Banning religion from politics

[Rhinox]

People forget that religious people vote. So why exclude a certain group of people that could potentially vote for you?

http://www.roflcorner.com/wp-content...leFacePalm.jpg

[notorious bum]

Just saw that episode a few weeks ago. Pretty good ep, but I wish #1 really did: blow that fucker's lab up and tapped his wife and ended the episode with them warpdriving the hell outta that galaxy with cigs lit on the bridge.

Sorry, just got back into watching StarTrek after being neglected in the past for fear of aquiring trekkie nerdiness as a kid.

[Serra]

Not to oversimplify, but to me this argument can be broken down into: "Ban X from politics (because I don't like the impact it has had)." You're essentially proposing legislation that many of the religious nutcases you hate would love -- legislation that bans those who have different views/values from being allowed to bring their voice into politics.

As has been said, preventing religious groups/figures from having a voice in politics goes against the spirit of the constitution where everyone is able to have a voice (although, Madison probably would be fine with restricting them considering how large a voice they have..). Also, the groups/factions/w/e people align themselves to is complete voluntary (open to some discussion), and religion is just another affiliation. Everyone has a right to align themselves to whatever group they want without having restrictions placed on them as a result of said alignment.

Yes, there are plenty of cases where religious nutcases do ridiculous things in politics, or make insane speeches meant to instill fear in the populace, but they have the right to make those choices, and keeping those nutcases out of power is the responsibility of the people.

Politicians are also people too. To say that they have to cut out their religious views when they enter politics is also a ridiculous notion. Whether they separate themselves from religion when they're working on policy is their choice.

Editing to add on:
And while claims like "religion prevents people from making logical decisions" sounds great, the same can be said about plenty of other things. Ignorance, laziness, misinformation, there are plenty of things that prevent people from hearing the 'correct' story. And you can't make claims that people shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they truly understand the issue at hand because that's not how the system works. I just finished reading The Semisovereign People by E.E. Schattschneider, and he makes a good point about how there's no magical group that is capable of drawing the line for qualified and unqualified. There will always be people who say the line is too low and demand it be raised, that's just the nature of democracy.

[Kuya]

1- Can't say i care if i'm acting like a religious nutcase. I don't respond much to associations. The difference of course is, the influence i've seen religion have on politics has usually been to try and limit the freedoms of others (and at times succeeding). The problem is, that the limits they want to impose are illegitimate. Without much use to a society. However, i consider their views illegitimate and useless in the realm of politics. So, since they add no benefit, but do much to harm, i believe it would be best to limit their influence. How often do we have to deal with prohibitions on alcohol, denial of marriage to homosexuals, hate on other religious groups, before it's sufficiently clear that when religion enters into politics, it is almost always negative. The only time i've seen a positive use of religion in politics has been liberation theology in Latin America, but since they are a minority, it hardly seems worth it to risk so many problems.

2- They're right to interfere in politics is not in question.

3- The people have failed to keep politics clean of religion.

4- Politicians are people, but they aren't normal citizens. They are held to higher standards, and different rules. I don't think it should be a choice for politicians to separate themselves from religion, but mandatory. They can always be religious in their personal lives, and such religiosity will influence their decisions, but this is exactly what i'm trying to do. Force religion in politics into hiding. To stygmatize it. To warp discussion in such a way, that speaking of religion and politics together becomes faux-pas. The harder it becomes to explicitly speak of religion and politics, the more abstract the religious-right has to become in order to introduce religion into politics. The more abstract they become, the more it loses its religious character. I am of course, referring to the way racist politics turned into a politics of pro-State rights and economic neoliberalism.

[Serra]

1) But your restrictions on their freedoms are also illegitimate. You can just as easily say that interest groups for big business are detrimental to the political process, so we need to restrict the influence they have over politics (although the more I read on group research, the more I'm starting to think that street runs more in terms of politics affects those interest groups -- but that's an entirely different beast..). There is demand in our complex society for a system equally complex to moderate the affects of so many varying groups with conflicting interests while not infringing on the rights of freedom. But restriction is not the system we need. By allowing all groups to exist (even controversial groups such as religious groups, the Ku Klux Klan, or certain lobbyists), one hopes the affects of more positive groups prevail -- similar to Justice Holmes’ Marketplace of Ideas I believe (someone referenced this recently in a discussion, so I'm not entirely sure if I use the reference correctly here).

2) In your OP, it sounds like their right to be involved in politics will be restricted. Going so far as to restrict what is said in church even -- which is clearly against a separation of church and state.

3) They've failed to keep it clean of politics because it's just another aspect of their lives. And it's unreasonable to ask people to cut out a part of their lives simply because you don't agree with it/see it as threatening.

4) While yes, they are held to a higher standard, that doesn't mean they lose their freedom of speech by becoming politicians. Also, for some, it's impossible to separate religion from politics. I know a few people who wouldn't vote for Obama because policy-wise, he's pro-choice. And before you say that people who can't make the split shouldn't be allowed into politics, 1) we want diversity in politics, not all the same perspectives, and 2) Article 6 of the Constitution specifically says religion shall not be used to determine someone's eligibility for office -- that street runs both ways.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Kuya]

1- My restriction of religious interference in politics is not illegitimate because it serves the very nature of politics. That is, a realistic assessment of needs and actions. Religious involvement in politics provides no real benefit, as it does not consider real interests, but rather, arbitrary ideas. On the other hand, religious involvement in politics has been negative as it has needlessly driven alienating and useless policy. Furthermore, i'm not proposing that freedom to congregate be limited, but rather, that they can't specifically endorse politicians and policies. There is no issue of allowing a group to exist or not, but an issue of to what degree they can participate in politics.

