The Dangers of Religion as a Political Ideology

While nothing new to be sure, religion in politics is a dark part of our collective great experiment. I have been seeing a lot of fear mongering threads around the boards lately trying to sow fear of Muslim Sharia Law in our government.

To the rational this idea is of course pure idiocy, as we have in our bill of rights protections against such extreme forms of law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In fact altogether Amendments IV through VIII give a pretty comprehensive protection against all forms of Religious law. I don’t know why people consistently try and make people afraid of something that is not going to happen.

But it had gotten me thinking, while these people cower about the idea of Sharia Law being implemented in our government, everyone ignores the Christian politicians who openly and without any hesitation advocate Christian ideology as part of their platform.

Let us take for an example Christine O’Donnell:

Strongly believes in protecting the sanctity of life at ALL stages.

Actually if you believe this lie, I have some land I would like to sell you.

Frankly and honestly folks, life isn’t sacred. If it were, we certainly wouldn’t send our children off to die in wars, nor would we have the death penalty for our worst criminals. The Anti Abortion debate boils down to simply one group of people wanting to legislate morality. Legislating morality is not liberty. Telling a woman what to do with her own body is in my opinion a horrible thing to do. While many people differ on the argument of pro life or pro choice my opinion is that it’s up to the individual. If you are one of those people that can’t fathom the idea of an abortion, well, that is your choice and I understand. But please, don’t force your choice on others.

Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family and freedom and will fight to defend those values. Will always fight for maximum choice for parents about where to educate their kids, including private, parochial and charter schools or in the home.

Our country was founded on the principals of Liberty. Not faith, and not family. For Pete’s sake Alexander Hamilton frequented a prostitute and Thomas Jefferson knocked up one of his slaves. Well, now that I think about it, I guess GOP politicians have a point when they talk about family values one day, then get caught in an affair the next. So I guess that dissing a conservative family values politician for having an affair is kinda hypocritical of us.

Our country was founded with the idea of separation of church and state, as the church is a detrimental influence on government. Or founding fathers knew this. A prime example of this is of course the Salem Witch Trials. This is an example of the Christian version of Sharia Law in action. Thankfully when our country was founded the framers of the Constitution figured out to keep religion out of our politics.

And since that time it has tried to creep itself back in. Today we face yet another threat by religion in our politics, it’s the religious brainwashing by our politicians. Most of them forget Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:

ARTICLE 11.

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 tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.

We are NOT nor have we ever been a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with liberty for the individual to worship as they so choose. I think it’s fine that a politician has a faith. I don’t think that it should be a requirement that the faith be Christian. Fact, according to the Constitution, it’s not.

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But candidates today want to show their constituents how pious they are. How religious they are, and for some weird reason it’s a source of fascination and speculation, especially when it comes to our current POTUS Obama.

Why do we insist on electing people of fundamentalist values of any religion? Doesn’t this go against what the true values of this government is supposed to be about? Religion and politics are seriously bad bedfellows. I believe it’s this terrible paring of religion and politics that is a large part of the severe anti-Islamic rhetoric going around the nation. This xenophobia and bigotry can be directly traced back to religious leaders who start this propaganda campaign against who they feel are the religion’s enemies.

Robertson: "Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination"

On the June 12 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, following a report on Muslims in Minneapolis seeking religious accommodations at school and work, host Pat Robertson stated, "Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law." He characterized the American Muslim community as "Islam light" and went on to say Muslims "want to take over and we want to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth."

As you can see, things like this get passed around and the people that like to eat up this propaganda start spreading it about. ATS has a slew of threads denouncing Islam itself as some horrid religion devoid of any redeeming qualities.

As you can plainly see, religion has no business in politics, just as politics has no business in religion. They are two things that should never come together. It is fine to have a faith, if that faith is something that you hold dear, that is absolutely fine. But when you mix politics in with it, it becomes poison. Even in small doses, that mixture can and does kill.

reply to post by whatukno


Religion has no place in politics due to the inherent lack of tolerance but it is not exclusively responsible.

There is a lack of quality leadership without bigotry, ignorance, and exclusion of others.

