[Rense]

Okay, not a native English speaker, but I'll give it a try (it's hard to give nuance....)

Just be carefull: don't mix up religion and religious institutions. If Gooshin is right and "religion is a spiritual belief that cannot be proved or refuted on any concrete grounds", you can't hold that religion and state should be seperated, because it's a religious statement in itself. It can't be proved, it can't be refuted.... What I mean to say is that everyone is acting from deep religious beliefs, even if you don't believe in a god. People can believe in self-determination for instance, and that is religion in the sense of Gooshin (and I tend to follow him in this). So, keeping all religion out of politics would end up in keeping all out of politics.

It's something completely different to seperate state and religious institutions (=church in the broad sense). Both have their own responsibility, their own ' spheres' where they work etc. etc., and should not act in the sphere of the other. Both ways around!!

I've got to think about Mike's statement that even Jezus believed in the separation of church and state, with appeal on Matthew 22. I doubt whether that is the tenor of his words....

EDIT: should have noted probably that, like reeftool, I am no outsider, but a christian. On the other hand: in the light of my words I see nobody as an outsider !

[Ratmagiclady]

I think the simple answer is that trying to (directly) apply religious standards to the business of government complicates things. It splits loyalties and authority. Many religions also don't value personal freedom as the government is intended to: these religions *do* want to tell people what to think, and what to do, who to treat well, etc, and often for no rational reason: which means you can't really have democracy, only a referendum on what other institution to obey. A tug-of-war for all or nothing, rather than an institution based on reason meant to be there to govern *all* people.

It becomes obvious where religious elements greet issues for which they can accept no other point of view, despite the clear observation one can make that where a free country is clearly divided on an issue, this should be a clear sign that government should not impose those religious beliefs on all with force of law.

Certain religions can say "If you believe things which turn out to be not true or don't work, cause disaster, or pointlessly oppress people and tear at civil society, it's OK, cause having believed is good for your soul."

Nations don't have that luxury.

Nor are they there to fight over whose religious taboos to impose on all.

Certain religions, once authoritarian governments themselves, by structure, seem confused on these facts: in fact turn it all around to say their religion is being 'oppressed' if denied this kind of universal hegemony over others' lives. Which is the precise reverse of what the government of a free country is *for.*

One can have religious values and beliefs without trying to use them as a bludgeon to have one's way in government. One simply has to make a *rational* case that what comes from these values on a given issue is of benefit to the whole of society. My religion considers the Earth sacred, ...but when I advocate for environmental protections, I don't go to government or the press threatening the supernatural wrath of Mammagaia or nothing. For starters, I don't *need* to, and for another that's neither what I actually think is the point, or that it's any less nonsensical to people of other religions than some of their tabooes and ways of seeing the world are to me.

When a religious belief and the rational public interest align, then there's no need to bring religious authorities into it. When they do not, a lot of religious types tend to want it their way, and only their way, anyway.

[reeftool]

So do you believe that church and state should be separated.. or that they cannot be separated?

Yes, I believe they should be separated because then you have the danger of a state sponsored religion. We have seen that in other countries. Mike's reply is similar to my feelings. They are separate but not removed.

[reeftool]

I think the simple answer is that trying to (directly) apply religious standards to the business of government complicates things. It splits loyalties and authority. Many religions also don't value personal freedom as the government is intended to: these religions *do* want to tell people what to think, and what to do, who to treat well, etc, and often for no rational reason: which means you can't really have democracy, only a referendum on what other institution to obey. A tug-of-war for all or nothing, rather than an institution based on reason meant to be there to govern *all* people.

It becomes obvious where religious elements greet issues for which they can accept no other point of view, despite the clear observation one can make that where a free country is clearly divided on an issue, this should be a clear sign that government should not impose those religious beliefs on all with force of law.

Certain religions can say "If you believe things which turn out to be not true or don't work, cause disaster, or pointlessly oppress people and tear at civil society, it's OK, cause having believed is good for your soul."

