The Danger Of The Religious Voice In Politics

[Stone holm]

We have seen a recent push, primarily by Elder Oaks, for the idea that religion should be a major voice in political discourse in America and presumably elsewhere. Some feel this is necessary to preserve religious freedom, and this is how it is portrayed. Yet, we as a nation are actually uncomfortable with most foreign countries or foreign political parties which embrace the idea that religion should play a major role. In fact where religion plays a major role we often have difficulty opening up missions. So does playing politics with religion, protect religious freedom or endanger it?

[3DOP]

I guess what we need is a secular state where anybody whose politics is influenced by religion is disqualified from participation. Oh well, at least I wouldn't have to worry about jury duty.

[guerreiro9]

We have seen a recent push, primarily by Elder Oaks, for the idea that religion should be a major voice in political discourse in America and presumably elsewhere. Some feel this is necessary to preserve religious freedom, and this is how it is portrayed. Yet, we as a nation are actually uncomfortable with most foreign countries or foreign political parties which embrace the idea that religion should play a major role. In fact where religion plays a major role we often have difficulty opening up missions. So does playing politics with religion, protect religious freedom or endanger it?

 

My political views are influenced by my religion.  Your political views are influenced by your religion.  Atheist's political views are influenced by their lack of religion.  The church has never done anything more than asks its members to vote politically according to their values.  Would you deny the right to vote to millions of people because they share values with a religion?  That seems to be what you are saying.

 

-guerreiro9 

[mfbukowski]

So let me get this straight.

 

Religious freedom is threatened, so only irreligious people should defend religious freedom?

 

And only white people should defend the rights of blacks?

 

And we should have let the British decide if they felt like giving us freedom.

 

An interesting idea.

[pogi]

We have seen a recent push, primarily by Elder Oaks, for the idea that religion should be a major voice in political discourse in America and presumably elsewhere. 

 

If we do not have a political voice, then who will speak for us?  Atheists? 

[CV75]

a major voice

But not the only exclusive voice at the expense of other voices.

[wenglund]

When contemplating the dangers of religious voices in politics, one cannot help but reflect on all the unspeakable horrors that have been committed through the political application of the Golden Rule, if not also the principle of charity and kindness.

 

So, does playing politics with religion, protect religious freedom or endanger it?

 

It depends on the politics. If the politics advocate silencing religious voices, then that politics can be dangerous to religious freedom, that is if people paid that discriminatory and inequitable politics any mind.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Religion has always been a social and political force. It was instrumental in ending the slave trade in Britain, bringing independence to America, bringing civil rights in America, the (previously) increasing humanitarianism of police forces and prisons in the western world, bringing relief to suffering, advocating for humane working conditions, preserving culture and knowledge from the collapse of the Roman Empire, advocating the creation of art and beautiful architecture, and running poor houses and the like.

 

It has admittedly also used its power for less honorable causes. How you weigh the two in the balance to determine the end effect is a subjective judgement.

 

I have also seen no evidence that atheist morality has a better track record. Seems like a mixture of hits and misses just like the religious. Why in the world should I believe this generation has got it figured out, step back, and let them do whatever.

 

However, on the whole I don't think that in the eternal scheme of things that politics matter that much. Given the choice of doorknocking for a favored candidate or feeding the poor or going to the temple or sharing the gospel I would rate the latter three way over the first one in terms of influencing the future for the better.

[Bob Crockett]

So, we have the following who do have a voice, and have hired lobbyists to lobby Congress for legislation:   The Soviet Union, the Russian Federation, Iran, North Korea, Peoples Republic of China, casinos, horseracing interests, plaintiffs' lawyers, government employee unions, and much more.  And people want to preclude religious groups from having a say?  

 

In California, when the lottery was pending through a voter initiative, the two major voices against it were the horse racing interests and religions.   Should we have barred the religions?