While certainly some religions are completely passive, benign, and innocent there is lot of hypocrisy.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Ideology : Political Ideology

Many political parties base their political action and program on an ideology.

In social studies, a Political Ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.

A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used.

Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1. Goals: how society should work (or be arranged).
2. Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

The problem is that complete, blind, and ignorance through following without questioning leads to abuses.

Snake Handlers at Jolo, West Virginia


What is Sharia Law of Islam and the Mulsim?


When it comes to political ideology and the "left-wing" verses "right-wing" no other organization has more hypocrisy than religion, through leadership, to practices, to dogmatic beliefs that one group is better than another.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a413f6e7db6.jpg[/atsimg]

It is not just West verses East, nor is it one ideology over another, it is the wars they provoke.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff58fa70a51e.jpg[/atsimg]

It just seems that if people believe they are doing the right thing they have the opinion they are the only ones right, and all others are wrong, false, or evil, it really does not matter if we're discussing Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religious group, just like all organizations they have the ability, desire, and or motivation which leads to extremism.

Usually though it is one person, or one belief system, or even an entire country which leads people astray.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Sun Myung Moon

Sun Myung Moon (born February 25, 1920) is the Korean founder and leader of the worldwide Unification Church. He is also the founder of many other organizations and projects.

One of the best-known of these is News World Communications, an international media conglomerate which publishes The Washington Times and other newspapers.

He is famous for holding blessing ceremonies, often referred to as "mass weddings".

Moon has said, and it is generally believed by Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission.

He has been among the most controversial modern religious leaders, both for his religious beliefs and for his social and political activism.

And it leads to cult practices.

The Unification Church part 1 of 6


The Unification Church part 2 of 6


The Unification Church part 3 of 6


The Unification Church part 4 of 6


The Unification Church part 5 of 6


The Unification Church part 6 of 6


The problem inherently comes not from the religion itself necessarily, but from someone with an insane plane, an idiotic dream, or a complete lack of morals, ethics, and or a sense of right and wrong, without them being completely warped.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fbb3e453e96a.jpg[/atsimg]

And they find their way to the top of the heaps and lead the innocent followers like lambs before a slaughter.

These people are wolves in sheep's clothing, shepherds who devour their flock, leading those people into a trap.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Jim Jones

James Warren "Jim" Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, which is best known for the November 18, 1978 death of more than 900 Temple members in Jonestown, Guyana along with the deaths of five other people at a nearby airstrip and in Georgetown, Guyana.

Jones was born in Indiana and started the Temple in that state in the 1950s. Jones and the Temple later moved to California, and both gained notoriety with the move of the Temple's headquarters to San Francisco in the mid-1970s.

The greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the events of September 11, 2001, the tragedy at Guyana also ranks among the largest mass murders/mass suicides in history.

One of those who died at the nearby airstrip was Leo Ryan, who became the only Congressman murdered in the line of duty in the history of the United States.

Or leads to insanity through self-destruction.

Pt. 1 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 2 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 3 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 4 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 5 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 6 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 7 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 8 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


Pt. 9 - Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple


It is these wolves, these predators, who find innocent sheep, recruiting them, or find other like-minded people and turn them into insane followers through murderous practices, making our hearts go out to the victims and families.

None other is in my estimation worse one who would teach chaos, disorder, and racist tendencies laced with insanity.

And he drove his people to practice something that only few understood, followed, and or believed called Kelter Skelter.

Quote from : Wikipedia Charles Manson

Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.

He was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction.

He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's object.

Manson is associated with "Helter Skelter", a term he took from the song Helter Skelter, written and recorded by the Beatles.

Manson misconstrued the lyrics of the song to be about an apocalyptic race war he believed the murders were intended to precipitate.

From the beginning of his notoriety, this connection with rock music linked him with a pop culture in which he ultimately became an emblem of insanity, violence, and the macabre.

The term was later used by Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi as the title of the book he wrote about the Manson murders.

At the time the Family began to form, Manson was an unemployed ex-convict who had spent half of his life in correctional institutions for a variety of offenses.

