Election 2008 - Church v. State

[finn]

Interesting subject and one that may effect us all, Palin is running for VP, but let's face it McClain whilst clearly having demonstrated through his life that he's made of stern stuff, is an old man. If he dies in office, this lady has her hands on the trigger to Armegeddon.

Prebe: I think it's an uphill battle to insist on no religeous affiliation and as far as the US is concerned that affiliation is usually down the line, moderate Christian. I have no problem with that and agree that its probably a good thing to have had some grounding in "a" moral/ethical code as is espoused by most religeons; basic good/bad stuff, 'thou shalt not' etc etc. Its probably also fair to say that as a representative of the people the leader should share their beliefs (ie the majority) as a reflection of the people; in that instance if they are pre-disposed to policy that may be underpinned by their background and upbringing in a faith, then that too is reflective of the people who elected them.

I have a problem tho' with religion when it crosses the line of moderation to extremism and that probably goes for policy determined by any doctrine that passes the border of what we consider to be moderate: trouble is how do you decide where to draw the line? I agree with MK's premise that those who have gone beyond moderate are more cause driven with a zeal that drives their agendas much harder than moderates, who by definition tend to be more tolerant of differing opinions. Thus it appears that extreme groups are better supported than they are, certainly gauged by the news they garner and the fervour of their evangelism.

So is Palin beyond the borders of moderation? Malik raised the same question and given my first paragraph its one that needs answering before its too late. I agree with Malik's interpretation of extremists but tend towards a theory that the extreme right and extreme left meet at a certain point of insanity and share a fair bit of ground in its environs. I also applaud you MK for identifying differences in gender, tho' the traits you mentioned may be construed as both good or bad for political office!

I think tho' that the same arguments about broad based representation of religeon also applies to gender with (I think) more than 50% of the US population being women and certainly under-represented across the board of Government. By the way I think it would be a excellent topic to introduce the possible gender variabilities a women President would/might bring.

Politicians are by breed, power hungry and pretty ruthless individuals I suspect many have a shrink-wrapped faith, a box to be ticked for a voting bloc and use religeon to further their own ends; I'd also suspect many would consider a stage shared with the Almighty as their fit and rightful place! But this is the norm and what everyone around them deals with, replace this with someone who actually "believes" and we could all be in trouble.....................

[Avatar]

As far as I can tell, she hasn't done anything along the lines of what I'm talking about, but she hasn't had the power to do them either.

Not always sure how your system works...wouldn't she have the power to do them on an intra-state level in the state she was governor of?

Anyway, if there isn't such evidence, I think we have to give her the benefit of the doubt until she proves otherwise. As has been pointed out, most presidents have had a religion of one sort or another, and it didn't affect the presidency appreciably.

What her fans might believe is up to them. The only thing that matters is how she acts.

If she is using the legal primacy argument to wield her personal religious belief, how can we tell this?

That is about my only worry on this score. And I think it'll become evident if cases arise which do not have a legitimate legal basis.

Are you saying that when speaking publicly about an issue, a government official--elected or otherwise--may not or should not use his or her understanding of their religious beliefs to justify a policy, even among those who share those beliefs?

It may be unenforceable, but I don't think their understanding of religious beliefs should ever be used as justification of policy. Ever. And that's the worry I'm seeing here I think.

Policy needs sound political, social and economic justifications. Nay, requirements. Not religious ones. That's exactly where the danger lies I think.

--A

[MK]

Point being: religious arguments should never be used in politics for the simple reason that they be definition are infallible.

No, because even in religion people are perfectly willing to admit that theirs is an opinion. Indeed, people within specific religions debate all the time, and the vast majority of the time with a fair amount of courtesy.

Honestly, I don't know those people. I have spent years with an online community of religious debaters. It's vicious, and in my anecdotal experience, reflects real world paradigms. While I've seen plenty of people leave their religion and join "our team", it's always very quietly, and I have yet to see a religious person admit their views are opinion. Most mainstream Christian sects agree on all but insignificant points and accept each others' baptisms. But throw somebody who is an atheist or just a challenger to their beliefs, and the threats of hell and damnation always end up flying (although admittedly sometimes delivered with sweetness and light). The impressive courtesy of this site is not the norm in my opinion, although I hate to say it.