[Alvino]

I don't think the problem is one of policy (who's allowed to participate and how, etc) as much as it is a problem of individual rationality. People, for the most part, don't seem to me to be properly able to think through the issues they care about with patience and with the realization that they could very well be wrong. My biggest worry with religion is that it accustoms people to intellectually behave as if they couldn't be wrong on those points on which their doctrines have a say, and to believe that however strongly and passionately you happen to be convinced you're right of something has any weight on whether you actually are. 

 

To your question, then, I'd say that as far as religion happens to foster a political atmosphere where religious freedom is respected is mostly a matter of luck at any given point. I say "at any given point" because as a trend religions have been changing to foster more religious freedom but the reasons for these changes have to do with other social dynamics. I'd say religions have changed to allow for more religious freedoms over time despite religion. Reason and critical thinking seem to me to be the best ways to protect rightful freedoms.

 

Lastly, the limits of religious influence on politics should be something like the following principle: If "Because God said so" is not a good justification for any judge to rule in favor of laws that support the side you oppose in any given issue, then you can't use it for your own.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[mfbukowski]

I don't think the problem is one of policy (who's allowed to participate and how, etc) as much as it is a problem of individual rationality. People, for the most part, don't seem to me to be properly able to think through the issues they care about with patience and with the realization that they could very well be wrong. My biggest worry with religion is that it accustoms people to intellectually behave as if they couldn't be wrong on those points on which their doctrines have a say, and to believe that however strongly and passionately you happen to be convinced you're right of something has any weight on whether you actually are. 

 

Unfortunately the reason politics exists because there is a difference of opinion about who IS "actually right".

 

And who is to determine who "actually is"?

 

I think I know.  Those YOU find to be "critical thinkers", and of course such people could not possibly be religious since to be so is irrational.

[Stone holm]

I don't think the problem is one of policy (who's allowed to participate and how, etc) as much as it is a problem of individual rationality. People, for the most part, don't seem to me to be properly able to think through the issues they care about with patience and with the realization that they could very well be wrong. My biggest worry with religion is that it accustoms people to intellectually behave as if they couldn't be wrong on those points on which their doctrines have a say, and to believe that however strongly and passionately you happen to be convinced you're right of something has any weight on whether you actually are. 

 

To your question, then, I'd say that as far as religion happens to foster a political atmosphere where religious freedom is respected is mostly a matter of luck at any given point. I say "at any given point" because as a trend religions have been changing to foster more religious freedom but the reasons for these changes have to do with other social dynamics. I'd say religions have changed to allow for more religious freedoms over time despite religion.

Well put. Religious faith is a belief in things which are true the evidence of which is not seen. While that is a matter of spiritual discernment and the right to have and preach such beliefs should be protected, it should not be the basis of civil coercive legislation. However, it may tip the scales if rational evidentiary basis is ambiguous. Most issues legislative issues can be resolved without resort to legislation. With regards to State supported lottery it is immoral because it has been shown to be the most regressive form of taxation out there, and it derives revenue from an addictive human vulnerability which leaves families and individuals destitute. There are arguments going the other way as well, but religion need not be the primary factor.

[mfbukowski]

Well put. Religious faith is a belief in things which are true the evidence of which is not seen. While that is a matter of spiritual discernment and the right to have and preach such beliefs should be protected, it should not be the basis of civil coercive legislation. However, it may tip the scales if rational evidentiary basis is ambiguous. Most issues legislative issues can be resolved without resort to legislation. With regards to State supported lottery it is immoral because it has been shown to be the most regressive form of taxation out there, and it derives revenue from an addictive human vulnerability which leaves families and individuals destitute. There are arguments going the other way as well, but religion need not be the primary factor.

Huh?

[Alvino]

(I edited something into my post. Sorry for the inconvenience, you guys)

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[Alvino]

Unfortunately the reason politics exists because there is a difference of opinion about who IS "actually right".

 

And who is to determine who "actually is"?