In the period of time before the murders, he was a singer-songwriter on the fringe of the Los Angeles music industry, chiefly through a chance association with Dennis Wilson, a member of The Beach Boys.

After Manson was charged with the crimes he was later convicted of, recordings of songs written and performed by him were released commercially.

Artists including Guns N' Roses and Marilyn Manson have covered his songs in the decades since.

Manson's death sentence was automatically commuted to life imprisonment when a 1972 decision by the Supreme Court of California temporarily eliminated the state's death penalty.

California's eventual reestablishment of capital punishment did not affect Manson, who is an inmate currently housed at Corcoran State Prison.

And people committed atrocities in his name, remain devoted through ignorance, and or die on his behalf.

Charles Manson | Daniels Interview | 1/6


Charles Manson | Daniels Interview | 2/6


Charles Manson | Daniels Interview | 3/6


Charles Manson | Daniels Interview |4/6


Charles Manson | Daniels Interview | 5/6


Charles Manson | Daniels Interview | 6/6


It is because of people's inherent fear, lack of ability to lead themselves, and looking to others for guidance.

The Science of Fear: Why We Fear the Things We Shouldn't--and Put Ourselves in Greater Danger

Publishers Weekly : Amazon Review :

Gardner, a columnist and senior writer for the Ottawa Citizen, is both matter-of-fact and entertaining in this look at fear and how it shapes our lives.

Although we are capable of reason, says Gardner, we often rely instead on intuitive snap judgments.

We also assume instinctively, but incorrectly, that if examples of something can be recalled easily, that thing must be common.

And what is more memorable than headlines and news programs blaring horrible crimes and diseases, plane crashes and terrorist attacks?

In fact, such events are rare, but their media omnipresence activates a gut-level fear response that is out of proportion to the likelihood of our going through such an event.

It doesn't help that scientific data and statistics are often misunderstood and misused and that our risk assessment is influenced less by the facts than by how others respond.

Gardner's vivid, direct style, backed up by clear examples and solid data from science and psychology, brings a breath of fresh air and common sense to an emotional topic.

(June)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.

All rights reserved.

Excellent thread, whatukno, come on by and share your thoughts on my thread.

Sheepdogs vs. Wolves : Law Enforcement, Predators and Prey, and Love or Hate Cops...

This will make an excellent start off for my thread leading towards the discussion of wolves walking on two legs.

reply to post by whatukno

As you can plainly see, religion has no business in politics, just as politics has no business in religion. They are two things that should never come together. It is fine to have a faith, if that faith is something that you hold dear, that is absolutely fine. But when you mix politics in with it, it becomes poison. Even in small doses, that mixture can and does kill.

With the exception of this last statement from your O.P. that I am quoting, I pretty much agree with your sentiments. I suppose, regarding your last statement, I am just quibbling and it is a matter of semantics, but I would argue that politics infest every aspect of life, including religion, and as such, I am not clear why you think politics can be separated from religion.

Further, even though there is the Establishment Clause prohibiting Congress from making any laws regarding the establishment of a religion, there is the matter of 501c3's foisted upon religious organization by the IRS. The IRS seems to think they have the sole authority to determine what is and what is not a "legitimate" religion, and will insist that all "legitimate" religions must obtain a 501c3 in order to gain "tax exempt" status. Further complicating this relationship between Congress and religious institutions is a regulation regarding 501c3's that prohibits pastors or priests from making political endorsements at the pulpit.

If a church is required by some law passed by Congress to obtain a 501c3 in order to be viewed "legitimate" by the federal government, this seems to me to be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, regarding the Establishment Clause. The idea that Congress can dictate when and where a pastor or priest can or cannot make political endorsements is politics, and it is politics being waged by Congress preventing churches from using their influence as political endorsement. The 1st Amendment is not a prohibition on the people, or churches, it is a prohibition placed upon Congress regarding the passage of laws that would abridge certain rights.

