re: governments and religion

[prisonchaplain]

I get nervous when governments categorize religions.

1. Many of the former Soviet states gave favor to sects with a long history, and required "new religions" to register, go through a waiting period, etc.

Fmr. Soviet Republics Limit Religious Freedom - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

2. France has a government agency that monitors religious practice, and, in the past, has labeled many groups considered mainstream in the U.S. as "mind-control cults."

Cults in France

3. Of course, many countries have state-favored religions, and persecute others.

Malaysia « Christian & Church Persecution

4. Germany forbids home-schooling--even for religious reasons.

German homeschoolers face harassment, jail - Baptist Press 4/23/2013 5:22 PM

5. France forbids religious headwear in many public institutions.

France's headscarf war: 'It's an attack on freedom' | World news | The Guardian

6. Even in the United States, our government threatens religious institutions with tax penalties if their "prophetic voice" is deemed too political. Religious institutions sometimes must comply with public policy rather than their tenants, or face loss of tax exemption. And, of course, business and landowners may no longer exercise discretion in who they do business with, based on religious and moral standards.

Maybe folk think government should have this power. I suppose that historically, most have. It would be better for governments, courts, and tax agencies to keep a respectful distance from interfering with religious entities, in my always humble opinion.

Edited February 5, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[Lakumi]

Not everyone in a religon has good intentions. Business is driven by money, and many would use the cover of religion to get ahead.

I agree with a seperation of church and state, I also agree religions shouldn't be forced into some things.

Eg I agree if a church doesn't wish to marry same sex couples, then they hold that right, but I don't feel they have a right to impact law, especially, in a place like the US or Canada, where there are so many diverse beliefs, what makes theirs so much better then the next one?

Religion should have nothing to do with law.

Every religion has a different idea of what the law should be, and that they are the ones who speak for the higher power.

You can't run anything on that sort of chaos.

[prisonchaplain]

but I don't feel they have a right to impact law, especially, in a place like the US or Canada, where there are so many diverse beliefs, what makes theirs so much better then the next one?

Religion should have nothing to do with law.

Why not? Do I not have a vote? Must I be silent because I am religious? It was religious people who campaigned to end slavery in the U.S. Many of the early African-American leaders in the Civil War and Reconstruction era were ministers.

No, I cannot impose my religious will on individuals. However, if I and my fellow religionists can persuade the public to ban or limit abortions, why shouldn't we? Because we are religious? If we can discourage the wide-spread acceptance of homosexual practice why shouldn't we try? If we can coral the gambling industry, slow down sex trafficking--why shouldn't we?

My point is that in democracies everyone gets a say--including religious people. Sometimes our views win. Sometimes they are rejected. Jesus commands us to be salt and light. We may not impose, but we can surely influence. My reading of the gospels suggests that is what Jesus did.

[Lakumi]

true, you do get a say-like the non religious.

Though what happens if you fail?

Neither side seems to be very willing to accept eachother's ideas, where does it go from there, what do you think?

[prisonchaplain]

Headlines tell me that abortions are way down. Also that more Americans are identifying themselves as pro-life, and fewer as pro-choice. So we seem to be making slow progress on this front.

We appear to be losing the effort to discourage approval of same-sex acts and marriage.

Our young have found a cause the world welcomes in opposing sex trafficking.

So...it's not so much a matter of winning or beating or conquering. We do well when we try to influence for good, recognizing that "Caesar" is limited in forcing godliness.

Ultimately, it's about bringing souls into reconciliation with God. God is in control. We just do what we can, by his leading.

[Lakumi]

don't think you can easily bring unbelievers "to God" which according to many places, the numbers of them are growing, which more likely then not is the reason for these changes

I've always supported same sex marriage, and there's nothing that would make me change my mind about that.

Just like I don't look at someone in religious head gear and feel they should remove it, I feel they have a right to that, even if I believe something completely differently.