 

I think I know.  Those YOU find to be "critical thinkers", and of course such people could not possibly be religious since to be so is irrational.

 

No, mf, a critical thinker is not one I judge to be a critical thinker. That's not the criteria. I also never said nor believe a religious person can't possibly be rational, man, give me a break. Oh, and I also never said 'who is actually right' is who should win in a political battle. Ideally, yeah, but my standard is 'less wrong'.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[Stone holm]

No, mf, a critical thinker is not one I judge to be a critical thinker. That's not the criteria. I also never said nor believe a religious person can't possibly be rational, man, give me a break.

The problem is that political debate needs to be around things subject to reason , in other words logic accessible to all. Religious doctrine to the extent it is based on declarations of Deity is not so accessible without embracing the belief system. As a result in theocracies you cannot have religious freedom since it is subversive to the State. But theocracy is repugnant to Americans.

[The Nehor]

My biggest worry with religion is that it accustoms people to intellectually behave as if they couldn't be wrong on those points on which their doctrines have a say, and to believe that however strongly and passionately you happen to be convinced you're right of something has any weight on whether you actually are.

Replace "religion" with any of the following:

The Republican Party

The Conservatives

The Democrats

The Socialists

The Communists

The Libertarians

The Fascists

The (fill in the blank)

And your statement is still true.

The biggest problem is that people are involved. Atheists have boasted of their superior reasoning skills. So far I have seen no evidence supporting their assertion.

You speak of a need for humility and the lack religionists have regarding their doctrinal beliefs. However I do not see this humility coming from the rational atheists admitting they could be wrong......at least not in levels exceeding that of those who believe in a religion.

[Storm Rider]

We have seen a recent push, primarily by Elder Oaks, for the idea that religion should be a major voice in political discourse in America and presumably elsewhere. Some feel this is necessary to preserve religious freedom, and this is how it is portrayed. Yet, we as a nation are actually uncomfortable with most foreign countries or foreign political parties which embrace the idea that religion should play a major role. In fact where religion plays a major role we often have difficulty opening up missions. So does playing politics with religion, protect religious freedom or endanger it?

 

There is major difference in a religion defining what positions to take and religious women and men participating in our government.  The fact that religious people have an opinion is not uncomfortable for most people. 

 

Do we have more to fear from a moral individual or an individual in power that has no moral convictions?  I will take the individual that knows what guilt and shame is every time.

[cinepro]

Any chance we could get politics out of my religion while we're at it?

[Alvino]

Well put. Religious faith is a belief in things which are true the evidence of which is not seen. While that is a matter of spiritual discernment and the right to have and preach such beliefs should be protected, it should not be the basis of civil coercive legislation. However, it may tip the scales if rational evidentiary basis is ambiguous. Most issues legislative issues can be resolved without resort to legislation. With regards to State supported lottery it is immoral because it has been shown to be the most regressive form of taxation out there, and it derives revenue from an addictive human vulnerability which leaves families and individuals destitute. There are arguments going the other way as well, but religion need not be the primary factor.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Could you elaborate a little bit more, please?

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Could you elaborate a little bit more, please?

Will try. "God told me so". Is not a statement that lends itself to discussion or dialogue it is not something that allows for a weighing of facts, or people to reach common ground. That type of assertion once it enters politics results in only one or two things capitulation or deadlock. The same can be true of ideologies which sometimes function like religions for example Marxist Communists on the one hand and Free Marketiers on the other. Much of religion is simple logic, like much of the 10 Commandments. Sex is a difficult issue. The State from a disease standpoint has a legitimate interest in curbing promiscuity for example. Thus from a secular view it has a reason to favor committed relationships. Had there been defensible studies demonstrating that heterosexual couples do a better job of parenting, than homosexual couples, there might have been an argument against SSM, since the State has an interest in good parenting. The problem is that no such studies have stood up thus far. That is not say because homosexuals are necessarily as good parents, but homosexuals have to adopt so their becoming parents is not by accident and usually is preceded by some vetting process. So what is left is usually just religious or cultural bias. Now a voter might be confronted with a secular argument in favor of a position, and if that secular argument is more consistent with his religious beliefs then he or she would be inclined to support that position, that is just human nature and is not problematic. The problem arises when there isn't a sound secular argument, only a religious argument.

