NationStates Jolt Archive

First for some background, in my state of Australia there is a big political debate over our public health system, which is plagued by short-staff and general inadequacies, this is also a story replicated mostly over the entire country, and with a federal election in a few weeks times it's become an issue, with the Liberals wanting more private control and Labor more national. There is also a situation in my state over nurses in the north wanting higher wages, and the unions are backing them.

So today I was speaking to my parents, both of whom are practicing and quite devoted Anglicans Christians, and I was told that during a prayer the preacher (who apparently came from the mainland and does multiple churches etc) prayed that the nurses would not get the wage rise because they didn't need it, and that trade unions would but out, from what I was told it bordered on a plug for the Liberals (which apparently offended many people).

So because of this I am very much inspired to pose a simple question, do we need that old separation of church of state, now I am not talking about a super rigid separation, politicians are always going to make decisions on their beliefs, values and ideology, but I mean is - do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that they're religion supports one side or the other? At that level do we need to remember what is ideology and what is spiritual content, is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?

I remember a visiting priest who came to our church a few years ago. She spent the whole time complaining about how small the recent rise in the state pension was, saying that it was an 'insult'. Needless to say, she was never invited back.

A church generally has a fairly broad range of political opinions, and so using it as an opportunity to get on your soap box and campaign for your own party is unlikely to be popular.

What would you expect in Tasmania?

:p

Seriously though, it is fine for religious groups to express views about politics and what not, I just have a problem when the state actually starts consciously accommodating and making a point to give religion special treatment. That said, I personally wouldn't want to sit through a lecture with a preacher going on about stuff like what you mentioned. Obviously there are numerous times they can use current events as inspiration for a sermon, and I'm not religious mind you, but I just think it would be rude to make such partisan comments that would offend people listening.

A church generally has a fairly broad range of political opinions

My point exactly, you can read the gospel or whatever holy text and get many impressions and interpretations, both left and right, and while these can inform beliefs my point was it isn't the role of any preacher or whatnot to assume he speaks for his entire religion and interprets spiritual content to fit his own ideology, I think that's the level of separation I support.

Religion and politics are always going to mix to some degree. Politicians and Priests alike can use it to their advantage, although I don't think it is so much of an issue in the UK. Although we don't have much of a separation of Church and State, having an established Church and faith schools, religion isn't hugely political, I think, although there is the occasional exception.

... So because of this I am very much inspired to pose a simple question, do we need that old separation of church of state, now I am not talking about a super rigid separation, politicians are always going to make decisions on their beliefs, values and ideology, but I mean is - do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that their religion supports one side or the other? At that level do we need to remember what is ideology and what is spiritual content, is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?
Religion is the politics of spirituality. That's all it is; a form of communal identity based on what one thinks concerning spiritual ideology. It can certainly be argued that one can separate religion from the rest of politics, perhaps because discussing spiritual community issues in a political context is actually itself religious discourse, but you cannot keep politics out of religion; in order to talk about matters of divinity, you must approach one's whole world view.

That said, do I think what said preacher said was right? No. But then, the preacher is just some guy with his own opinion. The congregation has every right and authority to tell him that they refuse to just go along with what he asked them to do. The preacher is not endowed with the knowledge of the divine, but rather the congregation is the embodiment of the divine presence; whether metaphorical or otherwise.

People do not learn from God universal truths. Everyone brings their own political and social background to spirituality and politics alike. Religion is overstepping its bounds when it tries to impose a viewpoint upon people, but people are neglecting their responsibilities, both as a member of the congregation and as an individual with their own perspective on things, when they fail to stand up for themselves in the face of such imposition.

I dont think its wrong for religion to be involved in politics, religious folk have just as much right to lobby as anyone else, that being said i dont like the idea of churches running the country (and i dont think the op is suggesting they ever will) for a religous authority to say that God is on the liberals side or the labour side is stupid and i dont think that point really needs to be debated. Is it wrong for the Church to say "dont vote for the ABC party because they advocate abortion"? not at all. Is it wrong for the Church to say "God would vote for Labour, so you should too"? yes because god doesnt give a shit about politics. My Church (catholic) doesnt say "vote liberal or Labour or what not" and i havent heard of any catholic leader advocating ever about which side of politics God is on. Vast majority of our sermons are on looking after your neighbour and leading a good life.

i would like to point out for other posters in Australia the Liberal party is the conservative side.

