You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 10:10:39 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Does religion belong in politics  (Read 5806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #125 on: November 05, 2012, 10:32:20 AM »
Thank you Stattick for making my point clearly as I seemed incapable.  I do put some of the blame on the sensationalism of the gay marriage debate and realized too late that my point was being clouded by that topic.  Yes, for clarification, I have always been a supporter of same-sex marriage.  My point is simply that law-making is the imposing of one set of ideas (perhaps not as extensive as ideology) on another group that disagrees typically, otherwise the set of ideas would just be accepted.  I want to say the concept is called “Majority Rules, Minority Rights” or something similar.

I was just pointing out that people have to accept that their ideas, values, beliefs or whatever are in essence being pushed and forced onto other people in that setting.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #126 on: November 05, 2012, 10:36:21 AM »
I don't think that Pumpkin Seeds is actually against gay marriage. I think she's playing the devil's advocate here, and picked up the cause of gay marriage as an example because Vanity Evolved used it. I could be wrong though.

Of course not, she's presenting a caricature.

Regardless, presenting an ideology as 'anything forced upon you' is not a useful definition. Is a woman defending herself against a rapist imposing her ideology? A minority defending themselves from abuse?

We accord and grant people certain rights by virtue of being born, rights which presumably grow until they are of a certain age, and give a certain moral weight to their right of self-determination. How far that should extend, exactly, can be a matter of debate, in terms of what externalities may be imposed on society as a whole and such.

And sometimes movements intent on fighting discrimination do form ideologies (militant feminism and militant atheism both end up ranking pretty high on the authoritarian scale). But these groups end up crossing clear lines in terms of what they wish to impose or see imposed, for no other reason than the simple existence of men (gender or sex, depending) or religions offends them.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #127 on: November 05, 2012, 12:02:20 PM »
I fail to see the faulty logic or really why any logical argument needs to be made.  You are quite blatantly stating that what you believe to be right supersedes what someone else believes to be right.  That you would enforce your statements, your values and your belief is imposing your ideology onto another group of people that feel differently.  So you do not feel that imposing your values, ideas and beliefs onto another group is wrong.  You just don’t want them imposing those things on you.

If you want to stretch the term ideology, then yes; I like to think that my 'ideology' that people should be able to do something natural, and have the same rights as everyone else is superior to making entire groups of people second class citizens who deserve scorn and inequality because a group of people, rather than using any real, legitimate reason to state why homosexuality/inter-racial/whatever marriage, and insted point to one vague translated sentence from a book written two thousand years ago, addressing the problems of people two thousand years ago. It also brings into question their bigotry; why is homosexual marriage still wrong, and stoning women for not being virgins in marriage now accepted? If the beliefs can suddenly change there, why does -this- 'problem' stick? That's when you start using theological 'evidence', the only 'evidence' that supports the claim said person believes, to shunt the blame of their ignorance and intolerance ('Oh, -I- don't have a problem with gay people having a piece of paper that says they'd just like you or me. But my God does, and there's nothing I can do about that. No offence!')

The point here is, as I say, not gay marriage. This isn't me declaring my opinions on gay marriage and such, because this isn't the thread for that. Gay marriage just happens to be, in my opinion, one of the perfect examples of why religion and theocracy does not work as a good basis for political decisions. Something such as capital punishment is far more grey, whereas gay marriage is far more black and white; there is no reason for it to be vilified outside of religious belief. So why would homosexuals being married, when you yourself are not a homosexual, affect you? If it's a claim that 'God says it's wrong', well, they're already sinning. Why would a piece of paper saying the State acknowledges that they're sinning with each other change that? Unless your arguement is 'I don't believe homosexuals should pay less tax', which is just as non-sensical, but at least not theistically motivated.

So yes, that pretty much sums up my opinion on that. If a theology states homosexuality is wrong, and you already tolerate homosexuals, why would them getting non-religious (or religious services within a different religion/denomination/church) acknowledgement of their commitment suddenly make their relationship that much more offensive that it's better for the country to stop them doing so?

Of course not, she's presenting a caricature.

Regardless, presenting an ideology as 'anything forced upon you' is not a useful definition. Is a woman defending herself against a rapist imposing her ideology? A minority defending themselves from abuse?

