Religion, Get Out of Politics Or Be Taxed

[pimpdave]

GTFO

Click image to enlarge.

[Phatscotty]

More like politics, get the f*ck out of religion.

People of religion and religious institutions have the right to vote for and support people which represent them, even if it's just in support of promoting freedom of religion. They also have a right to have a voice against anyone who is against the freedom of religion.

[ViperOverLord]

Should unions and corporations get out of politics too?

[BigBallinStalin]

Religion.




"Yes?"

[pimpdave]

Religion: Representation with no taxation!

[Timminz]

[everywhere116]

Change we can all believe in.

Unfortunately, nothing like this will happen for about 50 years.

[thegreekdog]

Should unions and corporations get out of politics too?

By the "if you don't pay taxes, you have no say" logic, just unions.

[aad0906]

so if you pay taxes you should have a say?

[pimpdave]

so if you pay taxes you should have a say?

I don't care if they get refunded, especially if that means making public what the church spends their money on. So actual charity work would get refunded, but other stuff, like buying the church leadership a fleet of luxury cars isn't.

[Lootifer]

Personally I think the first thing that should be getting out of politics is politics.

[Phatscotty]

no offense to some here, but if we are gonna take anything from politics, we have an overabundance of ivy league lawyers

[daddy1gringo]

As Phatscotty pointed out, the "establishment clause" was meant to keep government from affecting faith, not to keep faith from affecting government. It was to avoid having an established church such as England had: the "Church of England", or Anglican Church, whose official head was the King, which gave them power to use the civil authorities to persecute people whose beliefs were different, like Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Puritans, Catholics, etc.

Nowhere did any of them express an intention that people should not speak on politics, vote, and yes, govern, based upon their religious convictions. On the contrary, many of those who spoke strongly for this "separation" insisted that it was absolutely necessary that people do so.

Don't like people's religious convictions involved in lawmaking? I guess you like slavery then. The Abolitionist movement was a Christian movement, born out of the Second Great Awakening and preached from church pulpits, based on Biblical principles and arguments. As I said in another thread:

William Wilberforce, the man responsible for the abolition of slavery in Britain, and his backers, were acting on their Biblical convictions. The Union soldiers marched into the war that ended slavery in the U.S. to the strains of “Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord…as He died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” (It’s possible that if we demanded separation of church and state, that people not act on their religious beliefs in public office, in the 19th century, we would still have slavery.)

Let's see, if people who believe in God aren't allowed to vote and govern according to their belief, then the only people who are allowed to do so are people who have the same opinions about what is the basis of right and wrong, and what is the nature of human beings, that you do. Convenient.

[daddy1gringo]

Looks like I killed the thread; nobody wants to answer.

OK, so while we're at it, what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.

[Lootifer]

Eh the end to slavary could (and in all likely would've) occured without religion. Religion doesn't define whether or not you are a good person, there is all four kinds of people in the world: Religious dickwads, religious super awesome good people, non-religious dickwads, and non-religious super awesome good people.

If religion an America was allowed a greater influence there would be significant government persecution of homosexuals (answering your second question) plus a few other freedom inhibiting things like contraceptives, sex before marrige, etc.

Freedom is freedom, not freedom as defined by the church.

[BigBallinStalin]

Looks like I killed the thread; nobody wants to answer.

OK, so while we're at it, what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.

This is minor, but it would be funny to let people swear by whatever book they wanted--instead of only being allowed to swear by the bible.

I'd pick Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

[daddy1gringo]

Eh the end to slavary could (and in all likely would've) occured without religion.

Fair enough, maybe it would have, and maybe it wouldn't, but you are probably right that it would have eventually. That was a bit of polemic hyperbole on my part. My point was that what actually did happen was that it ended because of just the sort of things that folks on your side of the "separation of church and state" issue usually object to: elected officials enacted laws to enforce what they believed was moral based on their Biblically derived religious beliefs. People elected them into office based on those principles and intentions. Most importantly, preachers in churches, tax-exempt churches, took a position on those political issues in their sermons and insisted that this was the moral choice, and that their listeners should act to see it carried out.

Religion doesn't define whether or not you are a good person, there is all four kinds of people in the world: Religious dickwads, religious super awesome good people, non-religious dickwads, and non-religious super awesome good people.

No disagreement there. I know quite a few of all 4 myself. Once again, wasn't my point.

