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

[PrinceHarry]

It is not necessarily a bad thing as long as religious leaders themselves are not involved in governance of a country and decicion making. The world's best countries such as Norway, Denmark, Finland, UK, Israel, Switzerland etc have State religion or Church, and switzerland voted overwhelmingly against separation of Church and State. Even America's greatness and success is credited to the hard working ethics of Puritanism (Christianity). It is only bad when religious fanatics are involved as in most islamic countries or in Europe 500 years ago.

 

[ccc123]

Church and state should be segregated. Otherwise you have a theocracy, and that clearly won't work.

 

[sweet_as]

We are a secular country, therefore state and church should be seperate. This is actually one of our major policies, keeping the two apart. The controlling parties in Australia are moving dangerously closer to the Far Christian Right, it needs to be countered.

 

[ThanksBastards!]

the separation of church and state is vital

I'm a Christian btw (though I’m not the most devout).
the association of Christianity in particular with the state has only benefited the state. the state gains the church’s divine sanction, the church trades that for the states illegitimacy. Look at it like this when a church leader makes a statement about social policy and come down in support of conservative government policy (I’m looking at you Cardinal Pell) Howard uses them as back up, but when they take a socially progressive stance on an issue such as reconciliation or IR the clergy are told it’s not appropriate to comment.

Also legislation of morality is counter productive.

 

[mr EaZy]

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]

i think religions influence people's choices and decisions and ethos, and politicians are no different

no one is denying that that is unavoidable in politics


but i dont think people should vote based on religion and i dont think politiicans in this country should ever publicize their religion especially in an election year

by publicize, i mean to use their religion to get votes or to make people think of them as righteous human beings


with regards to christians in the state and fed parliaments, i dont like'em too much

particularly because some of them are opposed to muslim migration to australia, opposed to islamic schools (i went to one!), against multiculturalism (DIMIA ----> DIAC), are conservative, take absolutist positions on abortion, cloning, and even the issue of becoming a republic has been tied to religion (i.e the queen being the head of religion in the anglican faith)

if they want to make religious decisions through politics they must declare these things, and not just claim them in the name of political decision making based on pure rationality

i mean, suppose the state bans evolution, just as the communist party did in the cold war. was that a decision based on religious conviction, or was it based on rationality/science??


im not against religion, i have a religion,
am i against politics? haha *shrugs* dont care, until i run for it one day lol

 

[mr EaZy]

We are a secular country, therefore state and church should be seperate. This is actually one of our major policies, keeping the two apart. The controlling parties in Australia are moving dangerously closer to the Far Christian Right, it needs to be countered.

i agree that christianity has brought about many of the stuff we take for granted today - especially the fundamentalist christians who rose up to challenge the kings power in the 1600s-1700s - they were christians who really looked to what christianity was really all about and applied it to politics*

so we got things like bill of rights etc. i think religion motivated people to make a change in a time where social justice was being abused.

would non religious people have made the same move? well if they were fanatical enough, to use malcolm X's ideology, a moderate would never have made such changes!

im just ranting on, i dont agree with malcolm on that point, or his "by whatever means necessary" doctrine.

*sidenote some of them like john locke and rejected trinitarianism

 

[mr EaZy]

Incorrect, Imperial Europe of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century was the apex of western power, it was also a fairly religious establishment.

id take it back to th 1600s

i think ur saying the same thing with the guy u quoted

he said: the west has not always been dominated

u said: the 18th..... is the apex of western power




International law is said to have began in the 1660s with grotius

but international law reflects western intl law, not that of anyone else,


to say that intl law began with grotius would be to deny that the islamic empire for example didnt have such a law which was spelt out

western scholars have accepted this view because empires like the romans largely did not have intl law- everyone outside rome and its provinces was a barbarian and did not have accesss to roman law

not gonna go into islamic intl law here.

but yes, europe was fairly much a religious establishment, although we did see a decline in continental europe with the rise of protestanism.