For the record guys I am not saying that religious people can't express their political opinions, I am just saying that religious authorities (such as preachers, priests etc) should try to be unbiased so they don't risk giving the impression that their own political view is that of all the people in their religion so to speak.

I think this distinction has become some what blurred with the big emergence of informal evangelical and community based non-hierarchical (particularly Christian) congregations, in which the 'hierarchy' for lack of a better term is not well defined and mish-mash, so the official stance of the religion is not defined and local preachers can presume to speak for their communities' etc. This is also true of the Islamic community, in my country as some will know their was this situation with the Mufti of Australia saying nasty things about rape and scantily-clad women, in actual fact the whole Islamic community was against him and he eventually resigned- but it gave the impression (at least at first) that his views represented the whole religious community, which is a bad image and obviously wasn't true.

So ideally my separation of Church (or Mosque ;)) and State is simply, individual citizens can have their own personal views about whatever, but those in authority cannot say they're religion means this political view or whatnot - or least they must specify when saying these things that they are speaking for themselves only.

Religion and politics both work towards find the best way to live. If you resdide in a nation of one religion then both will be linked. Is it right that they be so?

No not while there is a chance of some people not sharing the 'creed' of whatever the state sanction faith is.

The world over we have people that do not agree with each other on what this 'best' way to live is.

In politics we have the system of differant parties representing this differrance. Unfortuantly in religoin when we come face to face with these differancs then we get conflict, because only 'my' way can ever be the correct way.

Until religion lets go of this 'one true way ' attiude then religoin and politics must never be allowed to mix.

The problem lies when a religious leader uses his/her position of authority to promote their own opinions in matters that aren't immediately related to the religion they are part of. I hope the congregation would be intelligent enough not to fall into the trap of accepting everything the leader says just because he/she has said it, not because the point carries any merit or the leader has any real experience/knowledge of the issue.

I disliked it (during my church days years ago) when the priest or a member of the congregation would give out leaflets or talk about the 'murder' that is abortion. Now, I know it is an important issue for the Catholic (and other christian groups) leadership, but trying to impose its views on its followers is just unwarranted. People must decide their own opinions, not blindly follow some authority, be it religious or political or parental.

The problem lies when a religious leader uses his/her position of authority to promote their own opinions in matters that aren't immediately related to the religion they are part of. I hope the congregation would be intelligent enough not to fall into the trap of accepting everything the leader says just because he/she has said it, not because the point carries any merit or the leader has any real experience/knowledge of the issue.

I disliked it (during my church days years ago) when the priest or a member of the congregation would give out leaflets or talk about the 'murder' that is abortion. Now, I know it is an important issue for the Catholic (and other christian groups) leadership, but trying to impose its views on its followers is just unwarranted. People must decide their own opinions, not blindly follow some authority, be it religious or political or parental.
Well I think in my country and the UK to the same degree, it isn't so much a problem, religion isn't really politicized much. Sorry to point fingers but America has the massive problem you are referring to, I think the solution to this is to get people to think for themselves rather than being sucked into believing whatever their preacher says as if he's the incarnation of divine truth.

First for some background, in my state of Australia there is a big political debate over our public health system, which is plagued by short-staff and general inadequacies, this is also a story replicated mostly over the entire country, and with a federal election in a few weeks times it's become an issue, with the Liberals wanting more private control and Labor more national. There is also a situation in my state over nurses in the north wanting higher wages, and the unions are backing them.

So today I was speaking to my parents, both of whom are practicing and quite devoted Anglicans Christians, and I was told that during a prayer the preacher (who apparently came from the mainland and does multiple churches etc) prayed that the nurses would not get the wage rise because they didn't need it, and that trade unions would but out, from what I was told it bordered on a plug for the Liberals (which apparently offended many people).