For years I've been trying to give a name (or find one) for what I believe and I don't think it exists

[Backroads]

I recall some years ago a girl trying to convince me that if you have a political belief that may have been influenced by your religion, you should not vote according to that belief. Silliest argument I've ever heard.

In the basic sense, yes, I am in favor of a separation of church and state as far as our current political system goes. Religions should not be the governing voice for a nation as a whole nor should a government get involved with the workings of a religion unless laws are being broken.

But it sometimes seems that those championing the separation of church and state are perfectly fine with the government getting unduly involved in a religion.

In a political sense, a religion seeming to cause political opinion is nothing more and nothing less than a group of people who happen to share some ideas.

[mordorbund]

PrisonChaplain, you'll be pleased to know that our common views on religion and government has been canonized. The Article on Government and Laws in General is not a revelation, but is held nonetheless as the LDS view on the subject. Verses 4, 7, 9, and 10 in particular deal with this relationship, giving religion a wide latitude provided it does not interfere with the life, property, or free exercise of conscience (nor can it encourage unjust sedition).

[MarginOfError]

I recall some years ago a girl trying to convince me that if you have a political belief that may have been influenced by your religion, you should not vote according to that belief. Silliest argument I've ever heard.

Many here my be surprised that I agree with you. Individual citizens absolutely must be free to vote whichever way they want for whatever reason they choose. If you feel compelled to vote in a certain way to remain in favor with your chosen God, the by all means, vote that way.

That isn't to say that it doesn't irritate me that people do this. But that's an emotional response to a complicated set of variables. Logically, I understand and accept that this reality is essential to making government work.

The other side to that is the judicial arm of government has the responsibility to ensure that laws or initiatives that inappropriately favor one belief system over another are not allowed to stand.

I will add to this that I believe law makers themselves should not have the same privilege. When you are writing/enacting/establishing law and public policy, your personal code of morals should not be given favorable positions over those of competing codes. But individual citizens should be free to vote as they please.

In the basic sense, yes, I am in favor of a separation of church and state as far as our current political system goes. Religions should not be the governing voice for a nation as a whole nor should a government get involved with the workings of a religion unless laws are being broken.

But it sometimes seems that those championing the separation of church and state are perfectly fine with the government getting unduly involved in a religion.

And this is where I think it is important for moderates to call out the leftists. I want my religion out of my government, and I want my government out of my religion. The two arenas serve different needs in my life and I'd like to keep it that way.

In a political sense, a religion seeming to cause political opinion is nothing more and nothing less than a group of people who happen to share some ideas.

This really only bothers me when religions start threatening their members that their eternal salvation is at risk is they don't align themselves with the political preferences of the religious organization. However, there's nothing illegal about the religious organization doing this. It's just something I consider grossly unethical.

[Just_A_Guy]

I will add to this that I believe law makers themselves should not have the same privilege. When you are writing/enacting/establishing law and public policy, your personal code of morals should not be given favorable positions over those of competing codes. But individual citizens should be free to vote as they please.

MOE, how do you define "morals" here? If I, a legislator, vote in favor of a bill that outlaws the death penalty because I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong--have I acted inappropriately? Don't all decisions about what is "good" for our country and our society--whether made by voters or by the duly elected representatives of the republic--ultimately boil down to a moral value judgement on the part of the person making the decision?

[Bini]

This is how I feel about the separation of religion and government - I think it's easily doable - and that they don't have to be in one. Like for example, I could vote pro-choice even if I don't morally agree with every abortion situation, but I support pro-choice because I feel it's vital women have control of their bodies.

[prisonchaplain]

OK, let's pretend that PC becomes President. If so, I will attempt the following:

1. Restrict abortions to the greatest extent possible--because I believe that abortion is the killing of a human life, created and known by God, while in the womb. My opinion is informed in large part by the Psalms.

2. Restrict gambling, continue the war on drugs, continue to criminalize prostitution, and oppose all efforts at government credential of same-sex marriages. My efforts will be motivated in large part because of my religious beliefs.