Nations don't have that luxury.

Nor are they there to fight over whose religious taboos to impose on all.

Certain religions, once authoritarian governments themselves, by structure, seem confused on these facts: in fact turn it all around to say their religion is being 'oppressed' if denied this kind of universal hegemony over others' lives. Which is the precise reverse of what the government of a free country is *for.*

One can have religious values and beliefs without trying to use them as a bludgeon to have one's way in government. One simply has to make a *rational* case that what comes from these values on a given issue is of benefit to the whole of society. My religion considers the Earth sacred, ...but when I advocate for environmental protections, I don't go to government or the press threatening the supernatural wrath of Mammagaia or nothing. For starters, I don't *need* to, and for another that's neither what I actually think is the point, or that it's any less nonsensical to people of other religions than some of their tabooes and ways of seeing the world are to me.

When a religious belief and the rational public interest align, then there's no need to bring religious authorities into it. When they do not, a lot of religious types tend to want it their way, and only their way, anyway.

This is exactly why we have a constitution and a Supreme Court. Elected leaders can mess things up as they are often elected into office because of their stands on very emotional issues. Checks and balances, as our civics classes in school taught us.

[SteveM]

IS it fair for every other worldview to be represented in politics, but not the worldview that believes in God?

This is a strange double standard!

It's ok for someone who doesn't believe in God to have their decisions and frame of reference influenced by their worldview, but for a Christian to do the same thing - no way!

I do believe in seperation of church and state, but think ti is ridiculous to expect our elected representatives to ignore their own worldview (an impossibility) if they are a Christian, but not expect the same (impossible) standard from pagans. Doesn't make sense to me.

There is no such thing as a set of neutral values. Every individual's values are informed by their particular worldview.

I'm Christian but I don't understand the "worldview" statement. I don't care if someone is Christian, Pagan, Muslim, Scientologist. I don't care if someone share's a religious (or non-religious) event like christmas or whatever. I don't care which "book" they hold up believing it to be true. If that person is the best person to lead then that is what is important, not what faith they hold.

What I do care about is mixing their religion with politics. There are many gods....depending on who you speak with. I want decisions for society based on the community and not one individual faith. I don't want others telling me it's illegal to eat pork....or it's illegal to work on Christmas....or it's illegal for women faces to be exposed in public....or it's illegal to drink beer.... A leader might believe these things at home...but it better stay at that persons home.

The problem is that people believe their faith is correct and their neighbours is incorrect. They believe that their neighbour and their kids will die a horrible death because they are "non believers" and have faith in the wrong god.

It's a recipe for disaster.

[Das Boot]

You should also not fall into the trap that early settlers were searching for freedom of religion. They were just searching for freedom from a state imposed religion. After they settled here, the laws went with their own religion and different religions were frowned upon. The father of the idea of freedom of religion was Roger Williams. He was a maverick in his day and the idea was not popular. It took well over a hundred years to catch on.

[flippedgazelle]

IS it fair for every other worldview to be represented in politics, but not the worldview that believes in God?

This is a strange double standard!

It's ok for someone who doesn't believe in God to have their decisions and frame of reference influenced by their worldview, but for a Christian to do the same thing - no way!

I do believe in seperation of church and state, but think ti is ridiculous to expect our elected representatives to ignore their own worldview (an impossibility) if they are a Christian, but not expect the same (impossible) standard from pagans. Doesn't make sense to me.

There is no such thing as a set of neutral values. Every individual's values are informed by their particular worldview.

There is nothing in American law that precludes a lawmaker from professing belief in God, Christianity, Islam, Paganism, etc. Or being a member of a religious organization.

What is prohibited by the US Constitution is attempting to thrust a religious belief system or doctrine upon the public. That's why you won't find, say, the 10 Commandments hanging in a gov't venue, even though make perfect sense from a societal standpoint.