So because of this I am very much inspired to pose a simple question, do we need that old separation of church of state, now I am not talking about a super rigid separation, politicians are always going to make decisions on their beliefs, values and ideology, but I mean is - do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that they're religion supports one side or the other? At that level do we need to remember what is ideology and what is spiritual content, is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?
Not sure how things work in Australia, but in the US the nominal rule is that if religions get involved in politics then they have to start paying taxes.

I think this is pure crap, of course. Religions should always have to pay taxes, just like everybody else does.

Not sure how things work in Australia, but in the US the nominal rule is that if religions get involved in politics then they have to start paying taxes.
By that logic, could I get out of paying taxes if I promise I won't vote or run for office?

I think this is pure crap, of course. Religions should always have to pay taxes, just like everybody else does.

Indeed. Why exactly don't they pay taxes?

Not sure how things work in Australia, but in the US the nominal rule is that if religions get involved in politics then they have to start paying taxes.

I think this is pure crap, of course. Religions should always have to pay taxes, just like everybody else does.

sadly even when they get involved in politics big time, no one inforces they "you have to pay taxes"


in fact bush pushed for "here have tax money" (faith-based bullshit)

By that logic, could I get out of paying taxes if I promise I won't vote or run for office?

No, it's the organizations that don't pay taxes. For instance, a church doesn't have to pay property taxes. They aren't taxed on income from all those baskets being passed around, either.


Indeed. Why exactly don't they pay taxes?
They are supposedly "non-profits." Which is bunk, because they make plenty of profit, but they're religious which is supposed to mean something.

Let me be clear: I believe an actual non-profit organization that happens to be religious should get the same tax-exemptions as any other non-profit organization. But the Catholic Church (for instance) is not, in and of itself, a non-profit, any more than any other large corporation is.

sadly even when they get involved in politics big time, no one inforces they "you have to pay taxes"


in fact bush pushed for "here have tax money" (faith-based bullshit)
Yep. That's why I was careful to include "nominal" as a qualifier. The reality is that religious groups are supported at the expense of the public, no matter what they do.

So because of this I am very much inspired to pose a simple question, do we need that old separation of church of state, now I am not talking about a super rigid separation, politicians are always going to make decisions on their beliefs, values and ideology, but I mean is - do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that they're religion supports one side or the other? At that level do we need to remember what is ideology and what is spiritual content, is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?

Any time a church or religious leaders become active in politics the church suffers. They have plenty of jobs caring for the sick, poor, weak, downtrodden, etc. So if it doesn't relate to helping the people they are to serve they are out of line.

Notice the Jesus condemned the politically powerful religious leaders the most.

do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that they're religion supports one side or the other?

No, only what their church believes. But it's stupid to have set political beliefs in a church anyway.

is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?

Yes

They are supposedly "non-profits." Which is bunk, because they make plenty of profit, but they're religious which is supposed to mean something.

Let me be clear: I believe an actual non-profit organization that happens to be religious should get the same tax-exemptions as any other non-profit organization. But the Catholic Church (for instance) is not, in and of itself, a non-profit, any more than any other large corporation is.

Being non-profit a church has to file a report to prove it's non-profit-ness every once in a while (I don't remember how often), just because a church brings in money doesn't mean it doesn't all go back out.......sadly at some churches it goes back out in the form of a pastor's salary.....hopefully it goes back out helping the community.

Being non-profit a church has to file a report to prove it's non-profit-ness every once in a while (I don't remember how often), just because a church brings in money doesn't mean it doesn't all go back out.......sadly at some churches it goes back out in the form of a pastor's salary.....hopefully it goes back out helping the community.
What annoys me is that so many churches get to call themselves "non-profits" because they're spending their profits on the salaries for their leaders, which supposedly qualifies as "reinvesting" in the church itself. That's crap. A corporation doesn't get to claim to be non-profit by pouring all profits into the pockets of the CEO.

