Religion and politics

Heck, I know we're not supposed to discuss either one among friends. But, that rule was long ago suspended on this forum.

What occurs to me is how much religion affects politics. What reminded me about it was reading this comment by California in another thread:

I have one Muslim friend. He arrived here to study engineering and then the political climate changed at home so he couldn't return. (He's not from Iran, but his situation is similar to the Iranian students stranded here when the Shah fell.) He has since become a citizen and is wholeheartedly American, at least within the constraints of his religion. We enjoyed debating the 2000 election. His view was that he had a moral duty to vote Republican "after what Clinton did to that poor girl". He didn't need any other reason.

Click to expand...

(I added the emphasis)

It reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a local politician I support running for county comission in Okeechobee County. He told me that he had been a life-long Democrat, but he changed to Republican because "I am a Christian, and the Republicans are against abortion and gay marriages." I asked him what the other reasons were. He stated emphatically that those reasons were enough; he didn't care what else they stood for.

In the last national election, most politcal analysts from both parties agreed that Bush won reelection because of the issue of "moral values" or "ethical values". When interviewed, most of the people who stated that was their reason for voting for Bush defined family values as "no gay marriages".

Recently, I watched a little segment on a news channel that covered politicians visting the Iowa State Fair. The reporter interviewed a young couple attending the fair and asked them what they wanted to see in a politician: "We'll vote for anyone who will cut taxes and stop gay marriages" the young man said, and his wife agreed, "Tax cuts and no gay marriages."

It seems that the Republicans, as led by Karl Rove, are on to something. Tax Cuts (even if they throw the country into bankruptcy), no legal abortions (even if young girls are killed by back alley coat hanger abortions), no gay marriages (even though it has no effect on anyone else''s marriage) and no flag desecration. Those are the issues that resonate with the majority of Americans, especially those in the red states.

My question: Are Americans really that stupid?

OkeeDon said:

no gay marriages (even though it has no effect on anyone else''s marriage)

Click to expand...

Yeah, and why stop there -- how about marriages between older men and young girls -- that doesn't effect anyone else's marriage either.

Or how about allowing children to marry each other -- or mothers marrying their sons?

For the pet lover's, how about being able to marry your dog or cat? Yeah, I think Don is onto something here.

OkeeDon said:

My question: Are Americans really that stupid?

Click to expand...

My reply: After they elected Clinton twice; yes!

My question: Are Americans really that stupid?
__________________
...Don



Yep, 59,028,109 were in the 2004 presidential election.

The funny thing is that I know several "Democrats" that vote for their party because they are the better looking.. Clinton & Kennedy are the first to come to mind as being reasons they gave.. There are allot of different reasons to vote, but you cannot say its just the Rep's that are stupid.. BTW, none of those reasons are why I voted Republican, although I do have beliefs regarding them(not all in agreement)..

OkeeDon said:

Heck, I know we're not supposed to discuss either one among friends. But, that rule was long ago suspended on this forum.

It reminded me of a conversation I had recently with a local politician I support running for county comission in Okeechobee County. He told me that he had been a life-long Democrat, but he changed to Republican because "I am a Christian, and the Republicans are against abortion and gay marriages." I asked him what the other reasons were. He stated emphatically that those reasons were enough; he didn't care what else they stood for.

In the last national election, most politcal analysts from both parties agreed that Bush won reelection because of the issue of "moral values" or "ethical values". When interviewed, most of the people who stated that was their reason for voting for Bush defined family values as "no gay marriages".

Click to expand...

Normally I don't get involved in the debate and discussion forum for the following reasons:

• Even though I rarely agree with some of the members here, I respect them and don't want to be involved when a thread spirals towards angry attacks.
• I know how I feel inside my head, but it doesn't always come across the same way when I express it into words, and then someone takes what I said the wrong way. It's hard to express myself to someone who can't "see" what I'm thinking.
• I also don't normally have the time it takes to be here when a debate goes back and forth... I don't want someone sitting here waiting for an answer when I'm gone for a few days!

That being said, I'm making a rare appearance to the Debate and Discussion forum. As one of the Evangelical Protestant Christians at this forum, I feel compelled to to give my point of view...

Like your friend in Okeechobee, I feel abortion and marriage are important issues to be dealt with. I registered as a Republican for the first time in the 2000 primary to vote for the best candidate for the job (NOT Bush). When the election came in November of 2000, I felt Bush to be the better of the two evils. During the campaign for the 2004 election, Mr. Bush was re-elected on the "conservative Christian" platform. Once again, I voted for him with the promise that this was the direction the president would be taking the country. After listening to the president's testimony as to being a Christian during the campaign, and now virtually ignoring the group that got him re-elected, I have to ask, "What is more important to him, being a Christian or being a Republican?"