3. I will support Israel, unless it clearly violates human rights. It will also continue to be in my prayers.

4. I will likely choose Mitt Romney as my running mate for two reasons. 1. His religiously-informed social-issues stands match mine. 2. He's got enough money to help bankroll our campaign. (j/k) :-)

I could go on. My approach to governing does not violate the separation of church and state doctrine. Why? I campaigned openly. Voters knew what my stances were. It matters not what motivates my views.

The folks who must put their religiously-informed views on the backburner are justices/judges. They must base their decisions on the law as-it-is. They might hate abortions with religious zealotry. However, they must rule according to the law and precedent. Those are the guys/gals we must keep an eye on.

[Guest]

This is how I feel about the separation of religion and government - I think it's easily doable - and that they don't have to be in one. Like for example, I could vote pro-choice even if I don't morally agree with every abortion situation, but I support pro-choice because I feel it's vital women have control of their bodies.

This is muddled, though, because your chosen religion does not conflict with a Pro-choice stance... It would be different if you were Catholic.

[Guest]

I will add to this that I believe law makers themselves should not have the same privilege. When you are writing/enacting/establishing law and public policy, your personal code of morals should not be given favorable positions over those of competing codes. But individual citizens should be free to vote as they please.

This defeats the purpose of a Representative government.

A representative government's basic design is to have a person - usually an educated person with the most knowledge on the intricacies of the impacts of law on all facets of society - study and analyze an issue and then lead his constituency in what he believes is the best course of action. His moral principles is a major contributor to what he believes as the best course of action. This makes it so that each individual person in a democracy doesn't have to be experts at law. The representative then votes FOR his constituents.

It is, therefore, very important that such a representative votes his personal code of morals and principles as it pertains to the good that he believes it provides society because as a representative, he was chosen (in an ideal political scenario, not taking into account political corruption) because of those principles.

As a constituent, you choose the Representative by his principles more so than his campaign promises. It is easy to break a campaign promise. It is harder to go against one's principles.

[Bini]

This is muddled, though, because your chosen religion does not conflict with a Pro-choice stance... It would be different if you were Catholic.

I agree.

But there are LDS that believe it does, which, is why I used it.

[Guest]

I agree.

But there are LDS that believe it does, which, is why I used it.

Gay marriage is a better example if we're going to use LDS.

[Bini]

Gay marriage is a better example if we're going to use LDS.

I purposely chose NOT to use that because I didn't want to get into the bashing again, that is always done, with that topic.

[prisonchaplain]

Bini & Anatess--either gay marriage or abortion--what do you think of my proposal that politicians are free to attempt legislating based on their religious views, but judges and justices must approach the law with objectivity and nuetrality?

[MarginOfError]

MOE, how do you define "morals" here? If I, a legislator, vote in favor of a bill that outlaws the death penalty because I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong--have I acted inappropriately? Don't all decisions about what is "good" for our country and our society--whether made by voters or by the duly elected representatives of the republic--ultimately boil down to a moral value judgement on the part of the person making the decision?

I guess I expect them to act consistently with the collective morality of the people they represent. So for someone to go in and pass laws that clearly reflect conservative Christian values at the expense of liberal Christian values is problematic.

So if you were a representative of a district that was more than, say 60%, advocated the death penalty and you voted against that law anyway on the grounds that you believe capital punishment to be morally wrong, I'd say your actions are worth investigating. If you were able to put together some body of evidence that explained and justified your position in objective terms, you might get a pass from me. If your justification was "I'm Catholic and so I can't in good conscience vote for capital punishment," then I'd say you've acted inappropriately.

(I recognize this is a very tough line to walk. I'm pretty forgiving of people who come across as sincerely trying to balance all the competing views. I have pretty scathing opinion of those who don't even appear to be trying)

[MarginOfError]

OK, let's pretend that PC becomes President. If so, I will attempt the following:

1. Restrict abortions to the greatest extent possible--because I believe that abortion is the killing of a human life, created and known by God, while in the womb. My opinion is informed in large part by the Psalms.

