What does religion have to do with politics anyway?

[sjbouza]

I may get blasted for this, however I am going to ask it. What does religion have to do with politics? I thought that laws and government was based on the Constitution of the United States, not religion. I understand that it is hard to get away from religion, but when has a country ever prospered when one religion ran the country?

Someone once said in another thread that you cant seem to get elected to a governmental office unless you are a "professed Christian". That should have no weight when it comes how you can perform your duties in that office. When it comes to running this country one must put aside their religious beliefs and base their decisions upon the Constitution, not the Bible. We are suppose to be a country of freedoms that were given to us by our forefathers. In their wisdom they didnt want any state to force one religion upon its people. Well, when a president, congressman, etc bases a vote upon their religious beliefs and not the Constitution, then they are forcing their own beliefs upon the rest of us. Is that right? Is that fair to the other people that maybe dont believe in God or whatever? No, I dont believe it is. It isnt a separation. I understand that it is difficult to separate your personal beliefs from how you make decisions in and for you life. However, when you are in a public office and are representing "the people" then you must represent what they want not what you personally believe.

I dont know, I may be way off base here. Does anyone else see my point? I guess what I am trying to say. Please dont get me wrong, I am a Christian and I believe whole heartedly in Jesus and why He died. However, I will make this one statement. Keep religion out of government if you want to keep government out of religion. Would you want the government to dictate what and how you can believe? If the answer is no, then how can one expect for the people to let religion dictate how or what laws are passed? Whether or not the Bible says same sex marriage is right or wrong, that is not the issue. The issue is what does the Constitution say about it? I thought that it said the everyone is created equal and that we all had the same rights no matter who we are. I live here and I would expect that I have the same rights as everyone else no matter what.

[RM260boy]

oh my gosh are you and john cicero twins?
http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=27576#post27576
2 threads on very similar subjects at the same time

[Alecto]

There's no doubt you make sense. BUT, there's people who insist that because the people who started the country were "Christian" (some of them were about as atheist as you were allowed to be in the time, but that's neither here nor there), that we are in fact a Christian country. That because a majority of citizens are Christian, that we SHOULD be a Christian country. And frankly, that's pretty scary (especially when you start to see what their definition of "Christian" really is).
I mean no offense by this, but...you seem very, very idealistic. You're absolutely correct in your analysis of the way things SHOULD be, but...there's a pretty big difference in the way things are and the way they should be.

[sjbouza]

I mean no offense by this, but...you seem very, very idealistic. You're absolutely correct in your analysis of the way things SHOULD be, but...there's a pretty big difference in the way things are and the way they should be.

Oh trust me I take no offense...I know that my statement was very idealistic...however I am not idealistic at all. I see the way things are, I just cant stand it when people try to force their beliefs upon someone (everyone) else. That isnt what this country is about. They sit there and claim that we are a "Christian Nation", but they seem to negate the fact that we are also a "Free Nation". Free to believe and to live what we believe is right for us, as long as it harms no one else.

[Pathfinder]

My grandfather always said these were the two subjects one should never discuss with friends (if you wanted to remain friends). I wonder what he'd say about the state of affairs today.....

BIT OF TRIVIA FOR THE DAY: Thomas Jefferson "wrote" his own Bible, taking those verses he found that defined his particular faith and put them together in what became known as The Jefferson Bible.

It's amazing that more than forty years ago, people were so worried over the possibility of a Catholic being elected President and today one's faith is used as a required litmus test for holding office in this country.

There is a misconception that because the "founding fathers" were of the Christian faith (which is, as someone else alluded to, not entirely the case), we are a Christian nation, founded upon Christian beliefs. The framers of our beloved Constitution were expounding on the views of John Locke, not Jesus Christ when they penned this document. Sure, there are principles that can be pointed to as "Christian", but they were not included as such.

I've watched as good people running for political office have been vilified because they weren't religious enough. Frankly, I don't want anyone elected who listens to and acts upon the wishes of any one special interest group, even one claiming itself to be Christian.

[Alecto]

Sure, there are principles that can be pointed to as "Christian", but they were not included as such.