[Alvino]

Replace "religion" with any of the following:

The Republican Party

The Conservatives

The Democrats

The Socialists

The Communists

The Libertarians

The Fascists

The (fill in the blank)

And your statement is still true.

 

I don't know what Libertarians, Socialists, and Communists you've been around but these three very well recognize the role of evidence and reason in a way religions rarely do, never mind whether they are right or wrong. The first three are composed mostly of religious people so I don't understand what saying these groups exhibit some of the effects I say religions have on people you think can show against my view. Fascists exist in all of the groups previously mentioned so I'll take a pass on them. 

 

The biggest problem is that people are involved. Atheists have boasted of their superior reasoning skills. So far I have seen no evidence supporting their assertion.

 

 

 

Well, I don't think I ever mentioned Atheists, I said religions. I definitely don't see being an atheist as a necessary nor sufficient condition for being rational or a critical thinker, even though abilities to correct intuition by analytic sorts of thinking do tend to promote disbelief in God. You are treating my words like mf just did; that's not a very charitable way to go.

 

You speak of a need for humility and the lack religionists have regarding their doctrinal beliefs. However I do not see this humility coming from the rational atheists admitting they could be wrong......at least not in levels exceeding that of those who believe in a religion.

 

 

Strictly speaking, if this were true it wouldn't have an effect on what I actually said. That religions tend to promote the bad thinking habits I said I think they do doesn't mean other things, of which atheists might partake, don't. This is just an observation about the logic of this on my part and not a very interesting one, anyways. 

 

Again, though, I'm at a loss because I wasn't comparing religious people to atheists or to any group specifically. I wasn't even making an unqualified assertion about 'religious people' but about what religions tend to do to them. Tell me you see the difference between those two. Most disbelievers could continue with the bad thinking habits they had when religious or go with the flow but just don't care about religion so they identify as atheists. My point was, really, that religions encourage people to take part in irrationality, not only by allowing their followers to do so, but by making explicit virtues and something to strive for out of these bad habits. Not only should you be convinced but you should be as firm and unmovable in your religious beliefs as you can; heck, you should even ask God to make you even more convinced than your own abilities can make you.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[mfbukowski]

No, mf, a critical thinker is not one I judge to be a critical thinker. That's not the criteria. I also never said nor believe a religious person can't possibly be rational, man, give me a break. Oh, and I also never said 'who is actually right' is who should win in a political battle. Ideally, yeah, but my standard is 'less wrong'.

Apparently you are missing the point.

The point is that who is right or wrong- more or less right or wrong is totally irrelevant- is in the eye of the beholder in a political discussion where both sides think they are "right". You are asserting you can discern who is at least "less wrong" than the other guy.

You can't.

 

My biggest worry with religion is that it accustoms people to intellectually behave as if they couldn't be wrong on those points on which their doctrines have a say, and to believe that however strongly and passionately you happen to be convinced you're right of something has any weight on whether you actually are.

 

If you think YOU are the one who is "actually right" you are no different than the religious dogmatists you are protesting against.

 

Get it now?

Edited April 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Alvino]

Apparently you are missing the point.

The point is that who is right or wrong- more or less right or wrong is totally irrelevant- is in the eye of the beholder in a political discussion where both sides think they are "right". You are asserting you can discern who is at least "less wrong" than the other guy.

You can't.

 

I don't know why the fact that both sides think they are right has anything to do with whether they are. 

 

Besides that, are you implying I can't distinguish ever whether one side is right and the other wrong or does that apply to all of us? You seem to know that I'm wrong in asserting I can, so...