Are you saying that when speaking publicly about an issue, a government official--elected or otherwise--may not or should not use his or her understanding of their religious beliefs to justify a policy, even among those who share those beliefs? I will frankly tell you this idea seems wrong to me--not least because it is totally unenforceable.

Did anybody else hear the low rumble that went through the Democratic Party when it looked like Obama might be "reaching out to Christian Democrats" a while ago? I'll be the first to jump to the defense of Christian Democrats as a group, as I happen to like that they tend to focus only on what Jesus had to say, and don't take mythology literally. Yet as a party, Christians and otherwise, we see discussions of God's will as divisive.

Fundamentally, this seems an example of what I call "binary thinking." People are either good or evil, right or wrong, fair or unjust, honest or hypocrites, kind or vicious, courageous or cowardly, etc. But the real world is actually far more complex. Even though I agree that the overlap of religion and politics is problematical, I hardly think it solvable by the draconian (and unworkable) idea of forbidding the overlap. Among other things, you are assuming premises about those with Faith that in the real world are unsupported and--imho--often quite untrue. One would seem to be that people of Faith ignore important facts of the real world that contradict their religious beliefs. And while it isn't too hard to find examples of individuals who do precisely that, it is a leap of logic to presume such is true of every single person who believes in God. Indeed, the same argument can be used to say that reading the Bible leads to serial murder or that using a public restorom leads to borrowing power tools.

Now while I don't think it's practical to have a step by step litmus test to see just how religious a person is before they become president, it also isn't necessary. We know what they think because they say it, and they act on what they say. I think the war on church and state can only be won as a war of thought and democracy, no matter how mad they make me personally. Yet the religious right wants to force the rest of us to agree with their scripture, by trying to force us to teach our children their myths in our public schools. Their politicians do neat stuff like try to keep the ten commandments in public buildings, with the glaring message "Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me" (the first commandment). Since religious politicians in America who run on that platform have always tried to make the rest of us accept their views based only on Biblical arguments, I don't see why now would be any different.

I have a question for those of you who are on the right and/or support the overlap of church and state. What is the reason for wanting religion to be mixed with state? I understand the Constitutional arguments but what are the benefits for the country as a whole? If ideas are grounded in reality, one would think the ideas could be expressed and shown to be a force for positive change, without demands that we publicly acknowledge your God. You guys being the most mellow righties I've ever seen are probably my best bet of understanding this.

[MK]

Newbie alert. I totally misused the quote function in my above post. Let me know if I need to clarify after the hodgepodge I created by putting my own words in with the quoted material.

Edit-never mind. I found the edit function.

Edit again. I just can't try to figure out how to edit my boo boo and make it make sense right now since doing so risks my getting out of the house on time. Dang new site with all the buttons in the wrong place! Sorry 'bout that.

[Brother Charn]

I have a question for those of you who are on the right and/or support the overlap of church and state. What is the reason for wanting religion to be mixed with state? I understand the Constitutional arguments but what are the benefits for the country as a whole?

I could paraphrase a cousin of mine: "Our country was founded on solid Christian principles - why do we keep wanting to change that, just because of immigrants? And speaking of immigrants, I don't see why people can't just all speak English - I mean, it was good enough for the people in the Bible - why do they need to be different?"

[Avatar]

Edit again. I just can't try to figure out how to edit my boo boo and make it make sense right now since doing so risks my getting out of the house on time. Dang new site with all the buttons in the wrong place! Sorry 'bout that.

I think I fixed it for you.

Anyway, I'm not sure that many here would support the integration of church and state, regardless of their political leanings. Maybe one or two, but I'm not sure even about that.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I've heard so far is that Palin is personally against abortion, will probably work to have Roe V. Wade overturned (which puts her in company with around 50% of the country), and that she is religious.

