Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Religion and Politics; ...how should they be mixed?
Topic Started: Apr 20 2006, 02:26 PM (425 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I watched the "Meet The Press" episode yesterday (the one that aired on Easter Sunday), that Phlebas referred to a few days ago. It was a very good sample of (often diametric) religious individuals - Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew, etc. Their conversation was very much what you would find here in the Coffee Room, actually.

But it got me thinking.

I think back to the Bible, where it seems (perhaps because the religion was still semi-new and informal) that Christians really stayed out of politics if possible, and Jesus led the example of individual accountability and discipline, while growing in faith...and didn't really mess with the government or its policies. He seemed to advocate individual teaching and a grassroots-esque method of living a holy life, and didn't really seem to worry about what the government around him decided.

I apply this to today's environment.

The main question I'm thinking is: How should one vote?

For example, I have my own standards, driven primarily by my faith in Christ and the Bible.

I also know in a church/state-seperate society, certain standards are needed - regardless as to whether or not it contradicts your faith. For example, without divorce being legal, it would be really bad - even though divorce *in general* is a sin.

So, should an individual vote for what they think is best for society? Or should they vote for what they think is ultimately right?


Serious answers are appreciated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
When thinking about the lack of political action on the part of the earliest Christians, realize that there really wasn't much political activity to avail one's self of at the time. The world wasn't exactly a hotbed of democracy, and even in Rome, voting rights, and therfore, political power, were severely limited to male Roman citizens. For all practical purposes, there was no political outlet for them to participate in.

On a related note, this is a very important thing to remember in light of the criticism Paul sometimes receives regarding his advice to slaves to basically be good and peaceful slaves. It wasn't exactly like he and the other Christians could start a petition drive, or a referendum to end slavery in that part of the Roman Empire. Rather, they took the approach that, if this was the system they were forced to work within, then they would advise believers who were slaves to act in a Christian manner in their slavery, and believers who were slave owners to treat their slaves as they might treat Paul himself, or members of their own family.

Moving forward to today, I can't see how anyone of sincere faith can divorce their spiritual beliefs from their civil beliefs and voting record. The latter can only be the truest reflection of the former.

Regarding "should an individual vote for what they think is best for society? Or should they vote for what they think is ultimately right?", I would suggest that if a person is sincere in his/her beliefs, there is no difference to them between these two things. They're the same, and your voting and other political action should reflect that.

As to: "How should one vote?", I'd suggest that you should vote in a manner that most nearly reflects your understanding of what is right, and that will be what is best for society.

But the key here is that you should participate in the process, and regardless of whether your religious worldview leads you to see the best way to enact the ideal solutions of your worldview through liberal, conservative, or other political avenues.

As a Christian, I am not called to ignore the workings of the society around me. I am a part of that society, and as such, my attitudes and opinions are of value and importance to society. As Christians, our sole interest is not that we are saved and will spend in eternity in heaven, but also that the kingdom of God is also here and now, and we have been given a commission to help and serve those in need, here and now - in whatever way we feel will most effectively and truly help (privately, publicly, a combination, what policies/programs versus what others, etc.)

But in no case do I agree with anyone who says that they can keep their religious views separate from their politics. I don't believe anyone, Democrat or Republican, can do this. Like I said before, what they do tells what they believe far more effectively than any words they may mouth on a given Sunday morning.

This isn't a question of the "religious right" trying to take the country "for Jeezusss." It's just a question of using one's franchise of the vote to hopefully advance issues that align with their own real (as opposed to merely professed) belief system. That some peoples' belief systems just happen to be grounded in religious faith in no way makes their opinions less valid to be counted at the ballot box than those whose governing belief system is not based on religious faith.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I am not sure how "what is ultimately right" can not be the same as "what is best for society".

The guiding principle of any society should be the establishment and preservation of the common good: the well ordering of society which allows all the citizens to pursue their individual goods. Only if you can posit that society per se is fundamentally flawed can something in the best interest of the society be in conflict with what is ultimately right.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Dwain if you don't mind me asking...what about divorce then. If by some random act, we voted on a referendum to outlaw divorce, would you vote for the law?

Rather, to not get distracted on the topic of divorce...either that or other topics that are applicable in this quesiton are fine. Stem cell, capital punishment, gay rights, abortion, war, religion in schools, etc...pick a topic.

Thanks for your candid reply.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

ivorythumper
Apr 20 2006, 07:00 PM
I am not sure how "what is ultimately right" can not be the same as "what is best for society".

The guiding principle of any society should be the establishment and preservation of the common good: the well ordering of society which allows all the citizens to pursue their individual goods. Only if you can posit that society per se is fundamentally flawed can something in the best interest of the society be in conflict with what is ultimately right.

