As A Roman Catholic.............. (beliefs, homosexuality, translation, church, theist)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by michel

What do you think of her reaction ?

She should be representing the views of the people who elected her. Given that they elected a Conservative Party member I have little difficulty imagining that bigotry on religious grounds will be a significant attribute within her constituency.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Victor

This one is a difficult one for me. On one end I completely understand her choice of voting her conscience. On the other hand, how can you leave out a certain group because of their sex? Can they go to another adopting agency? Or does it have to be catholic?

Remember if government wants any religiosity out of government, the government should stay out of religiosity. Unfortunately they are bound to clash on certain topics and one must make a decision. Either the government allows the decision, or they don’t.

~Victor

I can see it would be a difficult one for you.

On one end I completely understand her choice of voting her conscience.

As do I.

Remember if government wants any religiosity out of government, the government should stay out of religiosity

I agree wholeheartedly (it actually does so, here in England).

Blair is the first prime minister (someone put me right if I am wrong) to have used the word "God" in a political speech.

I believe the goverment should do the best for the nation - whilst not being swayed by religion..

[Victor]

Originally Posted by michel

I can see it would be a difficult one for you.

As do I.

I agree wholeheartedly (it actually does so, here in England).

Blair is the first prime minister (someone put me right if I am wrong) to have used the word "God" in a political speech.

I believe the goverment should do the best for the nation - whilst not being swayed by religion..

England would allow the Catholic Church whom to adopt to?

[Mike182]

if i say yes, politicians should represent their religious views, then i am accepting that government bodies should have the potential to discriminate, even persecute if the beliefs were extreme enough and common enough.

if i say no, then religious groups may be subject to rules and laws they disagree with, but have no body to use to make changes. especially on hot issues like gay adoption, gay marriage rights, abortion, stem cell research and genetic engineering.

it is in my interest to say no, they shouldn't. the government is here to represent everyone equally, and so government officials should also represent everyone equally. but if everyone is treated equally, some groups that do not see all people as equal will be disadvantaged.

i really really want to say no, they should represent their contry, not their own personal preferences, but i will have to say yes, it's a free country where anyone can stand for what ever they would like to stand for, and it would be wrong of us to force people out of politics by forcing them to play against their personal convictions.

[Djamila]

Originally Posted by michel

No; you're cheating!! Imagine that you have, personally, created a new country. That country has a population of mixed people. You will make the rules for the Government; would you allow politicians to use their religious beliefs in decision making? This is a "what if" scenario, because I am talking about -not what is going on, but maybe what should happen.

I think they should be allowed to use their religious teachings as guidance for their work. I'm sure I'd feel different if Muslims were the smallest group in this country, but still I don't believe people should be forced to vote against their religious beliefs. They can abstain from voting if their religious views do not reflect the ideals or character of the country as a whole, but they shouldn't be viewed strangely for saying, "I can't vote for this because my religion teaches me otherwise."

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by michel

I can't help but admit that I was dismayed when Ann Widdecombe MP (on the subject of whether Gays should be allowed to addopt children), yesterday said - near enough - "As a Roman Catholic, I cannot, in all conscience vote for some matter in politics that I know will conflict with my Religious views".

What do you think of her reaction ?

Is she a public servant first, and ought to be "out of the religion box" when deciding on legistlation ?

Is she right to use her Religion to influence how she votes ? If so, why/why not ?

Everyone uses their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to influence how they vote. It's unavoidable. One's religion frames one's view on life, morality, etc etc etc. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. I commend her for staying true to her faith.

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Everyone uses their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to influence how they vote. It's unavoidable. One's religion frames one's view on life, morality, etc etc etc. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. I commend her for staying true to her faith.

FGS, do you see a difference in voting according to your beliefs, and being in a position to affect policy and pressuring according to your beliefs?

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by Mike182

FGS, do you see a difference in voting according to your beliefs, and being in a position to affect policy and pressuring according to your beliefs?

Not really. Everyone has beliefs. Those beliefs, whether explicitly religious or not, frame how one sees life, the world, morality, etc. Politicians are not immune to this, it's basic and fundamental to all humans. Of course individual politicians are going to make decisions based on those beliefs. Again, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that.