130 replies to this topic

[Bad Wolf]

Wow Delvo!   AWESOME post!!!!!  

[Delvo]

HubcapDave, on May 15 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

May I point out again that Bush is NOT a Catholic, but rather a Protestant, so I don't see your analogy holding there.

"Christian" is enough.

[HubcapDave]

^ But (and correct me if I am wrong) I thought that the Pope was only the head of the Catholic church, not Protestant, or any other Christian faith. Therefore, if we are accusing Bush of pimping his religious beliefs, why would he be pimping for the Pope?

[QueenTiye]

Una Salus Lillius, on May 15 2004, 01:08 PM, said:

Wow Delvo!   AWESOME post!!!!!  

Ditto!

I agree with that entirely...

[Bad Wolf]

Handmaiden07, on May 15 2004, 11:54 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on May 15 2004, 01:08 PM, said:

Wow Delvo!   AWESOME post!!!!!   

Ditto!

I agree with that entirely...

Delvo, HM, and Lil all agreeing about something in a thread about religion:  who'd a thunk it!?!  

[The Tyrant]

I never said my opinions were rational...

Nor am I suggesting that Bush and the Pope are actually in cahoots...it just seems to me more than coincidence that Bush starts pushing his faith in his public speaking, and then the church decides to deny communion to those supporting abortion, using Kerry (Bush's primary opponent) as a specific example. I believe the church wants Bush to stay in office, because he will advance their goals. I firmly believe that if Bush does win a 2nd term, Roe V. Wade will get overturned. He's working towards it. Can't prove it, but believe it. His stance on marriage shows he wants to return to 'old-fashioned' values, and is willing to use his position to accomplish it. He's just being smart and taking small steps to go about it, so as not to attract a lot of attention....

[Cardie]

HM, it seems to me that what you are really asking is if there is a desirable matter of public policy to be implemented, and it's supported by secular data and secular reasoning, will some people go against this very beneficial, secular public policy ONLY because the official who is leading the charge for its implementation happens also to believe as a matter of personal faith that it is sinful?  

I believe that most people only get worried when the policy is not one that has widespread public support outside the faith community to which the official belongs. I hate to say it, and I don't completely understand why, but there is a visceral aversion to homosexuality that a lot of heterosexuals have, and it isn't derived from religion.  I'd bet that if you convened a thousand straight atheist teen-aged boys and showed them a tender love story about two men, a vast majority of them would start making rude remarks. This is why you can get a substantial number of lawmakers in this country to line up against gay marriage.  I don't of course think that this is a desirable secular policy, but if it were only the concern of evangelical protestants, it wouldn't have the traction it has, no matter who was the president.

As a counter example, if an Orthodox Jew became president and led a crusade on behalf of Jewish dietary laws, even if he produced scientific data that such a diet was healthier than other ways of eating, I doubt the issue would have traction, and voters would be eager to get this person out of office.

No one believes that we shouldn't have laws against killing and stealing, just because they are mentioned in the Ten Commandments.  I suppose I would be wary of someone who thinks we should have such laws only because they are in the Ten Commandments, however.

Cardie

[QueenTiye]

Cardie, on May 15 2004, 03:09 PM, said:

HM, it seems to me that what you are really asking is if there is a desirable matter of public policy to be implemented, and it's supported by secular data and secular reasoning, will some people go against this very beneficial, secular public policy ONLY because the official who is leading the charge for its implementation happens also to believe as a matter of personal faith that it is sinful?

  Cardie, that is precisely my concern.  I actually don't believe that the personal religious beliefs of the public official are relevant to public debate about the validity or non-validity of the policies being pushed, and I think that it is a dangerous precedent to advance that because someone believes something, we ought to be wary about what they propose.  I think, personally, that that is just as dangerous as the reverse concern that Delvo so eloquently articulated, that a politician finds him- or herself unable to articulate public policy without recourse to his or her personal beliefs.

HM07

[DWF]

I voted for no. 2 as well, but while I don't think a person holding public office should have a religious agenda in office, his/her religious backround should influence lawmaking, in so much that their laws should be just abd fair.

[QueenTiye]

Posted w/ permission from Cyberhippie

Quote

I don't want a religion-free society, and I don't want to exclude anyone from holding political office, but i'm a humanist, and an atheist and wouldn't vote for someone as obviously pro-religion as some of the recent nominee's and presidents in the US.

HM07

[StarDust]

Of couse religious people should hold office. At least in the US.  It's supposed to be a country where we are free to believe whatever we believe.

However, I think anyone in office, and any citizen for that matter, has to respect that fact.  We are all free to believe what we want. NO ONE has the right to force their religious beliefs into my life. Any more than they would want me to be able to do the same to them.

It's such a no brainer.

I am mostly an agnostic protestant. More agnostic every year, but part of my beliefs I had when I was younger will always be with me, whether I like it or not.  But I have many friends that are very religious. I would have no problem with most of them being in office. They understand their religion is a private and personal thing and I know they would never inflict that on anyone else. They would take their responsibilities in a free and secular society seriously and not use it as an opportunity to promote their brand of religion.

I sometimes think that some religious people are the way they are because they are insecure in their own faith.  They have to try and make everyone believe they way they do, to enforce their beliefs on everyone, in order to feel justified in believing it.  If you are secure in your beliefs, you don't need to where it on your sleeve, you don't need anyone else to agree with you, and you don't need to control how anyone else lives their life.  It's like these people have something to prove and the rest of us have to suffer because of it.

But, ultimately, it's up to the voters to decide how they feel about a person's positions, any positions.  That's the point of voting. If the majority aren't comfortable with someone's beliefs, or the expression and intent of those beliefs, than they don't vote for them. It doesn't matter if they are a socialist, a racist, or a fundamentalist of some sort.  They are beliefs and opinons that the electorate makes decisions about by voting.