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[The Nehor]

I don't know what Libertarians, Socialists, and Communists you've been around but these three very well recognize the role of evidence and reason in a way religions rarely do, never mind whether they are right or wrong. The first three are composed mostly of religious people so I don't understand what saying these groups exhibit some of the effects I say religions have on people you think can show against my view. Fascists exists in all of the groups previously mentioned so I'll take a pass on them.

Well, you know those religions......always arguing that up is down and 2 + 2 = 75.3

Well, I don't think I ever mentioned Atheists, I said religions. I definitely don't see being an atheist as a necessary nor sufficient condition for being rational or a critical thinker, even though abilities to correct intuition by analytic sorts of thinking do tend to promote disbelief in God. You are treating my words like mf just did; that's not a very charitable way to go.

Wow, one fairly limited study. Now that tells us little. It needs more data. Does this apply equally to Hindus and Catholics? Mormons and Sikhs? Nope, religion in general makes you go with the dumb answer. And you are calling others uncharitable. You go beyond your data. In other words YOU are the intuitive thinker. Better not let God get in your brain.

Strictly speaking, if this were true it wouldn't have an effect on what I actually said. That religions tend to promote the bad thinking habits I said I think they do doesn't mean other things, of which atheists might partake, don't. This is just an observation about the logic of this on my part and not a very interesting one, anyways.

In other words keeping the religious out of politics won't keep the stupid out.

Again, though, I'm at a loss because I wasn't comparing religious people to atheists or to any group specifically. I wasn't even making an unqualified assertion about 'religious people' but about what religions tend to do to them. Tell me you see the difference between those two. Most disbelievers could continue with the bad thinking habits they had when religious or go with the flow but just don't care about religion so they identify as atheists. My point was, really, that religions encourage people to take part in irrationality, not only by allowing their followers to do so, but by making explicit virtues and something to strive for out of these bad habits. Not only should you be convinced but you should be as firm and unmovable in your religious beliefs as you can; heck, you should even ask God to make you even more convinced than your own abilities can make you.

So you want to hair-split? You weren't talking about religious people just what religion does to people? While there is a slight distinction there in this conversation the distinction is meaningless. Religious people are the ones affected by religion.

So now religion gives bad thinking habits because they are irrational? I hate to break this to you (no, I lied, this is going to be fun) but many of the best kinds of thinking are irrational. Intuitive thinking is not a rational process. Inductive reasoning is not strictly rational. Imagination and creativity are only partially rational. In your worldview the ideal thinkers would be a select form of severe autists. Have you really thought your judgments through rationally? It appears that the answer is no. You want to take one form of reasoning and elevate it to supreme importance in politics (and possibly in other areas) but really......how many logic professors and mathematicians do you see in the halls of Congress? Politicians have to strike deals using intuitive reasoning to quickly and unconsciously respond to social cues and develop compelling emotional arguments and also phrase logical arguments in a convincing fashion. This takes a lot of irrational thinking that is as important to the job as your pet virtue.

You also appear to misunderstand religion. It is a shallow faith (I do not deny they exist) that calls on its followers to pray only for conviction in what they already know instead of seeking the divine to learn more and to understand more. Allow me to take a somewhat common scientific slogan from where I was educated and alter it a bit so it fits religion.

"You don't practice faith to be proven right; you practice faith to become right."

Replace faith with science and you get one version of the more common saying.

Basically, you come across as a rather nebbish sophomoric intellectual snob and your arguments are facile, ill thought out, and insulting so I have chosen to respond in kind (being insulting, not the other two). If it is any consolation you remind me of myself as a teenager when I was convinced my vast intelligence gave me the wisdom to pass judgment on the world and everyone in it because I had read a few books and was fawned over for my great potential. I grew out of being an insufferable git with the help of others smacking me down. I hope you will too.

(Edited to be slightly kinder)

Edited April 7, 2014 by The Nehor