It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should people who quote the bible as legitimate political argument be taken seriously?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Should people who quote the bible as a basis for political argument, be taken seriously?

The short answer is no, but for the sake of argument:

When I refer to quoting, it is in regards to: x is evil because bible passage z says so.

The ‘moral issues’, which were so touted as being a cornerstone for the republican party’s absolute majority of government until recently, are not political issues. They are social issues which are only issues because religion says they are (i.e.: gay’s right to marriage).

(I feel it is important to clarify that the current republican mainstream of neo-con talking heads is a relatively recent phenomenon. The same could be said for the Democratic Party as well, albeit with different players)

Using the word ‘moral’, doesn’t allow you to push religious views as policy. In example:

insisting that the definition of marriage is y; y states that gays can not marry; and therefore, gays can not marry, is a pitiful attempt to front a non-religious facet to the argument. This is an insulting attempt to camouflage the true [religious] nature of the argument: “The bible says so”.

If this was a legitimate argument, then the very women pushing it (neo-cons such as Anne Coulter) are going to have to give up that right to vote on it…

…oh wait, it’s not a legitimate argument after all. Of course we change the definitions as we go; it’s called growing up. Or are blacks still not counted as a whole people?

Bigotry bread by religion is bigotry just the same. Why do we allow it to be argued as a matter religious fact and take it seriously? The fact that is was written in an old religious text gives it no bearing on political debate...

The second it becomes clear –although it is often not hidden at all—that a religious text is the basis for a political policys argument, the offending individual(s) should be shuffled out the door and put back on the pulpit.

You want to openly support and encourage bigotry? Fine. But don’t bring your religion into the political realm.

The separation of church and state has recently been walked all over, from the local level to the president himself.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Depends how they quote and what they say, the bible is a vast compendium of pltatitudes, sometimes a good point can be made by quoting it.

Quoting it at a middle east peace conference for example might be a mystake.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The only situaion in which someone should quote the bible in a political scenario is if someone quotes a passage from another holy book.

Seeing as the American Political establishment is often referred to as the "infidels" in the Quran, i don't think that will be happening anytime soon.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
Depends how they quote and what they say, the bible is a vast compendium of pltatitudes, sometimes a good point can be made by quoting it.


Let me refer to my OP:


Originally posted by spines
When I refer to quoting, it is in regards to: x is evil because bible passage z says so.


I am not reffering to quotation in terms of, "To help elaborate on issue x, see passage z." This is, in my opinion, still 'pushing it' in regards to political discussion.

While the ideal would be political policy absent of religious influence (including all aspects of the process; proposal, debate and action), I am not naive enough to believe that religious ideologies never enter the process.

However, to openly push a religious worl-view on a people as policy is a sad truth of the recent past of American politics.


Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
The only situaion in which someone should quote the bible in a political scenario is if someone quotes a passage from another holy book.


I disagree. I would say that in such a situation, that anyone who attempts to seriously use a religious text, bible or otherwise, to influence political policy, should be left out of the policy making process. If you can not follow the rules...


Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Seeing as the American Political establishment is often referred to as the "infidels" in the Quran, i don't think that will be happening anytime soon.


I doubt the Quran states this. America was not even a marking on a map at that time in history.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Well I never thought the bible to be a political inspired book
so I would love to see where those the bible apply to modern politics unless is to call the politicians evil doers


Or to argue the old say of Church belong in government.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Instead of retyping, I will just referance my OP (why make the point twice?):


Originally posted by spines
insisting that the definition of marriage is y; y states that gays can not marry; and therefore, gays can not marry, is a pitiful attempt to front a non-religious facet to the argument. This is an insulting attempt to camouflage the true [religious] nature of the argument: “The bible says so”.


I fail to see how this issue was anything more then, at best, a distraction from real issues. At worst it was hate speech, pandering to the then-crucial christian right; flying under the banner of 'moral/family issues' and played off religious belief and practice.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Yes but most of those type of hate rhetoric as anti-gay movement is taken from the bible as per interpretations.

The bible is like one size fits all, everybody can deduce and take what it fits their best interest in the name of the lord.

I guess you are right on that one, when I saw the op I didn't took into consideration the many issues that are on social status that has been made into a Christian agenda in the pursue of Government legislation.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Yes but most of those type of hate rhetoric as anti-gay movement is taken from the bible as per interpretations.

The bible is like one size fits all, everybody can deduce and take what it fits their best interest in the name of the lord.


This is exactly why political policy driven by religious ideology should not be debated as a legitimate exercise of this countries government.

One size fits all allows anyone to deduce anything they want to from religious text. Already we have seen fundamentalism pandering its hate by way of flexing its collective political muscle.

To see it enter the discussion is bad enough. To allow the law to bend towards a religious worldview was baffling to watch.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The bible is like one size fits all, everybody can deduce and take what it fits their best interest in the name of the lord.


