NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple Question: How far do you think a member of the clergy should be able to rise into the government and why?

-=-=-=-
My Position: I see nothing wrong with a member of the clergy rising up to the highest office; if anything, their moral compass is more finely tuned than half of the politicans in this country to begin with. You can't really argue about outside influences either, since many higher-up clergy are independantly wealthy, and, considering the sheer amount of influence exerted on politicans today, church influence is just another influence.

Simple Question: How far do you think a member of the clergy should be able to rise into the government and why?

-=-=-=-
My Position: I see nothing wrong with a member of the clergy rising up to the highest office; if anything, their moral compass is more finely tuned than half of the politicans in this country to begin with. You can't really argue about outside influences either, since many higher-up clergy are independantly wealthy, and, considering the sheer amount of influence exerted on politicans today, church influence is just another influence.Where are you from?

I have no problem with any religious leader taking any form of Office. as long as they understand that 1) politics does require a compromise of beliefs, and at times, morals. 2) the First Amendment rights are obeyed... in other words, he/she doesn't strive to make his religion/church a national one. Freedom Of Religion AND Freedom From Religion has to be upheld equally.

As long as those members of the clergy don't mix their religious views with their political duties, they can fill up any place of governance and I could care less. However, if they start breaking down the "freedom of and from religion" walls we set forth in the First Amendment or wherever it was, they shouldn't get past local office at best. In other words.... they better have some discretion if they want the job.

And while I'm inclined to be cynical regarding the morality of clergy, it's not as though our politicians currently are any cleaner.

They should not be allowed to get within 500 metres of a place of government, no matter where, no matter which level. Full stop.

Where are you from?

I have no problem with any religious leader taking any form of Office. as long as they understand that 1) politics does require a compromise of beliefs, and at times, morals. 2) the First Amendment rights are obeyed... in other words, he/she doesn't strive to make his religion/church a national one. Freedom Of Religion AND Freedom From Religion has to be upheld equally.

New York, a good number of bishops come from wealthy families to begin with.

Since when?

And there is no Freedom from religion... its freedom from a state-tax funded religion (the literal meaning of an established religion.)

New York, a good number of bishops come from wealthy families to begin with.

Since when?

And there is no Freedom from religion... its freedom from a state-tax funded religion (the literal meaning of an established religion.)
this country is made up of many faiths and Religions. infact the real reason Jefferson used the "Seperation of Church and State" was that a Baptist Minister was afraid the government would prohibit him from preaching. so compromises are necessary to keep this country going. sometimes you need to team up with your enemies to defeat a greater evil. sometimes you need to make sacrifices that will cast you into a poor light.

most ministers of Christianity, not just Catholics, are not wealthy in money. Freedom From Religion is a term I use to say no one can be forced to join any Religion. Ie. Athiests and Agnostics. they can choose not to follow any organized Religion.

They should not be allowed to get within 500 metres of a place of government, no matter where, no matter which level. Full stop.
Unfortunatly that is unconstitutional. you are prohibiting someone baised on their religious beliefs.

Unfortunatly that is unconstitutional. you are prohibiting someone baised on their religious beliefs.
doesn't stop supreme court litmus tests.

New York, a good number of bishops come from wealthy families to begin with.

Since when?

And there is no Freedom from religion... its freedom from a state-tax funded religion (the literal meaning of an established religion.)
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another (or religion over nonreligion). Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine," certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.")"


Beg pardon, but this looks awfully like "freedom from religion" -- or the right to not have federal, state, or local laws that indicate an obvious preference of one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion.

doesn't stop supreme court litmus tests.
then write to your congressman to look into it.

I say "Let them get as high up in the system as they can". People are going to elect them into the positions anyway, so why should there be any restrictions? Religion already plays a role in elections (I bet that if a Jewish person were to run for office, no matter how qualified they are, he/she would not be elected solely on the fact that he/she is not Christian. People are always going to be bias.)

Religion already plays a role in elections (I bet that if a Jewish person were to run for office, no matter how qualified they are, he/she would not be elected solely on the fact that he/she is not Christian. People are always going to be bias.)
I don't think so. I think it would only come into play when it's brought out in the campain... and even then, it can backfire.

then write to your congressman to look into it.
Which one? Hillary or Schumer?

I have no problem with clergy being politicians, as long as they govern the country as representatives of the people, and not their church/temple/mosque/other place of worship.

Being religious is not a reason to prevent a person from serving the people.

As high as the voters are willing to send them. Like everyone else's, their decisions should not violate the separation of church and state.

You can't really argue about outside influences either, since many higher-up clergy are independantly wealthy,
Who did Jesus condemn the most? Who's influence killed Jesus?

Could it be those religious leaders who were involved in politics so much that they could get the ear of the political leaders? And what kind of real Christian much less clergy is independently wealthy?

The answer is of course that the Bible gives a divide between church and state and Jesus warned that the rich and powerful religious leaders had killed all of the prophets and would kill him also. Today they continue to kill the teachings of Jesus.