We accord and grant people certain rights by virtue of being born, rights which presumably grow until they are of a certain age, and give a certain moral weight to their right of self-determination. How far that should extend, exactly, can be a matter of debate, in terms of what externalities may be imposed on society as a whole and such.

And sometimes movements intent on fighting discrimination do form ideologies (militant feminism and militant atheism both end up ranking pretty high on the authoritarian scale). But these groups end up crossing clear lines in terms of what they wish to impose or see imposed, for no other reason than the simple existence of men (gender or sex, depending) or religions offends them.

It is a rather extreme notion; by this logic, a doctor is forcing his ideology onto you when he says that antibiotics are the only way to cure your chest infection or, exactly as stated, the rape example.

If the idea is that 'The Democracy knows what's best, and what the majority wants is right', then you set up a terrible precident. It's well and good to argue that if you're in a first world country, such as America or UK, but what about say, a woman going to a place where women are still seen as second class citizens? Is it offensive to someone's religion or them if you refuse to be treated as such? Is it another persons right to force you to do something? If someone demanded in the street that you give them £20, because women are inferior, would you just hand it over and accept that it's wrong to offend their view of women and your place?

Once again, in this case, there is no 'forcing' of anything. Legalising homosexual marriage, in no way, forces -you- to accept gay marriage in any way. It does not force you to believe it's right. You are still allowed to believe what you believe. If you're a pastor, you are still free to say your church doesn't believe in gay marriage, and direct them to a church which does perform that. Telling people they're inferior and that they don't -deserve- marriage by virtue of being born is offensive.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #128 on: November 05, 2012, 12:12:00 PM »
Pumpkin Seeds is sort of right and sort of wrong.

What she's getting into is the dividing line between maximum person rights and societies protection of the rights of minorities. It's arguing that a bigot that hates black people, and only wants them allowed to have demeaning and/or dirty service jobs, has his rights infringed on when he sees black people capable of getting good jobs. He has his rights infringed upon when black people are able to go to college through affirmative action programs, or for some companies to have a hiring preference imposed on them from the government due to affirmative action programs. But that same bigot has his rights imposed on when his taxes go to giving "those people" a free education in elementary through high school. He has his rights imposed on when his taxes help to pay for medical care for "those people", and when his taxes help pay the salaries of police and firemen that serve in "those" neighborhoods.


Thank you Stattick for making my point clearly as I seemed incapable.  I do put some of the blame on the sensationalism of the gay marriage debate and realized too late that my point was being clouded by that topic.  Yes, for clarification, I have always been a supporter of same-sex marriage.  My point is simply that law-making is the imposing of one set of ideas (perhaps not as extensive as ideology) on another group that disagrees typically, otherwise the set of ideas would just be accepted.  I want to say the concept is called “Majority Rules, Minority Rights” or something similar.

I was just pointing out that people have to accept that their ideas, values, beliefs or whatever are in essence being pushed and forced onto other people in that setting.


Except you don't. I see your point that it's somewhat infringing, but not in the sense you're putting it; laws being passed to make something legal or acceptable by law does not magically alter people. People are under no obligation to change their opinion; just because inter-racial marriage is legally allowed, it does not take away your right to believe what you want to believe. You do not have to support inter-racial marriage. You do not need to have an inter-racial marriage. You do not have to change any of your opinions. It is not taking away your right to disagree and it is also not taking away your right to stop people marrying, because no-one has the latter right to begin with.

You are free to believe what you want. I am free to believe what I believe about your belief. I do not have the right, and shouldn't have the right, to infringe upon your beliefs. However, theological belief as law does do that.

I am not a Christian, and do not accept 'homosexuality is a sin'. If a law is passed with no reason other than that, I no longer have my right to believe what I believe; the State or the country I am in is -telling me- what I need to believe. This is not the same as the State deciding that the standard procedure for treating chest infections is antibiotics; the proof that it works is there, the proof that it helps us is there and even then, I still have the right, as a person, to refuse that medical treatment if I so choose, or if my beliefs conflict with that of the proscribed course of antibiotics.

It sets an unhealthy precident, because you can justify a Hell of a lot that way. "Well, the Bible says kill people for working on the Sabbath, so I guess we'll make that a law too."

Offline Edrick

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #129 on: November 05, 2012, 03:15:18 PM »
I'm not approved, but was said I could post in these forums...if not, just delete this lol.

