Does Religion belong in contemporary politics?

[sahra-t]

Is there any place for religion in contemporary politics and decision-making?

As I'm from the UK, many of my thoughts have been from the point of view of our society - I'm particularly interested in thoughts from those in different societies

Some of my thoughts:

Is it more transparent to stick to secular reasoning for policies, laws and decision-making?

Can a religious man or woman really separate their reason from their faith? Is it fair to try and ask them to? Can we hold them accountable for their decision if they claim their faith directed them? What about when Tony Blair or George Bush claimed God directed them in Iraq?

In a multi-cultural society with many religions, how do you justify using the religious teachings of one but not the other? Is it fair to subject citizens to your faith rules if they are not a member of your faith, e.g. what this site advises Western women should wear when entering Iran.

Does this mean it is fair to countries to ban the wearing of the Burka?

What do we gain from including religion in our decision-making?
What do we lose?

 

[tarasan]

Is there any place for religion in contemporary politics and decision-making?

As I'm from the UK, many of my thoughts have been from the point of view of our society - I'm particularly interested in thoughts from those in different societies

Some of my thoughts:

Is it more transparent to stick to secular reasoning for policies, laws and decision-making?

Can a religious man or woman really separate their reason from their faith? Is it fair to try and ask them to? Can we hold them accountable for their decision if they claim their faith directed them? What about when Tony Blair or George Bush claimed God directed them in Iraq?

In a multi-cultural society with many religions, how do you justify using the religious teachings of one but not the other? Is it fair to subject citizens to your faith rules if they are not a member of your faith, e.g. what this site advises Western women should wear when entering Iran.

Does this mean it is fair to countries to ban the wearing of the Burka?

What do we gain from including religion in our decision-making?
What do we lose?

I dont think we lsoe anything ultiamtely regardless of what people believe wether it be athiesm, agnosticism etc, it will always influence them.

btw I think Tony blair made alot fo good decision as prime minister, and i think if you asked him he it would say he was being directed by God.

Religion doesnt make us irrational, it merely colours our persective differently, in this sense everyone is guilty of the same thing.

 

[sahra-t]

I agree that in most religious people it would be an impossible question to ask them to separate themselves from their religious beliefs, much of it will form the very basis of their values.

Do some major religions presuppose an absolute morality? Is this an inappropriate assumption for contemporary politics?

 

[tarasan]

I agree that in most religious people it would be an impossible question to ask them to separate themselves from their religious beliefs, much of it will form the very basis of their values.

Do some major religions presuppose an absolute morality? Is this an inappropriate assumption for contemporary politics?

Yes they do and no i dont beleive so. I mean absolute morality encases that no matter what it is wrong to kill, or enslave people, or rape, cheat etc. I think we should all have absolute morality, perhaps in a contempary enviroment particulars can be argued, however i believe the idea at least is right.

 

[Storm]

Is there any place for religion in contemporary politics and decision-making?

As I'm from the UK, many of my thoughts have been from the point of view of our society - I'm particularly interested in thoughts from those in different societies

It's tricky.

Is it more transparent to stick to secular reasoning for policies, laws and decision-making?

I dunno about transparent, but I do think it's vastly superior.

Can a religious man or woman really separate their reason from their faith?

Doubtful. As someone else noted, one's religion (or lack thereof) is likely to be a tremendous influence on their values.

Is it fair to try and ask them to?

No, I don't think it is. I DO think it's fair to ask them to justify themselves with secular reasoning.

Can we hold them accountable for their decision if they claim their faith directed them? What about when Tony Blair or George Bush claimed God directed them in Iraq?

Of course.

In a multi-cultural society with many religions, how do you justify using the religious teachings of one but not the other?

I don't think you can.

Is it fair to subject citizens to your faith rules if they are not a member of your faith, e.g. what this site advises Western women should wear when entering Iran.

Now there's a loaded question. I think theocracy (of any stripe) is vastly inferior to secular democracy. However, if you're going to move to a theocratic society, you have little room to complain.

Does this mean it is fair to countries to ban the wearing of the Burka?

No. Banning the burqa is no better than mandating it.

What do we gain from including religion in our decision-making?
What do we lose?

Impossible to answer.

 

[sahra-t]

But if you think there is an absolute morality, and you subscribe to the monogamy that is the law in our country, what about in countries where several wives are permitted? Are they wrong?

