NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, before presenting anything; Merry Christmas NSG!! (Or if you want to be politically correct: Free Stuff Day!!!) Also, I apologize for putting this up on Christmas, when y'all should be pretending to enjoy the fruit cake your in-laws gave you.

So, I was at church a few Sundays ago teaching a few girls younger than me geography, when the church's 'Bible Education Deputy' walked up to me and told me to teach them the Bible instead of the subjects I usually teach them (geography and history). Saying it was imperitive to their salvation.

I eventually got into a debate with the man, and he compared someone in the Bible to Bush, where we derailed and began talking about the "Best President of Our Times" (They said this). When I asked why he was great, they replied "He's evangelical, a good Christian president. No one's perfect but he tries his best and asks the Lord for help".

I presented to him a few possibilities, an Atheist president who makes America more prosperous, safe, and free. Other choice being a Pentecostal/Evangelical President who's an isolationist warmonger and rapes the constitution. They chose the Christian.

Is that even logical? Where does this come from? What gene or development disorder must one need to come to this conclusion?

My religious morality influences my politics, though I would prefer to be ruled by an atheist whose political views coincided with mine than by a Christian with very different political views.

My religious morality influences my politics, though I would prefer to be ruled by an atheist whose political views coincided with mine than by a Christian with very different political views.I agree. I'm not really into politics in my own country and it might be easier to use analogies for better known politicians anyway. I'm a Christian and I don't think that Bush supposedly being a Christian makes him a good president. In fact, I think that he's quite a joke of a president. To be honest, I preferred Clinton (I'm too young to remember any of the others) because at least he didn't go starting wars, and didn't have a habit of making up words. I don't think that having an affair made him an incapable president; that scandal was completely blown out of proportion.

Had I been an American voting in the 2004 American elections my initial reaction would've probably been to vote Bush because Kerry seemed fairly liberal, and thought Bush was/is not a great president, I figured that he couldn't really do much more damage. But having done my own research it seems to me that my opinion was being influenced by propaganda from my friend (an atheist by the way) and the media and so now I'm not so sure what I would've done had I been in that situation. I've read all these stories about preachers and their sermons persuading people to vote Bush. It gives religion such a bad name. Bush saying taht he's religious gives religion a very bad name. If something similar (i.e. preachers telling us who to vote for) ever happened in my Church I'd go find another one.

While my religious, or rather moral stance might influence a dislike/like of a certain politician's aims, no person claiming to belong to the same religion as me would cause me to blindly step into a polling booth and vote for them.

To answer the question posed by the title of the thread, I am highly influenced in my politics by my religion. By the way, I am a United Methodist Christian, but I believe that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all love and worship God, Allah, YHWH, and that is what is really important, can't we all be brothers, for that matter, we are all sons and daughters of God, regardless of religion.

I think the reason a lot of highly religious people want a leader who is of the same faith is because every religion started in the application of governing the lives of people in a way that would create 'better' society. So each lays down rules not just on how to worship, but also on how to live life in general. In effect, each religion also puts forth a certain legal code. And those who believe that God, or <insert deity here>, creates his or her rules because they will benifit mankind, will also want a ruler who will institute said rules into the real, modern legal system.

I for one would certainly back a president or dictator even who would truly lay down God's law in a loving manner, for that for me would be rule as it is supposed to be.

That said, I do not find Mr. Bush's leadership has accomplished this. I support him, even though I disagree with many of his decisions, but mostly on a nationalistic level. His administration has not in the least resembled God's kingdom come to earth. I understand why the people at your church were backing George, but I wouldn't do so with the same strength that they did. Religion influences my politics, for I look to bring God's teaching to the populace, but I do not let it blind me.

And next time you are at church, just compromise and teach bible geography, like geography in the time and region of Jesus of Nazareth, or, the geography of the trek through the wilderness.


"Rejoice in Service!"

I presented to him a few possibilities, an Atheist president who makes America more prosperous, safe, and free. Other choice being a Pentecostal/Evangelical President who's an isolationist warmonger and rapes the constitution. They chose the Christian.


How does that part work out?

Religion + Politics = We are doomed

One cannot seperate religion and politics.

Whether one is an atheist or a theocrat, invariably ones decisions are influenced by the direction that religion takes politically.

Do you oppose or support religious political advances, or do you behave indifferently?

Hell no, although I live in Israel, and religion is somewhat intertwined with politics, I actually against religious beliefs in the political system.

religion is basically what you believe about life, and what I believe about life definitely influences who I vote for.

One cannot seperate religion and politics.

Whether one is an atheist or a theocrat, invariably ones decisions are influenced by the direction that religion takes politically.

I call bullshit. I've never been influenced by religion, yet my political leanings are very clear. My politics have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

How does that part work out?