With that said, I do not take the side of anyone on this.  But there are some facts that need to be agreed upon, and that is politics is 90% based on the Social tolerated beliefs of the culture at that time.  If people like to admit it or not, the majority of people that their ideals/beliefs from their religion and have for all of human kind.  The truth is, this "there is no God, and each person has a right to do as they think they should", is a radical idea of the 20th century.  You can study history for 100 years and read every book known to man kind, you can not find a time or a large culture that had no god of some kind where they pulled their ideals from until maybe the last 100 years.

Now there will always be a group that is outside the social norms of their culture, and have to face the masses making laws that goes against their personal ideals.

more tolerated topic is same sex marriage, people respond with 'well, what people do is not anyone else's business".  ok...what about those that enjoy sex with children, 14 was the marriage age of a girl from ancient times until the middle ages.  But if you ask a homosexual if we should legalize child porn and sex with minors, I am sure most will say no and that is gross.  But then they say people are stepping on their rights, when people say the same about same sex marriage.

Again..comes down to social norms of the place and time, and religion always plays a big part in it.  Currently Christianity and Islam are the major religions, and both believe same sex relations are immoral.

..not to offend, but just food for thought.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #130 on: November 05, 2012, 03:25:15 PM »
I'm not approved, but was said I could post in these forums...if not, just delete this lol.

With that said, I do not take the side of anyone on this.  But there are some facts that need to be agreed upon, and that is politics is 90% based on the Social tolerated beliefs of the culture at that time.  If people like to admit it or not, the majority of people that their ideals/beliefs from their religion and have for all of human kind.  The truth is, this "there is no God, and each person has a right to do as they think they should", is a radical idea of the 20th century.  You can study history for 100 years and read every book known to man kind, you can not find a time or a large culture that had no god of some kind where they pulled their ideals from until maybe the last 100 years.

Now there will always be a group that is outside the social norms of their culture, and have to face the masses making laws that goes against their personal ideals.

more tolerated topic is same sex marriage, people respond with 'well, what people do is not anyone else's business".  ok...what about those that enjoy sex with children, 14 was the marriage age of a girl from ancient times until the middle ages.  But if you ask a homosexual if we should legalize child porn and sex with minors, I am sure most will say no and that is gross.  But then they say people are stepping on their rights, when people say the same about same sex marriage.

Again..comes down to social norms of the place and time, and religion always plays a big part in it.  Currently Christianity and Islam are the major religions, and both believe same sex relations are immoral.

..not to offend, but just food for thought.

Except in that case, it wasn't sex with minors; legal age of consent of sixteen or eighteen is, as you point out, a modern audition as lifespans increased. Remember, the big issue here isn't 'Some people have preferences, and some are more socially acceptable than others because times say so'. It's impossible to compare gay marriage to child pornography, as the first is a consenting agreement between two long-standing partners to enter into a legally binding agreement, and a vast majority of child pornography and child sex offenses are instances of sexual abuse and rape. It's like comparing a couple of engaging in consensual BDSM sado-masochism and brutal, human rights violating torture.

Offline Edrick

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #131 on: November 05, 2012, 03:38:18 PM »
Except in that case, it wasn't sex with minors; legal age of consent of sixteen or eighteen is, as you point out, a modern audition as lifespans increased. Remember, the big issue here isn't 'Some people have preferences, and some are more socially acceptable than others because times say so'. It's impossible to compare gay marriage to child pornography, as the first is a consenting agreement between two long-standing partners to enter into a legally binding agreement, and a vast majority of child pornography and child sex offenses are instances of sexual abuse and rape. It's like comparing a couple of engaging in consensual BDSM sado-masochism and brutal, human rights violating torture.

I do not believe that is a fair comparision, as have sex with a minor is illegal so our example of healthy relationships are limited.  The only people we see brave enough to act out on those desires or interest, are those that are unstable enough to go to the extremes to get what they want since they can't get it any other way.