What is our reason, religious or secular, for the law that we must be monogamous in marriage?

Science does not seem to be certain about whether this is the 'natural' way for our species. Other societies function happily without this law. Where is our justification for it?

If you think that religion has no place in decision-making, do we scrap the laws that perhaps are based on ingrained religious beliefs?

No, I don't think it is. I DO think it's fair to ask them to justify themselves with secular reasoning.

How does secular reasoning go? One of the problems I had when thinking this debate through is that short of practical laws, e.g. traffic laws, I can't think of how somebody may give a justification which does not rely on their reason and rational capabilities. And often this may come from their religious beliefs.

Now there's a loaded question. I think theocracy (of any stripe) is vastly inferior to secular democracy. However, if you're going to move to a theocratic society, you have little room to complain.

Does this mean it is fair to countries to ban the wearing of the Burka?
No. Banning the burqa is no better than mandating it.

Where is the difference? What if I said to the Muslim woman, "if you're going to visit/move to a society where it is not permitted to cover your face, you have little room to complain"?

 

[Storm]

How does secular reasoning go? One of the problems I had when thinking this debate through is that short of practical laws, e.g. traffic laws, I can't think of how somebody may give a justification which does not rely on their reason and rational capabilities. And often this may come from their religious beliefs.

..... I don't understand the objection.

Where is the difference? What if I said to the Muslim woman, "if you're going to visit/move to a society where it is not permitted to cover your face, you have little room to complain"?

The difference is secular society vs. theocracy.

 

[Panda]

Is it more transparent to stick to secular reasoning for policies, laws and decision-making?

I think it is, my general opinion is that religion has no place in politics.

Can a religious man or woman really separate their reason from their faith? Is it fair to try and ask them to? Can we hold them accountable for their decision if they claim their faith directed them? What about when Tony Blair or George Bush claimed God directed them in Iraq?

I think not only is it fair to ask them to but that if they can not then they are unsuitable for a career in politics. As for Blair and Bush God thing they both lost an awful lot of credibility in my opinion for those statements.

In a multi-cultural society with many religions, how do you justify using the religious teachings of one but not the other? Is it fair to subject citizens to your faith rules if they are not a member of your faith, e.g. what this site advises Western women should wear when entering Iran.

Does this mean it is fair to countries to ban the wearing of the Burka?

I think especially in a multi-cultural society religion should not be tolerated in politics and that a secular government is best.

What do we gain from including religion in our decision-making?
What do we lose?

I feel we gain nothing but have the potential to allow that religion to influence policy and make laws in favour of a certain religion.

 

[tarasan]

But if you think there is an absolute morality, and you subscribe to the monogamy that is the law in our country, what about in countries where several wives are permitted? Are they wrong?

What is our reason, religious or secular, for the law that we must be monogamous in marriage?

Science does not seem to be certain about whether this is the 'natural' way for our species. Other societies function happily without this law. Where is our justification for it?

i think this is the part that was subjected to me.

like I said i think the idea of objective moral values is right for major things like murder, rape etc, however particularities can be argued and addressed seeing as in we live in a secular society. So i dont feel that my response above neccessarity made this an issue.

 

[sahra-t]

..... I don't understand the objection.

It wasn't an objection - it was a question.

How does secular reasoning go? One of the problems I had when thinking this debate through is that short of practical laws, e.g. traffic laws, I can't think of how somebody may give a justification which does not rely on their reason and rational capabilities. And often this may come from their religious beliefs.

By this I really just meant, what kind of reasoning would you accept as being 'secular' to somebody stating that they were, say, in favour of banning euthanasia. What kind of reasoning would you accept from a religious man?

I was saying that for me, I can't imagine any reason he could give that wouldn't have likely come from his religious convictions.

 

[sahra-t]

i think this is the part that was subjected to me.

like I said i think the idea of objective moral values is right for major things like murder, rape etc, however particularities can be argued and addressed seeing as in we live in a secular society. So i dont feel that my response above neccessarity made this an issue.

I'm not sure I can reconcile there being an absolute morality and a relative one (your 'particularities').

How do we decide that some things are inherently wrong, everywhere, but others are wrong in some societies? For me it would be difficult to draw the line. If I think something is wrong, I think it's wrong. It doesn't seem like it can follow for me to say "This thing is definitely wrong" but at the same time "This other thing is wrong but I guess it's okay if they do it".

