The Danger Of The Religious Voice In Politics

[mfbukowski]

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

There is no point in even talking to you.  This is getting totally absurd.

 

The point is that apparently you think that that someone CAN be right in a political discussion.  That means you believe in an objective right and wrong- that someone can actually BE right or wrong by some objective standard.

 

You said above that someone may THINK they are right, but not actually BE right, and then you criticize religious people for thinking that

Not only should you be convinced but you should be as firm and unmovable in your religious beliefs as you can;

 

So you believe that there IS objective right and wrong and yet find fault with others who do the same.

 

If you cannot see that, there is not much more I have to say to you.  I will let others decide who is right on this one.  It's a waste of time to discuss it further.

[mfbukowski]

Basically, you come across as a rather nebbish sophomoric intellectual snob and your arguments are facile and ill thought out. Try again.

[Alvino]

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

 

I don't know about you but I don't see anything wrong with thinking you are right. That's not a sign of dogmatism nor is that something I think is a problem. I'm not protesting about that at all.

[Alvino]

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.

 

Chucks! I didn't expect this reaction from you at all.

 

I wasn't trying to prove my point with that study, Nehor. It just meant it to be suggestive of a measurable factor having to do with analytical thinking negatively influencing religious belief. 

 

 

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

 

 

?? 

 

I was making a point having to do with the logic of what you said; that if atheists don't show more willingness to subject their own ideas to scrutiny it doesn't mean religion doesn't produce the effects I said it does. I'm not saying disbelievers are actually just as willing to subject their ideas to scrutiny as religious people. That was a hypothetical counterexample just to show you it didn't follow.

 

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.

 

...tends to do to people. Darn it, Nehor.

 

So now religion gives bad thinking habits because they are irrational?

 

Because religions are irrational? I didn't say that and I don't use that as a reason for why I think what I do on this issue. One can be right for the wrong reasons, or for no reason at all.

 

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 area) but really......how many logic professors and mathematicians do you see in the halls of Congress? They 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 seem to be taking me to mean by "rational" something like "deductive reasoning", which I don't. An inference being deductively valid where you accept the conclusion is neither necessary nor sufficient to be rational. 

 

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. 

 

"Know more" and "understand more" is not what I meant religions don't do, and this is definitely not necessarily contradictory with being dogmatic. You can always learn more and understand more why you've been right all along without even touching your assumptions.

 

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. 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. I grew out of it with the help of others smacking me down. I hope you will too.

 

(Edited to be slightly kinder)

 

 

I'm sorry you think that. You still are one of my favorite users here. I really don't want you to have this impression of me but the reason might be that I disproportionally read too much 19th Century literature and now I can't help but write like I'm trying to sound smart or am snobbish. I guess the literary pomposity stuck with me but not the good aesthetic. Please know that's not my intention and that I hate how I write.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[3DOP]

I am not sure what is entailed with "theocracy being repugnant to Americans". In the reading for the Monday after Passion Sunday we gain many lessons about God, government, and how good government behaves in the face of religious truth. I do not think anyone would argue that Nineveh was a theocracy before Jonah arrived to preach, nor after he left:

 

And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: Arise, and go to Ninive the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee.  And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord: now Ninive was a great city of three days journey.  And Jonas began to enter into the city one day' s journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least.

 

And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.

 

 

---Jonah 3

 

I am not arguing for any particular form of government, much less "theocracy", however that is perceived. I am arguing that any form of government that recognizes the rights of God and the duties of man is better than any form of government that pushes the rights of God and the duties of man out of the public forum. The only recourse left to such governments as have succumbed to the latter temptation is to follow the example of the king of Nineveh. He did not revise the political order. There was no "constitutional convention" needed. What was needed then is was it is needed in our day. Penance for the wickedness of individuals and communities, with a public recognition of abuse against the rights and authority of Christ the King, who is the source of all human authority, and before whom every knee shall bend sooner or later. Better sooner.  

[Stone holm]

I am not sure what is entailed with "theocracy being repugnant to Americans". In the reading for the Monday after Passion Sunday we gain many lessons about God, government, and how good government behaves in the face of religious truth. I do not think anyone would argue that Nineveh was a theocracy before Jonah arrived to preach, nor after he left:

 

---Jonah 3

 

I am not arguing for any particular form of government, much less "theocracy", however that is perceived. I am arguing that any form of government that recognizes the rights of God and the duties of man is better than any form of government that pushes the rights of God and the duties of man out of the public forum. The only recourse left to such governments as have succumbed to the latter temptation is to follow the example of the king of Nineveh. He did not revise the political order. There was no "constitutional convention" needed. What was needed then is was it is needed in our day. Penance for the wickedness of individuals and communities, with a public recognition of abuse against the rights and authority of Christ the King, who is the source of all human authority, and before whom every knee shall bend sooner or later. Better sooner.