In high schools through out the world for the most part, there are 18 year old seniors dating 14 or 15 year old freshmen.  They may hide it and did mean for it to happen, but they like each other.  There are examples of teachers that have fallen in love with their students, again not wanting too or trying too, but there was a connection and both went with it.  Neither cases are rape, or some twisted vile act of unstable people...to them, they are two people, making a choice they do not feel is anyone else's business.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #132 on: November 05, 2012, 03:46:11 PM »
Sometimes the laws around it does get iffy, I agree. But as stated, it's still not exactly a fair comparison. You're comparing a minor, someone who doesn't have fully recognition as an adult by law having relations with someone who is held accountable, to two people who, all things equal, do not have the same rights as their peers just because of the sex of partner they're attracted to. One of the only arguements for this to exist is theological.

My point is once you allow theology to control politics, whether homosexuals can marry is the least your worries. The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says working on the Sabbath is. It also says that women have to marry their rapists. If you're instituting one part of the Bible as law, why not the other? If 'It's in the Bible' is a strong enough arguement, then how can any of it be used without using the rest? Ignoring that, what if it's someone who doesn't share your religion? A good portion of Christians in America agree that a Christian based moral code would benefit the country, but I distinctly remember what a huge outrage it caused when rumoured flew around that Barrack Obama may be a Muslim. What happens when someone who doesn't share your religious feelings institutes laws based on their religious teachings?

Offline Edrick

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #133 on: November 05, 2012, 04:08:03 PM »
Sometimes the laws around it does get iffy, I agree. But as stated, it's still not exactly a fair comparison. You're comparing a minor, someone who doesn't have fully recognition as an adult by law having relations with someone who is held accountable, to two people who, all things equal, do not have the same rights as their peers just because of the sex of partner they're attracted to. One of the only arguements for this to exist is theological.

My point is once you allow theology to control politics, whether homosexuals can marry is the least your worries. The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin, but it also says working on the Sabbath is. It also says that women have to marry their rapists. If you're instituting one part of the Bible as law, why not the other? If 'It's in the Bible' is a strong enough arguement, then how can any of it be used without using the rest? Ignoring that, what if it's someone who doesn't share your religion? A good portion of Christians in America agree that a Christian based moral code would benefit the country, but I distinctly remember what a huge outrage it caused when rumoured flew around that Barrack Obama may be a Muslim. What happens when someone who doesn't share your religious feelings institutes laws based on their religious teachings?

That is true enough that a child does not know better, but their parents do.  So instead of the parents legal rights to give permission for their 16 year old daughter they can do the same for their 14 year old daughter to marry an adult.  Then you are saying it is fine, and fairly comparable with same sex marriage?

For the most part in the US in any case, it was illegal to open your business on sunday until people fought it and changed the law.  As far as the marrying your rapiest, that isnt a law.  The Jews lived by the law, and statutes.  Christians do not follow the statutes, as the New Testament states that Jesus nailed them to the cross with him.

So eating pork, touching dead bodies, befriending a heathen, marrying your rapist, and going to the temple three times a year for different feasts are no longer required.

The muslim making laws for a Christian nation is the same as same sex being passed, like I said before, it all depends on the social beliefs of the culture at the time.  currently the United States is a Christian nation, and majority of people are Christians in some sense or another.  Some do not go along with the religion part and see it corrupt, and keep to their own beliefs...but they are Christian beliefs.  in 2000 years we might all be druids, and same sex marriage will be legal and so will animal sacrifice to the gods.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #134 on: November 05, 2012, 04:14:54 PM »
For the most part in the US in any case, it was illegal to open your business on sunday until people fought it and changed the law.  As far as the marrying your rapiest, that isnt a law.  The Jews lived by the law, and statutes.  Christians do not follow the statutes, as the New Testament states that Jesus nailed them to the cross with him.

There is no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels.  The references to homosexuality are in Leviticus, and in the Pauline Epistles (which are also where some of the more misogynistic passages show up.)  Christians who oppose same-sex relationships (which is not the same as 'all Christians') invariably bring up Leviticus - the Pauline Epistles are much more rarely mentioned, if at all.  And yet, the Old Covenant was done away with by the blood of the New Covenant.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #135 on: November 05, 2012, 04:19:49 PM »
That is true enough that a child does not know better, but their parents do.  So instead of the parents legal rights to give permission for their 16 year old daughter they can do the same for their 14 year old daughter to marry an adult.  Then you are saying it is fine, and fairly comparable with same sex marriage?