I do think society is fundamentally flawed...and that sometimes the best course of action is against what most people think. Slavery, for example....back in the early 1800s.

What is ultimately right for me? That all children be taught the love and mercy of God, etc. What is best for society? Maybe not that... (AKA, imposing a religion...even if a majority...on others against their specific will).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
The 89th Key
Apr 20 2006, 04:06 PM
ivorythumper
Apr 20 2006, 07:00 PM
I am not sure how "what is ultimately right" can not be the same as "what is best for society". 

The guiding principle of any society should be the establishment and preservation of the common good: the well ordering of society which allows all the citizens to pursue their individual goods. Only if you can posit that society per se is fundamentally flawed can something in the best interest of the society be in conflict with what is ultimately right.

I do think society is fundamentally flawed...and that sometimes the best course of action is against what most people think. Slavery, for example....back in the early 1800s.

What is ultimately right for me? That all children be taught the love and mercy of God, etc. What is best for society? Maybe not that... (AKA, imposing a religion...even if a majority...on others against their specific will).

Well, "what people think" is certainly not the same as either "what is ultimately right" or "what is best for society". They may or may not coincide depending on the education, formation, and values of the society. You are getting confused about the categories.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The guiding principle of any society should be the establishment and preservation of the common good: the well ordering of society which allows all the citizens to pursue their individual goods. Only if you can posit that society per se is fundamentally flawed can something in the best interest of the society be in conflict with what is ultimately right.


As might be expected, I disagree wholeheartedly.

And I'll pick an area that strikes close to home.

It might be best for society as a whole to kill off everyone who is severely disabled. And to somehow mindwipe everyone so that they are unaware that it's happened.

It might be best for society as a whole to execute every person who is sentenced to life in prison, to avoid the costs of that prison term. (edit: presume we are not talking about a crime that involves capital punishment. Think along the lines of three non-violent felonies under a "three strikes and you're out" law.)

But it would be terribly wrong.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Isn't 'doing what's best for society' in spite of the needs or wishes of the individual what Communism attempted? That didn't work out too well.

'There is no such thing as society, only individuals and families' - Margaret Thatcher.

I'm not sure I agree with her, but she does have a point.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Apr 20 2006, 04:45 PM
Quote:
 
The guiding principle of any society should be the establishment and preservation of the common good: the well ordering of society which allows all the citizens to pursue their individual goods. Only if you can posit that society per se is fundamentally flawed can something in the best interest of the society be in conflict with what is ultimately right.


As might be expected, I disagree wholeheartedly.

And I'll pick an area that strikes close to home.

It might be best for society as a whole to kill off everyone who is severely disabled. And to somehow mindwipe everyone so that they are unaware that it's happened.

It might be best for society as a whole to execute every person who is sentenced to life in prison, to avoid the costs of that prison term. (edit: presume we are not talking about a crime that involves capital punishment. Think along the lines of three non-violent felonies under a "three strikes and you're out" law.)

But it would be terribly wrong.

"It might be best" but I doubt it could possibly be best. The first scenario would certainly violate the rights of the disabled citizens and would impair the common good through causing immense resentment against the government. Everyone who had a disabled loved one murdered by the Government would lose respect for the rule of law. Even with your "mindwipe" scenario, which is itself an affront to human dignity, the good of society cannot be achieved by turning people into automata. The second scenario likewise -- a draconian enforcement of punishment would also cause the citizens to live in fear and detest the tyranny. Such scenarios are possible perhaps, but are ultimately dystopic.

I hope, Quirt, that I am not speaking into a vacuum regarding your understanding of what terms such as "common good" and "individual goods" entail. Individual goods are generally understood as the reasonable and responsible exercise of freedoms in respect of the citizens' obligation to uphold the common good at large. This excludes acts of theft, brutality against other citizens, undue disruptions of the civic order, etc.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The second scenario likewise -- a draconian enforcement of punishment would also cause the citizens to live in fear and detest the tyranny.


Again, using the easiest example, I don't agree. I don't think the vast, vast majority of the American citizenry fear draconian enforcement of the "three strikes and you're out" law. Most Americans cannot envision themselves guilty of a single felony, let alone three.

So it comes down to whether it's right or not. Because I don't think it would terrify anyone, other than on a "what kind of monsters have we become?" level.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quirt, should I not think in black and white terms with this then?

I honestly don't know.

One half of me says that I should do what is theoretically, economically, and generally good for society, regardless of religious teaching - because I wouldn't be rejecting religion, I just wouldn't be playing the same game. I would be looking at the state...not the church.

