Should moral/religious convictions determine our political philosophy?

[Debunker]

Should moral/ religious convictions determine our political philosophy?

I was appalled at the testimony of several politicians during some of the presidential campaigns. It was not what they were willing to support that appalled me. For example, abortion was a hot issue. It was not that a candidate favored abortion laws, it was the reasoning they used for favoring abortion laws. One candidate was a Catholic and he personally believed it was a sin to abort life, For whatever reason, he was willing to and openly supported the position of a woman’s right to abort a life . If that was his life conviction, that position is fine. I could have voted for him based on other important issues. But, if he could not stand up to his own truth, I could not trust him to stand up for other important truths. How could one know that in a crisis that he would not abandon the values for which we elected him? To me, it was a character issue which kept me from voting for him. It does not matter whether you are a liberal or conservative, you should stand on your moral and ethical charicter. There are other issues of character and politics and this thread is interested in your religious and ethical opinions. This thread is not designed for debate but that is fine if you want to debate some hot issue, within reason of course.

 

[bobhikes]

I have a problem with that view.

I have extremely strong morals however my first belief is that I have no right enforcing my morals on another person.

I believe religions of the world would be better off if they kept their morals for their own supplicants and not enforcing them on people who believe different.

If they teach there beliefs properly and their beliefs are true people will follow without force.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Abortion rights are a moot issue. Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. So, for a politician, taking a strong political stance against abortion is just idiotic. Well, other than getting the support of the voting idiots who think abortion is actually a relevant issue. I suppose if you want that kind of support, you probably need it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One candidate was a Catholic and he personally believed it was a sin to abort life, For whatever reason, he was willing to and openly supported the position of a woman’s right to abort a life . If that was his life conviction, that position is fine. I could have voted for him based on other important issues. But, if he could not stand up to his own truth, I could not trust him to stand up for other important truths.

Don't you make a distinction between what you want for yourself and what you'd prohibit to others?

For instance, I'm an atheist, but I'm not about to try to make religion illegal. Just as I want the right to believe what I want and - to the extent that my actions don't harm others - do my own thing, I defend that right for others, even if they use that right in ways that I wouldn't.

"I would not want an abortion" does not necessarily imply "I should stop you from having an abortion."

 

[Debunker]

Abortion rights are a moot issue. Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. So, for a politician, taking a strong political stance against abortion is just idiotic. Well, other than getting the support of the voting idiots who think abortion is actually a relevant issue. I suppose if you want that kind of support, you probably need it.

I think the question is not about abortion but should you live by your own values or for political convenience should you abort your values whatever issue you are debating.

 

[Debunker]

I have a problem with that view.

I have extremely strong morals however my first belief is that I have no right enforcing my morals on another person.

I believe religions of the world would be better off if they kept their morals for their own supplicants and not enforcing them on people who believe different.

If they teach there beliefs properly and their beliefs are true people will follow without force.

I do agree with what you say but the question is should you live by your own morals, not mine but yours, in your political life. Or is it morally acceptable to believe something and do the opposite for political advantage? Many politicians do this very thing and I personally expect more out of those who want my vote.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think the question is not about abortion but should you live by your own values or for political convenience should you abort your values whatever issue you are debating.

I'm pretty sure all politicans against abortion wouldn't have one.

 

[Debunker]

Don't you make a distinction between what you want for yourself and what you'd prohibit to others?

For instance, I'm an atheist, but I'm not about to try to make religion illegal. Just as I want the right to believe what I want and - to the extent that my actions don't harm others - do my own thing, I defend that right for others, even if they use that right in ways that I wouldn't.

"I would not want an abortion" does not necessarily imply "I should stop you from having an abortion."

I certainly agree with you. I do not favor abortion but I have no right to tell you that you can not have an abortion. Yet, if I run for president I will tell you up front that I do not support abortion. You can then decide to vote accoringly. That seems fair to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I certainly agree with you. I do not favor abortion but I have no right to tell you that you can not have an abortion.

Sounds like your position is the sort that you were complaining about in the OP. No?

Yet, if I run for president I will tell you up front that I do not support abortion. You can then decide to vote accoringly. That seems fair to me.

And isn't that what the people you described did?

 

[Debunker]

Sounds like your position is the sort that you were complaining about in the OP. No?


And isn't that what the people you described did?

No and no. I do plan on changing the abortion laws if I am president. I will live according to my religious and morals I tell you that and you can count on my intentions. If you vote for me, you can be assured I will not turn away from what elected me. However, if I change my mind about abortion, that also is my right but I am obligated to tell you that I have changed my mind. It is all about being honest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No and no. I do plan on changing the abortion laws if I am president.