For the most part in the US in any case, it was illegal to open your business on sunday until people fought it and changed the law.  As far as the marrying your rapiest, that isnt a law.  The Jews lived by the law, and statutes.  Christians do not follow the statutes, as the New Testament states that Jesus nailed them to the cross with him.

So eating pork, touching dead bodies, befriending a heathen, marrying your rapist, and going to the temple three times a year for different feasts are no longer required.

The muslim making laws for a Christian nation is the same as same sex being passed, like I said before, it all depends on the social beliefs of the culture at the time.  currently the United States is a Christian nation, and majority of people are Christians in some sense or another.  Some do not go along with the religion part and see it corrupt, and keep to their own beliefs...but they are Christian beliefs.  in 2000 years we might all be druids, and same sex marriage will be legal and so will animal sacrifice to the gods.

For the same reason that parents can allow their kids to smoke pot and the child can still be prosecuted for it; pot is illegal, regardless of the parents allowance. Minors are treated differently from adults, but not unequally; minors don't have the same rights as adults, but they are also not held up to the same standards as adults. This is completely different from two twenty year olds wanting to marry, yet one cannot because they are attracted to their own sex.

And yeah, it was. And guess what? People changed it. Why? Because they didn't think it applied. So, why does the punishment for working the Sabbath get thrown away, but one line about homosexuality in the Bible is still touted as reason to not pass laws to grant the LGBT community the same rights as the heterosexual community?

This is also my point; a lot of Christians will tout that a religiously guided country is a good choice. Of course, but this, they mean 'a country guided by my religious beliefs'. What do you think the reaction of most people would be if someone of a religion different from the majority come into power and starts imposing their laws based on their religion? Suddenly, the same people who believe instituting -their- beliefs on the rest of the country are up in arms, because 'that religion is wrong'.

Personally, I'm a little more hopeful that it won't take two thousand years for homosexuals to be treated as equals. As for animal sacrifice... well, remember, the Bible is a story which bases the entirity of it's good message on human sacrifice to God (and in some denominations, God coming to Earth so that he can be sacrificed to God...).

Offline Edrick

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #136 on: November 05, 2012, 05:03:36 PM »
There is no reference to homosexuality in the Gospels.  The references to homosexuality are in Leviticus, and in the Pauline Epistles (which are also where some of the more misogynistic passages show up.)  Christians who oppose same-sex relationships (which is not the same as 'all Christians') invariably bring up Leviticus - the Pauline Epistles are much more rarely mentioned, if at all.  And yet, the Old Covenant was done away with by the blood of the New Covenant.

The law was never taken away, only the statutes.  dont cut your hair, dont touch dead body...the..dont murder, don't bare false witness are a large part of the new covenant.  Even said if you can not follow the ten commandments, you have no hope or moral founding to ever become a Christian.

Offline Edrick

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #137 on: November 05, 2012, 05:13:36 PM »
For the same reason that parents can allow their kids to smoke pot and the child can still be prosecuted for it; pot is illegal, regardless of the parents allowance. Minors are treated differently from adults, but not unequally; minors don't have the same rights as adults, but they are also not held up to the same standards as adults. This is completely different from two twenty year olds wanting to marry, yet one cannot because they are attracted to their own sex.

And yeah, it was. And guess what? People changed it. Why? Because they didn't think it applied. So, why does the punishment for working the Sabbath get thrown away, but one line about homosexuality in the Bible is still touted as reason to not pass laws to grant the LGBT community the same rights as the heterosexual community?

This is also my point; a lot of Christians will tout that a religiously guided country is a good choice. Of course, but this, they mean 'a country guided by my religious beliefs'. What do you think the reaction of most people would be if someone of a religion different from the majority come into power and starts imposing their laws based on their religion? Suddenly, the same people who believe instituting -their- beliefs on the rest of the country are up in arms, because 'that religion is wrong'.

Personally, I'm a little more hopeful that it won't take two thousand years for homosexuals to be treated as equals. As for animal sacrifice... well, remember, the Bible is a story which bases the entirity of it's good message on human sacrifice to God (and in some denominations, God coming to Earth so that he can be sacrificed to God...).