I have yet to hear where she has used her "bully pulpit" to make her religious convictions public policy.

[Zarathustra]

Why does Palin's religious beliefs scare people more than Obama's?

[Kil Tyme]

I believe the lib web sites must be going to town stirring each other up into a frenzy on Palin and her "god talk". Every single president has envoked God or eluded to God one way or another; JFK in his Inaugural Address mentions God 3 times beyond "His" work, "His help", etc. Try that these days and he would be a fanatic.

[finn]

Why does Palin's religious beliefs scare people more than Obama's?

Certainly the perception I have is that she leans more towards fundamentalism than Obama does (I alluded earlier to the differences between shrink-wrapped politically expediant brands of faith and the far more frightening 'real thing'....but that's just me being cynical).

I think the other reason might be that Obama is the candidate and judged directly on his beliefs, but whilst Palin is the running mate and McCain is the candidate, he is 72: he'll be pushing eighty by the end of two terms and the Presidency is, I am sure, not a low stress appointment! If he doesn't make it she's the man (so to speak) and her beliefs may be a stronger determining factor on policy than any of the other runners.

[Brother Charn]

Palin: Assembly of God - The AoG is a Pentecostal Evangelical Protestant Christian denomination, considered to be fundamentalist in nature, and has aggressive mission involvement in over 200 countries, claiming to bring in 5,000 new members each day - among others, core beliefs are speaking in tongues, the Millennial Reign of Christ as part of the Rapture of saints, that humankind is in the endtimes, and that the "salvation of national Israel" is one of the signs of this Reign.

Obama: United Church of Christ - The UCC in general is a mainline protestant Christian denomination. By mainline, it means inclusive of modern interpretations of the Bible, and specificaly lacks a strong fundamentalist tendency, as it tends toward moderate-to-liberal views on all religious subjects.

I make no claims to know the degree of rigor with which either candidate practices their religion - wild stories are being passed about both candidates, but only one has been accused of not even being Christian.

Personally, I share a lot less in common with AoG doctrine than I do with the UCC - specifically, I am not a fan of any highly Evangelical church, as I detest being on the receiving end of a celestial sales pitch. Neither am I convinced that humanity is in the end times.

If Palin were merely fiscally conservative, I'd have no problem with that, as that is one part of the RNC platform that I think we would all benefit from. How to achieve that goal - that's where we disagree. I don't think widening tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is going to do much of anything but increase the deficit. I don't think we need a Republican president deadlocked with a Democratic congress for two years - that's not change, despite the talk of "bipartisan" activity (which is ramrod politics combined with the threat of publicly ridiculing Dem suggestions as he vetoes won't come off nearly as bipartisan as McCain makes it sound today).
Add that whole RNC platform to her religious conservative self, and you end up with a well-spoken, charismatic, youthful, go-getter who is after a future that sounds bright and cheerful - but only as long as you are a wealthy right-to-life Christian conservative business owner, or someone who feels lucky to be a low-wage non-union earner-serf employee of same. Oh, and as a wage-slave, it would be handy if you were also immune to expensive health issues, since you won't be able to afford to get sick, since your healthcare spending will be taxable, insurance companies will quickly titrate their premiums or their provided coverage to exactly consume the proposed McCain healthcare tax credit allotments, employers will get to reduce their overhead costs related to health insurance by shifting it onto the employees, and hospitals and pharma will likely be deregulated further to increase their 'competitiveness' (that word is pronounced 'profitability'). This is all hypothetical, and dramatized for my own enjoyment... but it frightens me a lot worse than Obama's plan to teach kindergartners how to avoid bad touches.