I do in fact agree that the involvement of big business in politics should be limited. The idea of pluralism and a competition of interests in politics assumes that no interests can obtain too much of an upperhand over another, just as long as a plurality of interests are allowed to complete, but in practice this is not true. Particularly in the face of a polarization of distribution of wealth, wealths gaps mean gaps in power an the power to influence government. Making it look less like a competition, and more like crony capitalism. The same is true of religion, except that though big business might be useful in politics when it comes to promoting competitiveness in international markets, religion in politics has no such use.

2- Don't care if it is, and i doubt you're right. Since it refers to goverment not preventing religious freedom, and endorsing politicians and legislation is not integral to religious practice. The proper way to frame it, is as preventing the political freedom of religious groups, which is exactly what i'm aiming for here. Complete excision of religion from politics.

3- I'm not going to keep correcting your misinterpretations of my arguments. If you keep this up, i will ignore you. One last time, i'm not proposing that people cut out a part of their lives. I already said that religion is best kept in private life, and away from politics. Religious involvement in politics is not integral to religious practice.

4- Don't be obtuse. I'm not talking about a complete separation from religion, because that's impossible. I'm talking about preventing politicians from justifying policy with religion. They can be as religious as they want in private, or even in public, but they can't say that a legislation is being made for X or Y religius reason. They are welcome to lie and say their reasons are secular when they really aren't. I'm not talking about screening politicians to see if they're religios or not. Furthermore, diversity does not mean accepting every shit stain of an opinion that limps into the room.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Thank you for the luls, Kuya.

Your posts have shown me that you really have no honest idea of either the history of religious involvement in politics, nor what religion really means to those who are religious.

[Max™]

Never happen in America, which is all the more reason to utterly destroy the current government, and start anew.

It is far too overgrown with evils, hacking at one part or the other on the periphery won't do anything ultimately.

Tear it all down, make sure the next one is reminded regularly that it serves, and fears it's people.

This one does not fear us, nor serve anything but it's own interests.


Religion, well... that's obviously a bad thing to mix with politics, but the problem as I see it isn't the stupid fuckers bringing their skyparent into it, the rot goes far deeper.

[Acturus]

Yes, keep religion out of politics.

And keep politics out of religion for that matter.

And more ice cream sundaes for everyone!

[Kerberoz]

Even if you were to completely eliminate religion from the human psyche, 90% of the population would still be too stupid to make informed decisions and still vote based on stupid shit that doesn't matter. They'd just vote based on network TV or advertising campaigns instead of religion. People are dumb. Getting rid of religion would not change that. The only way to make the world "better" is to ignore the least intelligent 90% of the population entirely.

Stop worrying about politics because it doesn't actually matter, and just focus on exploiting the dumbfucks as best you can. Nothing you do is ever going to make the world "better", at least not in a single generation.

[wagon]

God luck with that! There are too many people in the US think that their country is founded on Christian principles and it's almost insurmountable to convince them otherwise.

[Yugl]

Then propose something practical.

Increase the involvement of religion in politics by creating two stable independent candidates that use religion as their sole platform. Vote splitting between four candidates (And possibly a fifth) would wreck havoc.

[Cow_k]

This would be a better thread if it was about keeping greedy people out of politics. Religion is a tool for the greedy who use it for wrong, just like so many other things. Many of the same things can be said of beer, women, puppies etc. You take out religion, something takes it's place. There are far too many people looking for something to point their finger at when the problem lies with people themselves. You think people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck wouldn't appear without religion? Hah.

[Olo401]

This, pretty much. Just because we hate what they're saying and the influence they bring, it doesn't mean that they don't have the right to say it. It's also important to remember that the American Constitution does not have a separation between church and state. It just keeps the government from respecting an establishment of religion.

It keeps Congress (and by way of amendment the State legislatures) from passing laws in regards to religion. The Executive Branch has no such restriction unless it imposes one on itself, and the Judicial Branch is allowed to use religious belief and its affect on society in its decisions, and as a factor in determining a citizen's decision making process.

As for the topic of discussion, no I do not believe restricting religion in politics is going to solve anything. Like it or not, practicing religion or not is a personal decision and should not be restricted in any way. And frankly I'd rather know what a politician's beliefs are and how they influence their decisions, because if they're not in line with my own beliefs then I won't vote for or support that candidate.

[Crackpot]

This would be a better thread if it was about keeping greedy people out of politics. Religion is a tool for the greedy who use it for wrong, just like so many other things. Many of the same things can be said of beer, women, puppies etc. You take out religion, something takes it's place. There are far too many people looking for something to point their finger at when the problem lies with people themselves. You think people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck wouldn't appear without religion? Hah.

Exactly, I know people at work who truly believe that the government would be better run by Atheists because you know, religion is "teh evils" and all. We as human beings can be corrupt no matter what influences us, unfortunately religion is just another catalyst.