There are some religious organizations and churches which ARE non-profits, and I don't think they should be treated any differently than secular non-profits. They deserve their status. I just get angry when I see religious organizations getting special status because they're religious.

What annoys me is that so many churches get to call themselves "non-profits" because they're spending their profits on the salaries for their leaders, which supposedly qualifies as "reinvesting" in the church itself. That's crap. A corporation doesn't get to claim to be non-profit by pouring all profits into the pockets of the CEO.

There are some religious organizations and churches which ARE non-profits, and I don't think they should be treated any differently than secular non-profits. They deserve their status. I just get angry when I see religious organizations getting special status because they're religious.

I think we can agree then.....mostly.

I think we can agree then.....mostly.
Most of my frustration on the subject is related to the number of times I see people being suckered in by "religious corporations." I'm sure we've all see such organizations. They're the ones with the massive "churches" with plasma TVs everywhere and piles of merchandise for sale. They're the ones where you're reminded to do the godly thing and buy at least 5 DVDs of the sermons, and the pastor seems to know more about tax law than about God's law.

Most of my frustration on the subject is related to the number of times I see people being suckered in by "religious corporations." I'm sure we've all see such organizations. They're the ones with the massive "churches" with plasma TVs everywhere and piles of merchandise for sale. They're the ones where you're reminded to do the godly thing and buy at least 5 DVDs of the sermons, and the pastor seems to know more about tax law than about God's law.

This is the primary reason evangelist America bugs the crap out of me. Maybe I just have a very skewed view of it, as I've never actually witnessed a sermon firsthand, but everything I see of it leads me to believe that they're fairly ostentatious affairs the are more reminiscent of a corporate motivational event rather than a religion. In my mind, religion should inherently lend itself towards a certain level of asceticism and naturally shun economic gains for the church itself.

Most of my frustration on the subject is related to the number of times I see people being suckered in by "religious corporations." I'm sure we've all see such organizations. They're the ones with the massive "churches" with plasma TVs everywhere and piles of merchandise for sale. They're the ones where you're reminded to do the godly thing and buy at least 5 DVDs of the sermons, and the pastor seems to know more about tax law than about God's law.

ah.

My church spends money on a lot of stuff unrelated to Sunday morning service, like text books for the ESL class we teach and sporting equipment for the after school program, and curriculum for the preschool we run, and such.....I think a lot of people are pissed about it around here, the "churches should pay taxes people" but they don't understand that all of these sub-thingies are non-profit as well, in fact most of them are free/low cost, to help out people who need these services and can't afford them.

ah.

My church spends money on a lot of stuff unrelated to Sunday morning service, like text books for the ESL class we teach and sporting equipment for the after school program, and curriculum for the preschool we run, and such.....I think a lot of people are pissed about it around here, the "churches should pay taxes people" but they don't understand that all of these sub-thingies are non-profit as well, in fact most of them are free/low cost, to help out people who need these services and can't afford them.
See, and that's actually the opposite of my complaint!

Your church is using its resources to provide services and goods for the community. It sounds like your church is not charging the community for these services (i.e. you are giving the sporting equipment to the after school program, not selling the equipment to them). That's an example of charity. You use your money to give something to another person, free of charge.

I have absolutely no problem with an organization getting tax-exemptions for charitable work!

I get bothered when a church gets to write off non-charitable expenses just because they're a church. Like that evangelist who was in the news a while back, who wrote off his personal private jet because it was used to transport him to various places so he could give sermons. Sorry, pal, but you getting to sit your holy bum on leather seats on a private jet so that you can more easily go make money off of people is NOT a charitable expense!

This is the primary reason evangelist America bugs the crap out of me. Maybe I just have a very skewed view of it, as I've never actually witnessed a sermon firsthand, but everything I see of it leads me to believe that they're fairly ostentatious affairs the are more reminiscent of a corporate motivational event rather than a religion.
Agreed. The impression I keep getting from them is "be one of us; the perks are great", which feels very ideologically dubious. On the other hand, though, this is consistent with the general trend of Evangelical Christianity, which by and large treats God Himself as a means to the end of personal fulfilment. That probably irks me even more than the lavish facilities.