If religion an America was allowed a greater influence there would be significant government persecution of homosexuals (answering your second question) plus a few other freedom inhibiting things like contraceptives, sex before marrige, etc.

Actually, that doesn't at all answer my question. The title of this thread is "Religion, get out of politics..." Here is my question again:

what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.

Your "answer" was your speculations about what would happen, in the future, or in a hypothetical future, "if..." My question was about what things actually going on now should not be allowed, as indicated by the thread title.

[daddy1gringo]

Looks like I killed the thread; nobody wants to answer.

OK, so while we're at it, what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.

This is minor, but it would be funny to let people swear by whatever book they wanted--instead of only being allowed to swear by the bible.

I'd pick Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Already, whoever objects (atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) can just say something like "I hereby legally affirm..." I always thought that was a kind of silly and superstitious practice anyway and planned to, if the occasion arose, go the "legal affirmation" route. I object to rituals, and the book is just paper, ink, leather and glue, not some kind of magical talisman. It's what it says and the One who said it that are awesome.

So how about my question?

[Symmetry]

Looks like I killed the thread; nobody wants to answer.

OK, so while we're at it, what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.

This is minor, but it would be funny to let people swear by whatever book they wanted--instead of only being allowed to swear by the bible.

I'd pick Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Already, whoever objects (atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) can just say something like "I hereby legally affirm..." I always thought that was a kind of silly and superstitious practice anyway and planned to, if the occasion arose, go the "legal affirmation" route. I object to rituals, and the book is just paper, ink, leather and glue, not some kind of magical talisman. It's what it says and the One who said it that are awesome.

So how about my question?

I'd say that you've taken a general question, and entirely localised it to the US. I'd like to see the Queen removed as head of the Church of England, and religious officials taken out of the House of Lords.

[BigBallinStalin]

OK, so while we're at it, what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.

Tax exemptions.

[Lootifer]

I dont think religion has that much impact on state decisions so I cant really answer your question; doesnt stop me wanting less religion in politics, largely based on some of the churches more fringe policy that I strongly object to.

Im very much anti todays current political climate because of rampant demogogy; this is a result of two main things: powerful actors in the landscape using their power to sway and bias otherwise neutral debates and dumb/lethargic/uninformed decision making on the part of voters.

This is relevant to the debate because the church is one of the many actors that has power (along with large corporations, political/media/entertainment personalites, activist groups, etc etc)

[BigBallinStalin]

I dont think religion has that much impact on state decisions so I cant really answer your question; doesnt stop me wanting less religion in politics, largely based on some of the churches more fringe policy that I strongly object to.

Im very much anti todays current political climate because of rampant demogogy; this is a result of two main things: powerful actors in the landscape using their power to sway and bias otherwise neutral debates and dumb/lethargic/uninformed decision making on the part of voters.

This is relevant to the debate because the church is one of the many actors that has power (along with large corporations, political/media/entertainment personalites, activist groups, etc etc)

It seems like it's been like that for decades.

Maybe there's something in the water.

[Lootifer]

I dont think religion has that much impact on state decisions so I cant really answer your question; doesnt stop me wanting less religion in politics, largely based on some of the churches more fringe policy that I strongly object to.

Im very much anti todays current political climate because of rampant demogogy; this is a result of two main things: powerful actors in the landscape using their power to sway and bias otherwise neutral debates and dumb/lethargic/uninformed decision making on the part of voters.

This is relevant to the debate because the church is one of the many actors that has power (along with large corporations, political/media/entertainment personalites, activist groups, etc etc)

It seems like it's been like that for decades.

Maybe there's something in the water.

Hence why I suggest we shoot everyone.

[BigBallinStalin]

I dont think religion has that much impact on state decisions so I cant really answer your question; doesnt stop me wanting less religion in politics, largely based on some of the churches more fringe policy that I strongly object to.

Im very much anti todays current political climate because of rampant demogogy; this is a result of two main things: powerful actors in the landscape using their power to sway and bias otherwise neutral debates and dumb/lethargic/uninformed decision making on the part of voters.

This is relevant to the debate because the church is one of the many actors that has power (along with large corporations, political/media/entertainment personalites, activist groups, etc etc)

It seems like it's been like that for decades.

Maybe there's something in the water.

Hence why I suggest we shoot everyone.

Because dead people can't resist... makes sense to me. Where do I sign?

[Lootifer]

I dunno, heard some Kony dude was sorting something out...