Religious devotion in the United States

[Ellester]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/

 

This article is kinda interesting.

 

Bush and every republican before him play the Christianity card when running for presidency. Heck there was stupid statements like vote for Kerry means a vote for the Devil, by religious nuts. And Kerry was an alter boy when he was younger and still goes to church weekly, but he supposedly has no faith because he

[kirottu]

Does our government seem like they rely on faith too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes and no. I think they use too much same kind of language as in bible.

[Volourn]

There's nothing wrong with having faith, and to ask someone like Bush (or anyone else) to convinetly ignore their faih when running for Office is silly. Being Christian (his actual standing as a Christian notwithstanding) is a part of who he is, and is part of how he does his job. Those who voted I would assume knew about his deep religiousosity before he ran the first time so it's not like he pretended otherwise, got the gig, and then rveealed his master plan.

 

People seem to forge that even Bush with all his religion doesn't overstep his bounds. Afterall, religiously he was against allowing that braindead woman in Kalifornia having her plug pulled; but he didn't stop it. Why? 'Cause as he quite clearly stated, the law was against him in that case so he followed the law. See. You can be religious, and still your job as Prez and uphold the law of the country.

[Plano Skywalker]

One cynical way to look at it is that, in the 60s and beyond, the Democrats positioned themselves as the party of ethnic minorities, women, gays, etc.

 

In order to compete with this newly-found moral capital, the Republicans had to embrace issues such as the right to life, "traditional" marriage, lower taxes, etc and speak of it in highly moral/religious terms.

 

And, for the most part, it has proven a successful strategy.

 

(for the record, Bill Clinton used religious metaphors and language in his speaches more than any modern U.S. president....as Carville said, the Clinton Democrats didn't break the Republican lock, they picked it)

[Ellester]

One cynical way to look at it is that, in the 60s and beyond, the Democrats positioned themselves as the party of ethnic minorities, women, gays, etc.

 

(for the record, Bill Clinton used religious metaphors and language in his speaches more than any modern U.S. president....as Carville said, the Clinton Democrats didn't break the Republican lock, they picked it)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also, Kerry was quoting his faith every time he had the chance too, but it didn

[metadigital]

I think that religion in the US political arena is used as a trump card, a shot free of retaliation. Moral sanctimonious grandstanding.

 

Hillary Clinton signalled that she was literate in the Republican rules by firing a shot across their bow wrt abortion. Instead of taking the traditional pro-choice stance, a trap that normally befalls those in opposition to the standard pro-life arguments, she instead hit the ball back into the Republican's court by suggesting that more needs to be done to prevent pregnancy in the first place; like education and free wide distribution of condoms. This had the immediate effect of causing the usually united strong anti-Democrat religious groups shiver with the beginnings of a schism, as the Roman Catholics railed against condoms, in addition to their episcopal partners' lack of revulsion to the method.

 

The point is that Republicans aren't all religious anymore than all Democrats are secular. Religions wrt ethics and their faithful implementation are certainly worthy of debate, but to insist there is a religious party -- or a party with religious superiority -- is disingenuous to the point of corruption.

 

When one group start invoking infallibility, for whatever reason, then I for one would have them disqualified from the argument. (This obviously doesn't preclude mutual agreement.)

[Zero]

There's nothing wrong with having faith, and to ask someone like Bush (or anyone else) to convinetly ignore their faih when running for Office is silly. Being Christian (his actual standing as a Christian notwithstanding) is a part of who he is, and is part of how he does his job. Those who voted I would assume knew about his deep religiousosity before he ran the first time so it's not like he pretended otherwise, got the gig, and then rveealed his master plan.

 

People seem to forge that even Bush with all his religion  doesn't overstep his bounds. Afterall, religiously he was against allowing that braindead woman in Kalifornia having her plug pulled; but he didn't stop it. Why? 'Cause as he quite clearly stated, the law was against him in that case so he followed the law. See. You can be religious, and still your job as Prez and uphold the law of the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

......i love you

[Commissar]

There's nothing wrong with having faith, and to ask someone like Bush (or anyone else) to convinetly ignore their faih when running for Office is silly. Being Christian (his actual standing as a Christian notwithstanding) is a part of who he is, and is part of how he does his job. Those who voted I would assume knew about his deep religiousosity before he ran the first time so it's not like he pretended otherwise, got the gig, and then rveealed his master plan.

 

People seem to forge that even Bush with all his religion  doesn't overstep his bounds. Afterall, religiously he was against allowing that braindead woman in Kalifornia having her plug pulled; but he didn't stop it. Why? 'Cause as he quite clearly stated, the law was against him in that case so he followed the law. See. You can be religious, and still your job as Prez and uphold the law of the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I honestly didn't know he was quite so fanatically religious when I voted for him in 2000, and I was probably more involved in presidential politics than the average voter - I was one of McCain's volunteer spokesmen in southern Virginia during the primary - but, then again, I wasn't really voting for Bush, I was voting against Gore. Kind of like how I wasn't voting for Kerry, but against Bush in 2004.