The other half of me says I should vote strictly how I think people should be...regardless of the consequences. Perhaps what is ultimately right (IMO, my religion), should be how I vote...no matter whether it's the optimal route for society.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Apr 20 2006, 05:54 PM
Quote:
 
The second scenario likewise -- a draconian enforcement of punishment would also cause the citizens to live in fear and detest the tyranny.


Again, using the easiest example, I don't agree. I don't think the vast, vast majority of the American citizenry fear draconian enforcement of the "three strikes and you're out" law. Most Americans cannot envision themselves guilty of a single felony, let alone three.

So it comes down to whether it's right or not. Because I don't think it would terrify anyone, other than on a "what kind of monsters have we become?" level.

OK, so you don't agree. I suspect that if we started executing all convicts serving life time sentences there would be a visceral reaction on the part of the citizenry, and it would be detrimental to the ability of the common man to hold his government in respect.

You call this "what kind of monsters have we become?" -- but I would suggest that if the citizenry are asking that question of themselves then the common good has already been seriously injured and that in your scenario the government has failed to uphold what is truly good for the society.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I am not sure how "what is ultimately right" can not be the same as "what is best for society".


i think that is true, people just differ on the definitions of "right" and "best for society"

funny 89th that u write divorce as being sinful. i mean while i understand the connotation in abortion, i have real trouble accepting divorce as sinful. (no personal issues here, im just thought streaming)

its weird how everything has to be characterized as "sin" or "not sin".

u can argue that divorce in itself is not a positive thing, and has psychological scars and effects. so does cancer. but this in itself is not the definition of sin.

now im not naive, i know the whole "no man shall set asunder" stuff probably makes divorce fall within a religious dichotomy of sin vs not sin for christians, but i still cant really understand it like i can with abortion or other issues.

reason number 1,000,005 why i can thank the good lord i was born jewish. only animals r kosher or not kosher. the gamut of human behaviours and cycle of life is much more complex and cannot be well accomodated to black and white dichotomies.

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Is there a practical difference between something being 'morally wrong' and being 'sin'?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I suspect that Bach is right, and that we are differing over semantics.

It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Bach, I'm sure you're familiar with other Bible passages on this, not to mention you are breaking a vow - the highest of all promises.

But this is a distraction, the point isn't really whether divorce is a sin...but just a topic that I brought up. You can fill in the blank with other "sinful" or "religiously prohibited" activities and their respective legislation (or lack thereof).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Religion and politics are very similar.

Much of religion and politics is about power over people, and the arrogance of thinking you know how it should be for everyone.

Politics is about outside stuff.
Religion is about inside stuff.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
the only biblical passage im familiar with is deuteronomy 24:1-4.

seems God must have changed his mind by the time the new testament came about, eh?

and yes, i know it wasnt the main topic. but it just stuck out to me as being weird.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Well that is why they call it the new testament. :2face:

Oh well, we could stay with the ever-present issue of abortion in this thread, then?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
no no, abortion is too boring already.

sorry for the hijack. i understand the question.

vote from your heart. there r no rules involved.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
One votes for what is right.

Except for kenny, who's not quite sold on that concept of right, yet.....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Apr 21 2006, 09:25 AM
Religion and politics are very similar.

Much of religion and politics is about power over people, and the arrogance of thinking you know how it should be for everyone.

Politics is about outside stuff.
Religion is about inside stuff.

Not all religions are about "the arrogance of thinking you know how it should be for everyone."

Just speaking from personal experience, I can't think of a single concept at all in Judaism that applies to everyone in the world, even to non-Jews. All I can think of is maybe our belief in God, but that doesn't really dictate "how it should be for everyone," just whether or not we believe he exists, as trees exist, and water exists. Nothing about how non-Jews should or should not run their lives.



So in terms of politics, at least for me, the question doesn't really mean anything to me. If a Jew were in office, I don't think he'd have much reason to impose any of his religious beliefs on the American people. Maybe he would outlaw things like murder and theft, but those are already outlawed anyway. :shrug:
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Apr 21 2006, 05:50 AM
One votes for what is right.

Except for kenny, who's not quite sold on that concept of right, yet.....

I just understand that "right" applies to only one person - me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
kenny
Apr 21 2006, 08:48 AM
Jolly
Apr 21 2006, 05:50 AM
One votes for what is right.

Except for kenny, who's not quite sold on that concept of right, yet.....

I just understand that "right" applies to only one person - me.

And that's the problem....

In order for society to achieve a common good, one must have two things...a concept of what "right" is, and a way to accomplish what is right through the use of politics.

If you don't know where you are (situational ethics), you have no earthly idea of where you need to go.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Apr 21 2006, 05:04 AM
I suspect that Bach is right, and that we are differing over semantics.

As might be expected, you disagreed wholeheartedly over semantics. :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1