The point remains, the majority will always fight against others that try to put their beliefs as law.  That is the entire point of the conversation, the majority of the culture have a set belief system and all laws will be based on that.  it has since the beginning of time, and will until the end of the human kind.  Galileo was executed because he said the world was round, young women burned at the stake in saleem Massuchetts because they used herbs to heal, utah told they had to make multi-person marriages against the law to gain state statues in America, and every President of the United States HAS to be a Christian or they would never get into office.  ....Is obama Muslim, probably, but he lies and says he is a Christian because he knows he would lose against the leader of the KKK if he didn't.  If he came out openly to being a Muslim, this country would vote in the worse personal you can think of as long as they said they were Christian.  Pedo, rapist, women abuser, KKK leader..it would not matter, people would only see Christian vs Heathen.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #138 on: November 05, 2012, 05:22:38 PM »
The point remains, the majority will always fight against others that try to put their beliefs as law.  That is the entire point of the conversation, the majority of the culture have a set belief system and all laws will be based on that.  it has since the beginning of time, and will until the end of the human kind.  Galileo was executed because he said the world was round, young women burned at the stake in saleem Massuchetts because they used herbs to heal, utah told they had to make multi-person marriages against the law to gain state statues in America, and every President of the United States HAS to be a Christian or they would never get into office.  ....Is obama Muslim, probably, but he lies and says he is a Christian because he knows he would lose against the leader of the KKK if he didn't.  If he came out openly to being a Muslim, this country would vote in the worse personal you can think of as long as they said they were Christian.  Pedo, rapist, women abuser, KKK leader..it would not matter, people would only see Christian vs Heathen.

I can't comment on a good portion of this, especially not Obama's religious leanings; this isn't the place and I wouldn't have any idea, regardless.

But by this point, I've repeated myself a lot and I'm beginning to clog up the board - I'm probably going to duck out for awhile, and let people have their own discussions on the topic without my name popping up every few seconds, hehe.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #139 on: November 05, 2012, 05:27:43 PM »
The law was never taken away, only the statutes.  dont cut your hair, dont touch dead body...the..dont murder, don't bare false witness are a large part of the new covenant.  Even said if you can not follow the ten commandments, you have no hope or moral founding to ever become a Christian.

Ten Commandments were Exodus - that said, most of the Ten Commandments can be summed up in the Two Great Commandments of the New Covenant, because if you love God with your whole heart, mind, and soul, that covers 1-3.  Loving your neighbor as yourself pretty much covers 4-10 - unless you've got a thing for people coveting your spouse ;) .  Leviticus is entirely devoted to enumerating all the things you're referring to as 'statutes' (blended fabrics, eating shrimp, new wine in old wineskins - all that).

Offline ShadowFox89

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #140 on: November 05, 2012, 06:33:09 PM »
Just gonna leave this here.

Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service, when it is violating all his laws.
John Adams

Offline Chelemar

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #141 on: November 05, 2012, 09:13:10 PM »
Quote
Galileo was executed because he said the world was round, young women burned at the stake in saleem Massuchetts because they used herbs to heal, utah told they had to make multi-person marriages against the law to gain state statues in America,

1st. Galileo was never executed.  He was charged with heresy and died of natural causes while under house arrest.  His arrest was not because he said the world was round, that is generally given credit to  Eratosthenes, though even that is argued.  Galileo argued that the sun and not the earth, as the Catholic church taught, was the center of the universe.  He couldn't prove his belief; he wouldn't recant and still wrote against the church's teaching, so he was charged and imprisoned, but not executed. 

Young women in Salem, Mass. were not burned at the stake because they used herbs to heal; it was most likely a combination of abuse of power and mass hysteria.  First, they weren't young women exclusively, second the majority were hanged, though one person was crushed to death, and some drowned. Of twenty killed, six were men.  Some were children, married women, elderly.  Changes are none were witches. 

yes, Utah was required to make a law banning plural marriages to obtain statehood.  However, they were requesting statehood, and had done so numerous times both as a strictly Mormon state and as a mixed religion state.  Plural marriage was already illegal in the United States.

Obama was baptized in 1988 as a Christian, over those 20 years, he attended church fairly regularly, got married there, had his children baptized there.  I doubt that he had a 20 year plan.


« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 09:24:02 PM by Chelemar »

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #142 on: November 06, 2012, 12:38:36 PM »
1st. Galileo was never executed.  He was charged with heresy and died of natural causes while under house arrest.  His arrest was not because he said the world was round, that is generally given credit to  Eratosthenes, though even that is argued.  Galileo argued that the sun and not the earth, as the Catholic church taught, was the center of the universe.  He couldn't prove his belief; he wouldn't recant and still wrote against the church's teaching, so he was charged and imprisoned, but not executed. 

Young women in Salem, Mass. were not burned at the stake because they used herbs to heal; it was most likely a combination of abuse of power and mass hysteria.  First, they weren't young women exclusively, second the majority were hanged, though one person was crushed to death, and some drowned. Of twenty killed, six were men.  Some were children, married women, elderly.  Changes are none were witches. 

yes, Utah was required to make a law banning plural marriages to obtain statehood.  However, they were requesting statehood, and had done so numerous times both as a strictly Mormon state and as a mixed religion state.  Plural marriage was already illegal in the United States.

Obama was baptized in 1988 as a Christian, over those 20 years, he attended church fairly regularly, got married there, had his children baptized there.  I doubt that he had a 20 year plan.


1st. Galileo was never executed.  He was charged with heresy and died of natural causes while under house arrest.  His arrest was not because he said the world was round, that is generally given credit to  Eratosthenes, though even that is argued.  Galileo argued that the sun and not the earth, as the Catholic church taught, was the center of the universe.  He couldn't prove his belief; he wouldn't recant and still wrote against the church's teaching, so he was charged and imprisoned, but not executed. 

Young women in Salem, Mass. were not burned at the stake because they used herbs to heal; it was most likely a combination of abuse of power and mass hysteria.  First, they weren't young women exclusively, second the majority were hanged, though one person was crushed to death, and some drowned. Of twenty killed, six were men.  Some were children, married women, elderly.  Changes are none were witches. 

yes, Utah was required to make a law banning plural marriages to obtain statehood.  However, they were requesting statehood, and had done so numerous times both as a strictly Mormon state and as a mixed religion state.  Plural marriage was already illegal in the United States.

Obama was baptized in 1988 as a Christian, over those 20 years, he attended church fairly regularly, got married there, had his children baptized there.  I doubt that he had a 20 year plan.

Thank you Chelemar, for rebuffing that crazyness with more tact and grace than I could have.

On the topic of the girls killed in Salem, the ones who brought those accusations of witchcraft were actually a group of teenage girls, reading the documents from the time it smacks of a "I don't like that unpopular girl, let's accuse her of being a witch..." mindset. Combined with authortian parinoia. created a bloodbath.

Those girls somehow convinced the town elders they were "witch detectors" and got a lot of people killed, they weren't responsible for it all, but being "herbal healers" didn't factor into the Salem trials.

that being said a number of witches in europe during the early dark ages were "old wise women" who pissed off the local clergy, and the Roman Church, being pauline in doctrine, took exception to these ladies holding to the old ways, which is sad when you realize the church had a number of founding mothers too. (thinks of wistful things, if history had been diffrent.)

On an interisting note, the eastern denominations of christanity were far more open to women by the standards of the time, but those sects were lost either to absorbation by the Byzantine Orthodoxy, or crushed out of existance by the Islamic Conquest. There was actually a sizable population of eastern china that was christan, many having fled to escape the islamic conquest to the west of china.
They were nearly destroyed outright by a ming emperor who favored buddisim, and a "corvert or die" approach. This emperor also burned Taoisit monistaries, booted out the chinese muslim population, and litterally made the existance of non-buddists illegal in Ming China. What rural sects survived, and were not absorbed by the missionaries from europe that came later, were then finished off the Mao during his great purge.
The USSR also eliminated the mongolian sect that followed the teachings of Aryus, and were the last keepers of copies of his writings, untouched, and unedited by either Orthodox or Cathloic hands. USSR burned those documents to "Free the people from religion" (which we all know was bupkiss, they simply favored the Russian Orthodoxy that could be controled.) into the spiritual void grew a nationalistic hero cult based around Genghis Kahn that we see today, along with buddisim and taoisim spilling over from china.


I got long winded and rambly...

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #143 on: November 06, 2012, 04:00:19 PM »
Another way to look at the O.P. is, "Would it be good if religion was somehow separated from politics?"