 

As far as the Schiavo case, I don't think Bush jumped in only because he decided to let Republican Congressional leadership do so instead. And believe me, they did.

 

Do I think religion and government have become too much entwined in the States? Yes, I do, but then again, I'm quite clearly biased. I have no trouble with a candidate being particularly religious, but I am strongly against the government - any government - being run on religious principles. Faith has never been an acceptable reason to do anything but go to church, in my opinion. As soon as a politician makes a 'religious' argument, he's lost me.

 

What it really boils down to is that if something's the right thing to do, it can be justified by other lines of reasoning. I think that politicians on both sides of the aisle - especially now that the donkeys got the snot beaten out of them in '04 - prefer the religious argument to the secular simply because it engenders more sympathy.

[Commissar]

Oh, and having just read that article, I'm fairly well shocked. Forty percent of Americans think that religions should play an active role in defining state and federal policy?

 

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but...the implications of that worry me. And I imagine the numbers are only going to go up.

[Cantousent]

Most Americans are religious, so it stands to reason that politicians speak to the religious nature of their constituents.

 

On the other hand, I agree with Commissar, all policy arguments should be made according to strictly worldly logic. On the other hand, conviction can be religious, spiritual, or secular. As Volourn said, part of what comprises Bush' character is his Christianity. He's never evaded the issue as far as I know. So, his convictions are derived primarily from his Christianity, something he quite openly admits, and he acts according to his convictions. *shrug*

 

The one thing I do hate, however, is assuming or asserting that someone is "pretending" faith. If someone professes faith and his actions make that profession a reasonable assumption, then he should be taken at his word. The way folks are willing to assume Democrats are a faithless bunch makes my blood boil. Fringe Democrats charging all Christians with stupidity can only hurt their cause. ...But fringe Christians charging all Democrats as soulless doesn't really help religion either.

[random evil guy]

could an atheist become the us president? that is something i have often wondered... are americans in general skeptic of atheists? do they think atheists lack moral beliefs...?

 

btw, alan alda's character on west wing is apparantly an atheist(or at least agnostic) and a republican(!), so we'll see what happens to him next season.

[Darque]

Organized Religion (an outmoded concept) has no place in Politics or should even be a factor.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

could an atheist become the us president? that is something i have often wondered... are americans in general skeptic of atheists? do they think atheists lack moral beliefs...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Considering the ammount of time the candidates spend talking about it, I'd seriously doubt you had a snowballs chance.

[WITHTEETH]

could an atheist become the us president? that is something i have often wondered... are americans in general skeptic of atheists? do they think atheists lack moral beliefs...?

 

btw, alan alda's character on west wing is apparantly an atheist(or at least agnostic) and a republican(!), so we'll see what happens to him next season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My step father is a republican and a athiest also. Hes a nice guy , we just have diffrent pespectives, he wants smaller gov, i like the idea of a bigger gov.

 

Will an athiest ever become president? Hard question, I think it will take another century. Look it up in the bible, im sure its when rapture jesus and hell comes. Christians sure do change the metaphors of the bible around alot.

[Laozi]

Religion doesn't have any place in politics, but unfortantly in the U.S. it is impossible for a presidential canidate to be elected without either the backing of the religious right, or the ability to split its vote.

 

 

I always look at stem cell research as a good example of religion overstepping its bounds and becoming oppresive to a group of people, abortion as well. "Faith base" groups go so far as to threaten not to vote for a presidential canidate if they are for a peaceful solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict. I once saw where some religious groups actually have programs where they help jewish people settle in the gaza strip to bring about the "end of days" even though the people they are helping will all go to hell if things go as planned. Lost are the days of our good christian neighbors, assuming that it ever existed

[Enoch]

Re: Religion in the '04 presidential race:

 

As mentioned above, the difference between the candidates in the '04 race wasn't so much that Bush was religious and Kerry was not. It's that Bush is very good at talking about religion and Kerry is not. Kerry has the understated New England manner, steeped in the idea that religion is not something you talk about in polite company. Bush, although his background is remarkably similar to Kerry's, is very comfortable in a more open Southern-style religiosity where it is commonplace to refer publicly to one's relationship with Christ.

 

The result of all this is that, when Kerry talked about religion (as I'm sure his aides and polls told him to), it came off as very forced and disingenuous. He wasn't completely comfortable with it, and that can seem dishonest. Clinton, of course, was quite comfortable talking faith, which is one major reason for his electoral success. (The veracity of that faith in light of his personal life is another matter...)