Personally I believe churches should not be applying for "tax exempt" status with the federal government at all, which is why I suspect I am only just quibbling with your last remark, as I suspect that is what you mean by those words, and to be sure, I feel the entitlement to 501c3 status granted churches is an unholy alliance between church and state. It is an alliance, however, that does exist, and for that reason, your arguments of separation of church and state become rather moot.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Religion has no place in politics due to the inherent lack of tolerance but it is not exclusively responsible.

There is a lack of quality leadership without bigotry, ignorance, and exclusion of others.

While certainly some religions are completely passive, benign, and innocent there is lot of hypocrisy.

Yes I agree and you also provided some excellent examples of this.

The problem is that complete, blind, and ignorance through following without questioning leads to abuses.

Exactly, faith is all good if that is what you are into, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism whatever, it's fine to have a faith. But I agree, when someone is completely blinded by that faith, things get dangerous.

When it comes to political ideology and the "left-wing" verses "right-wing" no other organization has more hypocrisy than religion, through leadership, to practices, to dogmatic beliefs that one group is better than another.

Right, and this is why I think the voting public should be highly skeptical about candidates who run on moral values and faith. While I can't stress enough how having faith is by itself not a problem, it's when that faith makes your decisions for you that it in my opinion becomes an issue.

It is not just West verses East, nor is it one ideology over another, it is the wars they provoke.

Again, agreed, wars caused by faith are again in my opinion some of the most bloody and evil engagements that a society can engage in, especially when the fundamental tenants of that faith are peace and brotherhood, wars over faith are inherently hypocritical.

Great post SKL I cannot disagree with a thing you presented.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

With the exception of this last statement from your O.P. that I am quoting, I pretty much agree with your sentiments. I suppose, regarding your last statement, I am just quibbling and it is a matter of semantics, but I would argue that politics infest every aspect of life, including religion, and as such, I am not clear why you think politics can be separated from religion.

Because I believe that politics and religion are like bleach and ammonia. Perfectly fine separately, but mix the two and you get a toxic cloud that can do serious harm.

I can see where you would say that politics infests every aspect of life, but I think that religion is more of a culprit at injecting itself into politics than the other way around.

Personally I believe churches should not be applying for "tax exempt" status with the federal government at all, which is why I suspect I am only just quibbling with your last remark, as I suspect that is what you mean by those words, and to be sure, I feel the entitlement to 501c3 status granted churches is an unholy alliance between church and state. It is an alliance, however, that does exist, and for that reason, your arguments of separation of church and state become rather moot.

While I am not as familiar as you appear to be as far as tax law and religious institutions go, I would imagine the need for the specific tax exempt status is because the idea that religions are not directly represented in our government (well, they shouldn't be anyway) there is no taxation because of that lack of representation. However, saying that, I can also understand the need for the IRS to require a specific criteria in order to be allowed to function under tax exemption. Otherwise in all reality, without those regulations and stipulations, everyone could just claim they were a religious institution and therefore would be exempt from taxation.

And on the other hand, I can see the need for it because if churches were taxed, they would demand direct representation in our government, which I believe would be a terrible thing. I believe that it would bring about what people currently fear with Muslim places of worship. Which is religious laws being passed. Things like this have been shown to not work well in society. Specifically the Salem Witch Trials as an example where religious law caused the death of many many people.

I appreciate your input JPZ, I like the way this thread is going. I appreciate the intellectual discourse and honest feedback, I think that this is how threads should be on this forum.

Originally posted by whatukno

Yes I agree and you also provided some excellent examples of this.

Thank you.

It is not just these extreme examples I portrayed but the entirety of organized religion which we must examine.

I will give you a few examples.

I have been through many churches in my lifetime as well as heard many troubling stories.

When a parishioner or church deacon is caught in a lie or perhaps infidelity it is often overlooked.

Or because they asked forgiveness.

Yet they fall back into the repetitive pattern of negative behavior.

After a while it becomes a song and dance routine and nothing more but complete hypocrisy.

Two prime examples of the most ludicrous behavior?

Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Church Lady With Jim and Tammy Faye Baker


The abuses and outrageous theft of money, scandals, and ludicrous behavior was abhorrent.

