of both parties who do it right and I am completely certain there are members of both parties that use it illegidimately.

Both political parties in the US now appear to be "playing the religious card." Republicans have been talking about God for some time and now it appears that the Democrats, desperate to get back in power, are seriously considering talking about God too. However, once back in power, Democrats will have about as much impact on moral and social conditions as Republicans do now: none at all.

"Both parties now shamelessly invoke God to bless public policies with which they agree - and frequently invoke him wrongly - but ignore his instructions when he speaks clearly about matters with which they don't agree. In other words, they use only enough of the Bible or their Christian convictions to accomplish their political objectives." [ Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services columnist ]

What do you think about this, particularly if you are a person of faith ( regardless of what faith that might be )?

Wow, every now and then you surprise me :D

Note that I am generalizing based on party platforms; individual party members vary ;)

To be honest, if I look at what the two parties stand for, both parties have their Biblical strengths and weaknesses. Republicans are better when it comes to issues of personal morality, such as abortion and such (in theory anyway, in practice they just use it to shill for votes as you pointed out). However, their characterization of helping the poor as "class warfare" directly contradicts Jesus' teachings on the subject. Republicans also take some un-Biblical positions on hoarding wealth, as the Bible instructs us to not store up treasure on Earth, but rather in heaven. (I'm paraphrasing here, I can look it up if you want me to.)

Democrats are the inverse. They are more in line with the Bible when it comes to making sure everyone who works makes enough to live on, but their looser positions on social morality runs contrary to the Bible. Ultimately, neither party can truly lay claim to being Biblical.

And there is also the mess known as foreign policy to consider :D

Ultimately, despite the above reservations, I tend to come down on the Democratic side. Why? The Republicans run their entire campaigns on religion, God, and moral values and paint all Democrats as God-hating hedonists. At least that's the way Karl Rove works, anyway. Yet they too fall short of Biblical standards (as we all do). But because of their positions on monetary issues, I see them as Pharisees. The Democrats don't claim that their values are the only way to be a moral Christian, as many Republicans do.

I KNEW there was some reason I liked you! :D

And here I was thinking it was just my sparkling personality =)

Great post!

Thanks!

How do you think religion got so powerful in the first place. Politicians and rulers have been using religion to stay in power for thousands of years.

They grant organized religions tremendous amounts of power and then use said religion as a mandate to stay in power. The preists and tyrants get powerful hand in hand and in turn take one big collective shit on the people.

However, their characterization of helping the poor as "class warfare" directly contradicts Jesus' teachings on the subject. Republicans also take some un-Biblical positions on hoarding wealth, as the Bible instructs us to not store up treasure on Earth, but rather in heaven. (I'm paraphrasing here, I can look it up if you want me to.)

Actually, the Bible talks about a personal and chruch responsibility to the poor, sick, inprisoned and otherwise needy. Something that many, but admittely not all, Republicans believe in. They just don't believe the Gov. should have anything to do with it.

Democrats are the inverse. They are more in line with the Bible when it comes to making sure everyone who works makes enough to live on,

Again not the Gov's responsibility but a personal one.

but their looser positions on social morality runs contrary to the Bible.

Don't think either party can claim much moral highground on that subject.

And there is also the mess known as foreign policy to consider :D

Another subject where neither can claim the highground.

Can you tell I'm pissed off at the Gov. in general... both parties. I hate chosing between the lesser of 2 evils.

Actually, the Bible talks about a personal and chruch responsibility to the poor, sick, inprisoned and otherwise needy. Something that many, but admittely not all, Republicans believe in. They just don't believe the Gov. should have anything to do with it.

Again not the Gov's responsibility but a personal one.

Don't think either party can claim much moral highground on that subject.

Another subject where neither can claim the highground.

Can you tell I'm pissed off at the Gov. in general... both parties. I hate chosing between the lesser of 2 evils.

Of course, one could also argue that morality is a personal responsibility and not the government's.

Actually, the Bible talks about a personal and chruch responsibility to the poor, sick, inprisoned and otherwise needy. Something that many, but admittely not all, Republicans believe in. They just don't believe the Gov. should have anything to do with it.

I am pretty sure that the only reason they don't want the government to hand out provisions to the needy is because they themselves don't want to do it. I am positive that if welfare became privatized it would nearly drop off the map. I am absolutely positive that church attendance would go through the roof, as churches are much more willing to give to you if you attend.