Which is a terrible shame as Fred Phelps and his band of complete and utter "insert bad word" have done

In my opinion religion and politics should be seperated. They just dont go together



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I think that people should keep their religious belifes to themselves. a lot of oxygen and key typing can be saved if they did not try to make someone else belive that their religion is "supeirior."



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Politics and religion are just a bad mix. There's a good reason for the separation of church and state, it's just a shame so many are willing to turn a blind eye at this.

Add the blatant attempt to introduce creationism/intelligent design in the the public classroom. Or the fact that there is a movement to teach "Bible as Literature" in the public school curriculum.

Add to the mix the number of faith-based programs funded by the federal government under the Bush administration.

The line between the seperation of church and state has already been blurred.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I'm not a big fan of mixing politics with religion, but, for better or worse, everyone in this country has a right to express their opinion, no matter how ridiculous that opinion may or may not be to someone else. I can guarantee you that those who quote Biblical passages when making political arguments feel that your arguments are just as crazy as you believe that theirs are. At the end of the day, your opinion is no better or worse than that of anyone else.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
I'm not a big fan of mixing politics with religion, but, for better or worse, everyone in this country has a right to express their opinion, no matter how ridiculous that opinion may or may not be to someone else.


This is true, and I am not saying that people should have their opinion and be allowed to express it. I am, however, saying that those views which are driven by a religious belief should not be considered for political policy, let alone pass as such.


Originally posted by vor78
I can guarantee you that those who quote Biblical passages when making political arguments feel that your arguments are just as crazy as you believe that theirs are.


Yes, but I am not standing up in a church and demanding that they allow gays to marry within their religion (to stick with my OP example). Why should we tolerate it when religion is mixed with our politics?


Originally posted by vor78
At the end of the day, your opinion is no better or worse than that of anyone else.


And at the end of the day , religion still has no place in politics.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spines
 


You are essentially saying that these people have no right to representation in their government. That is very, very wrong, IMO.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 6/11/0808 by spines]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


Agreed over and over again.


Originally posted by maria_stardust
Add to the mix the number of faith-based programs funded by the federal government under the Bush administration.


Indeed. Or simply the fact that he ran on a platform which pushed 'family values' in 2004. Family values = Christian values.


Oh spin, how easily you allow us to circumvent the constitution.

Edit to add:


Originally posted by vor78
You are essentially saying that these people have no right to representation in their government. That is very, very wrong, IMO.


I am essentially saying that these people have no right, under our constitution, to negatively affect the lives of others simply because their set of religious beliefs tells them it's ok.

[edit on 6/11/0808 by spines]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
That's exactly what you're saying we should do, spines. According to you, we should strip these people of the right to have their opinion heard in the political realm simply because their beliefs conflict with your beliefs. That would certainly have a negative effect on their lives, it would seem.

The First amendment of the Constitution does not prohibit the people from electing political leaders who will govern based upon certain beliefs and principles. That would be impossible. It merely prevents the establishment of a state religion and allows people free exercise of their religious beliefs.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
That's exactly what you're saying we should do, spines. According to you, we should strip these people of the right to have their opinion heard in the political realm simply because their beliefs conflict with your beliefs.


They can have their opinions heard, I am saying that if the argument boils down to 'the bible says it is so; therefor it is so', then it has no place in the realm of political policy.

People get away with alot under the banner of religion. Things that would otherwise be absurd, are completely alright in the religios context. This should not be allowed into politics.

My desire for religion to get back out of politics is not an attempt to strip anyone of their right to have an opinion, regardless of how divergant it is from my own. My desire is that this opinion does not affect and push policy which affects the rest of the nation.


Originally posted by vor78
The First amendment of the Constitution does not prohibit the people from electing political leaders who will govern based upon certain beliefs and principles.


It does prohibit people from running the politics of the nation based on religious belief systems. A belief that Party A is better than Party B based on domestic policy, economic policy, etc... is not the same as Party A is better than Party B because their holy book says so.


Originally posted by vor78
It merely prevents the establishment of a state religion and allows people free exercise of their religious beliefs.


And freedom from religion. Freedom to practice comes with the freedom to not have anothers religous beliefs affect your life; especially when it comes in the form of laws.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
What is worst to strip people in politics from using their bias to influence their version and interpretation of religious views or to allow this self righteous appointees to dictate what by law should be the way to worship religion.

To tell the truth this a very dangerous precedent and either way somebody or groups in the population are going to be oppressed.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I always like to point out that the Bible itself was a product of politics.

This collection of documents which we refer to as the Bible is a construct of the Nicene council. The document's contents AND sequence was 'negotiated' between high-level religious leaders. While I will not be the one to declare it as a political document, it is not completely devoid of political significance and impact.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join