130 replies to this topic

[Kevin Street]

It's a strange questiion to ask. Why shouldn't religious people hold public office? They're citizens like anyone else. So I voted for #2. If a politician runs for office with a platform that's based upon religious convictions (that do not violate any preexisting laws), it's up to the voters to decide whether or not to accept that platform. I would add one caveat, however: it might not be illegal, but a politician should not run for office on a secular platform and then change his or her positions to ones more in line with their religion once elected.

And I have a question for you, HM07 - what do you mean by "religious person?" Would that only mean people who belong to an organized religion, or could the category include anyone who has spiritual beliefs? Depending on how you define them, the latter category probably includes everyone, or nearly everybody.

[HubcapDave]

Lil, riddle me this:

If this is, as you say, rooted in his deep seated religious beliefs, why has it only come up recently? I would imagine that if he were hell bent upon banning gay marriage for the motive you ascribe, he would have brought this up during his first campaign.

No, I daresay that he has come to his support of this amendment more through stopping what he sees as judicial activism run rampant, and not from a flaming sense of "homophobia".

[HubcapDave]

Quote

<And, you know, the term 'heterosexism' is so much more precise than homophobia. IMO. Just sayin'...>

But it doesn't carry that implication that the person so named has something wrong with them.

I like that term, though......heterosexism.

[Drew]

Cyberhippie, on May 14 2004, 12:32 PM, said:

Untill, like Bush, they prove they aren't worthy of that benefit by pushing a religious agenda in violation of the spirit (although probably not he specific letter of) the law.

Details, please. These vague accusations are driving me nuts.

[Cyncie]

I seem to remember seeing a study that only gave 14% of the population that claimed "No Religious Identity" of any kind. This number only included those who were not associated with an organized religion, and didn't address people who consider themselves spiritual without religious affiliation, so the actual numbers of people who consider themselves spiritual could be much higher.  I don't think you can reasonably eliminate that many people from public office and have effective government.

~Cyn

edit for clarity

Edited by Cyncie, 14 May 2004 - 12:56 PM.

[Godeskian]

Una Salus Lillius, on May 14 2004, 06:35 PM, said:

Bush is trying to change the freaking CONSTITUTION based on his own religiously induced homophobia.  It's not that the idea coincides with his religious beliefs it's that they are MOTIVATED by them.

Not the only time he's tried to tear down the wall between church and state, or does anyone remember the extra school funding he provided for religious schools?

[Drew]

Cyncie, on May 14 2004, 12:35 PM, said:

We all have some kind of world view that informs our decision making processes. For those who are religious, their religious beliefs are integral to that world view. For those who are not, the decisions are based on other forms of ethical thought, but are still part of their world view.

Exactly.

It appears that what people want is a politician who will pay lip service to some sort of personal moral code, but never let that moral code affect their decision-making.

Which is patently ridiculous.

[Bad Wolf]

Javert Rovinski, on May 14 2004, 10:41 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on May 14 2004, 10:35 AM, said:

Bush is trying to change the freaking CONSTITUTION based on his own religiously induced homophobia.  It's not that the idea coincides with his religious beliefs it's that they are MOTIVATED by them.

But isn't he playing by the rules? If he can get through a constitutional amendment (which he can't, but let's just say he could), then he hasn't violated his oath or the principles of his office. The amendment process exists for a reason. Nothing precludes him from pushing religiously motivated amendments. And what about politicians who are motivated by religion to promote something you like, such as greater education spending?

<And, you know, the term 'heterosexism' is so much more precise than homophobia. IMO. Just sayin'...>

Where did I say he's violating his oath of office because of this? I didn't.

But that doesn't change the fact that he's being motivated by his religious belieds.  And don't toss that heterosexism crap at me either Rovvie. It's homophobia and you know it too.  

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 14 May 2004 - 12:57 PM.

[QueenTiye]

Cyberhippie, on May 14 2004, 01:51 PM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on May 14 2004, 06:35 PM, said:

Bush is trying to change the freaking CONSTITUTION based on his own religiously induced homophobia.  It's not that the idea coincides with his religious beliefs it's that they are MOTIVATED by them.

Not the only time he's tried to tear down the wall between church and state, or does anyone remember the extra school funding he provided for religious schools?

Well - I don't want to debate policy here.  Only principle.  

I wouldn't mind discussing those kinds of initiatives (that one and other faith-based initiatives promoted by Bush) and their relation to the Establishment clause elsewhere, but here, the question is a bit different...

HM07

[Drew]

Cyberhippie, on May 14 2004, 12:51 PM, said:

Not the only time he's tried to tear down the wall between church and state, or does anyone remember the extra school funding he provided for religious schools?

Vouchers for private religious schools have been around long before George Bush. Try again.

[QueenTiye]

I disagree with the term homophobic and the term heterosexist, except in cases where they actually apply.  But that again... is another discussion...

HM07

[QueenTiye]

Kevin Street, on May 14 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

And I have a question for you, HM07 - what do you mean by "religious person?" Would that only mean people who belong to an organized religion, or could the category include anyone who has spiritual beliefs? Depending on how you define them, the latter category probably includes everyone, or nearly everybody.

