Can We Really Separate Religion And Politics?

[Stanley]

One of the first issues that comes to mind with the separation of church and state is prayer in school or other religious views being removed from the school like teaching creationism. On facebook I have seen some saying about the violence in school is because we won't let God in our schools. Most of the people saying they want God brought into schools think it's a great idea as long as it's the Christian concept of God. What if Romney became president and started trying to get the book of Mormon required in the classroom because we need God in our schools? I could see many people who previously wanted religion in the schools start using the separation of church and state as grounds to keep someone else's religion out of schools. Religion has no place in school but altruism does.

 

In the larger government picture, it is the same. We can't have leaders driving doctrine as law but I think it is wonderful to see people with a strong faith, who are better people because of their faith, use the wisdom gained from faith to be better leaders. The only flaw I see is, I can't think of a good example off the top of my head of someone like that. I think the separation of church and state was one of the greatest decisions of the founding fathers. Maybe some of them are good examples of leaders using religious wisdom to be better leaders.

[Stanley]

It is clear that Christianity today accommodates a wide variety of worldviews. But, what I find interesting is the inconsistency between Jesus' message of caring for each other and the economic positions of 'Christians' who follow Ayn Rand, like Paul Ryan. With Rand, there was no inconsistency, she rejected Christianity partly on grounds of altruism for which she had contempt. In fact, she described altruism as "evil." But, what about Paul Ryan who claims to be both a follower of Jesus and a follower of Rand?

 

George

 

This one has really puzzled me. The Christian right is still going to vote for a Mormon and an Ayn Rand follower? I wrote a blog post on that exact same topic some of you might be interested in: Inherit The Wind

[Neon Genesis]

One of the first issues that comes to mind with the separation of church and state is prayer in school or other religious views being removed from the school like teaching creationism. On facebook I have seen some saying about the violence in school is because we won't let God in our schools. Most of the people saying they want God brought into schools think it's a great idea as long as it's the Christian concept of God. What if Romney became president and started trying to get the book of Mormon required in the classroom because we need God in our schools? I could see many people who previously wanted religion in the schools start using the separation of church and state as grounds to keep someone else's religion out of schools. Religion has no place in school but altruism does.

 

 

Of course the big lie here is that Christians can pray at school all they want. It's just students and teachers can't force the rest of the class or school to engage in prayer with them but they can pray to themselves, among their friends at the lunch table, or even in those prayer at the pole things all they want. As that old saying goes, "as long as there will be tests at school, there will always be prayer at school."

[Raven]

Neon, you make an excellent point. The right wing doesn't want the "right" to pray in school - they have that already. What they want is the right to shove their interpretations of the "WOG" down everyone's throats, regardless of other people's faiths, believes, or lackthereof.

 

It's important for religion to be taught in school, I think, but as a social studies topic, not as an attempt to convert anyone to anything. I grew up in a really, really multicultural area, and so our school was filled with students from all over the world. It was awesome. We learned about different styles of government, different histories, and yes, different religions - no one religion was given more time than another, and everyone walked away with new knowledge. It was really interesting, and I remembering enjoying those lessons a lot.

 

The problem, as I see it as an outsider looking in, is that these right wing people want Christianity/creationism/Bible taught in schools, but not anyone else's faiths.

 

You can't have it both way, folks. It won't work.

 

If parents really want their kids to have a genuine "Christian education" (whatever that means) why not send them to a private Christian school?

[Neon Genesis]

I took a "Bible Literature" class when I was in high school and while the school gave lip service that this was all just being taught as literature, there was an assumption by everyone in the class, including the teacher, that everything in the bible was literally true and this was real history. Nothing whatsoever was said about the Q gospel, the fact that Paul didn't write half of the letters attributed to him, or any of the problems of historical inaccuracies in the gospels.

[DCJ]

And you were right about socialism, too. The earliest Christians were eglatarian, they shared everything and took care of one another. They didn't need tax breaks, they just did it. They were "in the empire" but not "of the empire" You know? I think Christians everywhere need to adopt that attitude. Yes, I live in the U.S., I have a certain amount of healthy patriotism; but, no I do not have to let the government tell me what to believe or how to act in moral and ethical situations calling for a high degree of compassion, empathy, and social responsibility.

Agreed.. so as you say, why not adopt that attitude, since you don't need the government to tell you how to act in moral situtations? No one is stopping anyone from sharing everything they have. Indeed, people can be very generous with their time, money, and material donations. However, people typically use "socialism" to mean using government muscle to take something owned by one group to give it to a different politically favored group. This, of course, is not "sharing" in any sense of the word, and certainly not what the early Christians did (they didn't need government to tell them either).

[GeorgeW]

Agreed.. so as you say, why not adopt that attitude, since you don't need the government to tell you how to act in moral situtations? No one is stopping anyone from sharing everything they have. Indeed, people can be very generous with their time, money, and material donations. However, people typically use "socialism" to mean using government muscle to take something owned by one group to give it to a different politically favored group. This, of course, is not "sharing" in any sense of the word, and certainly not what the early Christians did (they didn't need government to tell them either).

 

That works in a simple, small scale society. However, in a modern, industrial world, no matter how generous I, and a few others, might be, I cannot make sure every American has health care and is free from hunger. However, we as a society can easily do that by insisting that everyone pay a reasonable share of their wealth.

