Religon and Politics

[mcbr4481]

I wanted to get some opinions from other Christians, I know that the other groups will have opinions but i wanted to see specifically how other Christians felt about this. (no offense meant to any other groups) But do you think we should involved Religon in politics. Should we vote how the bible and God would want us to?


Well it seemed pretty obvious to me but my friend who is a catholic tells me he thinks we should not vote our religon. So any input would be nice?

[4gold]

While I think homosexuality is a sin, I don't think they should be legally discriminated against.

. . . . I think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't think there should be gay marriage.

Hmm. If homosexuality should not be legally discriminated against, on what basis would you prohibit gay marriage? I have a hard time not seeing this as discrimination.

We allow heterosexual adults to marry the partner of their choice. It is an agreement between mutually consenting adults. It is a civil institution for all, and a religious institution for some.

If two consenting homosexuals want to marry, what legal rationale could their be for prohibiting them from doing so? Why should the state recognize heterosexual marriage for tax purposes, etc., and not homosexual marriage? How could the state make a distinction and not be engaging in discrimination?

ok, thanks that awnsers things pretty good for me, Would you agree that it has its place and time then maybe?

The only other thing is, well first idolatry is a tough one cause you can't vote on things like that because it violates seperation church and state and just will never be an issuie. i would agree adultery is not illegal but it does have leagal repercusions. and i agree with your homosecuality thing, i dont think they should be discriminated against but i dont think they should be legaly recognized, and maybe that is descrimination.. what do you think?

This answer is for both of you. I describe my political answer on homosexuality in more detail on another thread in this forum.

In a nutshell, I think the state should not recognize marriages at all. I believe property rights and inheritance ought to be based on commonlaw relationships, so that there is no discrimination among heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, same-gender roommates, or opposite-gender roommates.

For the first 10 centuries of the Christian church, there was no state-sanctioned marriage and the priests and rabbis weren't required to bless marriage unions. A man and woman would become married after they consummated the relationship -- no ceremony or legal form necessary. Over the centuries, we've added and added on to what it means to be married in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the state. While I understand the reasons for each of the additions, I think each one has further perverted the original definition of marriage. Some have argued that although this gets me out of any sexual orientation discrimination, it is not realistic. Granted. While this is my first choice, my second choice would be civil unions for both sides, still with no marriages recognized by the state.

So, on the topic of homosexuality, I feel that the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" policy is discrimination. If a homosexual wants to die for me to have freedoms, he is absolutely in his right to serve openly gay. I don't think that homosexuality should be illegal in any form (Lawrence v Texas). I haven't made up my mind on homosexual adoption yet, since there are conflicting studies on homosexual parenting -- but suffice it to say that my political position is in the interest of the child first, and has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. Yet, I don't think that we should further extend our definitions of marriage. I think that if we were to retract our definitions of marriage, it would prevent any marriage discrimination against homosexuality by society.

[micatala]

While I think homosexuality is a sin, I don't think they should be legally discriminated against.

. . . . I think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't think there should be gay marriage.

Hmm. If homosexuality should not be legally discriminated against, on what basis would you prohibit gay marriage? I have a hard time not seeing this as discrimination.

We allow heterosexual adults to marry the partner of their choice. It is an agreement between mutually consenting adults. It is a civil institution for all, and a religious institution for some.

If two consenting homosexuals want to marry, what legal rationale could their be for prohibiting them from doing so? Why should the state recognize heterosexual marriage for tax purposes, etc., and not homosexual marriage? How could the state make a distinction and not be engaging in discrimination?

ok, thanks that awnsers things pretty good for me, Would you agree that it has its place and time then maybe?

The only other thing is, well first idolatry is a tough one cause you can't vote on things like that because it violates seperation church and state and just will never be an issuie. i would agree adultery is not illegal but it does have leagal repercusions. and i agree with your homosecuality thing, i dont think they should be discriminated against but i dont think they should be legaly recognized, and maybe that is descrimination.. what do you think?

This answer is for both of you. I describe my political answer on homosexuality in more detail on another thread in this forum.

In a nutshell, I think the state should not recognize marriages at all. I believe property rights and inheritance ought to be based on commonlaw relationships, so that there is no discrimination among heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, same-gender roommates, or opposite-gender roommates.

For the first 10 centuries of the Christian church, there was no state-sanctioned marriage and the priests and rabbis weren't required to bless marriage unions. A man and woman would become married after they consummated the relationship -- no ceremony or legal form necessary. Over the centuries, we've added and added on to what it means to be married in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the state. While I understand the reasons for each of the additions, I think each one has further perverted the original definition of marriage. Some have argued that although this gets me out of any sexual orientation discrimination, it is not realistic. Granted. While this is my first choice, my second choice would be civil unions for both sides, still with no marriages recognized by the state.

