The Place Of Religion In Politics

[Resurrexi]

Yes, I agree, the Church cannot err but Her Members, except for of course the Pope when defining Ex Cathedra a docrine regarding Faith or Morals, can.

[Domine ut Videam]

There are two opposing sides in this question; secularism (separation of church and state) and multiculturalism (diversity of culture and religion within societyand have chaos). Each has its problems. In secularism, the relationship between the citizen and the state is mandatory and any cultural or religious matter is demoted to the private sector, thus identifying it as different and lesser than the others. The State has absolute power and the individual is kept down, mostly suppressed because their ideals and thoughts, culture and faith are suppressed. In Multiculturalism, the most obvious downfall is the difficulty uniting all of the diverse ideas and abstract conceptions of each religion. It is also not able to accept that humans do indeed live a common experience that does create measures for comparisons among these many cultural and religious ideals. Multiculturalism offers no means by which to deal with different prayers, no way to judge them; so the individual is just flooded by an overwhelming array of every ideological perspective and given no way to select the best for him. Chaos exists.

Since these two viewpoints clearly have different problems, in answering this question I have chosen to take the path less followed by many, a separate viewpoint altogether. Perhaps it is narrow, but I believe it to be better than the two paths I just described. I believe that it is possible to have a human culture, a government, a life, a system that can respond to the true appeals of both sides while overcoming their obvious problems, because both sides do contain true elements of man’s desires and experiences. People desire to have God in their life. That is an adequate desire. Some people desire that government be kept free from the entanglement of religion and the chaos of the many arguments it brings with it. That too is an adequate desire. However, “Man’s life cannot be arbitrarily separated into public and private spheres, because social dimensions are constituent of the person.” Everyone in our class has been saying that if a person wants to pray make them go home and pray, or if they want to pray at school they can go to a private school. Well, what if the private school is very small, or they have to be home schooled? A man is a social, mental, and spiritual being. If one of these aspects is unhealthy the whole man is unhealthy. Our system’s current process is inattentive because at times all or at least one of these aspects is neglected. Children are not being nourished; proposals are not being made to them. And since public dimensions are formed to be at the service of the person it is all the more important for the common public to decide if this is really the way they want to live their life; if they want their lives to be separated or not. They must choose and be the sign of contradiction – if that is what they desire.

Secondly, in observing existing man and society as it is, there appears a mysterious aspect that runs through his basic existence. This mystery is an openness to an infinite demand for meaning and happiness that characterizes every instant of his life. This openness is so important because it follows a pattern of reason and freedom and leads to the recognition of an other, or an Other; that which we come to call God. And thus, “no man, not even the State, can claim the right of being the ultimate source of this infinite vitality, because neither man nor the State are God, the recognition of elementary experience offers the foundation for a true laicity that safeguards society from both of the problems, from both sides; secularism and multiculturalism.”

I definitely think that church should not be separated from the state because humans are public people and there lives must exist in public places. The human person as a person shares a common experience with every other human; searching for truth and the infinite demand for happiness that ultimately leads to God. If I had to look on it purely as a question of constitutionality I believe I would still say yes, but even if I could not...I would still say yes, because I so passionately believe in this. If our society shuns the pursuit of this search, the answer to this question, and the sharing of a common human experience, than we are shunning, in reality, our very humanity and not our religion or prayers.



Sorry about the book but i just wrote this for my supreme court class and it fit...so i thought i'd share it.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Domine ut Videam

[Fidei Defensor]

First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this [b]not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church[/b] throughout the world.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this [b]not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church[/b] dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

[Winchester]

Religion belongs in politics in the same way as all other human beliefs.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1098332' date='Oct 22 2006, 10:05 AM']
I have the utmost respect for the Republican system of government. I understand that people vote the way they do for tons of reasons, including religion. I get that Right Wing Christian Fundies (in general most aren't Catholic) have something to say and that I can't stop them because that's part of what America is. The thing is that I can have something to say too and you can't stop me either. I'm not moving to China because try as I might I can't speak Chinese.

Somewhere along the line I learned that within the government everything is based on past history. So I can't just come out of left field with an idea and make it law, it has to have some logical backing. In the same way I can't just get rid of a law because I don't like it, I have to have logic. There are many cases where judges had to decide a case one way even though their heart wasn't in it. They didn't go with what their hearts said because that wasn't their job, their job is to interpret the Consitution.