Of course, one could also argue that morality is a personal responsibility and not the government's.

For the most part, I agree. The problem is that much of law is based on morality and cannont be otherwise. I don't see any good way to completely seperate the two, without living in anarchy.

Actually, the Bible talks about a personal and chruch responsibility to the poor, sick, inprisoned and otherwise needy. Something that many, but admittely not all, Republicans believe in. They just don't believe the Gov. should have anything to do with it.

Can you tell I'm pissed off at the Gov. in general... both parties. I hate chosing between the lesser of 2 evils.

Well, if everyone tithed 10% of their income, there wouldn't be much need for the government to step in. In Biblical times, tithes were...how shall I put this...more strictly enforced.

Look at America as a "Christian" nation before it became a welfare state...the country was far more "Christian" before 1930 than it is now, yet there wasn't nearly enough charity to make sure everyone could eat. It is with reluctance that I accept the need for the government to step in with welfare...it is better than nothing at all. Personal responsibility rhetoric only works when people will accept that responsibility; unfortunately, too many in this country obsess over getting the latest gadget.

I agree with you on the lesser of two evils stuff though.

Of course, one could also argue that morality is a personal responsibility and not the government's.

Damn skippy, there is a large group of people who think that people should be responsible for the basics of life, food, shelter, etc.

But think that people should not be responsible for anything greater, entertainment, education, morality, etc.

It is a completely immoral and backwards way of thinking.

I am pretty sure that the only reason they don't want the government to hand out provisions to the needy is because they themselves don't want to do it. I am positive that if welfare became privatized it would nearly drop off the map. I am absolutely positive that church attendance would go through the roof, as churches are much more willing to give to you if you attend.


You mean all those benevolent Democrats out there wouldn't prop it up??

Sorry, I shouldn't be so facitious. It just bugs me that Dems. try to claim moral highground on this issue when they aren't any more willing to take personal responsibility for it either.

As for churches and church attendance, that is true in many cases, but as a social worker, I have linked many clients to church based resources (entirely non-gov. funded btw) that provider for members and non-members alike.

Well, if everyone tithed 10% of their income, there wouldn't be much need for the government to step in. In Biblical times, tithes were...how shall I put this...more strictly enforced.

Look at America as a "Christian" nation before it became a welfare state...the country was far more "Christian" before 1930 than it is now, yet there wasn't nearly enough charity to make sure everyone could eat. It is with reluctance that I accept the need for the government to step in with welfare...it is better than nothing at all. Personal responsibility rhetoric only works when people will accept that responsibility; unfortunately, too many in this country obsess over getting the latest gadget.

I agree with you on the lesser of two evils stuff though.

This is all true, but I still believe it is wrong to forceably take money (taxes) from someone who doesn't want to give it to give it to someone else. IMO, that is stealing. However, that said, since we have to pay taxes anyway, there are specific populations that I don't have a problem with the money that is stolen from me going to support.

You mean all those benevolent Democrats out there wouldn't prop it up??

Sorry, I shouldn't be so facitious. It just bugs me that Dems. try to claim moral highground on this issue when they aren't any more willing to take personal responsibility for it either.

I don't think that most Democrats claim the moral high ground on this issue, whereas they recognize that people (including themselves) will not work to help the poor unless there is some sort of government intervention.

I am not a democrat, but I tend to agree with them more on this one, and that is how I feel.

As for churches and church attendance, that is true in many cases, but as a social worker, I have linked many clients to church based resources (entirely non-gov. funded btw) that provider for members and non-members alike.

I am sure there are a great deal of altruistic churches out there that will follow Jesus's teachings and help ALL of those who need it. But the fact remains that if you entrust welfare to a group of people who share and ideology, you are inviting trouble.

But the utmost respect to those churches who offer their help as blindly as they offer their faith. They are the meek who should truly inherit the Earth.

For the most part, I agree. The problem is that much of law is based on morality and cannont be otherwise. I don't see any good way to completely seperate the two, without living in anarchy.

Many would argue that much of the law is parallel to morality, but not strictly based on any particular morality.

I would say that is accurate as well, however your original post was pertianing directly to "God" and/or religion as I understood it, so I answered from that perspective rather than including all possible belief structures.