So, on the topic of homosexuality, I feel that the "Don't Ask-Don't Tell" policy is discrimination. If a homosexual wants to die for me to have freedoms, he is absolutely in his right to serve openly gay. I don't think that homosexuality should be illegal in any form (Lawrence v Texas). I haven't made up my mind on homosexual adoption yet, since there are conflicting studies on homosexual parenting -- but suffice it to say that my political position is in the interest of the child first, and has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. Yet, I don't think that we should further extend our definitions of marriage. I think that if we were to retract our definitions of marriage, it would prevent any marriage discrimination against homosexuality by society.

I would be interested in some of your sources on the history of marriage. I am aware there have been significant changes in practices and views over time, but am interested in learning more.

I could certainly support the idea of having 'common law civil unions' or whatever term we might agree on serve as the legal basis for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, as long as the law is applied equally. We could then leave 'marriage' as a religious practice. This might not make everyone who supports gay rights happy, but I think it is a reasonable compromise.

Gays who are believers of one sort or another and still have an issue with a religion not sanctioning gay marriage would then have to argue the 'marriage' issue within the religious context, which certainly will make winning their case harder in most circumstances. However, if we can solve the legal issue, we have at least stopped the imposition of religious views on those who do not subscribe to the religion or who do not believe the religious views is valide.

[DerangedProtagonist]

I could certainly support the idea of having 'common law civil unions' or whatever term we might agree on serve as the legal basis for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, as long as the law is applied equally. We could then leave 'marriage' as a religious practice. This might not make everyone who supports gay rights happy, but I think it is a reasonable compromise.

Gays who are believers of one sort or another and still have an issue with a religion not sanctioning gay marriage would then have to argue the 'marriage' issue within the religious context, which certainly will make winning their case harder in most circumstances. However, if we can solve the legal issue, we have at least stopped the imposition of religious views on those who do not subscribe to the religion or who do not believe the religious views is valide.

In that case I think any "marriage" should be recognised by the State, as the State is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens. Religions should not forbid citizens from violating their beliefs, especially if State and Religion are separate.

The State will supply and provide for agreements associated with any kind of marrage and allow religions to maintain their own definitions.

What I see is a hierarchy. Actually if you think about it, with the multitude of Christian organisations, there is not just two entities but three. I don't see it as simply "Church" and "State." I actually disagree with the Church vs. State idea. In Christianity, no organisation can actually be "the Church," as the individual himself/herself is the Church.

So what we have instead is the Secular State, the Religious State (formal, established Church -- organised religion) and the Individual (the real, spiritual Church).

In the event that churches dishonour a person's freedoms and rights, the State will provide. Regardless, all marriages will have to be recognised by the State and agreements made legally, whether it involves 2 or even 3, 4, 5 or as many people as would like to be part of the marriage, even all the citizens in the country. Churches can form what definitions they like, which the State will honour as their right.

Ultimately, God will do whatever He's supposed to do, so all entities involved will therefore be performing the functions required of them -- Secular State (government), Religious State (for the religious community), the Individual and God.

To me personally, the so-called separation of Church and State depicts things as they are: the political system (the State) and the spiritual journey of a Christian (Church) are indeed separate. But contrary to what many people think, the various "churches" (organised establishments) around the world are not actually "the Church," they are actually "the State." There is the Secular State and the Religious State. The real Church is the individual.

The idea of merging "Church and State," I believe, sends the wrong message to Christians, making them think that their respective organisations are "the Church" when they are not. The individual himself/herself is the Church. The real Church and the State can never be merged. If indeed you succeeded, what you end up with is really the State, not the Church.

Even if that "Church," controlling the State was enforcing a so-called "Christian" agenda, if would not be the real Church but just another State.

Anything driven by rules and protocols, or enforcing its agenda primarily, predominantly, or solely through rules and protocols, and the hierarchy of a political system is a State regardless of what concepts and institutions it affirms and upholds. It's called statecraft. If the "Church" therefore relies on statecraft then it becomes a "State" and ceases to be "Church." But since it was an organisation and establishment to start with it was already a "State" to begin with.

Christianity is about a personal relationship with God. That concept should not be distorted by ideology or political structures, or the formal roles of pastors and priests. We must not be controlled of manipulated by these things. We must not allow barriers between us and God.

I personally think it's a waste of time to change the laws of a country, especially to "forbid" acts that are regarded as taboo. What's changing laws got to do with our religion? It's only if we have oppressive laws, laws that affect everyone, not just Christians, that we should do anything. That way we won't be accused as being selfish.

[MagusYanam]

What I see is a hierarchy. Actually if you think about it, with the multitude of Christian organisations, there is not just two entities but three. I don't see it as simply "Church" and "State." I actually disagree with the Church vs. State idea. In Christianity, no organisation can actually be "the Church," as the individual himself/herself is the Church.