So vote the way religion tell you, or your conscience tells you, or your priest tells you, but that isn't what American law is about. Politically we're based on history and pragmaticism. You need a better reason that "God says" to make abortion illegal and to pass the gay marriage amendment. "God says" won't stand up in court.
[/quote]
Yes, I understand what you're saying here - that legally we must go by process of law and what is written in the Constitution, rather than just enacting into law whatever one may believe, [b]BUT . . .[/b]

You have made some very serious errors here.

1) In almost every case, the "right-wing Christian conservative" interpretation of Constitutional law is much more in accord with both the letter and spirit of the original U.S. Constitution, than the liberal interpretation.

2) [b]Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE, is there a univeral "right" to abortion guaranteed in the Constitution.[/b] And no-one saw it as such until the Supreme Court ruled as such in Roe v. Wade in 1974. Prior to that ruling, abortion laws were the province of the respective states, and abortion was illegal or tightly restricted by most state laws.
[b]That's right, for almost 200 years of our nation's history, there was no "constitutional right" to baby-killing.[/b] (I guess that means so much for your "historical" argument as well.)

3)[b] Nowhere in the Constitution (nor in our country's history), is there anything demanding that states recognize so-called "gay marriage[/b]." This abomination did not even exist legally until a few years back. Laws regarding marriage have always been regarded as being the province of the states. This falls under the (unfortunately, much ignored) [b]Tenth Amendment [/b] which states "[b]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/b] " That is why the people of the states are voting on these laws.

4) [b]Nowhere in the Constitution are public displays of religion (such as the Ten Commandments, etc.) forbidden on public property.[/b] Liberals use the First Amendment to justify judicial activism against such displays, but such a twisted "interpretation" is not accurate. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" That means simply that Congress shall not legally establish a national "state church" like the Church of England overseas. It was never intended to banish all religion from the public sphere, and was never "interpreted" as such until the late 20th century, at the urging of atheist activists. In fact, in the early years of our Republic, many individual states had their own state churches, and no one saw this as "unconstitutional."

If you think that liberal judges interpret the constitution correctly and without bias, while Christian conservatives are acting "unconstitutionally," this shows an abysmal ignorance of both the Constitution and of American history. The liberal activist judges are the ones ignoring or twisting beyond recognition the U.S. Constitution to press their own liberal political agendas.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Socrates

[Winchester]

[quote name='track2004' post='1097457' date='Oct 21 2006, 01:17 AM']
How much religion should be in politics is determined by the political environment. Theoracy sure all the religion you can muster. Republic not so much.

I think the Conservative Christians needs to get the heck outta (right wing) politics because it is hurting the country. Our politics is based on logic and pragmaticism and who can fight a logic that says "God says it's this way"? Personally I think we need more moderates running our country because this Rep/Dem thing is way out of hand.
[/quote]

Pragmatism.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='track2004' post='1097745' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM']
Conservative Christians are the best thing for you because you're one of them. Fundy's are going to rip the nation apart though because not everyone agrees with them and they are going to ostrascize those of us who don't. Hey wait that was similar to your point, being unamerican and all. The US is a majority rule, but it also assumes the majority won't destroy the minority.[/quote]

Conservative Christians, or "Fudys" are not going to "rip" the nation apart. If a "fudy" says to a liberal, they are evil if they support Abortion or anyother sin, thats true, there is nothing wrong with calling things as they are. Liberals will destory this nation by killing our young, and other sins that will do harm to this nation.

[quote name='track2004' post='1097745' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM']
Moderates aren't do nothing, they just don't think that voting the party line is a good thing. We take stands on stuff, it's just different stands for different things. One might say we can think for ourselves.[/quote]

Moderate would mean "middle", if party A (Leftist) supports sin(s) therefor defacto stands against God, but party B (Conservative Christians) is against sin(s) and stands with and for God, how does a "moderate" meet in the middle on such a thing?

Does the moderate just sometimes support sin, always or never?

As a moderate what is your stand on abortion, and protecting Holy Matrimony? How does that differ from a liberal? Are you moderatly for killing babys, or you moderatly against? Or are you a Convervative Christian and obey God fully on the matter?

[quote name='track2004' post='1097745' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM']Other sins that the leftist worship ARE wrong. I like grammar, at least I've got that going for me. I don't recall God ever saying anything about those crazy "leftists" in the Bible... or are you just extrapolating?[/quote]

One only has to use logic to understand my point. No need to make fun of the way I write.

Here is a list of some of sins which the lost souls on the left support.

[color="#FF0000"]Casting off God[/color] - banning His name, complaints and accusations of intolerance and hate to those that fully follow God, and praise His name in public.