Who said anything about pushing out the rights of man? Yes, I believe sharia law is repugnant to Americans, as would a system based strictly on the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

[Alvino]

The point is that apparently you think that that someone CAN be right in a political discussion.  

 

That's correct. Like pretty much anyone else here except maybe you.

 

That means you believe in an objective right and wrong- that someone can actually BE right or wrong by some objective standard.

 

 

You mean in relation to a particular question or issue, yes. I don't find it very helpful to say the standard is what's objective but as long as what we are asking about is clear enough, then we may or may not be right about the issue.

 

You said above that someone may THINK they are right, but not actually BE right, and then you criticize religious people for thinking that

 

 

How did you get that from what I said, man? No, I'm not criticizing religious people for thinking they are right; not even for actually being wrong. Did you miss the word 'rational' in my posts? Do you know what "rational" means? It's not another word for "correct", you can be wrong and still be rational; nor another term for the idea of thinking one is correct.

 

 

 

So you believe that there IS objective right and wrong and yet find fault with others who do the same.

 

 

I suppose what I was saying is a bit less confusing now and I don't have to repeat it, yes?

Edited April 7, 2014 by Alvino

[Bikeemikey]

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

 

I wholeheartedly second this... Since moving to the USA I have to take my religious experience with a strong dose of US conservatism... it gets very exhausting. 

[The Nehor]

I wholeheartedly second this... Since moving to the USA I have to take my religious experience with a strong dose of US conservatism... it gets very exhausting.

While I am fortunate to not get a bunch of politics thrown at me on Sunday due to wise local leaders and good teachers I would like fellow saints elsewhere to stop tying the two together.

[Stone holm]

While I am fortunate to not get a bunch of politics thrown at me on Sunday due to wise local leaders and good teachers I would like fellow saints elsewhere to stop tying the two together.

 

It takes a major effort on the part of local leaders, because the General leadership keeps hitting hot button issues on behalf of conservatives.  If the Church leadership could get over the political obsession with sex, I think things might calm down a little.  It doesn't help that the Deseret News augments whatever reference that the GAs might make, but I guess they have to keep their free fire with the Salt Lake Tribune going on for the mutual benefit of both newspapers.

[stemelbow]

There is a danger to having a religious voice in politics.  There is also a danger in trying to push it out. 

 

Just as a religious group can be negatively effected by political machinations, the flip is also true--religious groups can negatively effect others. 

[Stone holm]

There is a danger to having a religious voice in politics.  There is also a danger in trying to push it out. 

 

Just as a religious group can be negatively effected by political machinations, the flip is also true--religious groups can negatively effect others. 

 

What is the danger of pushing religious arguments out of politics?

[The Nehor]

What is the danger of pushing religious arguments out of politics?

They might be good arguments.

[stemelbow]

What is the danger of pushing religious arguments out of politics?

 

A substantial portion of the population's interest is not in consideration.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

No religion should have a major voice in the political discourse in America, but all should have a say. The history of Europe should have a sobering effect on those that want to use the law to pursue their religious objectives.

 

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

― Thomas Jefferson

[Rob Osborn]

If two men were running for President and one was a devout Christian and the other was a member of the Church of Satan who is going to win? Why?

Its because ones influence in religion has a major effect on politics and the practice of law and government. We have "moral law" which is based off of what we know and have, or should have, been taught growing up. Religious belief and upbringing cannot or should not be separated from politics.

[thesometimesaint]

If two men were running for President and one was a devout Christian and the other was a member of the Church of Satan who is going to win? Why?

Its because ones influence in religion has a major effect on politics and the practice of law and government. We have "moral law" which is based off of what we know and have, or should have, been taught growing up. Religious belief and upbringing cannot or should not be separated from politics.

 

Depends on the political ideas of both.

 

...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See US Constitution Article 6 paragraph 3

[Rob Osborn]

 

Depends on the political ideas of both.

 

...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See US Constitution Article 6 paragraph 3

Of course its not required but it probably has the number one impact on how voters will vote.

[pogi]

What is the danger of pushing religious arguments out of politics?

 

No, I think it is a great idea to restrict the voices and freedoms of the people.  All in favor?  Just think how much better the constitution would have been if the religious voices, reason, and influence were left out!

Edited April 7, 2014 by pogi

[Stone holm]

A substantial portion of the population's interest is not in consideration.

