Faith and Politics

[Murco]

Professions of faith seem to be becoming a prerequisite for public office these days so it's a political topic worth of debate.
I first vote for the candidate whom I believe to have a more "libertarian" approach to government as I am strongly against our tax codes, drug policy, legal system bribery, and trade policies. The candidates "faith" and morals are a consideration but much further down the list as ANY candidate who even reaches this arena is fairly stained in the process of getting there.
Where does faith enter into your politics?

[TexasF355F1]

Faith and politics is tough to seperate. B/c even though there is suppose to be a line b/w state and religion, what peoples morals and beliefs are play a huge factor in a persons political views.

[TRD2000]

any candidate who professes anything about their faith in their electral campaign is subject to a dim view on my behalf. The more they splutter their beleifs the more i think it will impact how they are able to do their job. The last thing you want if you have to deal with a polititian is that they subject you to their personal beleifs and potentially let your beliefs affect how they do their job, be it to favour or disfavour. I don't mind what they believe but i feel strongly that politics and religion should be kept seperate.

point to note.
In Australia there is a religous based party (i think they are called family first) they have campaigned to have concerts (eminem being one) banned, and tried to keep certain acts out of the country. While they should be free to choose for themselves, nobody is making them go and i don't like the idea of them censoring what people are allowed to see based on their personal beleifs. Now as a further example, the prime minister, being of the same religion, gives them a biased ear, and supports them despite the fact they are a different party who do not have public support.

Religion distorts politics, i'm against the two ever meeting.

[Murco]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

any candidate who professes anything about their faith in their electral campaign is subject to a dim view on my behalf. The more they splutter their beleifs the more i think it will impact how they are able to do their job...

I want a President that believes in God (any God, I really don't care which one) simply because religion creates standards of behavior. If a president doesn't believe in consequences what guides his/her behavior? Don't say ethics and morals, those are religious terms. What standard are they held too?

Originally Posted by TRD2000

The last thing you want if you have to deal with a polititian is that they subject you to their personal beleifs and potentially let your beliefs affect how they do their job, be it to favour or disfavour...

Our constitution clearly bans enacting laws favoring or disfavoring any religion, this is not an issue. Conversely, we have no laws that prevent you from being offended by the religion of others.

Originally Posted by TRD2000

point to note.
In Australia there is a religous based party (i think they are called family first) they have campaigned to have concerts (eminem being one) banned, and tried to keep certain acts out of the country. While they should be free to choose for themselves, nobody is making them go and i don't like the idea of them censoring what people are allowed to see based on their personal beleifs..

We have a relious party too, the Constitution Party. I imagine that if our country were as religious as the media make us sound this party would be far stronger than the .002% of the election result they claimed.

Originally Posted by TRD2000

Now as a further example, the prime minister, being of the same religion, gives them a biased ear, and supports them despite the fact they are a different party who do not have public support. .

Can you cite an instance where law was passed in their favor?

Originally Posted by TRD2000

Religion distorts politics, i'm against the two ever meeting.

I would argue the opposite effect. How many campaign speechs were given by Kerry on pulpits? Any should be illegal and I'm surprised that he gets away with it and that the church maintains it's tax-exempt status.

[TRD2000]

MORAL
ADJECTIVE:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
NOUN:

The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mrlis, from ms , mr-, custom; see m- 1 in Indo-European roots


ETHICS
NOUN:


A set of principles of right conduct.
A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" (Gregg Easterbrook).
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English ethik, from Old French ethique (from Late Latin thica, from Greek thika, ethics), and from Latin thic (from Greek thik) both from Greek thikos, ethical, from thos, character; see s(w)e- in Indo-European roots

DON'T BE SO TYPICALLY RELIGOUSLY VEIN AND NAIVE! TO SAY THAT MORALITY AND ETHICS ARE DIRECTLY PROPORTIANATE TO RELIGION IS INSULTING. VANITY IS A DEADLY SIN.... GO AND SHOOT YOURSELF!

[TRD2000]

I WAS GOING TO WASTE TIME ACTUALLY SITING EVIDENCE OF RELIGOUS BIGGOTRY AND BIAS WITHIN POLITICS, AS WELL AS DISCUSSING YOUR CLAIM THAT AMERICA ISN'T PARTICULARLY RELIGOUS AND ITS LACK OF IMPORTANCE IN POLITICS.
"I imagine that if our country were as religious as the media make us sound this party would be far stronger than the .002% of the election result they claimed."


BUT FRANKLY I AM SO UNIMPRESSED WITH YOUR REDICULOUS ASSERTATIONS THAT I WILL LEAVE IT TILL LATER.

[Murco]

Originally Posted by TRD2000

DON'T BE SO TYPICALLY RELIGOUSLY VEIN AND NAIVE! TO SAY THAT MORALITY AND ETHICS ARE DIRECTLY PROPORTIANATE TO RELIGION IS INSULTING. VANITY IS A DEADLY SIN.... GO AND SHOOT YOURSELF!