I mean a person who strongly adheres to his or her religious beliefs, and the dictates thereof.

HM07

[Kevin Street]

Drew, on May 14 2004, 10:52 AM, said:

Cyncie, on May 14 2004, 12:35 PM, said:

We all have some kind of world view that informs our decision making processes. For those who are religious, their religious beliefs are integral to that world view. For those who are not, the decisions are based on other forms of ethical thought, but are still part of their world view.

Exactly.

It appears that what people want is a politician who will pay lip service to some sort of personal moral code, but never let that moral code affect their decision-making.

Which is patently ridiculous.

But you're associating religion with morality. The two fields of thought sometimes overlap, but the latter isn't exclusively derived from the former. That is, you can have religion with morality, religion without morality, and morality with or without religion.

[Rov Judicata]

Una Salus Lillius, on May 14 2004, 10:53 AM, said:

Where did I say he's violating his oath of office because of this? I didn't.

If he's not violating his oath of office, and he's using established channels to amend the constitution, where's the problem? He's playing by the rules.

Quote

But that doesn't change the fact that he's being motivated by his religious belieds.  And don't toss that heterosexism crap at me either Rovvie. It's homophobia and you know it too. 

I don't think so. As I recall, he was near Andrew Sullivan once, and he didn't run screaming. I honestly don't think he's afraid of homosexuals.  What's more, I don't tihnk he's being motivated by his religious beliefs: To me, it smells of simple political oppurtunism. It is an effective wedge issue. If it wouldn't give him an electoral advantage, I doubt he would have brought it up.

[Godeskian]

Drew, on May 14 2004, 06:50 PM, said:

Cyberhippie, on May 14 2004, 12:32 PM, said:

Untill, like Bush, they prove they aren't worthy of that benefit by pushing a religious agenda in violation of the spirit (although probably not he specific letter of) the law.

Details, please. These vague accusations are driving me nuts.

I was so hoping someone would ask me that

Let's start with a Bushquote shall we?

Quote

Catholic schools carry out a great mission, to serve God by building knowledge and character.... By teaching the word of God, you prepare your students to follow a path of virtue.
-- George W. Bush

Here he is saying that goverment funded organs of the state and goverment money should be used to promote one specific religion above others. He is claiming that Catholic upbringing makes one virtuous and by implication that those not raised that way are less virtuous.

this by the way comes from http://www.whitehous...0040109-10.html, hardly an 'anti-bush mouthpiece'

he provided religious schools with 8 Billion in 2003, how much will he provide in 2004?2005? beyond?

[QueenTiye]

May I please request that that discussion be separate?  Bush is the prompter for this discussion, but it isn't about him...

[HubcapDave]

Quote

Here he is saying that goverment funded organs of the state and goverment money should be used to promote one specific religion above others. He is claiming that Catholic upbringing makes one virtuous and by implication that those not raised that way are less virtuous.

Considering that Bush is a Protestant, does that mean he is implying that his own religion is less virtuous?

[Rommie's Ronin]

Well, you can't ask a man to ignore his religious convictions simply because he holds a public office...you can ask him to put them aside for the time being.  He can deal with the spiritual implications.

It's not necessarily a public office thing either.  My church is pacifistic in practice, yet I killed Iraqis back in '91.  I dealt with it.

[G1223]

He says something nice about Chathoic Schools. How they are a religious  system  that teaches God ( Did you think they taught only the non-Relgious aspects?)

He is not saying I am going to make all schools in America be Catholic or teach religion.  


And the Vaguness goes on.

Lil Bush has purposed a constitition amendment banning gay marriages.

It may mean he is opposed becasue he thinks it's wrong. You know like we generally think Stealing is wrong.  Homophobic to means a irrational Fear of homosexuals. But you attach that to anyone who disagrees about it being acceptable.  Is it OK to start labeling people?

I'd leave it at Bush is opposed to gay marriage and wishes to change the constitition and Lil is opposed to his position.

Now as to playing with the Constitition for any reason bothers me unless a clear situation as occured.

Like lowering the age of voting to 18. At the time people were being called up for military service with no right to elect officals who might support or oppose the war.

Banning Slavery and a number of forms of indentured Servitude(The state can make use of Prison Labor and used to be able to but Hard Labor as part of the penalty.)

Granting women and minorites the right to Vote (Where before in places it had been banned)

[Drew]

Kevin Street, on May 14 2004, 12:58 PM, said:

But you're associating religion with morality. The two fields of thought sometimes overlap, but the latter isn't exclusively derived from the former. That is, you can have religion with morality, religion without morality, and morality with or without religion.

I'm not  making that distinction at all. But if you make that distinction, then do you mean that you want a leader who has a moral code and bases decisions on that moral code as long as his or her morality isn't derived from religious faith?

Which is simply discrimination against religious people holding office.

Gode, I don't see how you are extrapolating the diverting government funds to Catholic schools from the quote you gave. It just isn't there.