[color="#FF0000"]Murder and "Suicide"[/color] Killing millions of little babies and other souls like Terri Schiavo.

[color="#FF0000"]Lust & Sodomy[/color] - Pornography, Homosexuality, Sexualizing young children and other perverted verisons of "free speech."

[KnightofChrist]

Also Track, how do we get the Conservative Christians the heck outta politics?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1098845' date='Oct 23 2006, 01:52 AM']
Moderate would mean "middle", if party A (Leftist) supports sin(s) therefor defacto stands against God, but party B (Conservative Christians) is against sin(s) and stands with and for God, how does a "moderate" meet in the middle on such a thing?

Does the moderate just sometimes support sin, always or never?

As a moderate what is your stand on abortion, and protecting Holy Matrimony? How does that differ from a liberal? Are you moderatly for killing babys, or you moderatly against? Or are you a Convervative Christian and obey God fully on the matter?
[/quote]
Stop being purposely difficult about this.

A moderate supports political ideas of both the liberals and the conservatives. This does not mean they "moderately support" pro-death views. I consider myself moderate, and I would never support pro-death views. However, I agree with most of the Democratic views of social programs. Yet, I support the pro-life views of the Republicans.

You seem to believe that you can only support one single party, or else you are a confused waffling flip-flopper.

One should not vote based on party lines, but rather, based on issues.

And believe it or not, God doesn't support the Conservative Christians anymore than any other group. You seem to think they have some kind of mandate to run the country. However, Hitler used the same excuse..

[Anomaly]

fide,
It's just a different understanding of 'moderate'. Soc sees 'moderates' as those that are willing to compromise on EVERYTHING. For example, a moderate on Abortion would not want to outlaw abortion, but restrict it's availability with parental notices, health endangerment, etc.
Not everything can have a moderate view, but some things can. For example, a moderate could disagree with the US current policy on Iraq, but be against a planned withdrawl at this moment. Maybe support a change in tactics that won't abandond Iraq to Muslim radicals.

[kujo]

The "moderate" we speak of is one who agrees with things within the different parties.

Let there be no more debate on semantics.

[track2004]

Thank you Fidei and Kujo for understanding my use of moderate.

[kujo]

I just think that the debate over the usage and meaning of the word "moderate" takes away from this very important topic.

[Kosh]

True that. On that matter, how would you respond to atheist arguments?

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1099036' date='Oct 23 2006, 11:01 AM']
The "moderate" we speak of is one who agrees with things within the different parties.

Let there be no more debate on semantics.
[/quote]
Well, at the risk of adding to the debate on semantics, I thought I'd just say that "moderate" is so vague a word as to be meaningless. Most people like to consider their political ideas moderate and reasonable, rather than crazy and irrational.

However, as commonly used by the "mainstream" media, "Moderate," especially when referring to Republican politicians, is usually little more than a euphemism for "pro-abortion." A "moderate Republican" almost invariably refers to someone who may have free-market or other "conservative" leanings in economics, but is pro-abortion, and often also left-leaning on other "social issues." This is opposed to anyone who strongly opposes abortion, who is invariably labeled by the media "far-right." In this way, the media dismisses the pro-life cause as the refuge of crazy "extremists," unworthy of reasonable folk.


[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1098872' date='Oct 23 2006, 06:30 AM']
And believe it or not, God doesn't support the Conservative Christians anymore than any other group. You seem to think they have some kind of mandate to run the country. However, Hitler used the same excuse..
[/quote]
Yes, a gratuitous and asinine comparison with Hitler! Now the liberal (oh, sorry, I mean "moderate") argument may be consdered complete.

And, in your opinion, oh "Fidei Defensor," does God support radical pro-abort militants, Islamic Jihadists, the Communist Party, or (let's be complete here) the Nazi Party, just as much as "Conservative Christians"?? (Or are these groups all more-or-less on the same level in your "moderate" view?)

[quote name='track2004' post='1099066' date='Oct 23 2006, 11:56 AM']
Thank you Fidei and Kujo for understanding my use of moderate.
[/quote]
You would do well, if you wish to debate, to explain then exactly what policies of "Right Wing Christian Fundies" so arouse your ire.
So far, I've heard no specific arguments, just name-calling, labels, and sarcasm.
I mentioned three issues - abortion, "gay marriage" and religious freedom - and defended my "Christian Conservative" position. You have provided no answer. Elsewhere in thread, you have indicated that you are for legal abortion and gay marriage. You can't defend your position, yet say Christian conservatives need to stay out of politics.

Reason is apparently something lacking among so-called "moderates."