 

Are you saying that for a substantial portion of the population, their only interest is in promoting their religious point of view on an issue?  If that is the case, we have a more serious problem than I thought because we are really moving towards a theocracy in that event.  I do want to make it clear, I am not saying that because you are religious you should not participate in politics, what I am saying is that you should not use religious arguments as supporting your position.  There are of course arguments which could be considered both religious and secular, murder is one that always get thrown back.  But laws against murder, do not need a religious argument for support.  Debates over abortion can be carried on strictly on secular grounds as to the mother's rights and the rights of the fetus or of society in protecting either the mother's health or the life of the fetus.  However, in some cases the secular argument becomes very, very hard to discern and those are the cases of concern.  In addition, where its the rights of a minority for example in the 1800's the right of Mormons to practice polygamy there needs to be a very careful weighing of the secular arguments to make sure that you are not trampling on the rights of the minority.  U.S. v. Reynolds is an example of very, very poor reasoning in that regard because a religiously motivated Court tried to veil their argument in a cultural assertion without taking into consideration the fact that the culture was based on religion, etc.  Although it carefully avoided overruling U.S. v. Reynolds, the District Court in the Sister Wives case wrote an extremely interesting assault on the case.  So in a free exercise case, you would hear religious arguments asserted by the minority, however, in the case where there is an attempt to attack a State Constitutional provision or a statute by a minority then the religious argument has no weight because to give it weight would be an establishment of religion.  Because of this latter case, the religious voice in politics is dangerous because it tends to result in legislation which favors one religious belief over another, and the religious beliefs of all are dependent upon protecting all.  I realize that an argument has been made that somehow religious heterosexuals have been victimized in some way by allowing homosexuals to marry -- but that is not an argument that really deserves much if any weight, and it has been largely ignored by the Courts for that reason.

[stemelbow]

Are you saying that for a substantial portion of the population, their only interest is in promoting their religious point of view on an issue?  If that is the case, we have a more serious problem than I thought because we are really moving towards a theocracy in that event.  I do want to make it clear, I am not saying that because you are religious you should not participate in politics, what I am saying is that you should not use religious arguments as supporting your position.  There are of course arguments which could be considered both religious and secular, murder is one that always get thrown back.  But laws against murder, do not need a religious argument for support.  Debates over abortion can be carried on strictly on secular grounds as to the mother's rights and the rights of the fetus or of society in protecting either the mother's health or the life of the fetus.  However, in some cases the secular argument becomes very, very hard to discern and those are the cases of concern.  In addition, where its the rights of a minority for example in the 1800's the right of Mormons to practice polygamy there needs to be a very careful weighing of the secular arguments to make sure that you are not trampling on the rights of the minority.  U.S. v. Reynolds is an example of very, very poor reasoning in that regard because a religiously motivated Court tried to veil their argument in a cultural assertion without taking into consideration the fact that the culture was based on religion, etc.  Although it carefully avoided overruling U.S. v. Reynolds, the District Court in the Sister Wives case wrote an extremely interesting assault on the case.  So in a free exercise case, you would hear religious arguments asserted by the minority, however, in the case where there is an attempt to attack a State Constitutional provision or a statute by a minority then the religious argument has no weight because to give it weight would be an establishment of religion.  Because of this latter case, the religious voice in politics is dangerous because it tends to result in legislation which favors one religious belief over another, and the religious beliefs of all are dependent upon protecting all.  I realize that an argument has been made that somehow religious heterosexuals have been victimized in some way by allowing homosexuals to marry -- but that is not an argument that really deserves much if any weight, and it has been largely ignored by the Courts for that reason.

 

No I am not saying "that for a substantial portion of the population, their only interest is in promoting their religious point of view on an issue".

[Stone holm]

No I am not saying "that for a substantial portion of the population, their only interest is in promoting their religious point of view on an issue".

 

Well then that is a problem because that is merely using the political forum to try and impose your religious views on others.  By the way, I think that is how some politicians motivate otherwise apathetic citizens to support them, or to get them to overlook other things that they may be doing.  Religion is a powerful distracting force in politics because if distracts people from other issues, and because it causes people not to really analyze what is or is not going on.   And before somebody accuses me of denigrating religion, religion is very important for individual self-government and very valuable as such.  It is also appropriate to raise it as a shield to defend one's personal behavior, it becomes something severely different when used as a sword or cudgel against others.

[thesometimesaint]

 Of course its not required but it probably has the number one impact on how voters will vote.

 

Of course, but it might not be the better of the two candidates. IE; I'll take a Thomas Jefferson over a Mike Huckabee every time.

Edited April 7, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

Well then that is a problem because that is merely using the political forum to try and impose your religious views on others. 

 

uh.  that's not what I'm saying.

[Bikeemikey]

Depends on the political ideas of both.

 

...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

See US Constitution Article 6 paragraph 3

 

That only means a test will not be applied as a barrier to running... not that the voters will not be justified in applying their own test of religion at the polls. Such action, im sure you agree, is perfectly acceptable.

 

However, as an individual that does not believe that corporations should be given political voice I also believe that religious instituions should be given political voice. That said, if we are giving corporations political voice equality requires that we give religions political voice also. 

 

At the moment there is an asymmetry in the US system as corporations are given voice but religions are not... That said, if religious institutions really want political voice they may want to may the tariff for that... Taxes.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Bikeemikey