This is a prime example of a "political" ideology gone wrong.

Because it was not just a church but televised fraud and charlatanism.

Let us also not forget the man of complete hypocrisy, Jimmy Swaggart.

I HAVE SINNED


You know I could forgive a white lie or even an ommission of information.

But a hooker?

Not buying it.

It's not a sin, it is in fact an abuse of power, in religion.

It's not like he tripped and fell in between her legs now is it?

Originally posted by whatukno
Exactly, faith is all good if that is what you are into, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism whatever, it's fine to have a faith. But I agree, when someone is completely blinded by that faith, things get dangerous.

It is not so much letting faith guide you blindly but a complete lack of common sense.

No matter the religion.

Common sense rules.

Of course if there is common sense to begin with.

Originally posted by whatukno
Right, and this is why I think the voting public should be highly skeptical about candidates who run on moral values and faith. While I can't stress enough how having faith is by itself not a problem, it's when that faith makes your decisions for you that it in my opinion becomes an issue.

It might not be a lack of morals but those claiming morality who are amoral.

Lacking any sort of morals whatsoever and hiding in the guise of moral beliefs.

This is why I see Secret Societies and politics as complete hypocrisy when operating together.

They claim moral beliefs yet practice a complete lack of them.

Originally posted by whatukno
Again, agreed, wars caused by faith are again in my opinion some of the most bloody and evil engagements that a society can engage in, especially when the fundamental tenants of that faith are peace and brotherhood, wars over faith are inherently hypocritical.

Well, I see the current nonsense, and it is that, nonsense, between Christianity and Islam as nothing but a continuation of the wars which have been going on for centuries, nothing more than the Crusades in modern form, complete stupidity of both parties, as well as the people they lead astray, suck dry monetarily, and provide "security" for because it is nothing but an illusion of security to lose individuality for a sense of belonging which only guarantees a few things.

Becoming cannon fodder.

Being drained of finances.

And dead soldiers on both sides of the battlefield.

Population control.

Originally posted by whatukno
Great post SKL I cannot disagree with a thing you presented.

I am sure there is much more to go into sometime with more emphasis.

While I do not see Islam beliefs as my own neither do I wholly subcribe to Christianity.

I've studied many religions and I have taken the best from each and follow it myself.

Alone.

Come by and check out these threads which are religion based of mine.

Guess What I Got For Christmas? The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran

...and...

Sodom and Gomorrah : You Probably Have No Clue What "God" Really Meant...

...and...

Yemen : The Underwear Bomber, Detroit, and Closing Guantanamo

I know we've been here before, but it is, again, relevant to the topic. You and others often quote the Treaty of Tripoli as proof positive the country was not founded with Christian principles and the founders were not guided by their faith. However, there is far more evidence to the contrary. Again, I offer this statement, which begins the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, 13 years before the Treaty of Tripoli.

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America...

www.earlyamerica.com...

I suspect the wording of the Tripoli document was utilized solely to avoid offending the Muslim parties to the treaty, rather than as a binding statement of the policies of the U.S.

I find it interesting that you and others only present quotes and videos of those considered to be "right wing", as examples of people attempting to inject religion into politics. There are may on the "left" who do the same, but that seems to be acceptable, because they are not called out on it.

Just today, at the "One Nation Rally":

11:00 am EDT
Pre-Rally: Interfaith Service
Location: Steps of the Lincoln Memorial
Clergy and lay leadership representing a cross section of faiths read from their respective sacred texts related to jobs, justice and education. The Interfaith Service closes with a Native American ceremony.

www.onenationworkingtogether.org...

and Al Sharpton, in his speech at the same rally, was cheered loudly when he declared this to be "One Nation, Under God".

What about this man and his blending of politics and religion?

And this one?

And let's not forget...

Oh look, even Nancy Pelosi says "She Has a Duty to Pursue Policies in Keeping With The Values of Jesus, 'The Word Made Flesh' "

www.cnsnews.com...