So what we have instead is the Secular State, the Religious State (formal, established Church -- organised religion) and the Individual (the real, spiritual Church).

I have to disagree. Sadly, I think that people sometimes forget that there is a third option - a church needn't be a hierarchy and it needn't be a chaplaincy service for individual believers. Ideally (IMHO) it should fall somewhere between the two extremes: it should be a community, a civil organisation working for the benefit of all, for which individual believers surrender a certain portion of their autonomy for their own betterment and contribute responsibly to the group, to obey each other and to obey God. This is the way of the Mennonites, a group whom I believe come closest to the original Church community in structure and polity.

I think that there are spiritual needs that people have that can only be addressed in a community setting, coming together in communion with other believers to share comfort, concern and thought. So it is all well and good to speak of a person's freedoms and rights (usually thought of as the right not to have something done to them by other people), but what is lacking is that people have spiritual and physical positive rights that must be met by the civil society - the right to a good education, the right to accessible information, the right to a clean living environment, for example. And I think that consideration of the Church (for example), as well as other NGOs, ought to play into the upholding of these positive rights. Just my two cents, anyway.

It's only if we have oppressive laws, laws that affect everyone, not just Christians, that we should do anything.

Many people used this argument when the Nazis were rounding up Jews and socialists and executing them. Others used it during the civil rights movement when black people were bitten by dogs and sprayed with fire hoses. The people who didn't do anything didn't do anything because they personally weren't being affected by it. I believe that in times of great injustice, stepping over the lines drawn by the state to do the right thing (even if one is not affected by the injustice) should be called for.

That being said, I don't think Christians are exactly a persecuted minority in this country. The Christian Right holds many strings on the government, and when someone tries to intervene on behalf of the non-religious, for example, they simply scream 'persecution'. I think that such political pandering belittles people who are truly persecuted for their beliefs.

[MikeH]

It depends what you mean by "voting your religion."

Do you mean trying to vote in laws that force non-Christians to act in a Christian way? What's the point of that?

[Undertow]

Separation of church and state should be upheld and emphasised in places such as the U.S. and my country of Australia for the simple fact that in both countries, not everyone follows the same religion.

The separation of church and state is designed to emphasise our privalege as a liberal people to choose what we believe without enforcment or bias from the authorative governing body of the country.

It's important to note that separation of church and state emphasises freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion, which is why a secular government is the best way to achieve this.

I was going to go into further detail yet my computer momentarily stuffed up.

[Confused]

What I see is a hierarchy. Actually if you think about it, with the multitude of Christian organisations, there is not just two entities but three. I don't see it as simply "Church" and "State." I actually disagree with the Church vs. State idea. In Christianity, no organisation can actually be "the Church," as the individual himself/herself is the Church.

So what we have instead is the Secular State, the Religious State (formal, established Church -- organised religion) and the Individual (the real, spiritual Church).

I have to disagree. Sadly, I think that people sometimes forget that there is a third option - a church needn't be a hierarchy and it needn't be a chaplaincy service for individual believers. Ideally (IMHO) it should fall somewhere between the two extremes: it should be a community, a civil organisation working for the benefit of all, for which individual believers surrender a certain portion of their autonomy for their own betterment and contribute responsibly to the group, to obey each other and to obey God. This is the way of the Mennonites, a group whom I believe come closest to the original Church community in structure and polity.

I think that there are spiritual needs that people have that can only be addressed in a community setting, coming together in communion with other believers to share comfort, concern and thought. So it is all well and good to speak of a person's freedoms and rights (usually thought of as the right not to have something done to them by other people), but what is lacking is that people have spiritual and physical positive rights that must be met by the civil society - the right to a good education, the right to accessible information, the right to a clean living environment, for example. And I think that consideration of the Church (for example), as well as other NGOs, ought to play into the upholding of these positive rights. Just my two cents, anyway.

On the first paragraph, I have to say that is the finest wording I have heard thus far, My hats off to you for it!!!

On the second paragraph, I don't think that there is any spiritual need that can only be addressed in a community setting. Now, considering the notion that I don't ascribe to spirituality being a uniquely religious concept, I find that many times I can find spiritual guidance through introspection of myself. Some might say it is a form of meditation and they wouldn't be completely wrong. But I find it more a form of balancing. One can work through just about any issue when they have the clear mind to do so. I don't doubt that some might find it easier or more beneficial to address their need in a community of "believers" etc... But I also don't think it is the only way. For example, if amongst the community of believers, you have no one with experience in your "crisis" then what help can they offer? Say you had to hospitalize a loved one for their one good. If no one in your community of believers have had to do this, then what benefit will they provide? Support? How can you provide support to someone when you have no idea what they are going through? Just by being a shoulder for them to lean on? I agree, this might give them temporary relief, but when they go home, the pain will come back with a vengeance. It is a battle within that they must come to terms with on their own grounds and I don't think any amount of shoulders will ease their burden. I think in reality, it makes those with the shoulder feel as if they have done something good. So it benefits the shoulder more than the person who is leaning on it.