Why would you do something you say you have no right to do?

I'd say that if anything goes against a person's convictions, it's that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am fanatically devoted to my moral views, which are that there are no moral absolutes, & that we
should reach a practical consensus which maximizes personal liberty thru intelligent compromise.
I would never compromise on this in the least. If anyone disagrees with me, I would mercilessly
apply civil discourse & friendly persuasion until they buckle in submission. Limericks are fair game too.

 

[Luminous]

Should moral/ religious convictions determine our political philosophy?

I was appalled at the testimony of several politicians during some of the presidential campaigns. It was not what they were willing to support that appalled me. For example, abortion was a hot issue. It was not that a candidate favored abortion laws, it was the reasoning they used for favoring abortion laws. One candidate was a Catholic and he personally believed it was a sin to abort life, For whatever reason, he was willing to and openly supported the position of a woman’s right to abort a life . If that was his life conviction, that position is fine. I could have voted for him based on other important issues. But, if he could not stand up to his own truth, I could not trust him to stand up for other important truths. How could one know that in a crisis that he would not abandon the values for which we elected him? To me, it was a character issue which kept me from voting for him. It does not matter whether you are a liberal or conservative, you should stand on your moral and ethical charicter. There are other issues of character and politics and this thread is interested in your religious and ethical opinions. This thread is not designed for debate but that is fine if you want to debate some hot issue, within reason of course.

the catholic knows full well the consequences of denying women's right to be trusted. mainly being: a rise in abortion and rise in suicide of pregnant women.

 

[Caladan]

Should moral/ religious convictions determine our political philosophy?

There's not much people can do about it. all men and women of this earth have a long historical baggage of a major religion. it has brought their nations and themselves to where they are now.
the contemporary fact that we all debate in our nations for or against religious influence over politics and social issues is evident to the strong influence of religion over all of us.
even the strongest of atheists carry a long program of religion with them that has brought their family, the generations before that, and the social grouping they belong to, to where they are now, at this very moment.
the most well educated and honourable thing we can do is study the relevant religion or religions and understand our own programming and the way we function.
this as a side effect will also give you a much more enlightening and liberating view of religious influence over human affairs.

 

[ppɐʇɹnɯ]

No, because a truly objective person thinks for the needs of society at large, and isn't affected by emotions or petty personal views like religion. If you try to let your religion influence you, you are either weak, dishonest, selfish or all three.

 

[Debunker]

Why would you do something you say you have no right to do?

I'd say that if anything goes against a person's convictions, it's that.

The American idea is that majority determines which of our laws go into practice at any given time. Prohibition was a bad law in the eyes of many but at that time in history, the law of prohibition was enforced. The majority eventually decided that prohibition was a bad law so the people changed the law.

Under the present laws of the USA, abortion is legal. The law can be changed and people have the right to speak against what they believe is a bad law. That is such a simple American concept that it surprises me that so many political pundits would question this concept under the flag of broad mindedness. It is not hypocritical to want to change a bad law but being a nation of law, we must keep the law.That is why I have no right to keep from an abortion.

 

[Debunker]

There's not much people can do about it. all men and women of this earth have a long historical baggage of a major religion. it has brought their nations and themselves to where they are now.
the contemporary fact that we all debate in our nations for or against religious influence over politics and social issues is evident to the strong influence of religion over all of us.
even the strongest of atheists carry a long program of religion with them that has brought their family, the generations before that, and the social grouping they belong to, to where they are now, at this very moment.
the most well educated and honourable thing we can do is study the relevant religion or religions and understand our own programming and the way we function.
this as a side effect will also give you a much more enlightening and liberating view of religious influence over human affairs.

The question was, should you violate your own moral code in order for political advantage. In my mind, I am talking about John Kerry as one example but you probably know of others who are Republicans.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you believe in freedom, then you should support people's rights even if you don't agree with them.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Debunker if you're asking should a politician have to keep their religious beliefs out of the political arena simply because we're secular, the answer is yes. They know what they're signing up for when they run for office, they know about seperation of church and state, and they know that our government isn't supposed to allow for the legislation of religious laws.

 

[Debunker]

If you believe in freedom, then you should support people's rights even if you don't agree with them.

Certain freedoms are not human rights. You are free to steal but it is against the law. What are you trying to get out of? It is unimaginable that any liberal/conservative would object to being asked to live up to his own ethics IMO. Apparently some feel that they are a law on to themselves.