You see, even though I think abortion and marriage are important issues, I don't blindly support the president in every move he makes, just because he belongs to the same political party. For starters, while I thought the tax cuts were a great idea to stimulate the economy, they should not have happened without first cutting the federal budget by the same amount. I also don't support the war in Iraq; If the U.S. should be involved somewhere, why wouldn't we also be in the Sudan, North Korea, or a number of other countries who have committed human rights atrocities worse than that of Saddam Hussein? Other than the war in Iraq, what has this administration accomplished? Most importantly, what has he done for those who got him elected? If you take out the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush's two terms have been about as effective as, say, Millard Fillmore's presidency.

So where does that leave me, along with other Evangelical Christians who feel betrayed and abandoned by the Republican party? While I feel the Republican party LEADERSHIP (note emphasis) pushes the Christian platform, their actual agenda is much different. On the other side, it seems that the Democratic party LEADERSHIP (note emphasis again) stands for everything opposite the Republicans. Like Republicans who support the president's involvement in Iraq because it's part of the party's stance, there are many Democrats who change their views, solely to go with their party line. I guess I've learned it's more important to stand up in what you believe rather than blindly support a political party, solely because that's how you registered.

That being said, where do I go from here?

AndyM said:

That being said, where do I go from here?

Click to expand...

Easy,
I have been a registered republican since day one., Was once the republican party chairman in a small Massachusetts town.. Was (fired) from that position because I didn't explicitly follow party lines. I had a call once, from Ray Shamie's wife., Ray use to own Polaroid camera. Ran for senator against Kennedy. His wife called one night and asked if I would sign on the town party for anti abortion,. I said no. I think it a personal and religious issue and not something for politicians to bat around.. I had asked Shamie's wife, what about rape, and incest and other problems? In my way of thinking, it is easier and much cheaper for John Q taxpayer to pay 7 grand for a legal and safe abortion, rather than 480,000 on a non wanted child forced to 18 years of welfare upbringing.. By the way, at that time, the 7/480 were state issued figures,. The war had started, By the end of that week, I was no longer any party official.,.

You see, the above is what I happen to believe, and not necessarily follow party rhetoric on a true line. So what, I got fired from that position.. My favorite has always been Steve Forbes, Well, it was not to be.. Pick a party that you think will cover most of what you believe as no party can satisfy anyone,,.,

LarryRB and I are probably not going to agree on politics. We may or may not agree on religion; I don't know. But, we do seem to agree on one thing, and that's the importance that religion should play in politics.

AndyM and I agree on something else. We agree that abortion and marriage are important issues. We may even agree on the way we feel about them. But, were we disagree is whether those issues should be the primary decision-making factor in a political decision.

In this country, religion is an individual choice that one makes. It may be the only important choice left to an individual that cannot (or should not) be affected by any other individuals. The purpose of religion, as I see it, is to provide a guide and a path to the way each individual leads their own life. This is an essential difference between the United States and almost all other nations, especially those, like the fundamentalist Muslim nations, where religion determines how everyone behaves.

Politics, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. In our nation, it is the willing handing-over of a significant portion of control over our daily lives for the public betterment of all. It should be restricted to matters that affect all of us. It is. constitutionally, restricted to secular matters and should never, under any circumstances or for any reason, affect an individual's religion, because that would take away just about the only individual choice left.

There are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of important issues which are -- and should be -- part of the political milieu. These are the reasons why one should choose a political candidate. AFTER one has determined that a particular candidate will satisfy the political persuasions of a voter, then the voter might consider their religious viewpoint. Religion, however, should never be the only, or even the primary, reason to select a candidate.

People who choose a candidate for religious reasons often fail to look any further and very often don't have any clue as to the real political agenda of the candidate. They are also easily fooled, because a candidate can easily pronounce any religious view that seems convenient, and afterwards, there is no tangible proof of whether they truly believed it, or not. That's because (1) there is no way to prove that God hears or even cares about any politician, no matter what they say, and (2) under our constitution, there is no way that any religious matter can be made a part of law, anyway.

Or, so it should be. When we choose a candidate, we are voting as to which way we want political control to be exercised. when a person tells me they voted for a particular candidate for what is primarily a religious reason, what they are really telling me is that they voted to have that politician attempt to control my religious life.

If they choose a candidate solely for the reason that the candidate is against abortion, then they are declaring that they want the nation to force everyone to follow their religious view. The same is true of any religious issue. And, it is exactly the way that fundamentalist Islamic nations, like Iran, or Afghainistan under the Taliban, operate.