You've already lost my support. No candidate who openly admits that their religious preferences and opinions are largely informing their policy decisions will receive my vote.

2. Restrict gambling, continue the war on drugs, continue to criminalize prostitution, and oppose all efforts at government credential of same-sex marriages. My efforts will be motivated in large part because of my religious beliefs.

3. I will support Israel, unless it clearly violates human rights. It will also continue to be in my prayers.

4. I will likely choose Mitt Romney as my running mate for two reasons. 1. His religiously-informed social-issues stands match mine. 2. He's got enough money to help bankroll our campaign. (j/k) :-)

I could go on. My approach to governing does not violate the separation of church and state doctrine. Why? I campaigned openly. Voters knew what my stances were. It matters not what motivates my views.

I disagree. Some of the policy initiatives you propose clearly favor one belief system over another, and I find that kind of approach inappropriate for secular leadership.

The folks who must put their religiously-informed views on the backburner are justices/judges. They must base their decisions on the law as-it-is. They might hate abortions with religious zealotry. However, they must rule according to the law and precedent. Those are the guys/gals we must keep an eye on.

I think we already agreed to this one.

[Just_A_Guy]

MOE, that's interesting. So your position appears to be that an elected official must try to advance the will of the majority (supermajority?) of his constituents on any given issue regardless of his own personal preference on that issue? Or am I reading too much into your statement?

And, do the people have the right to take measures to preserve what they see as the existing "collective morality" in the face of a rising social movement to modify that collective morality? If so, what are the limits to that right?

Edited February 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Lakumi]

You've already lost my support. No candidate who openly admits that their religious preferences and opinions are largely informing their policy decisions will receive my vote.

Vote Karna/Zephyranthies 2014

Eyes on the Prize, even when we sleep!

I agree with what you said btw, to stay on topic.

[Backroads]

You've already lost my support. No candidate who openly admits that their religious preferences and opinions are largely informing their policy decisions will receive my vote.

How does this differ from a candidate who, after a lifetime of pondering upon his beliefs that may have been influenced by such sources as religion, forms policy decisions and doesn't admit that there was a chance a religion influenced him?

Is it all well and good to have strong opinions on various social policies, just as long as no spiritual path helped form them?

I disagree. Some of the policy initiatives you propose clearly favor one belief system over another, and I find that kind of approach inappropriate for secular leadership.

I do agree with this. One complaint I currently have about US politics is the tendency for the power that is to cater to one party and ignore the rest.

[prisonchaplain]

You've already lost my support. No candidate who openly admits that their religious preferences and opinions are largely informing their policy decisions will receive my vote.

Why? Politicians campaign largely on their policy positions. Why should Pro-life voters care why I am pro-life? Why should those who see gambling as detrimental to the community be concerned that my anti-gambling position is religiously motivated? Maybe there is a group out that that wants to promote sports-tourism, and they see casinos as competition. They'll likely support me, whether they agree with my theology or not. So, why would you vote against me because of where I got my views? That almost seems discriminatory.

I disagree. Some of the policy initiatives you propose clearly favor one belief system over another, and I find that kind of approach inappropriate for secular leadership.

In a sense, all of my positions do. So what? If I can garner a majority-coalition of voters to support me--many for non-theological reasons--then I win. Even if I win, some of my positions may fail. A few may even be non-starters. Reagan was a big pro-lifer, loved by the Religious Right. However, I don't believe he got much pro-life legislation enacted.

Democracies do not lend themselves to sectarian legislation. Instead, people of faith must sway the hearts of the broader community. Then, they will get some of what they want. Also, the judicial branch is their to protect minorities from over-the-top sectarianism.

Government must not establish religion or interfere. That's the separation of church and state. That's it. No politician is obligated to park his religion outside of his office.

[Guest]

What we can't forget is that Religion is the foundation of Morality for most people. They can't be separated.

So, unless you take morality out of law, taking religion out of law is as like taking air out of balloons.