This is the primary reason evangelist America bugs the crap out of me. Maybe I just have a very skewed view of it, as I've never actually witnessed a sermon firsthand, but everything I see of it leads me to believe that they're fairly ostentatious affairs the are more reminiscent of a corporate motivational event rather than a religion. In my mind, religion should inherently lend itself towards a certain level of asceticism and naturally shun economic gains for the church itself.

you take issue with the prosperity doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology), I agree.

However, the only way to get on television in the US is to tell people what they want to hear, and prosperity preachers do that.

Isn't religion's intended purpose to spread "Truth", "Law", and "Moral Value", though, rather than what people want to hear? I mean, I'm pretty much an entirely secular individual, but it seems to me if I ever fell into being religious, wealth and fame would be the furthest things from my mind?

Ummm I always thought that it was religions intended purpose to bring one closer to God?

you take issue with the prosperity doctrine, I agree.

However, the only way to get on television in the US is to tell people what they want to hear, and prosperity preachers do that.

Isn't religion's intended purpose to spread "Truth", "Law", and "Moral Value", though, rather than what people want to hear? I mean, I'm pretty much an entirely secular individual, but it seems to me if I ever fell into being religious, wealth and fame would be the furthest things from my mind?

Isn't religion's intended purpose to spread "Truth", "Law", and "Moral Value", though, rather than what people want to hear? I mean, I'm pretty much an entirely secular individual, but it seems to me if I ever fell into being religious, wealth and fame would be the furthest things from my mind?

I am not sure if the TV evangelists who promote prosperity doctrine are following the same God I am......in fact they seem to not use the Bible ever when preaching and sound more like motivational speakers.....motivating you to give them money, they always tie the riches to the tithe and the tithe must come to them.

I am more interested in what type of person I am and how that is affecting the world around me than I am with being rich, but then again I am not a prosperity doctrine person.

Isn't religion's intended purpose to spread "Truth", "Law", and "Moral Value", though, rather than what people want to hear?
Not really. The collective purpose of a Religion is to create a social framework for spiritual ideology. Obviously, different religions establish different kinds of framework and different ideologies espouse different ideas, so this manifests in different ways, but essentially it's all about framing spiritualism in the context of the world in which we live our lives.

I am not sure if the TV evangelists who promote prosperity doctrine are following the same God I am......in fact they seem to not use the Bible ever when preaching and sound more like motivational speakers.....motivating you to give them money, they always tie the riches to the tithe and the tithe must come to them.

I am more interested in what type of person I am and how that is affecting the world around me than I am with being rich, but then again I am not a prosperity doctrine person.

QFT. Once again, Smunkee calls it like it is. :)

First for some background, in my state of Australia there is a big political debate over our public health system, which is plagued by short-staff and general inadequacies, this is also a story replicated mostly over the entire country, and with a federal election in a few weeks times it's become an issue, with the Liberals wanting more private control and Labor more national. There is also a situation in my state over nurses in the north wanting higher wages, and the unions are backing them.

So today I was speaking to my parents, both of whom are practicing and quite devoted Anglicans Christians, and I was told that during a prayer the preacher (who apparently came from the mainland and does multiple churches etc) prayed that the nurses would not get the wage rise because they didn't need it, and that trade unions would but out, from what I was told it bordered on a plug for the Liberals (which apparently offended many people).

So because of this I am very much inspired to pose a simple question, do we need that old separation of church of state, now I am not talking about a super rigid separation, politicians are always going to make decisions on their beliefs, values and ideology, but I mean is - do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that they're religion supports one side or the other? At that level do we need to remember what is ideology and what is spiritual content, is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?

Religion and politics is...shall we say, a very touchy issue. The problem is this - where do you separate one's personal religious views from organized religion? I guess it's one thing if Father Joebob or Pastor Wilhelm says, off the record, that he's voting for Senator Smithers to be re-elected because he agrees with the senator's stance on abortion/euthanasia/the death penalty, whatever those stances are. It's quite another for a congregation or a denomination to come out and support a particular candidate.