For one, whether I like a candidate's religious views or not, I want to know what they are. I want to know how a candidate will be biased when he or she makes decisions.  Two, I don't see how religion can be excluded from politics as its strongly tied in with the candidate's beliefs and hence with who and what he is.( please assume "he" means he/she/shi etc...)

In the business world, we try to be blind to gender, race, religion, and so on when dealing with customers. At the end of the day, we're trading products and services for money, so this only makes sense. Internally, the same applies as we're exchanging money for the service of employees.

I think that this playing field is different when dealing politics. We're no longer dealing with monetary transactions, but with the livelihood and well being of people. To be satisfied, people want rules that will enable them to be comfortable, to live as they wish,  to ensure their well being. We want to be able to eat what we want, express and voice our ideas freely, worship or not worship as we wish and choose sexual partners of our liking. Some wish to enforce their religious ideas on others, to ensure that others adhere to certain moral standards, that they are taught to acknowledge and accept certain beliefs - whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific. We have different ideas of how crime should be dealt with, whether its moral to kill violent criminals,  to fund and provide a means for abortions, or to provide support for those who are sick or poverty stricken. The list goes on.

When at work, I only care about your level of competence, your work ethics, ability to communicate and things that pertain to your productivity and ability to fit into the environment. I think that for politicians, the things that matter more are the things that will effect their decision making. Their morals, values, and other biases.  Being agnostic, I would prefer a candidate who is not religious, one who will think rationally and fairly and who will not make decisions that are based on fictional beliefs. I want to see candidate who's beliefs and values represent mine a little more. Likewise, religious folks will want the same sort of representation - someone who's values and beliefs match theirs.


Edit - added last sentence.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 04:06:15 PM by TaintedAndDelish »

Offline ShadowFox89

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #144 on: November 06, 2012, 08:11:14 PM »
 Religion belongs in politics as much as salt in my eggs. It adds some flavor, but too much and it tastes like crap.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #145 on: November 06, 2012, 10:55:49 PM »
Religion belongs in politics as much as salt in my eggs. It adds some flavor, but too much and it tastes like crap.
Agreed!

Offline eloneTopic starter

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #146 on: November 06, 2012, 11:52:24 PM »
I like salt on my eggs.

Seriously, religion and politics just don't belong together. Even if people look at issues like abortion and same sex marriage and claim their opposition is based purely on personal belief, I have to question if those beliefs are based on their religious upbringing to some degree. I agree that since issues like same sex marriage harm no one who is married traditionally, why would they oppose allowing people who love each other from making that commitment.

And how can you oppose abortion, yet allow it for cases of incest, rape, and mother's life. If you believe it is murder, then stick by your guns in all cases, otherwise you are a hypocrite. Or did I miss the part where life begins at conception except sometimes.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #147 on: November 07, 2012, 12:36:36 AM »
I like salt on my eggs.

Seriously, religion and politics just don't belong together. Even if people look at issues like abortion and same sex marriage and claim their opposition is based purely on personal belief, I have to question if those beliefs are based on their religious upbringing to some degree. I agree that since issues like same sex marriage harm no one who is married traditionally, why would they oppose allowing people who love each other from making that commitment.

And how can you oppose abortion, yet allow it for cases of incest, rape, and mother's life. If you believe it is murder, then stick by your guns in all cases, otherwise you are a hypocrite. Or did I miss the part where life begins at conception except sometimes.

The last part is that moment of realization - when you realize that your morality is superior to that of your beliefs. So either you have to rationalize it away, re-read into another vague chapter to claim that is what was meant all along or abandon it.

My personal favourite is when something is claimed on religious grounds, when only a very new ideology can support that; for example, Christians who claim that stem cell research is against their religion. I don't recall the part in the Bible where it mentioned 'thou shalt not use the cells of an expired fetus to advance medical knowledge'.

Offline ShadowFox89

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #148 on: November 07, 2012, 12:38:34 AM »
 It goes into the desecration of the dead, the same reason med students for hundreds of years had to graverob in order to study.

Offline Vanity Evolved

Re: Does religion belong in politics
« Reply #149 on: November 07, 2012, 01:35:51 AM »
It goes into the desecration of the dead, the same reason med students for hundreds of years had to graverob in order to study.

Which itself is a weird idea, to me. Considering only your immortal soul has any worth in this life, what happens to your body whenever you've gone up or down hardly seems to matter.