 

 

Anyhow, I find it interesting that Europeans think of American politics as very faith-based, yet most countries in Western Europe have nothing close to the blanket ban on establishment of religion that is in the American constitution. Many European nations have explicit institutional ties between the government and the major religion(s). I'm wondering which system better lends itself to freedom of (or from) religion: institutionalized religious organizations but little discussion of faith in policy debates, or a strict ban on establishment but with frequent discussions regarding religion and political candidates?

[PhantomJedi]

[Archmonarch]

I'll be honest. I hate religion and all for which it stands. I view it as the cause of most of our world's problems, particularly with the idea of heaven. We accept the great loss of life every single day because we expect the dead to go on to a paradise where we will one day meet again. Think about it a little and I think you will realize what I mean.

 

However, I believe people should have the right to believe if they want to do so. Likewise, I should have the right to not believe if I choose. Yet, religious groups dont care to see a quid pro quo relationship in any aspect of life. According to them, religion is the right way, and many say Christianity is the only proper religion, and if you dont believe in it (religion in general in most areas or Christianity in particular in some areas) then you are a "heathen" and are destined for damnation and eternal punishment. Furthermore, if you dont agree with them in any debate, you are automatically wrong due to a supposed "lack of faith" and that God will prove them right. Nevermind, the logic and science behind your opinion; you are wrong because you dont believe as they do.

 

Unfortunately, it seems this is the group which inch by precious inch is creeping into our hall of power in the United States. I fear what may one day come if we continue along this path. Politics was never meant to be mingled with personal religious ideals. Even the framers realized this and most of them were deeply religious men.

 

I simply hope that the forces of reason can somehow overpower the oppression of religion and continue along a reasonable path.

 

 

Also, I would like to make another point on the topic of religious freedom in the U.S. Despite what anyone may think or pronounce, the United States was founded by a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. This is and always has been a Christian country. People expect you to be Christian (unless some other physical feature "disqualifies" you) and act surprised or even offended if you are not. For example, maybe five years ago a friend of mine's younger brother once asked me what kind of Christian I was. When I replied I was Jewish (I was at the time), he acted startled and asked me what that meant. He didnt even know what Judaism was! Granted, he was seven at the time, but I hope most seven-year olds know of other major religions. I suggest that the farther we go towards America's roots of religious oppression and censorship, the worse this kind of behavior will become. As they say, the winner writes the history. Well, Christianity has won the religious war in this country. And this bodes poorly for us all, if the current trend of their chosen use of power continues. Even now, other religions are tacked on almost as an afterthought.

 

 

"Faith base" groups go so far as to threaten not to vote for a presidential canidate if they are for a peaceful solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict. I once saw where some religious groups actually have programs where they help jewish people settle in the gaza strip...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are fringe groups in every religion. That said, most of the "conventional" religious organizations can be just as bad. I speak only from what I have read and seen, but Christianity seems to be among the greatest offenders, most likely because of its size. I once read a report (cant remember from where right now) that said many of the Christian church headquarters (such as the Vatican, etc.) spend as much as 15% or more of their funds in efforts to convert others to their religions. A great deal of this is aimed at Jews and Muslims, as they are seen as "easier targets," due to the marked similarity between the trio.

[Nartwak]

[PhantomJedi]

Like everything in the world organized religion has its pros and cons. The pro is all the humanitirian work the religions of the world do to help people and the con is that they polarize people, debates, and cause problems for society in general.

 

I also feel sorry for the repulicans and the republican party. Its leadership has been highjacked by a few relgious nuts.

[Archmonarch]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To what do you object?

[Nartwak]

Your juvenile ranting.

[Archmonarch]

I admit it: I am younger than you. If that makes my opinion juvenile, consider whether it is because of my age or your own prejudices. Others in this thread have made similar comments to mine, if in less vocal ways. I simply refuse to allow my thoughts to be limited by someone else's beliefs. The truth does not depend on the support of the majority.

[PhantomJedi]

I admit it: I am younger than you. If that makes my opinion juvenile, consider whether it is because of my age or your own prejudices. Others in this thread have made similar comments to mine, if in less vocal ways. I simply refuse to allow my thoughts to be limited by someone else's beliefs. The truth does not  depend on the support of the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And what does age matter if what is said is the truth? But what you are saying is not truth per se but rather is your opinion, an opinion I some what agree with. I do applaued your refusal to allow your thoughts to be limited by others.

[taks]

And the ACLU is a group who fights for the constitution and gets ripped apart by others, because they try to separate the church from the government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, actually, any group founded by communists trying to "separate the church from the government" has an issue in my book and i don't even believe in god.

 

btw, ellester, show me the clause in the constitution that says "separation of church and state."

 

sorry, it doesn't wash. the ACLU is every bit as bad as the christian coalition from the other side. a pox on both camps.

 

taks