That would be a sin as well, but.... I did misuse the word "term" instead of "concept"...
Morals, values, and ethics are typically behaviors guided by something other than laws, although certain ethical behavior is directly enforced by law. These are principles of self-guidance and expected to be self-imposed.
Laws are modern-day interpretations of biblical ideas used to guide behavior of man...
Before laws were created by man what dictated the actions considered unacceptable and the consequences of those actions? Religion.
Religion and laws are alike in that they both set standards of behavior and consequences. If someone isn't bound to religious ethos they have no character - what people do when nobody's watching.
Without religion and specified law, there is no consequences to one's actions - like Saddam! Hardly someone I want in power...

[TRD2000]

telling you to shoot yourself was also pretty harsh, sorry about that.
you're right though "These are principles of self-guidance and expected to be self-imposed." but there is nothing to say that people can't impose them themselves without the threat of going to hell. I could say that was psychological or spiritual terrorism, but i'm feeling nice today. now i have a thought for you, though you may not like it and definately won't agree.

"Laws are modern-day interpretations of biblical ideas used to guide behavior of man...
Before laws were created by man what dictated the actions considered unacceptable and the consequences of those actions? Religion.
Religion and laws are alike in that they both set standards of behavior and consequences."

see i view the bible as primative laws. Without an effective police force it was essential that a system be developed that caused people to act humanely voluntarily, the only way to do this when "nobody is watching" and make it inescapable is to encapsulate it in something that nobody can escape, death. By building judgement into death it made everyone accountable, it also gave a reward for a good life, meaning people could essentially escape death with good behavior. in this system NOBODY escapes judgement for their deeds. I like this. Over time though curruption occurs. see in the old testament it says you can OWN, and gives discriptions on how to beat them, at the time this was designed to be a restrictive measure, you couldn't convince people they couldn't own other people, but at least you could limit the abuse. In the setting of all laws achievability and enforcement need to be considered, the bible reflects both these issues, totally enforcable, and through transition from old to new testament it reflects improvement in conditions and as more becomes achievable it asks for more. Laws today build on these belief systems and adapt them to suit new conditions in the same way the new testament built on the old. if we stayed with the old testament we would limit our development in human rights, in much the same way if we refuse to assess aspects of the new then we halt social development.

as far as
"If someone isn't bound to religious ethos they have no character"
careful with your vanity again, and be careful about judging others, particularly with such a broad brush!

[Savage Messiah]

I have no charachter I guess

[aloharocky]

The left's hatred has made religion an issue, they've declared war on Christians. To most people religion isn't worth mentioning, but the mere mention of morals frosts a libral's ass. It's more about the legalization of dope than anything else, isn't it? Look at any gathering of lefties and read the signage. "Legalize dope" "Free Mumia" the usual silly college campus crap. The Democrats are doomed as long as they play to it.

[TRD2000]

I'm not frosted by the thought of religion, nor am i a democrat, or see anything in left wing politics that promotes secularism.... aside from equality. In trying to achieve equality and resolve differences, to help form one community on equal and solid footing religion, has been abolished, (or at least shunned), why? because it is seen by many to promote inequality and hatred between people, sparking violence, fueds and on many occasions wars. The worst acts of humans against humans throughout history can be attributed to religion.

now on the other hand, many religions, christianity for example, are meant to have "morals" and "ethics" deeply routed that SHOULD make them apeal to socialist agendas, loving thy neighbour and caring for one another, if Jesus healed the sick and washed the feet of others don't you think he'd be all for free healthcare and a kick ass welfare system? The fact is that unfortunately we are human, and this means that great ideas like communism and religion are corrupted and not feasable. What they are meant to achieve they do not, and unfortunately can not!

to most people religion isn't worth mentioning? how many times did religous beliefs feature in the recent US elections? how many times were there religous inferrals? it's obviously worth mentioning to your president! (and probably half the congress) In fact i believe it was used to try and get votes, especially as moral fibre featured so highly and with the abortion issue.

make your mind up... is it religion or is it legalisation of dope? dopes probably a little light for that drug fucked prez you got....

[Murco]

Your response was brilliant. Enjoy your life~!

[aloharocky]

Throughout the campaign people with morals were called "stupid, religious freaks, sheep," all the classic liberal labels. I'm not a Christian, but I watched the Dems alienate thousands of people with their insults and high-nose attitudes. As you all know by now, it got Kerry tossed out on his ass, along with a LOT of other democrats. The left's response? "Dumb Rednecks." And the very next thing they do is get the raving sissy Dean to represent them, LOL. I hope the Dems do exactly the same thing next election.

[TRD2000]

again trying to suggest that people who believe in something maintain exclucivity over morals... and even better then going on to whine about others "high nosing" and "alienating". People in glass houses...

[TRD2000]

morality is respective... it varies through different cultures and customs and what is moral to one person can be completely immoral to another. While one person sees it as moral to use foetus's for research that may save millions of lives and create a better life for many more, others see it as murder, the unrightful; termination of a human life. Most people have no problem accepting blood or medical help if they have been in a car accident, others believe they will go to hell. BOTH these groups beleive they have moral arguments against one another and while, particularly the first instance, polarises the community, both sides of the debate intend to help people not to immorally hurt them.

stupid - both sides use this term a lot.
religous freaks - when the best argument you can put up is "god said no" to a person who has no moral obligation to believe in got... it seems fair.
sheep - i think this applies to people who voted both ways if they did so because their parents said so, or without knowing why they were doing it.