 

[mr EaZy]

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.

i agree with that .

the view really is saying that christianity is a white european thing and its successes in European civilisation would have been mimicked anywhere else in the world notwithstanding everything else that is different in the 3rd world

christianity has had a negative impact amongst several african regions, and amongst early Aboriginal communities who came into contact with them- largely because of that stupid ideology

had the christians read their bible from first principles they would have realised that

Adam in semetic languages like arabic and hebrew means 'black' and so does hawa (eve)


its like how a christian comes up to me and tries to tease how i pray "heads down bums up" and im like have u not read the book of mark and matthew where jesus falls down on his face and prays to God ??

 

[mr EaZy]

i was working backwards through the posts and you guys seem to use the words dark ages, islamic natiions, catholocism, christianity, and other terms broadly

its a problem because if you go back 200 years even, these terms will have an entirely different meaning, well not them particularly, but terms like faith, reason, love, relationship with God, fiduciary, trust, governance etc

the jurisprudence of governing europe was intertwined with religion, i'll admit that, and thats why its important to go back to the way people thought at the time in order to reason what was going on.

I'll give u a link to listen to on this if u want to.

 

[KFunk]

but i dont think people should vote based on religion and i dont think politiicans in this country should ever publicize their religion especially in an election year

Consider someone who votes against abortion (be they a politician, or a citizen voting for a politician based on their stance on abortion) as a result of their religious beliefs/values versus someone who votes against abortion on the basis of some kind of secular morality that they have acquired. Is there really that much difference between the two? Surely you don't expect people to entirely neglect their value systems when making decisions.

Personally I think religion becomes inadequate for the role of political-moral compass (edit: in the sense that I would argue for a secular government, as aposed to arguing against individual voting based on religiously derived values) once you have what might be characterised as a pluralistic society. Inflexible moral doctrines are a fast track to moral conflict in a society as diverse as ours. Certainly, I don't advocate simply giving up one's moral beliefs in the face of such a situation - but I do think a certain willingness to come to compromise is important.

 

[Iron]

democrats sig.

Dont their marketing people tell them that orange subliminally evokes a kind of violent hatred? Baby blue is the most friendly.
They seem to suggest autumn, which seems to be some freudian slip about their impending wintery death
rip democrats

 

[sweet_as]

Dont their marketing people tell them that orange subliminally evokes a kind of violent hatred? Baby blue is the most friendly.
They seem to suggest autumn, which seems to be some freudian slip about their impending wintery death
rip democrats

Well you are just the clever one aren't you!

 

[mr EaZy]

Consider someone who votes against abortion (be they a politician, or a citizen voting for a politician based on their stance on abortion) as a result of their religious beliefs/values versus someone who votes against abortion on the basis of some kind of secular morality that they have acquired. Is there really that much difference between the two? Surely you don't expect people to entirely neglect their value systems when making decisions.
.

i wasnt talking about policy

i was talking about voting me coz of my religion- that i happen to be a devout so and so

which is what the two leaders were showing

cant their general policy to all Australians reflect what their religion has guided them to do? why the sermon?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Dont their marketing people tell them that orange subliminally evokes a kind of violent hatred? Baby blue is the most friendly.
They seem to suggest autumn, which seems to be some freudian slip about their impending wintery death
rip democrats

That made me laugh quite a fair bit.

 

[Iron]

That made me laugh quite a fair bit.

i love you too

 

[Jarsh89]

One just needs to look at the times in history when the church and government were one to see that it is a bad idea.

 

[HotShot]

One just needs to look at the times in history when the church and government were one to see that it is a bad idea.

..wat history?

 

[Snaykew]

..wat history?

Refer to Europe's medieval age where religious institutions had more authority than ruler's of nations.

 

[Jarsh89]

Yeh, the medieval church did terrible things and also created the devil and hell for political purpose. Just like parents created the boogyman to scare children into going to bed. If the two are together, religion will suffer for political means as well.

 

[simplistic]

but the creation of devils and hell has a more profound effect then a boogy man used to get kids to do what you want
point fact-religion and politics do not go together