That post wasn't meant to be in any way critical of you. I was just saying that I thought it should apply to everyone as an asside. :)

Many would argue that much of the law is parallel to morality, but not strictly based on any particular morality.


I know. I disagree. It all had its source in someone's morality at sometime.

That post wasn't meant to be in any way critical of you. I was just saying that I thought it should apply to everyone as an asside. :)

Figured that was likely, but wanted to explain myself just in case. :fluffle:

Hah. You guys need new political parties ASAP.
No, I'm quite happy being a Democrat.

I don't think that most Democrats claim the moral high ground on this issue, whereas they recognize that people (including themselves) will not work to help the poor unless there is some sort of government intervention.

I am not a democrat, but I tend to agree with them more on this one, and that is how I feel.

I am sure there are a great deal of altruistic churches out there that will follow Jesus's teachings and help ALL of those who need it. But the fact remains that if you entrust welfare to a group of people who share and ideology, you are inviting trouble.

But the utmost respect to those churches who offer their help as blindly as they offer their faith. They are the meek who should truly inherit the Earth.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough of those churches and/or people in general.

As for the Dems. don't kid yourself. The issue of welfare is little more than pandering to 45-50% of their constituancy, just like the Rebulicans use religion to pander to half their constituancy.

I know. I disagree. It all had its source in someone's morality at sometime.

(a) Note the difference between morality in general - ie. the principles that seem to be near universal, and "a particular morality" as imposed by any particular philosophy/religion/etc.

(b) Would you not agree that we as a people began a government system in order for it to protect its citizens? As such, would you not agree that the majority of the laws (the ones that belong there anyway) are specifically in place for this purpose?

Well I don't believe that there is a God to abuse, but I would say that politicians are abusing people's faiths and that both parties are full of shit.

Look at America as a "Christian" nation before it became a welfare state...the country was far more "Christian" before 1930 than it is now, yet there wasn't nearly enough charity to make sure everyone could eat. It is with reluctance that I accept the need for the government to step in with welfare...it is better than nothing at all. Personal responsibility rhetoric only works when people will accept that responsibility; unfortunately, too many in this country obsess over getting the latest gadget.

I find myself agreeing with you on this. ( surprised? ) Just to take one example, look at Social Security. If families practiced what they tend to preach to others, there wouldn't be much need for the Social Security system. Ditto and moreso for religious organizatons, as you pointed out.

One of the problems ( as I see it ) in this entire area is that there is a basic conflict between Christian ideals and the "rugged individual" myths which abound in the US. On the one hand, almost all faiths stipulate that their adherents are obligated to help the poor, yet on the other hand, most in the US are raised to believe that anyone who winds up poor did ( or didn't ) do something right and being poor is their just desserts. I suspect this is one of the roots of the inability of charity to replace government in the area of providing for the poor.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough of those churches and/or people in general.

As for the Dems. don't kid yourself. The issue of welfare is little more than pandering to 45-50% of their constituancy, just like the Rebulicans use religion to pander to half their constituancy.

It's called "politics."

(a) Note the difference between morality in general - ie. the principles that seem to be near universal, and "a particular morality" as imposed by any particular philosophy/religion/etc.

(b) Would you not agree that we as a people began a government system in order for it to protect its citizens? As such, would you not agree that the majority of the laws (the ones that belong there anyway) are specifically in place for this purpose?

a) "Near universal" morality is still not universal and thereby you can't claim that it applies to everyone.

b) I agree. Problem is, the notion of needing to protect others is a product of morality, which, I would argue, came before gov. and, as I believe the Genisis acount of Creation, all good parts of which has its origins in the worship and revelation of the Creator, though not all the links are readily identifyable.

It's called "politics."

I just wish more politics was based on principle than maintance of power.

One of the problems ( as I see it ) in this entire area is that there is a basic conflict between Christian ideals and the "rugged individual" myths which abound in the US. On the one hand, almost all faiths stipulate that their adherents are obligated to help the poor, yet on the other hand, most in the US are raised to believe that anyone who winds up poor did ( or didn't ) do something right and being poor is their just desserts. I suspect this is one of the roots of the inability of charity to replace government in the area of providing for the poor.

Actually, both concepts are Christian. Those able to care for themselves have a responsibility to do so. Those who cannot care for them selves don't have the right to demand anything from anyone, whatever they receive should be accepted as a gift of benevolence. Those who have sufficient resources to care for others have a personal responsibility to do so and will be judged one the basis of their actions.

