|
A few of them can distinguish between their religion and the needs of the country, but in general
they try to impose their own beliefs on the people, even if only in the form of their own moral
values. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's because there are too many opinions of what's "right or wrong" instead of "what works and
what doesn't work" to create harmony amongst ourselves |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Politics and religion don't mix, it is a bad idea like lamb and tuna sandwiches |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
YES. IN EVERY THEOCRACY, PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHTS AND WARS HAVE BEEN FOUGHT AND PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN MURDERED, TORTURED, IMPRISONED, AND MORE.
Millions of people have suffered because a few men have decided that they are “God” and that
people should do what they say and how they interpret their religion. Theocracies as led by Hitler,
Hirohito, the Taliban and other countries of the Middle East and the world, have all been a
detriment to the people in their country and, through wars, to the people of the world.
Here in America today, we have seen wrong things done, people’s rights taken away, prisoners
tortured and hidden away, and the world in chaos because of the radical right Christian theocratic
power since Ronnie Regan to Dictator-God George W. Bush.
Only when all religions within a country’s border and all other people there as well, have a level
of equal power and participation in the government of that country, can there be a truly God-like
county which means that it be a country where individuals can choose how to worship and elect their
leaders and make LAWS NOT BASED ON THE BIBLE OR RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATIONS BUT ON WHAT IS BEST FOR
THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Religion clouds the minds of great leaders. It is easy to stray from what is good leadership in
order to enforce ones religion |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You just shouldn't put your religion into a race. It hurt your rep. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It depends how strong their religious feelings are and how well they balance them with the other
aspects of their life. Certainly, if they're quoting passages from some magical tome to justify
their policies, that's fairly disturbing.
It's actually quite rare for a politician with strong religious feelings to reach the top political
positions, however. Bush is the obvious example, but I actually don't believe that Bush's religious
feelings are sincere. I think he's just phoneying it up to appeal to the religious right. Bush
served on his father's unsuccessful re-election campaign and realised afterwards that one of the
critical mistakes his father made was failing to connect with the evangelical right. When he later
got involved in politics himself, he realised he needed to "get religion".
Carter was a president who had very strong religious feelings, but I don't think it interfered
significantly with his job performance. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Depends on what you mean by religious. Do you mean someone who holds religious beliefs but doesn't
allow them to interfere with their political life? Then they are no better or worse than a
non-religious candidate. If you mean someone who allows their religious views to dictate their
political stances, then absolutely a religious politician who is supposed to represent ALL of the
people is doing a bad job and should be removed from office. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I believe religious people are better leaders. They understand what is truly required of a servant.
And politicians are civil servants. They serve their constituents.
Also, you assume that a religious politician makes his decisions based solely on the Bible. Lets
use your example of gay marriage. There are several reasons why I believe it should be illegal.
Only one of those is stated in the Bible. My point being, religious politicians can still evaluate
the situation at hand. But in my opinion have a better framework and knowledge base from which to
work. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There have been plenty of religious people who did a good job of holding secular office. The trick
lies in merely understanding where to draw the line. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't have enough words to refute this properly. Kennedy, Washington, Jefferson, Adams,
Roosevelt... 'nuff said. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This country was founded by religious politicians...in God we Trust...one Nation under God... But
corrupt, not spiritual politicians have almost brought our country to it's knees. A true spiritual
person ( not a religious fanatic) wouldn't throw away patents that could help the world, or line his
own pockets at the expense of his constituents. He wouldn't go to war for greed or profit but to
protect the people in need. What Bush and some of the other politicians have done has NOTHING to do
with their religion. Wait till you see what happens when a radical liberation liberal politician
will do in office, if Obama get in there. I guess they don't know they were liberated 150 years ago
and 1000's of minority laws have been written to give them more benefits than the majority has
access too. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Stalin was proud of his Atheism, Mussolini hated the Catholic church and adhered to Atheism, Mao Tse
Tung was an Atheist, Lenin was an Atheist, Hitler was anti-church, Kim Jong Il is an Atheist,
Slobodon Milosovich was an Atheist, Pol Pot was an Atheist, need more?. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No. That is a total opinion |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The thing you are forgetting is that those politicians represent thousands of people. They are
enforcing the beliefs that the people that elected them into office want. So maybe the problem lies
in both the elected official, and the people themselves. They might pick the wrong person, the
person they think will put their religious beliefs into the law. And they shouldn't.
Now I personally feel very strongly about the separation of church and state, and that our
government officials enforce that. I have no problem if they are religious. Just as long as they
divorce their religious beliefs when it comes to legislation.
To look at it plainly...if an orthodox Jew was a president, he wouldn't make a law forbidding the
country from mixing meat with dairy. He himself abides by that law, but he divorces it when making
the laws for the country. I agree with you, that there are no good reasons for the ban against gay
marriage besides the bible and some people's "uncomfortable feelings" which is no reason at all,
since many people were "uncomfortable" with black people getting rights. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yep i dis agree |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The underlying assumption here (and a false one, in fact) is that all religious politicians are
right-wing. Let's not forget that there are plenty of political leaders who are practicing
Christians, but who also find themselves on the left of the political spectrum and have no problems
supporting gay marriage, abortion rights, stem cell research and the separation of church and state.
Several high-profile, left-of-centre Canadian politicians come to mind, including Elizabeth May,
leader of the Green Party (Anglican), Jack Layton, leader of the New Democrats (United Church of
Canada), Bill Blaikie, a veteran New Democrat Member of Parliament, who also happens to be a United
Church minister, as well as Paul Martin, former liberal prime minister and a faithful Roman
Catholic.
In the US, nearly all high-profile Democrats are also open about their religious views, including
Hillary Clinton (a Methodist who once wanted to be a minister) and Barack Obama, a member of the
United Church of Christ.
There is absolutely nothing that makes a politician with strong religious beliefs intrinsically bad
at his/her job. In fact, nearly all politicians in the US, the UK and Canada professed to being
Christian, including some of the ones that are today considered to have introduced landmark
legislation on issues relating to human rights and liberties. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
04 Feb 2008 01:28
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