Destroy other countries without ever leaving your own ?

No. While I can see how someone's religion might, I would hope that they would have other reasons for having their politics other than that they believe it's what their religion tells them.

How does that part work out?I suppose it's technically possible to declare war against your own population.

I call bullshit. I've never been influenced by religion, yet my political leanings are very clear. My politics have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Hogswash! Religion is a major factor in the influence of events in the world and events affect the political course in ALL countries. The course of politics in the country, wherever it may be, ultimately determines how your views are shaped on issues of import; even if they are but presenting the choices apparent.

I am a strong atheist and I would most certainly concede that religion affects my politics most strongly.

I'd much rather live in a nation where the leadership follows the law and sets things in accordance to the constitution with the actual benefit of the nation and its citizens in mind as opposed to religious lunatics who think they can do whatever they want and excuse it as "God/Allah/Vishnu/Elvis said so"

Sadly, too many people have their heads wrapped up in religion to do much critical thinking about what exactly the leadership is doing.

I am a strong atheist and I would most certainly concede that religion affects my politics most strongly.I think the OP is referring to your personal politics as opposed to your nation's politics.

Hogswash! Religion is a major factor in the influence of events in the world and events affect the political course in ALL countries. The course of politics in the country, wherever it may be, ultimately determines how your views are shaped on issues of import; even if they are but presenting the choices apparent..

Well said!

I am a strong atheist and I would most certainly concede that religion affects my politics most strongly.

Could not agree with you more.

Yep. I'm immediately suspicious of any politician who uses religion as a tool to buy votes, and that would strongly influence me against voting for them.

Is that even logical?
No.

This has been another installment of simple answers to questions. :D

My snarky reply is that while a person's religious views will never cause me to vote for a candidate, they can most certainly cause me not to vote for a candidate.

Not particularly.

Firstly, before presenting anything; Merry Christmas NSG!! (Or if you want to be politically correct: Free Stuff Day!!!) Also, I apologize for putting this up on Christmas, when y'all should be pretending to enjoy the fruit cake your in-laws gave you.

So, I was at church a few Sundays ago teaching a few girls younger than me geography, when the church's 'Bible Education Deputy' walked up to me and told me to teach them the Bible instead of the subjects I usually teach them (geography and history). Saying it was imperitive to their salvation.

I eventually got into a debate with the man, and he compared someone in the Bible to Bush, where we derailed and began talking about the "Best President of Our Times" (They said this). When I asked why he was great, they replied "He's evangelical, a good Christian president. No one's perfect but he tries his best and asks the Lord for help".

I presented to him a few possibilities, an Atheist president who makes America more prosperous, safe, and free. Other choice being a Pentecostal/Evangelical President who's an isolationist warmonger and rapes the constitution. They chose the Christian.

Is that even logical? Where does this come from? What gene or development disorder must one need to come to this conclusion?

religion has no place in politics.

end of story.

my religious beliefs deeply inform my political opinions, but there's no politician that believes what I do and likely never will be (as its almost diametrically opposed to politics: see christian anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism), though I certainly am not exclusively christian by any means) so it doesn't really matter.

Hogswash! Religion is a major factor in the influence of events in the world and events affect the political course in ALL countries. The course of politics in the country, wherever it may be, ultimately determines how your views are shaped on issues of import; even if they are but presenting the choices apparent.

I am a strong atheist and I would most certainly concede that religion affects my politics most strongly.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I was thinking you were making an argument to support religion.

Yeah, you're correct. Religion, in this sense, has a lot to do with my political views... I'm vehemently against it being rooted anywhere in government.

religion has no place in politics.

end of story.

in most instances religion not only has a place, but its place is gilded, ancient, and central. it always has had a powerful influence and always will.

in most instances religion not only has a place, but its place is gilded, ancient, and central. it always has had a powerful influence and always will.

...not if I can help it....

Seriously, if you can tell me where the powerful influence of religion was in the 20th century, I'd be happy to hear it.

in most instances religion not only has a place, but its place is gilded, ancient, and central. it always has had a powerful influence and always will.

religion has historically had an important place in the formation of modern politics.

it is no longer required and now has no place in modern-world politics.

its hard to say if its religion (not mine but the candidates) that might cause me to vote against him or the godawful world view that someone like bush (or more important for the next election, bill frist) has as a result of his religious beliefs.

i will never vote for someone who believes that the end of the world is nigh. not because his belief is stupid but because such a belief leads to a shortsighted approach to the world.

religion has historically had an important place in the formation of modern politics.

it is no longer required and now has no place in modern-world politics.