I'm just playing Devil's advocate, folks, I'm trying to get my head round all aspects of the debate.

 

[Storm]

By this I really just meant, what kind of reasoning would you accept as being 'secular' to somebody stating that they were, say, in favour of banning euthanasia. What kind of reasoning would you accept from a religious man?

I was saying that for me, I can't imagine any reason he could give that wouldn't have likely come from his religious convictions.

Oh, ok. I can't think of a secular reason to ban euthanasia, myself.

I can think of secular arguments against abortion though. You don't have to be religious to think it's murder, for instance.

Basically, I don't care if your religious beliefs inform your political stances, so long as you can justify them with something other than "God said."

 

[tarasan]

I'm not sure I can reconcile there being an absolute morality and a relative one (your 'particularities').

How do we decide that some things are inherently wrong, everywhere, but others are wrong in some societies? For me it would be difficult to draw the line. If I think something is wrong, I think it's wrong. It doesn't seem like it can follow for me to say "This thing is definitely wrong" but at the same time "This other thing is wrong but I guess it's okay if they do it".

I'm just playing Devil's advocate, folks, I'm trying to get my head round all aspects of the debate.

well lets take peoples basic human right for shelter, food, and life, and human dignity, i believe that it is wrong for these to be violated, this is what religion teaches, things such as murder, paedophilia are wrong. I could go on but I think i may have cleared up the point if not please tell me.

 

[sahra-t]

Marx said "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Some theorists such as Moltmann suggest that people use the idea of heaven (a better, equal place) when they are unhappy with the world in which they occupy.

He says "Peace with God means conflict of the world" - suggesting that religion is symptomatic of suffering, it is how people express their dissatisfaction.

A Marxist view tries to change this into a real political struggle, fighting injustice, class struggles and hierarchy. The Church, if is is true to its heritage, should try to fight oppression and suffering.

Do you think this is a fair representation of religion?

 

[England my lionheart]

Because there are a myriad of religions out there i think fairer if everyone to just consider themselves as a Citizen who has a vote in a secular Democracy,personally i think religion has had its time as regards to Government and was found to be wanting in many ways and caused/causes so much misery and now as Human beings its time to be responsible and step up to the plate and make decisions based on fact.

 

[sahra-t]

its time to be responsible and step up to the plate and make decisions based on fact.

You object to making decisions based on religious convictions, as these are not based on fact.

But it seems to me that many laws we have are simply based on cultural relativism. We have laws based on norms that most of us in the UK accept as a value, but are relative, not universal.

Do you agree with laws relating to employment of children? Which 'facts' are these laws based on? If it's a fact, why is this not practiced in other areas where children work all day?

We object to laws based on religion as they are not absolute and may not be fair to those who do not subscribe to the religion. But aren't many laws based on cultural values, which some may still not share, and therefore have as much factual basis as those founded in religion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. The history books are filled with examples of why religion and government do not mix. The Dark Ages is also proof enough that they need to be separated. And then there was the multitude of problems throughout England's long history where the church and state have clashed. And even today progress is hindered by those who think we should all live by their religious standards. If they want to live by those rules, I don't have any problem with that. But if you look at Christianity, for example, it would be a very complicated political scene if America was actually a Christian nation, as then Baptist, Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and every other denomination would be fighting for their own exclusive set of rules.

 

[England my lionheart]

You object to making decisions based on religious convictions, as these are not based on fact.

Thats right,i object to making decisions on religious convictions because to me they are not facts.

But it seems to me that many laws we have are simply based on cultural relativism. We have laws based on norms that most of us in the UK accept as a value, but are relative, not universal.

Personally i think common sense should be universal


Do you agree with laws relating to employment of children? Which 'facts' are these laws based on? If it's a fact, why is this not practiced in other areas where children work all day?

I dislike any employment where a Child has to work to eat,unfortunately i do not have a vote in Countries where this occurs.

We object to laws based on religion as they are not absolute and may not be fair to those who do not subscribe to ,the religion. But aren't many laws based on cultural values, which some may still not share, and therefore have as much factual basis as those founded in religion?

No Law is going to be fair to everyone,i make no apology that IMO religion has run its race,it has never worked on a universal level and i doubt it ever will,if you can show me some facts that prove a religion to be a fact i'll convert,in reality its all down to faith.