[Greatest I Am]

Man has two natures. The political and the spiritual.

No man can ignore either regardless of his political position.

The separation is meant to imply that no law will be put on religious grounds only.

A good idea.

Regards
DL

[DerangedProtagonist]

For example, if amongst the community of believers, you have no one with experience in your "crisis" then what help can they offer? Say you had to hospitalize a loved one for their one good. If no one in your community of believers have had to do this, then what benefit will they provide? Support? How can you provide support to someone when you have no idea what they are going through?

True. We can't put too much emphasis on "community" being the only "instrument" or "source" of "healing" or whatever need that has to be addressed. We have to be practical. Nobody ever said we have to rely on the community alone -- to isolate ourselves. If someone gets sick, there is nothing wrong with seeing a doctor or going to hospital.

It's good to have a network of friends and that could be the equivalent of the "community." In that sense your "community" or "family" doesn't have to be a "gathering" or "congregation." It could be a network of friends, family, colleagues at work. Anyone. The more connections you have, the better. If they're "spiritual" people, religious or not, even better. Gossip and idle talk doesn't help much.......better to have people who know your needs. Whether it's Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even people-loving atheist......whatever you could find it may work. We can all share the same journey as one. We don't have to let ideology separate us.

I don't think MagusYanam was really saying we needed to depend or rely on a community. He was responding to what I said about not putting too much emphasis on an organisation. I think he perceived me as saying it was wrong to "follow" an organisation. What I meant was that we shouldn't insist on the organisation as the instrument for dictating "true beliefs" but let the individual come to it naturally. An organisation can never dictate "truth" in terms of beliefs and morality as that must come from an experience of God or personal intuition.

(This is about Christian beliefs here, not general spirituality.)

Having an organisation dictate "true beliefs" can be educational and help people learn what works and doesn't. It can be practical. But morality, justice and spirituality aren't about practicalities or being manipulated by what organisations tell us. The organisation can guide and educate but it cannot dictate "true beliefs." Only individuals can discover "true beliefs." Truth comes from experience, not rules taught by organisations or some other person not yourself.

I'm not saying you can't learn from others, from what organisations teach and preach, from examples set in the past, but you still have to process what you've seen, heard and read. If you are taught something incompatible with your experience, it would not be reasonable to start believing in it. You haven't figured out why you have to do things that way. If you go ahead and adopt a belief based on what you've been taught, without reconciling it with experience, you're either being manipulated, or you're manipulating yourself.

[MagusYanam]

On the first paragraph, I have to say that is the finest wording I have heard thus far, My hats off to you for it!!!

Thanks very much, Confused. I often find it difficult to be clear; I hope that in this instance I have succeeded.

On the second paragraph, I don't think that there is any spiritual need that can only be addressed in a community setting. Now, considering the notion that I don't ascribe to spirituality being a uniquely religious concept, I find that many times I can find spiritual guidance through introspection of myself.

Introspection is valuable. I'm not going to claim otherwise, INTJ that I am. But I also believe that interactions with other people and connections with other people are equally valuable, and contributing to a group is an act which has intrinsic spiritual rewards. It is an exercise which requires a certain kind of discipline that introspection alone does not offer.

I don't doubt that some might find it easier or more beneficial to address their need in a community of "believers" etc... But I also don't think it is the only way. For example, if amongst the community of believers, you have no one with experience in your "crisis" then what help can they offer? Say you had to hospitalize a loved one for their one good. If no one in your community of believers have had to do this, then what benefit will they provide? Support? How can you provide support to someone when you have no idea what they are going through? Just by being a shoulder for them to lean on? I agree, this might give them temporary relief, but when they go home, the pain will come back with a vengeance. It is a battle within that they must come to terms with on their own grounds and I don't think any amount of shoulders will ease their burden. I think in reality, it makes those with the shoulder feel as if they have done something good. So it benefits the shoulder more than the person who is leaning on it.

But that's the entire point of being in a community! If other people don't understand you, then how can they help you at all? A community is a group of people with shared concerns, not just a chaplaincy service (as I said above) and not just a shoulder to lean on. It's not all just the touchy-feely stuff, it's the friend you can call to take care of your kids when you're out on business, it's the carpool that takes you to work every day, it's the guys (or the gals) you have a beer with every weekend, it's the NGO that goes out and plants trees in Beijing every year, it's the philosophy seminar with the teacher and all the students sitting in a circle discussing Kant or Hegel. The benefits should be self-evident, but the words participation and mutual responsibility also come up a lot when dealing with community.