required? it's never been required, but it has always dominated the human experience, and will continue to do so. what science is to the objective, external world - religion is to the interior experience of human consciousness. as long as people exist religion will exist as a means of navigating our consciousness. its influence on politics and its external forms (the side-beliefs people have about historical events and factual occurrences, flukes like creationism and such) are side-notes, barely relevant to the actual experience of religion. its inner power is such that it's accidental, non-essential characteristics shape society. it's not going anywhere, and its subtlest nuances will continue to send social constructs like governments and political systems flying. we all live first in our own minds, and secondly in the empirical world - the experiences in the first world will always be more important than the ones in the empirical one. political order exists on the sufferance of religion, not vice-versa.

required? it's never been required, but it has always dominated the human experience, and will continue to do so. what science is to the objective, external world - philosophy is to the interior experience of human consciousness. as long as people exist philosophy will exist as a means of navigating our consciousness.

i've edited that, you may notice - its true this way also. religion is not the only way of 'navigating one's own conciousness', nor is it the only way to be moral, or the only source of morality for lawmaking or government.

religion has been an important foundation for modern politics and laws, but with free thought, universal education and modern era philisophical and even psychological thinking, religion is no longer necessary for any of the things you say.
as such the baggage and alterior motives that come with the essential philisophical elements of religion need not have a role in politics as personal, introspective philosophy can take its place in the modern world.

Yes. Jesus tells me how to vote. He also picks out my underwear and prepares my grocery list. :)

Yes. Jesus tells me how to vote. He also picks out my underwear and prepares my grocery list. :)

Hey, I'll listen to a wine aficionado like Jesus any day. He drinks wine, eats fresh fish and bread, and still has time to kick back and relax with his disciples.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I was thinking you were making an argument to support religion.

Yeah, you're correct. Religion, in this sense, has a lot to do with my political views... I'm vehemently against it being rooted anywhere in government.

Don't worry about it. I entirely missed the point by the OP about this referring to my personal religious system in influencing my politics. In the end, I don't really have one.

I proceeded to answer the title question; does religion influence your politics?

I suppose to avoid further confusion; the title of the thread should have been; "does your religion influence your politics."

Ah well, c'est la vie...:D

My "religion" being agnosticism and common sense (something more aspired to than achieved), I fear religious extremists of all stripes. And yes, my religion does influence my politics, but not necessarily as one would expect. I am a political moderate who believes in the Constitution as it is written and not as some idiotic lawyers, whether ACLU liberals or hyperconservatives, interpret it.

I believe in responsibility for ones actions, I do not believe that people have the right to be bailed out because they acted stupidly (for instance, smokers who, knowing that smoking is bad for them, continue to smoke and then sue the tobacco companies when they get sick).

I believe that rights imply responsibilities and those who do not understand this forfeit their rights.

...not if I can help it....

Seriously, if you can tell me where the powerful influence of religion was in the 20th century, I'd be happy to hear it.

You're kidding, right? The last 20 years of the 20th century in the US were dominated by the religious right, Clinton notwithstanding.

My "religion" being agnosticism and common sense (something more aspired to than achieved), I fear religious extremists of all stripes. And yes, my religion does influence my politics, but not necessarily as one would expect. I am a political moderate who believes in the Constitution as it is written and not as some idiotic lawyers, whether ACLU liberals or hyperconservatives, interpret it.

I believe in responsibility for ones actions, I do not believe that people have the right to be bailed out because they acted stupidly (for instance, smokers who, knowing that smoking is bad for them, continue to smoke and then sue the tobacco companies when they get sick).

I believe that rights imply responsibilities and those who do not understand this forfeit their rights.

:D yeah.

My "religion" being agnosticism and common sense (something more aspired to than achieved), I fear religious extremists of all stripes. And yes, my religion does influence my politics, but not necessarily as one would expect. I am a political moderate who believes in the Constitution as it is written and not as some idiotic lawyers, whether ACLU liberals or hyperconservatives, interpret it.

I believe in responsibility for ones actions, I do not believe that people have the right to be bailed out because they acted stupidly (for instance, smokers who, knowing that smoking is bad for them, continue to smoke and then sue the tobacco companies when they get sick).

I believe that rights imply responsibilities and those who do not understand this forfeit their rights.

Here's my problem with the part I bolded--there is no single interpretation of the Constitution as it is written, because it's an abstract document. We've been dealing with that document for over 200 years now and we're still arguing over what it means--why? Because of its abstract nature, and because both language and societies change and evolve. If it were clear enough to be interpreted in a single way, we'd have figured it out a long time ago.

Yes. I am developing a fierce loathing for much of organized religion that would be very much moderated were I still religious, and that is beginning to affect my political views.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Well Marx was right on one thing . . .

I agree. I'm not really into politics in my own country and it might be easier to use analogies for better known politicians anyway.
Please do pay attention to Irish politics; it's important for us all on this island, and it's ultimately more interesting than America's anyway.