Though I agree Sharia Law will not become accepted in American society, your assertion that the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause will prevent Sharia Law, is flawed. Although The UK is supposedly protected by Article 3 of the European Human Rights Act, which states "No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment",

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

While all aspects of Sharia Law and its punishments do not seem to have been "adopted", it is near impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Finally, as I stated in the other thread, your reference to the "No Religious Test" quotation. In addition to religion not being a qualification for Office, this must also include that religion not be a disqualifying characteristic of a candidate. If not, the statement is completely without merit.

Besides, the majority of Americans are intelligent enough to differentiate between fanaticism and positive religiously based moral values. I have yet to see any real clear and present "danger" of religious extremism in America politics.

reply to post by WTFover


To be perfectly frank, it is my opinion that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have done more to undermine the work of Martin Luther King Jr. than anything I can think of off the top of my head. These two overtly racist individuals champion to actually hold back African Americans instead of championing for equality. This is a good example of what I am talking about in this thread and I thank you for bringing it up.

Oh look, even Nancy Pelosi says "She Has a Duty to Pursue Policies in Keeping With The Values of Jesus, 'The Word Made Flesh' "

Again, this is a good point to and does go to what I am talking about. It is my opinion that our elected representatives have a duty to pursue policies in keeping with the will and values of the American people that they represent, and not to bring their religion into the mix.

Now as far as your source goes to show that Sharia Law has been adopted in the United Kingdom, I have to say wait a minute here. Last time I checked, the United Kingdom is not the United States now is it?

And shouldn't the point really be that in order to truly protect the United States against any form of religious law the people must be wary of any political figure that wants to employ their religious ideology as a framework for how they will govern?

Though I agree Sharia Law will not become accepted in American society, your assertion that the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause will prevent Sharia Law, is flawed. Although The UK is supposedly protected by Article 3 of the European Human Rights Act, which states "No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment",

reply to post by WTFover

I'm not trying to take this thread off topic but this point about 'sharia law in the UK' needs to be addressed.

“Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain,” claims a Sunday newspaper. The Government has “quietly sanctioned” powers for sharia judges to rule on divorce case, its report insists.
“Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain,” claims a Sunday newspaper. The Government has “quietly sanctioned” powers for sharia judges to rule on divorce case, its report insists.

The truth is much more prosaic. The report produces no evidence to suggest that the Government has sanctioned any powers for sharia judges at all, quietly or otherwise. And a sharia court in Britain has no power to grant a divorce that is valid in English law.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The 'court' is actually an arbitration panel under the Arbitation Act 1996, and in no way supercede UK law. Other religions also operate arbitration and mediation panels under the 96 act, the idea being to keep some civil cases out of the Magistrates courts to allow more time to proscecute other, more serious offences, like speeding fines and non payment of the television licensce.

reply to post by whatukno


really? of all the slavery and crusades you choose to present a video of gw bush and televangelists and end with degrading a quote about the threat of islam as a political idealogy?

i'm confused. are you not worried about islam's threat to politics as well or just billy graham's?

reply to post by snusfanatic

really? of all the slavery and crusades you choose to present a video of gw bush and televangelists and end with degrading a quote about the threat of islam as a political idealogy?

I would rather stick to more recent things that have happened instead of the Crusades or Slavery.

i'm confused. are you not worried about islam's threat to politics as well or just billy graham's?

I would have to say my concern is proportional. Obviously Muslims are a small minority in this country and so the threat is not as prevalent, especially as far as their influence on our government is concerned. I myself would speak out against people who use their Islamic faith to influence their policies in government just as I speak out against Christians who do have a stranglehold on our government and the people who are supposed to represent us all.

reply to post by whatukno


One of the best posts I've ever seen on ATS

Religion and Politics are unfortunately very similar and that's why they need to be kept apart at all costs. Both already present dangers on their own, the danger of political and religious extremism. The last thing we need is for them to combine and yet we've seen that despite the Separation of Church and state religion and politics often combine.

