Adding religion to politics is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? (1 Viewer)

[euan]

Howdy,

Im doing a personal interest project for society and culture right and my focus is on christianity in Australian politics today and whether its a good thing or a bad thing. So if you could lend a hand it would be much apprecited. Your personal observations and opinions would be valued.

Do you think that a politcian should take actions according to their own religious philosophy or belief system?

And do you think politicians should wear their religious beliefs on their sleeve for everyone to see and vote for?

Many thanks for the help
[/SIZE]

 

[jb_nc]

Saudi Arabia is a delightful place one can only hope australia becomes an islamic theocracy

 

[sthcross.dude]

I think the vast majority of people would support the separation of church and state. However, christianity being the main religion in Australia still has great influence, which is often obfusacted by political spin. Personally, the conclusion I always seem to end up at is that this influence will be negative because religion itself is so deeply flawed.

 

[Snaykew]

If you want a real answer please see Islamic nations, and also refer to the Middle Ages where Europe was a shit hole and oh how surprising, the church ran crap.

 

[bshoc]

Don't conflate catholicism with christianity ..

 

[ellen.louise]

Don't conflate catholicism with christianity ..

I like.

 

[ellen.louise]

I think there needs to be a degree of separation between politics and religion: They are meant to be different things, after all. Personally I wouldn't want to see the stuff I beleive being brought up in the Lower House. Ew have you ever watched a political debate? It's pretty much just a screaming match.

Politicians need to take into account the variety of faiths within our nation, but it just happens to be that our system in Australia was based upon christianity.

 

[aussiechica7]

I guess an equally good question would be: "adding secularism to politics is it a good thing or a bad thing?"

IMO both can be strongly-held ideologies which are accepted without conclusive proof to support them. And both can affect politics.

Do you think that a politcian should take actions according to their own religious philosophy or belief system?

And do you think politicians should wear their religious beliefs on their sleeve for everyone to see and vote for?

I think a politician should take actions according to his political beliefs and those of the people who have elected him to represent them. If this person's religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. influence his politics than so be it. So long as the people know what they're voting for.

I guess it depends how much the religion influences his political beliefs and how he will vote. If an MP will vote against embryonic stem cell research because of his religious beliefs, people have a right to know. But beyond that, i.e. privately-held religious beliefs that do not affect his politics, I don't think it's important for the public to know or not know- it's irrelevant.

The separation of church and state was argued for by Christians wanting protection from persecution of the state. I think it's ironic that people use "separation of church and state" to try and prevent Christianity from influencing politics, and then advocate measures that would have the State influencing the Church (e.g. the Greens would like to force all churches to hire at least one gay clergy- now I know the issue of sexually active gay clergy is contentious in the church, but suffice it to say that some agree with it and some don't, and those that don't should not be forced to act against their conscience [of course, so long as they're not actually hurting gays], right?)

Really Church and State should not compromise one another. I don't see anything wrong with them influencing each other, but they serve different functions in society and neither should try and control the other. I would not want to live in a theocracy however I wouldn't want to live in an "atheocracy" either (did I just make a new word up? lol)

Oh btw the dark ages- it was Christians who initially fought against that too (the Reformation preceded the Enlightenment).

 

[ellen.louise]

(e.g. the Greens would like to force all churches to hire at least one gay clergy- now I know the issue of sexually active gay clergy is contentious in the church, but suffice it to say that some agree with it and some don't, and those that don't should not be forced to act against their conscience [of course, so long as they're not actually hurting gays], right?)

What if they can't find a gay clergyman? or, of course, they do but that person has enough of a time struggling with it without wanting their church to know? that's kind of a crap law.

 

[bshoc]

What if they can't find a gay clergyman? or, of course, they do but that person has enough of a time struggling with it without wanting their church to know? that's kind of a crap law.

All of the Greens proposals are kind of crap, that's why they'll never have any real power.

The greens are also aware of what forcing churches to hire homosexuals (sinners doomed to burn in hell) means to Christian patrons. The Greens are hateful leftist wankers ..

 

[bshoc]

I think there needs to be a degree of separation between politics and religion: They are meant to be different things, after all. Personally I wouldn't want to see the stuff I beleive being brought up in the Lower House. Ew have you ever watched a political debate? It's pretty much just a screaming match.

Politicians need to take into account the variety of faiths within our nation, but it just happens to be that our system in Australia was based upon christianity.

Christianity has been far more succesful than other faiths, all of the worlds most successful nations had christinity as model or at least as reformer.

 

[ellen.louise]

Christianity has been far more succesful than other faiths, all of the worlds most successful nations had christinity as model or at least as reformer.

It's cause there's a pretty good ethical code going on there, when people don't abuse it to prove that they are better.

 

[201055]

All of the Greens proposals are kind of crap, that's why they'll never have any real power.

The greens are also aware of what forcing churches to hire homosexuals (sinners doomed to burn in hell) means to Christian patrons. The Greens are hateful leftist wankers ..

I agree most of the Greens' proposals are bordering on farfetched, but its necessary to have at least one party who pushes agendas like stemming global warming, as opposed to the Coalition or oppoisition who only introduces even more harebrained schemes several months before an election.
Having said that, they should not even try to make any proposals to do with religion....

 

[ellen.louise]

I agree most of the Greens' proposals are bordering on farfetched, but its necessary to have at least one party who pushes agendas like stemming global warming, as opposed to the Coalition or oppoisition who only introduces even more harebrained schemes several months before an election.

They are hopefully resigned to the fact that they wil never be in power. So at least their ideas aren't a bid for popularity. They still suck though.

 

[ellen.louise]

8 posts to go! woohoo!

 

[sthcross.dude]

Christianity has been far more succesful than other faiths, all of the worlds most successful nations had christinity as model or at least as reformer.

Did you ever think economic reasons such as our exploitation of the third world might have something to do with Christian countries happening to be so prosperous. Remember that the economies of the United States and the British Empire at its height were built on slavery and exploitation and we are still exploiting the non christian countires today.

Also look at the emergence of China as an economic and military superpower. This has occured under secularism. It has nothing do with religion, China sucked because it was communist and trade liberalisation has made it far more successful. Once again simple ecconomic reasons are the explaination, not religion.

ALso what about Japan, one of the worlds most successful nations. Christinity has been neither a model or a reformer.

 

[Snaykew]

Oh no, it's ok to exploit as long as its a Christian doing it. God forbid if its anyone else. >:3

 

[ellen.louise]

Oh no, it's ok to exploit as long as its a Christian doing it. God forbid if its anyone else. >:3

Religion has been used a lot in the past and in the present to do bad things. It gives us a bad rep, but it doesn't follow that the concept in itself is a bad thing.

 

[Snaykew]

I don't see how Christianity attributes to the success of the West and the claim is ridiculous. That's not to say I see Christianity in a bad light. I just think its rather absurd to take credit that is not due.

 

[ellen.louise]

I don't see how Christianity attributes to the success of the West and the claim is ridiculous. That's not to say I see Christianity in a bad light. I just think its rather absurd to take credit that is not due.

This is true.