It's a little like the issue with school prayer. People are allowed to pray amongst themselves. Organizations cannot lead prayer. That's how the religion-politics divide needs to be made.

Pastor Wilhelm can support a candidate/issue/proposal as Pastor Wilhelm until he's blue in the face. It's when he speaks on behalf of the Thirty-Seventh Baptist Church of Frampinhamper, Utah that it becomes a problem.

Removing one's own religious beliefs from politics is like removing oil from Italian dressing - you could probably do it, but it degrades the quality and is really not worth it. Removing organized religion from politics is like removing a big, waxy chunk of oily grease from Italian dressing - the chunk doesn't need to be there and it hurts the dressing.

Religion is closely tied to ideology and ideology is closely tied to politics. I think it would be acceptable for a religious organization to argue for universal health care by saying they believe we have all been given a common responsibility to show compassion for the poor and sick. Or argue against it by saying they believe we where created with enough compassion in us that charity can provide health care for the poor. But they shouldn't have any real political power, just freedom to say what they believe is best. And any preacher who while preaching argues for a political stance that doesn't have anything to do with the ideology of the religion in question has lost all credibility in my eyes.

About taxes, religious organizations should of course be taxed like any other organization with a similar economy. For example my mom works for a profitable home-help service company owned by a church and it plays by the same rules as any other profitable business, just as it should. The church itself is a non-profit organization as it should be, although it does pay out some salaries I don't see that as a problem as long as the salaries are reasonable. I think the charities ran by the church have their own separate economy that runs under charity rules, or at least they should.

(A lot of elderly Christians living in their own apartments near the church wants to stay there and starting a home-help service was the best way for the church to help them do that.)

Firstly, I think there is a fair amount of confusion here about the difference between Religion (which I understand to be the belief part of it) and the Church, or whatever you want to refer to it as - perhaps the least marginalising term would be School of Thought (which is the organisation propagating and coordinating the spread of these beliefs)

About taxes, religious organizations should of course be taxed like any other organization with a similar economy.

Secondly, the status of a school of thought as a not-for-profit organisation is debatable, and in many cases a NFP organisation is absolved from obligation to adhere to tax. If it is a profit-making organisation such as the Church of Scientology, any income must of course be taxed.

The difficulty lies in defining what constitutes a school of thought whose aim is not profit. If an organisation ploughs all of its turnover back into propagating its message and therefore appears to reap no profit, does this make it an inherently beneficial organisation that should be absolved from tax?

The other problem is that you need to define what exactly is a profit. If an organization makes money and uses it better the building that they work in or pay their employees do they truly make a profit?

OK, before I get off topic, I have to say that separation of church and state is the best way to go (in my humble opinion, of course) because we have such radically different beliefs among different religions that we simply don't need to apply spiritual and supernatural rules to the firmly secular institution known as 'government'.

Now. TV Evangelists. The absolute worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity in America. OMG (hehehe...). Religion should stay out of corporations, because you shouldn't sell spiritual fulfillment. Not that they should be barred from selling it, but as a rule it grates against me to see this happen, since it is giving all of Christendom (yes, Christendom. For some reason I felt like using the word. For clarification, I mean all Christians, if it can be misconstrued otherwise. I don't feel like looking up the definition right now.) a bad name. (I can see it now: someone will indeed say, Christianity has always had a bad name. Please, don't.)

OK, before I get off topic, I have to say that separation of church and state is the best way to go (in my humble opinion, of course) because we have such radically different beliefs among different religions that we simply don't need to apply spiritual and supernatural rules to the firmly secular institution known as 'government'.

Now. TV Evangelists. The absolute worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity in America. OMG (hehehe...). Religion should stay out of corporations, because you shouldn't sell spiritual fulfillment. Not that they should be barred from selling it, but as a rule it grates against me to see this happen, since it is giving all of Christendom (yes, Christendom. For some reason I felt like using the word. For clarification, I mean all Christians, if it can be misconstrued otherwise. I don't feel like looking up the definition right now.) a bad name. (I can see it now: someone will indeed say, Christianity has always had a bad name. Please, don't.)