I'm not sure I"d even agree with that. There are some values that co-incide with some broad values that happen to appear in Christianity, but they're the same ones that happen to appear in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, many Neo-pagan religions, many Native traditions.....don't think I need to go on. There are ZERO direct parallels between the Constition and the Bible. People like to say our laws are based on the Ten Commandments: there ARE NO TEN ANYTHINGS in the Constituion that even closely resemble the Commandments.

It's all just the basic ideas about how people should live that pretty much EVERYONE agrees with on some level.

[u-dog]

I'm not sure I"d even agree with that.
People like to say our laws are based on the Ten Commandments: there ARE NO TEN ANYTHINGS in the Constituion that even closely resemble the Commandments.




I don't know about that Alecto... aren't there ten amendments in the "Bill of Rights" ? "Congress shall make no law respecting..." "Thou Shalt not..."

[dsdrane]

...and I'm no religious or constitutional lawyer (but I feel I experienced some of it vicariously while my then boyfriend slogged his way through law school), but I'm pretty sure that English law (upon which much, if not virtually all) our law is founded is based significantly on Talmudic law, which would bring you back to the Ten Commandments.

Re: Locke vs. Christ, the FFs may have been channeling Locke, but they (like our politicians today) knew they had to tow the Christian line, Washington being a very good example.

So, the religious tradition is there, but to extrapolate from that some sort of theocratic fantasy of the US being a "Christian" country flies in the face of the framers' intention.

Those who know more about this, please feel free to correct and/or add to the above.

[Alecto]

I don't know about that Alecto... aren't there ten amendments in the "Bill of Rights" ? "Congress shall make no law respecting..." "Thou Shalt not..."

Ok, but...let's look at what it's saying. Like, there's ten centimeters in a decimeter (or something...silly US education system and their refusal of metric) but that doesn't really mean the Metric system is inherently "Christian", right? We could argue that TEN is an important number in the society of the founders because they hailed from a Christian society, but...clearly, their intentions were not to form a Christian country. THere is no mention of false gods. No mention of coveting (only stealing, which again, is pretty basic and pretty universal.

The first RIght is almost a FREEDOM from the first Commandment. Honoring the parents REALLY doesn't show up anywhere....

The number itself isn't enough to be an actual parallel. The content is in no way related. (Hence, I don't think it's appropriate to have the ten commandments in a court house IF they refuse to have other religious scriptures too; but that's neither here nor there).

[u-dog]

The Constitution is not an inherently Christian document. It is a document forged to protect as much liberty as possible while promoting as much order as possible.

I said in another thread that I believe that constitution to be fundamentally a Calvinist/Unitarian document in that it is based on two diametrically opposed principals.

1. Human beings are virtuous enough that you can trust them to govern themselves (unitarian)

and

2. Human beings are depraved and you can't trust them as far as you can throw them. (Calvinism)

The result is a brilliant piece of statescraft and political philosophy that has endured for almost 22 decades (multiples of ten... hmmmm... very significant)

dave

[BrentRichards]

Like we don't have enough controversy here ... now U-dog is saying the Constitution was FORGED. Is there also a map to the Templar treasure on the back?

(I am SUCH a trouble-maker)

[nmwolfboy]

So, the religious tradition is there, but to extrapolate from that some sort of theocratic fantasy of the US being a "Christian" country flies in the face of the framers' intention.


Illustrative of this point about our early govenmental leaders is Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli, which reads:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Treaty of Tripoli was unanimously approved by the Senate on June 10, 1797. Historian Morton Borden noted, "What is significant about the Tripoli treaty is…its ready acceptance by the government. Not a word of protest was raised against Article 11 in 1797. . . . Whatever their personal feelings on the question of religious equality for non-Christians in particular states, all concurred that Article 11 comported with the principles of the Constitution."

Some argue that Article 11 does not reflect the views of the founding fathers, basing their argument on a translation of an earlier Arabic version of the treaty which omitted that part. Really, their arguments don't hold water for me, since the version of the treaty presented to the Senate included Article 11, and it was also included in the versions widely published in the newspapers of the day. Most of the arguments against Article 11 demonstrating the church/state separation views of the founding fathers date from an article published in 1930 in The Christian Statesman.

-scott

[dsdrane]

Scott rocks.