Im gonna go out on a limb here and say that there is nothing wrong with the practice of using religion for political purposes. Here is the reason.

Democracy (actually, a republic, but thats a different topic), is based on the idea that we elect people who best represent our views. Therefore, it is good for democracy in general that politicians cater to the groups they wish to represent. That is the very foundation of democracy, that is the beauty of the system. If there are alot of people who have a certain opinion and want their opinions to be taken into account, then the beauty of a democracy is that candidates will find themselves forced to pay attention to the views of those people. In the early 90s it was young people who were against abortion, in favor of homosexual rights, and fed up with the declining economy. Bill Clinton catered to that growing group and won the election. How did he do this? He did it by adopting a platform that appealed to that group. He ran on a platform of allowing gays into the military (which he failed to do), protecting a womans right to choose (which he did), and fixing the economy (which he did). The new trend is a growing religious backlash against the progressive policies of liberals. There is absolutely nothing wrong with politicians identifying that need and catering to it. Not only is it not wrong, but it is what is expected for a democratic system to function properly. A democracy requires that people wishing to represent you adjust their views so that they are in line with what you consider important.

What does concern me is that so many christians are under the impression that the Republican party is the christian party. The Republican party is only the christian party if christianity is composed of only two views (being against abortion and being against homosexuality).

Both political parties in the US now appear to be "playing the religious card." Republicans have been talking about God for some time and now it appears that the Democrats, desperate to get back in power, are seriously considering talking about God too. However, once back in power, Democrats will have about as much impact on moral and social conditions as Republicans do now: none at all.

"Both parties now shamelessly invoke God to bless public policies with which they agree - and frequently invoke him wrongly - but ignore his instructions when he speaks clearly about matters with which they don't agree. In other words, they use only enough of the Bible or their Christian convictions to accomplish their political objectives." [ Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services columnist ]

What do you think about this, particularly if you are a person of faith ( regardless of what faith that might be )?

Cal Thomas is correct, however, as someone who regularly invokes god in his columns and commentary to support his conservative religious agenda I find his sudden realization (ala Captain Renault) that politicians manipulate religion to be hypocritical, at best.

Figured that was likely, but wanted to explain myself just in case. :fluffle:

:D :fluffle:

I just wish more politics was based on principle than maintance of power.

As do I, but that is at best a forlorn hope. :(

Cal Thomas is correct, however, as someone who regularly invokes god in his columns and commentary to support his conservative religious agenda I find his sudden realization (ala Captain Renault) that politicians manipulate religion to be hypocritical, at best.

I prefer to give him ( and almost everyone else ) the benefit of the doubt; he may have thought about this before, but only lately have decided to address it, perhaps due to the increasing prevelance of the practice.

Wow, every now and then you surprise me :D


Heh! Yeah, I'm funny that way. Just ask any of my former or current girlfriends! :D

I just wish more politics was based on principle than maintance of power.

You are wishing for what never was and never will be.

Actually, both concepts are Christian. Those able to care for themselves have a responsibility to do so. Those who cannot care for them selves don't have the right to demand anything from anyone, whatever they receive should be accepted as a gift of benevolence. Those who have sufficient resources to care for others have a personal responsibility to do so and will be judged one the basis of their actions.

Complication: those who are able to and do work, but still don't earn enough to survive. Labor rights exist in name only in this country. Jesus also exhorted employers to pay their workers fairly; this seems to be lost on modern-day Republicans and/or businesses such as Wal-Mart.

b) I agree. Problem is, the notion of needing to protect others is a product of morality, which, I would argue, came before gov. and, as I believe the Genisis acount of Creation, all good parts of which has its origins in the worship and revelation of the Creator, though not all the links are readily identifyable.

To you the notion of protecting other is a product of morality. However, the entire purpose of the government when it was created was to protect its citizens. This has nothing to do with morality - it is the purpose for which the American government was created.

When ever you hear a politician talking about God; always remember John Leland. A Baptist Minister in 1802.

"Be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined.

Both parties now shamelessly invoke God...
This is why I'm all the more thankful I'm libertarian - we actually like to keep chuch and state separate

(Oh and Invoke, by TM Revolution, is a kickass song/intro)