Make sure you can vote in 2007

www.checktheregister.ie

Vote Green Party!

now that that's done...

I'm a Christian and I don't think that Bush supposedly being a Christian makes him a good president. In fact, I think that he's quite a joke of a president. To be honest, I preferred Clinton (I'm too young to remember any of the others) because at least he didn't go starting wars, and didn't have a habit of making up words.
Well Clinton was also a Christian, and he did start some wars (though none as severe as Bush's). I regard him as another unhelpful right-wing American president, but yes it's definitely not hard to prefer him to Bush!

It gives religion such a bad name. Bush saying taht he's religious gives religion a very bad name. If something similar (i.e. preachers telling us who to vote for) ever happened in my Church I'd go find another one.
Yes I agree. You can see it on this forum, so many atheists pissed off at Christians and it's all the fault of people like Bush, because they think we're all like him.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Well Marx was right on one thing . . .

Most of the time, anyway.

There is the occasional exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology), however.

Destroy other countries without ever leaving your own ?
Ah, the glory of ICBMs!

Hogswash!
Mince pies for you, for using this word.

religion has no place in politics.

end of story.
Maybe not in multicultural countries like the US and the UK, but I think that it is appropriate to have a mild religious influence on politics in places like Ireland, Iran, Poland and other religiously homogenous places.

You're kidding, right? The last 20 years of the 20th century in the US were dominated by the religious right, Clinton notwithstanding.
I doubt it. Most of the issues they have always obsessed over have not been really affected. The continuing availibility of abortion, for example.

The last 20 years in America were dominated by the Right, yes, but not the religious right. That was just a bunch of voters who the leaders could throw a bone to from time to time, but not a serious lobby.

:D yeah.
His ultra-secularism and constitutional literalism appear to conflict with what you said before.

Yes. I am developing a fierce loathing for much of organized religion that would be very much moderated were I still religious, and that is beginning to affect my political views.
So, are you going to go Stalinist soon?

Religion puts nothing in my politics. Most of my politics comes from deep thought and reading.

Yes, of course my faith influences my politics.

So, are you going to go Stalinist soon?

No, never. That has nothing to do with it.

I doubt it. Most of the issues they have always obsessed over have not been really affected. The continuing availibility of abortion, for example.

If you think the availability of abortion hasn't been affected negatively by the religious right in the last 26 years, you've been living under a rock. And there are far stronger indicators of the religious right's influence than that.

Of course it does. I'm not going to vote for some religious zealot who hates women's rights and abortion and stuff like that, am I? Kind of a stupid question.
Edit: Just FYI, I'm strictly atheist.

His ultra-secularism and constitutional literalism appear to conflict with what you said before.

I think I misunderstood the question of the OP, my personal religion affects my entire life.

Flip to Constitutional Interpretation sub-thread thingie.
When the Constitution was written it was making the first republic since Rome, no republic has ever stood as long as a monarchy, and also, what is to say we wrote the Constitution right the first time? I think after a couple hundered years of using it we might have learned a thing or two that could make it better, and I think Hamilton would rather we weed out any inherent weaknesses in the document that try to live with them.

Back to the Original discussion...
As a strict atheist I would much rather keep politics and religion away from each other in a diverse nation like the U.S., however, seeing as how religions history in hunam history has it pretty fimly bound I would take the next best thing and ignore what people believe and instead look at what that means as far as them being a leader goes.

My religious beliefs influence but do not dictate my political beliefs. For example: I believe that homosexual sex is a sin, but I also believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony. This is because I believe that as consenting adults they have the choice to live in such a union and that they are entitled to recognition of this right by the state.

I think I read somewhere that Civil Unions have different legal boons/losses than marriage, so...

I think that ANY union should be recognized as a union and be trated evenly, as it is I doubt I will ever get married or united by law with anyone. At least you recognize that this isn't a religios state and thus we cannot pass legislation becasue of a belief system.

Religion puts nothing in my politics. Most of my politics comes from deep thought and reading.

What does 42 have to do with politics? :p

My personal beliefs do not affect my politics in any way. I do not believe in attempting to force my views on others, even if through a 50.1% majority.

The beliefs of others influence my politics daily. I will certainly not be endorsing or voting for any candidates who adhere to Christian Fundamentalist beliefs, nor will I support the regressive social policies that such candidates promote.

In all honesty, I believe Christian Fundamentalism to be one of the two greatest threats to America as we currently know it. I will not let that threat go unchallenged.

The other threat, of course, being Islamic Fundamentalism.

...I'm sensing a trend here. :rolleyes:

I would say that religion, especially recently, has VERY negatively affected my sense of politics.

:(