In the meantime, the nation's domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental policy and economic policy can go to hell in a handbasket, and the single-issue religious voter probably won't even notice until it's too late.

The 2004 Presidential election was won by so-called "moral value" issues, and that's just wrong. Look where it got us.

Please, people, we have an important election coming up in a few weeks. For some, there may be an important primary next week. Please, please, please, consider how you are voting, and make sure you are voting for political reasons, not religious ones. I don't interfere with your religion; please don't interfere with mine, and let the country go to hell as a result.

If you choose your candidate for purely political reasons and you choose differently from me, you will still have my respect and sincere admiration that you exercised the greatest right we have. If you choose your candidate for religious reasons only, well, I hope you like what you get.

In religion, follow God's law.

In politics, follow man's law.

Do not let the two mix, or we are no better than our enemies.

OK Don,
I'm with you on the "dont let religion dictate who you vote for" and totally agree...

The question I have is, would you let a candidates religious veiws keep you from voting for him? I personally dont agree with Bush's stance on abortion or some of his religious/moral veiws, but I didnt let that stop me from voting for him. I still believe he was the better man for the job(for national security, top on my list) when compared to Kerry/Edwards..

Unfortunatly, I think it always goes back to Republican VS Democrat(or "X" vs Bush in this case).. I voted for Bush because he said he was going to do something and had not backed down, wether I agree totally or not I know that he will stand be his decision and I know where he is going.. Kerry on the other hand changed his dirrection every time he was questioned, especially when it came to national security and basicly gave the oposite answer that Bush did on everything even when it contradicted his previous stance.. So, it was a no brainer for me to go with the guy that wasnt afraid to show his dirrection and stick to it regardless of his religious veiws.. I dont want to debate (or argue my reasons), just giving an example.. If there was a better choice, I would have voted for him...

HGM said:

I still believe he was the better man for the job(for national security, top on my list) when compared to Kerry/Edwards...

Click to expand...

Yes, me too. However, my vote was more against Kerry than it was for Bush.

HGM said:

The question I have is, would you let a candidates religious veiws keep you from voting for him?

Click to expand...

No. Unless the politician was more interested in pushing his religious convictions than he was in governing the body politic; then I would vote against him regardless of what his religious views are, whether I agreed with them or not.

I am a man of principle. For example, I do not believe it should be easy to tamper with constitutions. Florida has a provision in law that allows amendments to the state consitution as a voter intitiative. It's used as a substitute for proposing and attemoting to pass legislation. I do not believe the constitution should be used to legislate, so I routinely vote against all proposed amendments, even if I agree with the purpose.

HGM said:

I voted for Bush because he said he was going to do something and had not backed down, wether I agree totally or not I know that he will stand be his decision and I know where he is going.. Kerry on the other hand changed his dirrection every time he was questioned, especially when it came to national security and basicly gave the oposite answer that Bush did on everything even when it contradicted his previous stance..

Click to expand...

I think I know what you're trying to say, although it didn't come out quite clear. For example, if Kerry contradicted every position that Bush held, and if Bush never changed his position, then how did Kerry change his? But, that's nit picking.

The real fact is that you believed the promises of an insincere politician who has since reversed himself on almost every postion he held before being elected (don't believe me? Go back and look at the campaign promises he made in 1999 and look at his positions since). On the other hand, you had a thoughtful individual who examined real issues and was willing to adapt his position to real changes, and who didn't lie about it to gain a political advantage. And, for this, you voted against him. Guess what, guys, you backed the wrong horse (or his backend, whichever).

OkeeDon said:

The real fact is that you believed the promises of an insincere politician who has since reversed himself on almost every postion he held before being elected (don't believe me? Go back and look at the campaign promises he made in 1999 and look at his positions since).

Click to expand...

OH MY GOD, a politician who lies, hold the press. Well, "lie" might be distorting it a bit, how about "differences of perceived views on intentions through ones actions and how others interpret those actions" (have no clue what I just said, just made it up, just like I'm sure some politicians do).

We all know that Democrats don't lie

The biggest reason why I didn't even consider Kerry was because of his running mate, John Edwards from good ol' N.C. (and watch for Edwards, he has a cushey job now at the unversity and looks like he is positioning himself for the next election).

To answer your question, to some extent my religous beliefs do play a part in who I vote for. That being said, If from my stupid opinion you have a complete idiot who is running because he is against abortion against a man who seems to have better "qualifications", I would most likely vote for the man who has the better qualifications.

I've never voted a "striaght" party line, nor probably never will.