Christianity has always had a bad name. :D

Couldn't resist.


Anyway, I think Church and State should be as separate as possible. In all history, I can not think of a single case where the union of Church and State has ever helped anybody, but I can think of countless cases where it has caused untold human suffering. Believe what you want religiously, but policy should be based on evidence and rational thought. (Not that it ever is, but hey, I can dream, can't I?)

Indeed, Pirated Corsairs. (by saying 'please don't', I assured the fact that the next poster would indeed say it! Ha! I do understand Nationstaters!) I hate to get off topic, but I think you should change your location to 'Umbar'.

That is very true that no nation has really ever benefited from Church and State ruling together (neither has any religion, for that matter). Religion is a very personal and voluntary decision, and cannot be forced upon you. Reason is the basis for government science, or any other secular institution/concept/ideal, not faith. Faith is the basis of religion.

Anyway, I think Church and State should be as separate as possible. In all history, I can not think of a single case where the union of Church and State has ever helped anybody, but I can think of countless cases where it has caused untold human suffering. Believe what you want religiously, but policy should be based on evidence and rational thought. (Not that it ever is, but hey, I can dream, can't I?)

Early Mesopotamian city-states actually had their resources redistributed through the temple corporations, while the "royalty" took care of all the foreign relations. Religion did infrastructure, "government (in the form of royalty)" did military and border control and it worked well enough.

But...uh...yea, that's probably the only example I can really think of off the top of my head. I just wanted to add some pomposity to the thread, mainly because when do you ever get to use the word "pomposity"? In this thread, that's when!

Early Mesopotamian city-states actually had their resources redistributed through the temple corporations, while the "royalty" took care of all the foreign relations. Religion did infrastructure, "government (in the form of royalty)" did military and border control and it worked well enough.

But...uh...yea, that's probably the only example I can really think of off the top of my head. I just wanted to add some pomposity to the thread, mainly because when do you ever get to use the word "pomposity"? In this thread, that's when!

Interesting, I did not know that! I generally don't know much about early Mesopotamia. I'm more of a classical antiquity/middle ages guy.

Still, though, I think my point pretty much stands. One hit among an uncounted number of misses isn't that impressive.:p

First for some background, in my state of Australia there is a big political debate over our public health system, which is plagued by short-staff and general inadequacies, this is also a story replicated mostly over the entire country, and with a federal election in a few weeks times it's become an issue, with the Liberals wanting more private control and Labor more national. There is also a situation in my state over nurses in the north wanting higher wages, and the unions are backing them.

So today I was speaking to my parents, both of whom are practicing and quite devoted Anglicans Christians, and I was told that during a prayer the preacher (who apparently came from the mainland and does multiple churches etc) prayed that the nurses would not get the wage rise because they didn't need it, and that trade unions would but out, from what I was told it bordered on a plug for the Liberals (which apparently offended many people).

So because of this I am very much inspired to pose a simple question, do we need that old separation of church of state, now I am not talking about a super rigid separation, politicians are always going to make decisions on their beliefs, values and ideology, but I mean is - do religious authorities (leaders of church's etc) have the right to say that they're religion supports one side or the other? At that level do we need to remember what is ideology and what is spiritual content, is it wrong for religious authorities to use that authority to sway politicians to their non-spiritual ideology?

I wish I could say "I AM SO SHOCKED", but I'm not, to be honest.

I am so over the Rudd/Howard debate, because so many people have no clue about their true intents. I am sick of churches, parents and schools telling people what to believe. I am sick of billboards for the Liberal Party that simply say "doing what's right for Australia." What's worse is that they seem to be placed in the less affluent suburbs. (I would like to know why that is...)

Someone I know today said they hoped Rudd would have a heart-attack so Howard could win. When I asked him why, he said "because Rudd's a dickhead". Are we, as a nation, completely fucking retarded... uneducated?