 

Also, it is worth noting that the early Christians did not provide the same level of care for their pagan brothers and sisters as their own. And, as a result they out survived them and Christianity grew in proportion.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

DCJ:

However, people typically use "socialism" to mean using government muscle to take something owned by one group to give it to a different politically favored group.

-------------

From the founding of the USA people like Madison, Hamilton, and Adam Smith said that there is partnership between the government and the wealthy. Isn't that 'socialism' for the rich and shouldn't they pay for the protection they get.

 

Through providing infrastructure, keeping the poor from too much protesting and creating regulations or lack there of that favor corporations and financial insitutions and tax breaks - I am sure others can add to this list.

 

The rich should pay for what they get.

 

Dutch

[GeorgeW]

Through providing infrastructure, keeping the poor from too much protesting and creating regulations or lack there of that favor corporations and financial insitutions and tax breaks - I am sure others can add to this list.

 

Don't get me started. We give special tax breaks to highly profitable corporations like oil companies; we subsidize privately-owned sports arenas (e.g., GWB and his baseball team); we give handouts to large agribusiness and buy their excess crops; we tax capital gains and dividends at lower rates than labor, and on and on and on. Socialist, indeed.

 

George

[Neon Genesis]

However, people typically use "socialism" to mean using government muscle to take something owned by one group to give it to a different politically favored group. This, of course, is not "sharing" in any sense of the word, and certainly not what the early Christians did (they didn't need government to tell them either).

Sounds a lot like the GOP to me: http://news.yahoo.co...-231818045.html

President Barack Obama told cheering supporters at a fundraiser in Connecticut on Monday that Mitt Romney's tax plan would raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for a tax cut benefiting the very rich: "It's like Robin Hood in reverse. It's Romney Hood." His remarks drew laughter and applause.

Obama pointed to a recent study of Romney's approach by the independent Tax Policy Center that speculated that, to pay for his proposed tax cut on the wealthiest Americans, the former Massachusetts governor would have to end popular measures like the mortgage and child deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit—which chiefly benefit middle-class and poor Americans.

"He'd ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year," Obama said.

"They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax-cut fairy dust before. And guess what? It does not work. It didn't work then, it won't work now," the president said. "It's not a plan to create jobs, it's not a plan to reduce our deficit, and it is not a plan to move our economy forward."

Edited September 7, 2012 by Neon Genesis

[minsocal]

Interesting challenge? What if you were faced with this?

 

"HONG KONG — Faced with tens of thousands of protesters contending that a Beijing-backed plan for “moral and national education” amounted to brainwashing and political indoctrination, Hong Kong’s chief executive backpedaled somewhat on Saturday and revoked a 2015 deadline for every school to start teaching the subject.

 

But the protesters were not mollified, demanding that the education plan be withdrawn entirely. Crowds of young people in black T-shirts continued to pour into the plaza and streets around the local government’s headquarters on Saturday evening after Leung Chun-ying, the chief executive, offered the compromise." (my bolding)

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/world/asia/amid-protest-hong-kong-backs-down-on-moral-education-plan.html?hp

 

Myron

Edited September 8, 2012 by minsocal

[DCJ]

We give special tax breaks to highly profitable corporations like oil companies; we subsidize privately-owned sports arenas (e.g., GWB and his baseball team); we give handouts to large agribusiness and buy their excess crops...

Crony capitalism is what we get when we allow the government to be generous with other peoples' money.

[Hhanover]

Politics is about getting elected. Getting elected is about convincing people that you (the candidate) are like them. Religious identity is a handy and short cut way to show that the candidate is acceptable. Thereafter comes the problem: Identifying religious precepts with political positions makes politics more like religion and, by definition, makes compromise more like heresy. Which is exactly how we managed to get our government tied in a knot. Refusing to mix politics with religion does not mean abandoning moral values, it means being willing to say , "I will compromise on this so we can move ahead, not because I have abandoned my personal beliefs, but because I accept that people of good will can and do differ on the subject".

 

Don't look for my utopian view to become reality any time soon.

[rivanna]

With my lack of church involvement, I can only speak to a small part of this topic.

It bothers me when people react to any scripture reference as if it automatically indicated a conservative or right wing view.

As I understand it, the bible is alternative wisdom that transcends national and social boundaries. While it doesn't advocate specific public policies, according to every PC author I've read, the bible is aligned with a liberal stance on most social issues.

Edited October 17, 2012 by rivanna

[minsocal]

With my lack of adult church experience, I can only speak to a small part of this topic.

It really bothers me when people react to any scripture reference as if it automatically indicated a conservative or right wing view.

As I understand it, the bible is alternative wisdom that transcends national and social boundaries. While it doesn't prescribe specific public policies, according to every PC author I've read, the bible is associated with, if anything, a liberal stance on most or all social issues.

 

I think many sacred sources attempt to transcend external and internal boundaries (limitations). We need to consider both? There are many paths to wisdom, perhaps.

[Hornet]

One's religion or worldview is going to influence one's political philosophy. One's religious beliefs are going to affect one's views about freedom, liberty, the rights of other, what the government should prohibit or not prohibit, and so on.