One of the truly odd things, to me at least, is that Christians are often Conservatives, despite Jesus's very liberal Turn the Other Cheek - Water into Wine lifestyle. I mean Jesus went around giving out miracles for free, sounds a bit like socialized medicine... and yet Conservative Christians will fight tooth and nail against the Government giving free handouts to ANYONE. I also hate that politicians also almost HAVE to be religious here in the USA in order to get elected... Its so odd that in order to become President you are almost mandated to believe in a magical sky being and if you profess belief in a different magic sky being from most voters they will assume you're some kind of subversive...

The other thing that religion mixing with politics does is breeds hate, for gays, and as you state in your OP, for people who are pro-choice. Anti-gay sentiment and support for discriminating against gays by not allowing them equal rights goes hand in hand with primitive religious attitudes. The fact that these people think their ancient book of myth gives them the right to deny other people their rights is absurd...

We need to keep religion and politics separate

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by WTFover

 

To be perfectly frank, it is my opinion that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have done more to undermine the work of Martin Luther King Jr. than anything I can think of off the top of my head. These two overtly racist individuals champion to actually hold back African Americans instead of championing for equality.

I am perfectly aligned with those statements. And, like the overwhelming majority of televangelists, I believe them to be using religion only as a means to achieve wealth and power.

It is my opinion that our elected representatives have a duty to pursue policies in keeping with the will and values of the American people that they represent...

I could not agree more. It is absolutely a necessity that they reject their personal ideals, religious or secular, and govern according to the wishes of their constituents.

...and not to bring their religion into the mix.

My exception to this is, if voters would closely compare a candidate's actions to his claims of religious grounding, it would be a pretty accurate barometer to gauge his/her proclivity for corruption and honesty. I know that is a big if, but those who truly possess beliefs of religious principles are pretty recognizable and those who falsely claim religious values stand out like foreign objects in punch bowls. (Will that pass T & Cs?)

Now as far as your source goes to show that Sharia Law has been adopted in the United Kingdom, I have to say wait a minute here. Last time I checked, the United Kingdom is not the United States now is it?

I agree Sharia Law will not get a foothold here, just not for the same reason you gave.

And shouldn't the point really be that in order to truly protect the United States against any form of religious law the people must be wary of any political figure that wants to employ their religious ideology as a framework for how they will govern?

Wary? Without question! As I stated above, any claims of religious convictions must be examined to determine the true motivations. Jackson and Sharpton are excellent examples of the simplicity of such examinations.

But, in no way do I mean to suggest the absence of claims of religious values precludes a candidate's eligibility or qualification for office.

reply to post by joewalker


I didn't mean to insinuate that The UK has already submitted power to Sharia Law or even Jewish Law. Just that a Pandora's Box of sorts has been opened.

The End of One Law For All?

And, of course I only know what I have read and have no personal understanding of the situation in the UK.

reply to post by WTFover


Hi WTF, apologies if my original reply seemed terse; it certainly wasn’t intended to be. In my defence, I’d not been awake long and the caffine had yet to hit.

The report you link to is interesting as the re-run of the radio programme it is advertising was presented by the same person, Joshua Rozenberg, who wrote the OP piece I linked to. What your link doesn’t say is that the BBC had to issue a ‘clarification note’ after the original broadcast due to several of the claims being false.

Have we opened Pandora’s Box ? Not sure tbh.
Alternative Dispute Resolution has been a part of both our Legal systems for a long time. Personally, I’m not sure I’m that bothered if private citizens wish to come to an understanding outside court on some civil cases, as long as the process is fair and any outcome is within our Countries law.

The OP had a great line which I would like to 2nd:” religion has no business in politics, just as politics has no business in religion”.
How did you feel about Justice of the Supreme Court Scalia starting a dissenting opinion with a quote from the Talmud?

reply to post by WTFover


Religion can be used as mediation in civil cases in the United Kingdom. Instead of two parties being dragged through the Courts, let's say in a divorce, a means of meditation can be used to prevent a Court unilateral ruling in one favour.

It is nothing sinister. Saves a great deal of time and effort (plus money, too). However, in criminal cases, religious law cannot be used as a part of a defense or prosecution.

I don't normally like talking about this sort of stuff online, but this thread is a good'un.