As an example, George W. Bush was never shy about professing his belief in God & Jesus, but he never attempted to force the public to acknowledge his religious viewpoint.

One arrow fired against John F. Kennedy during his presidential campaign was the fact that he was Irish Catholic. Antagonists claimed that the Pope would run the White House. That never happened.

[bonovox]

My point is simply this:

ALL people (be they Muslim, Christian, Atheist or anything else) make decisions based on their worldview.

I do not mean that this means they must force their beliefs on others (although, as some have pointed out - many do make this mistake - from all camps, god-less worldviews included).

When we elect a person, we elect them because we think their views and convictions (which are informed by their worldview) are going to form a good basis for making wise decisions. This does not mean we have to agree with every aspect of their beliefs (for instance: even though I am a Christian, I would certainly vote for a pagan with an ability to lead well over an incompetent Christian).

But it is naive to say that there is even the possibility of somebody making decisions that are not affected by their personal beliefs.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to reading about photography on this photography forum - though now you know my secret: all of my photos and posts are informed by a worldview that sees Jesus Christ as Lord! From now on, read my contributions with suspicion!

[jsherman999]

I'm doing a debate on Wednesday where I have to argue why religion shouldn't be part of politics. Can someone help me out?

.

Actually, if you believe Carl Rove, mixing religion and politics is one of the quickest ways to the top of the polls.


.

[monochrome]

This is really an entire semester of introductory sociology (from memory of 1974), so proofs are impossible here.

Pre-social humanoids were fearful, suspicious of each other and as likely to attack each other as to interact peacefully. They grouped together, finding safety in numbers. Everything is society is about group identity - a social "safety in numbers" expression.

Society is nothing more then a set evolved rules that allow groups, and individuals within groups, to have expectations of one another's behaviors and the behaviors of other groups, so that we can interact not just peacefully, but productively.

Rules evolved in three stages:

1. Religion, which used group exclusion and acceptance (fear and redemption) as prohibitions and prompts to shape acceptable interactions. Under religion a person is a believer or a heretic, and has obligations placed upon him if accepted in the group. Religion provide group safety to individuals but creates antagonism between groups - it is on a low order of evolution. Conflict are normally settled by battle.
2. Mores (the "moral" rules of society, such as the former prohibition on pre-marital cohabitation), which govern most social discourse. Such things as shaking hands to demonstrate a lack of aggression and opening doors for women to demonstrate deference are examples. Mores evolved to fill the day-to-day areas not covered by religions, although some religions have attempted to govern every minute action of a person. Mores allow persons and groups of differing religions to interact successfully. Under Mores a person or smaller group is a member of society, and has expectations placed upon him by the larger group. Mores tend to extend across group lines - they are universally expected or accepted behaviors. Mores tend to allow interaction BETWEEN groups. Conflicts are normally settled by expulsion, or some other form of non-life-threatening action.
3. Law, combines the proscriptive power of religion and the moral benefit of social rules, but adds a rational aspect, so that every "ruling" or prohibition is impartial and based on reason and/or science. Politics, (and anything else based on a vote, resulting in majority rules and minority accepts) is based on rational Law. Politics is the process by which society carries out its laws (when you accept that Courts are the adjudication of laws, and are thus political in this sense). Under Law a person is a citizen, and has rights GIVEN him by his citizenship. Conflicts are settled by a reasonable, rules-based process.
   

These three orders of governance, combined, form the rules by which a society allows humans, that are basically animals whose brain chemistry allows conscious thought, to interact, dependent upon the actions of each other, in a highly-structured, densely-packed group.

Separately these three orders of governance - a stable, three-legged stool, if you will - keep the negative aspects of any one of them in check, so that we can lead balanced, free, independent lives. Combining any two of them (or diminishing any one of them) dangerously unbalances that stool.

