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.

 

religion in politics

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Out of curiosity, How many people feel that a presidence religious practices are an important factor.

Personaly I feel that Bush's very vochal beliefs are a big negitive.

Kerry seems to be fairly quiet about his Catholisism.

And honestly the only thing I like about Nader is that I have no idea what religion he is.

Whould you vote for.. or not vote for somone just becasue they are a

Hinduist
Pagan (any of the number of eclectic mixes, egyptian, Druid, Wiccan, etc..)
Buddist
Shintoist
Agnostic
Muslim
Jewish
Christian
Satanist
...etc


[edit on 16-8-2004 by wraith30]




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I feel that any president who strongly espouses ANY religion is one that I won't vote for (including any Wiccan president who just might show up.)

Too often, this turns into a religious agenda and frankly we need to keep religion and politics separate. If anything, it tends to be a point of unbalance.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
OK, let's cut the # here. Politics is religion.

1) There will never be any seperation of religion and politics, and there are no laws that make it so.

2) The majority of people in America are religious, so it stands to reason that it would shape and/or affect our culture and policy.

Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
OK, let's cut the # here. Politics is religion.

1) There will never be any seperation of religion and politics, and there are no laws that make it so.

2) The majority of people in America are religious, so it stands to reason that it would shape and/or affect our culture and policy.

Simple as that.



Shape and affect it,yes.. but do you think it defines it?

I would love it if there was a way to force religion out of politics.. some law.. however once you make one law it has a bit of a domino effect.

But there are the occasional ruleings.. the removal of the 10 commandments from the courthouse, which still give me the occasional glimmer of hope for our country.

Wraith



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
America was founded on Religious freedom. Not freedom from Religion. A man who is not religious does not have a moral code for him to judge right from wrong. All laws were derived from Religion. You may remove the ten commandments from a courthouse, but you can-not remove the ten commands from the law itself. Look at the laws in our country. You will find the ten commandments are the basis for them. I find it funny that people want to claim the founding fathers wanted to keep Religion out of the government, but yet they opened every session with prayer, there was a minister to congress and ensured that "in God we trust" was place on our currency. From reading the Federalist Papers, I tend to believe that seperation from church and state means that there will be no "Church of the United States" like the "Church of England." The United States will not offically adopt a state religion.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
America was founded on Religious freedom. Not freedom from Religion. A man who is not religious does not have a moral code for him to judge right from wrong. All laws were derived from Religion. You may remove the ten commandments from a courthouse, but you can-not remove the ten commands from the law itself. Look at the laws in our country. You will find the ten commandments are the basis for them. I find it funny that people want to claim the founding fathers wanted to keep Religion out of the government, but yet they opened every session with prayer, there was a minister to congress and ensured that "in God we trust" was place on our currency. From reading the Federalist Papers, I tend to believe that seperation from church and state means that there will be no "Church of the United States" like the "Church of England." The United States will not offically adopt a state religion.


What it says is that the government shall make no law governing the establishment of religion.

There is no doubt that the foundingfatehrs were all religious men. Trying to interpret what they "Ment" is a bit dangerous. Considering the time period do youthink they would have made that statement in the constitution if somone had said, "Does that mean that I have the right to worship Satan?" Of course they would not have becasue that was unthinkable it was not even a posibility.

As for the Christians ten commandments, they are not the basis for our laws any more than Buddist philosophy, Muslim, Hindu, or any number of the old religions are. All of these religions have an innate leaning to several inherant truths to civilized behavior.

Just becasue a Buddhist believs that theft is wrong or that killing is wrong does that mean that his beliefs stem from the 10 commandments?

As for looking at the Laws of our country I will in fact NOT fond the ten commandments in them. I will find half of them, the same half that are aheard to by almost all established religion who agree on a basic tennent of behavior.

So, here is a question, are the laws a reflection of religion? Or is part of religion simply a way of propigating inherant rules that are understood as right?

Wraith



[edit on 16-8-2004 by wraith30]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
A man who is not religious does not have a moral code for him to judge right from wrong.


that is absurd. you don't need to be religious to have a conscience. it is something that some people are raised with and some people develope on their own.

a man who is not religous simply may not have the same moral code as a man who is, and who is to say who's right? i think the controversy is the bias that many religous people have, they believe that they are right, when they are possibly just closed minded.

[edit on 16-8-2004 by teenagehousewife]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
A man who is not religious does not have a moral code for him to judge right from wrong.


So if an Aithiest cannot judge right from wrong then an aithiest cannot be considered to stand trial for crimes he may commit?

How bout a woman who is not religious?

Wraith



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wraith30
Whould you vote for.. or not vote for somone just becasue they are a

Hinduist
Pagan (any of the number of eclectic mixes, egyptian, Druid, Wiccan, etc..)
Buddist
Shintoist
Agnostic
Muslim
Jewish
Christian
Satanist
...etc


I would humbly submit that if a politician ever admitted they were a Satanist, they'd deserve our undying support as the first honest politican in history.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT


I would humbly submit that if a politician ever admitted they were a Satanist, they'd deserve our undying support as the first honest politican in history.


See, now that was funny.

Wraith



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join