If your politics are sound, you do not need a religion to be involved for your ideas to gain support. If your politics are built upon 'pillars of salt and sand', then you will need support from a religious source to 'paper over' the cracks in your sophistries.

In the same fashion, if your religion is unsound or unhealthy, you will need politics to safeguard it from rational and sensible 'interference'. If your religion is sound and healthy - political input just isn't needed.

How often do we see 'sound' political activities? How often do we see 'sound & healthy' religions?

Get my drift?

The Rev.

reply to post by infinite


What I see is that accepting decisions of a Sharia Court, as binding within the established judicial system, required actions veering away from the previously legislated and established system. I only meant to suggest that The UK is perhaps a half step farther along the pathway to accepting other aspects of Sharia, than The US. And, it was offered in response to WUK using our "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause as a barrier to allowing the same to happen here.

Originally posted by joewalker
How did you feel about Justice of the Supreme Court Scalia starting a dissenting opinion with a quote from the Talmud?

I must humbly admit I had no knowledge of the case, but did read an interesting short examination of it here. Certainly, Scalia's motivation for the quote is unclear, if it is over-scrutinized. But, personally, I can appreciate his use of the quote as an analogy to the circumstances.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs, there is an infinite amount of wisdom that can be gleaned from religious texts. And, that wisdom should be applied to all aspects of our lives, including political and legal, just as that from the great philosophers being often cited.

I guess the simple answer is, I don't see a problem with it. And, I appreciate you bringing it up, as that particular quote

Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein

can be applied to many things, on a daily basis.

reply to post by WTFover

Hi again WTF, Apologies for not posting a link in my previous post.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs, there is an infinite amount of wisdom that can be gleaned from religious texts. And, that wisdom should be applied to all aspects of our lives, including political and legal, just as that from the great philosophers being often cited.

But Scalia, who sits on the highest court in the US, went on to say:

Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not

Surely his meaning is quite clear? This was after all, a case about Constitutional law which apparently does not supply the answer whereas the Divinely inspired text did..

Extreme over analysis? Maybe just a little bit, this was a dissenting opinion, but would you be happy for all Constitutional matters to be resolved upon divinely inspired texts rather then hundreds of years of legal case law? Would you still not see a problem if the formal opinion had quoted the Bahai book of the Aqdas?

Originally posted by joewalker
reply to post by WTFover

 

Surely his meaning is quite clear? This was after all, a case about Constitutional law which apparently does not supply the answer whereas the Divinely inspired text did.

Please correct the quote if I have an inaccurate version, but this is what I read

A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935). Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not. The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest cannot succeed—which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable. In the best of all possible worlds, should judges sometimes recuse even where the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it? Undoubtedly. The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer is obvious.

tzvee.blogspot.com...

I do not believe Scalia used the Talmudic text to render his dissenting opinion. Instead, I interpret his reasoning for the quote was to put forth his opinion that the "Due Process Clause" of the Constitution does not provide specific guidance on whether or not the State Justice was required to recuse himself, unlike the the Talmud scripture suggests is possible regarding the Torah.

My comprehension is that Scalia used the quote to demonstrate that, implying that no matter how many ways one looks at the "Clause", a recusal requirement will not be found for each and every case where recusal should occur.

Extreme over analysis?

Thank you. "Analysis" was the word I was looking for, but I just couldn't get it to exit my fingertips!

Anyway, I was referring to the article I linked being an over-analysis, not your interpretation.

...but would you be happy for all Constitutional matters to be resolved upon divinely inspired texts rather then hundreds of years of legal case law?

And what knowledge and wisdom was used to establish that case law? I would hope that, in circumstances where the Constitution is not specific, each Justice would utilize many sources in arriving at a fair and reasonable decision, rather than relying solely on personal opinion.

Would you still not see a problem if the formal opinion had quoted the Bahai book of the Aqdas?

I confess no knowledge of this text, but, while not subscribing in toto to any religion, I have yet to find a religious text that does not contain some beautiful prose, embrace some level of acumen and reason and provide insight and guidance.