Adding Religion to Politics makes Law less than rational, Religion, based as it is on a mystery, and thus not rational nor inclusive, completely - completely - alters the expectations and rights of a citizen, making them the obligations of a believer. To resist this obligation results in expulsion, denial of the protections of society or even death without trial, at the whim of a shaman. Such a judgment unfairly bears the power of Law, Society AND God!

[lithos]

I'm Christian but I don't understand the "worldview" statement. I don't care if someone is Christian, Pagan, Muslim, Scientologist. I don't care if someone share's a religious (or non-religious) event like christmas or whatever. I don't care which "book" they hold up believing it to be true. If that person is the best person to lead then that is what is important, not what faith they hold.

What I do care about is mixing their religion with politics. There are many gods....depending on who you speak with. I want decisions for society based on the community and not one individual faith. I don't want others telling me it's illegal to eat pork....or it's illegal to work on Christmas....or it's illegal for women faces to be exposed in public....or it's illegal to drink beer.... A leader might believe these things at home...but it better stay at that persons home.

The problem is that people believe their faith is correct and their neighbours is incorrect. They believe that their neighbour and their kids will die a horrible death because they are "non believers" and have faith in the wrong god.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Be wary of anyone of faith who preaches that their religion should have a place in government.

Why? Because, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they really mean their religion. The irony may be lost on them (the perpetually closed of the most fervent believers tends to miss irony) that if they're successful, every religion then gets a say.

Which leads to awkward things like "Yes, but not Islam/Hinduism/Judaism/Jedi/FSM, because they're not religions..."

Of course, they preach that personal religion is important - it'd be even better if every person had their religion.

It's not the beliefs that're are the problem. It's the zealousness of belief in those beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even have to be religion - it can be political, too. Socialist regimes trample down religion. Stalin did it, China's doing it to the Tibetans and the Falun Gong, North Korea's doing it (although I would rank that rather low on the List Of Things Wrong With North Korea,) and Cuba, and the Nazis treatment of Jews as well.

Theocracies do it just the same, persecuting those who don't share the same beliefs. There are myriad groups fighting for this in Africa (Lord's Resistance Army, for example - that's a Christian one, before any wants to go the "It's all the Muslims" route,) the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders in charge of the Holy Lands, the Taliban in Afghanistan and by extension what Al Qaeda seeks to set up, the ancient Romans against the Christians.

My point is, is that the end result's the same. It's not what you believe in, it's how far you want to enforce those beliefs. For those pining for the a time when prayer legally enforceable, just remember that it mightn't necessarily be your prayer. And aside from religions, if you believe in anything zealously enough to kill or torture or imprison people for it, then it doesn't matter if it's a political doctrine, religious dogma, or shoe size, well, then, who cares what those core tenets are?

The best we can hope for is cartoon physics, where all the religions and belief systems trying to get through the door end up getting stuck there.

[SteveM]

1. Religion, which used group exclusion and acceptance (fear and redemption) as prohibitions and prompts to shape acceptable interactions. Under religion a person is a believer or a heretic, and has obligations placed upon him if accepted in the group.
   
2. Mores (the "moral" rules of society, such as the former prohibition on pre-marital cohabitation), which govern most social discourse. Such things as shaking hands to demonstrate a lack of aggression and opening doors for women to demonstrate deference are examples. Mores evolved to fill the day-to-day areas not covered by religions, although some religions have attempted to govern every minute action of a person. Mores allow persons and groups of differing religions to interact successfully. Under Mores a person or smaller group is a member of society, and has expectations placed upon him by the larger group.
   
3. Law, combines the proscriptive power of religion and the moral benefit of social rules, but adds a rational aspect, so that every "ruling" or prohibition is impartial and based on reason and/or science. Politics, (and anything else based on a vote, resulting in majority rules and minority accepts) is based on rational Law. Politics is the process by which society carries out its laws (when you accept that Courts are the adjudication of laws, and are thus political in this sense). Under Law a person is a citizen, and has rights GIVEN him by his citizenship.