As for religion vs politics, I am in favour of a restraining order, requiring them to stay 10 km away from each other at all times. However, in the same sense, I feel like it is the voters right to know what religion a candidate is. After all, I honestly wouldn't like a Ralien or Scientologist running the country.

I wonder if that makes me a hypocrite.

Now. TV Evangelists. The absolute worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity in America. OMG (hehehe...). Religion should stay out of corporations, because you shouldn't sell spiritual fulfillment. Not that they should be barred from selling it, but as a rule it grates against me to see this happen, since it is giving all of Christendom (yes, Christendom. For some reason I felt like using the word. For clarification, I mean all Christians, if it can be misconstrued otherwise. I don't feel like looking up the definition right now.) a bad name. (I can see it now: someone will indeed say, Christianity has always had a bad name. Please, don't.)

I'm not going to say "Christianity has always had a bad name," but I do feel the need to ask:

Do you honestly believe there has EVER been a time when Christianity was not completely mixed up in politics and business? Because, from my personal study of history, it looks like Christianity has always been more than a little involved in both. Indeed, for centuries the Church was basically the only "corporation" and the largest political power in Europe.

Church and politics have almost always been separate for me.

I grew up attending Methodist church in suburban northeast Ohio. Throughout my 18 years of attendance, I can only count two instances when anything resembling politics entered the sanctuary. Once was a memorial service for the victims of the September Eleventh attacks, and the other time was an admonition from the associate pastor, a veteran of the special forces, to not exult in the war, and to keep all those in harms way in our prayers.

Well, while on that topic Amor Pulchritudo, the other week I had dinner at a restaurant with a bunch of friends from uni (some not), anyways a discussion inevitably started up about politics, anyways this guy I know (Business student) said that he wanted to be a Merchant banker and that if Rudd won the election he would leave the country because he'll screw it up, and he was serious! It seriously frightened me to see him so wrapped up in politics that he thought his way, he also like refused to pay a compulsory Uni fee to the student union until Howard's legislation making it non-compulsory came in. Scary stuff, funny thing is I have known him since college and he always seemed indifferent to politics (part from our debates in economic classes, lol).

Well, while on that topic Amor Pulchritudo, the other week I had dinner at a restaurant with a bunch of friends from uni (some not), anyways a discussion inevitably started up about politics, anyways this guy I know (Business student) said that he wanted to be a Merchant banker and that if Rudd won the election he would leave the country because he'll screw it up, and he was serious! It seriously frightened me to see him so wrapped up in politics that he thought his way, he also like refused to pay a compulsory Uni fee to the student union until Howard's legislation making it non-compulsory came in. Scary stuff, funny thing is I have known him since college and he always seemed indifferent to politics (part from our debates in economic classes, lol).


Who told him Rudd would screw it up? His Dad? That seems to be what's happening... No one is finding out for themselves. And to be honest, it's pretty hard to when they're no real information. There's TV ads designed to brain wash us and even religious groups trying to sway opinion... but WHY?

Someone else I know is very anti-Rudd, yet has little to really say about why Howard is good! "The history of the Liberal party....", "Labor will send us broke..." and "Last time Labor was in..." is all I seem to hear from him! Yet when you question their opinion on Howard's postion regarding the war or nuclear power, they have little to say for themselves.

Then, on the other hand, I saw an old friend who's parents are very pro-unions and pro-Labor, and his opinion was also swayed, but luckily he's an intelligent guy who could give a reason for voting for Rudd. Unfortunately most of his reasoning centred around the flaws of Howard.

I have always thought I was indifferent from politics, and in a sense I still feel I am. While I actively express my opinions, dicuss philosophy, and so on and so forth, in the country we live in, being interested in politics seems futile.

The Liberal supporter mentioned above also says "if my child ever became a politician, I'd feel like I'd failed." Only in Australia....

...

Now. TV Evangelists. The absolute worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity in America...


What about "White Christian Revival"? http://www.kkk.bz/