These three orders of governance, combined, form the rules by which a society allows humans, that are basically animals whose brain chemistry allows conscious thought, to interact, dependent upon the actions of each other, in a highly-structured, densely-packed group.

Separately these three orders of governance - a stable, three-legged stool, if you will - keep the negative aspects of any one of them in check, so that we can lead balanced, free, independent lives. Combining any two of them (or diminishing any one of them) dangerously unbalances that stool.

Adding Religion to Politics makes Law less than rational, Religion, based as it is on a mystery, and thus not rational nor inclusive, completely - completely - alters the expectations and rights of a citizen, making them the obligations of a believer. To resist this obligation results in expulsion, a judgment with the power of Law, Society AND God!

I understand what you are saying...but I believe religion has no place in law....it is extremely dangerous. Look at Lebanon, Bosnia, Afganistan, and endless others...it is extremely important to keep religion out of law.

Be wary of anyone of faith who preaches that their religion should have a place in government.

Why? Because, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they really mean their religion. The irony may be lost on them (the perpetually closed of the most fervent believers tends to miss irony) that if they're successful, every religion then gets a say.

Which leads to awkward things like "Yes, but not Islam/Hinduism/Judaism/Jedi/FSM, because they're not religions..."

Of course, they preach that personal religion is important - it'd be even better if every person had their religion.

It's not the beliefs that're are the problem. It's the zealousness of belief in those beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even have to be religion - it can be political, too. Socialist regimes trample down religion. Stalin did it, China's doing it to the Tibetans and the Falun Gong, North Korea's doing it (although I would rank that rather low on the List Of Things Wrong With North Korea,) and Cuba, and the Nazis treatment of Jews as well.

Theocracies do it just the same, persecuting those who don't share the same beliefs. There are myriad groups fighting for this in Africa (Lord's Resistance Army, for example - that's a Christian one, before any wants to go the "It's all the Muslims" route,) the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders in charge of the Holy Lands, the Taliban in Afghanistan and by extension what Al Qaeda seeks to set up, the ancient Romans against the Christians.

My point is, is that the end result's the same. It's not what you believe in, it's how far you want to enforce those beliefs. For those pining for the a time when prayer legally enforceable, just remember that it mightn't necessarily be your prayer. And aside from religions, if you believe in anything zealously enough to kill or torture or imprison people for it, then it doesn't matter if it's a political doctrine, religious dogma, or shoe size, well, then, who cares what those core tenets are?

The best we can hope for is cartoon physics, where all the religions and belief systems trying to get through the door end up getting stuck there.

Ironically, Canada listed the US as a Theocracy under the Bush administration after religious appointments were given official placement within the White House. Highly illegal in Canada and attempting such would instantly bring down a government.

[lithos]

Ironically, Canada listed the US as a Theocracy under the Bush administration after religious appointments were given official placement within the White House. Highly illegal in Canada and attempting such would instantly bring down a government.

I meant where a certain belief is enforceable by law, and lack of adherence punishable.

But I thought Canada was the land of dope-smoking, bible-burning, Marx-reading pinkoes, anyway ?

[monochrome]

I understand what you are saying...but I believe religion has no place in law....it is extremely dangerous. Look at Lebanon, Bosnia, Afganistan, and endless others...it is extremely important to keep religion out of law.

Adding Religion to Politics makes Law less than rational, Religion, based as it is on a mystery, and thus not rational nor inclusive, completely - completely - alters the expectations and rights of a citizen, making them the obligations of a believer. To resist this obligation results in expulsion, a judgment with the power of Law, Society AND God!

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I'm trying to assert that Religion, Mores and Politics (Law) must ALWAYS remain separate - like the three legs of the stool - to keep society balanced.

[creampuff]

Religion was what spurred Parliament to eventually abolish slavery in England. So there are always positive and negative examples to this question.