The weird thing is that we end up comparing the GOP VP candidate to the DEM POTUS candidate... why is that? McCain would be the one running the country if he wins.... is he just no fun to spar about? I mean, we're all so tired of the Bush jokes by now anyway. Or is he a milquetoast maverick? Geritol GI John? See, it's just no fun to make fun of him... he's just not that bad of a guy. It's his dastardy Bushy-GOP friends you have to guard your future against...

dw

[MK]

Edit again. I just can't try to figure out how to edit my boo boo and make it make sense right now since doing so risks my getting out of the house on time. Dang new site with all the buttons in the wrong place! Sorry 'bout that.

I think I fixed it for you.


--A

Thanks Avatar. I'm down right anal when it comes to editing, and was irritated that I had to run out on that today. Combined with my Aspie-like aversion to using anything new (you should see me with a new remote control. This quirk is a source of both amusement and annoyance with my loved ones, who see me as a otherwise capable person) I was not a happy camper over that post!

[MK]

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I've heard so far is that Palin is personally against abortion, will probably work to have Roe V. Wade overturned (which puts her in company with around 50% of the country), and that she is religious.

I have yet to hear where she has used her "bully pulpit" to make her religious convictions public policy.

She hasn't yet been privy to a "bully pulpit" that would allow her to do anything about Row vs. Wade (but she did use the pulpit she had to get her brother-in-law fired) State governors have no such power. I felt I laid my argument as to why I believe it would be more likely than not that she would go after abortion rights, given the chance. What part did you disagree with?

I'm not sure that half of Americans are anti-choice. I've honestly never looked for the numbers, but I think I will right now. From my perception, they aren't, but I'll be interested to find out.

[MK]

Palin: Assembly of God - The AoG is a Pentecostal Evangelical Protestant Christian denomination, considered to be fundamentalist in nature, and has aggressive mission involvement in over 200 countries, claiming to bring in 5,000 new members each day - among others, core beliefs are speaking in tongues, the Millennial Reign of Christ as part of the Rapture of saints, that humankind is in the endtimes, and that the "salvation of national Israel" is one of the signs of this Reign.

Obama: United Church of Christ - The UCC in general is a mainline protestant Christian denomination. By mainline, it means inclusive of modern interpretations of the Bible, and specificaly lacks a strong fundamentalist tendency, as it tends toward moderate-to-liberal views on all religious subjects.

I make no claims to know the degree of rigor with which either candidate practices their religion - wild stories are being passed about both candidates, but only one has been accused of not even being Christian.

Personally, I share a lot less in common with AoG doctrine than I do with the UCC - specifically, I am not a fan of any highly Evangelical church, as I detest being on the receiving end of a celestial sales pitch. Neither am I convinced that humanity is in the end times.

If Palin were merely fiscally conservative, I'd have no problem with that, as that is one part of the RNC platform that I think we would all benefit from. How to achieve that goal - that's where we disagree. I don't think widening tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is going to do much of anything but increase the deficit. I don't think we need a Republican president deadlocked with a Democratic congress for two years - that's not change, despite the talk of "bipartisan" activity (which is ramrod politics combined with the threat of publicly ridiculing Dem suggestions as he vetoes won't come off nearly as bipartisan as McCain makes it sound today).
Add that whole RNC platform to her religious conservative self, and you end up with a well-spoken, charismatic, youthful, go-getter who is after a future that sounds bright and cheerful - but only as long as you are a wealthy right-to-life Christian conservative business owner, or someone who feels lucky to be a low-wage non-union earner-serf employee of same. Oh, and as a wage-slave, it would be handy if you were also immune to expensive health issues, since you won't be able to afford to get sick, since your healthcare spending will be taxable, insurance companies will quickly titrate their premiums or their provided coverage to exactly consume the proposed McCain healthcare tax credit allotments, employers will get to reduce their overhead costs related to health insurance by shifting it onto the employees, and hospitals and pharma will likely be deregulated further to increase their 'competitiveness' (that word is pronounced 'profitability'). This is all hypothetical, and dramatized for my own enjoyment... but it frightens me a lot worse than Obama's plan to teach kindergartners how to avoid bad touches.

The weird thing is that we end up comparing the GOP VP candidate to the DEM POTUS candidate... why is that? McCain would be the one running the country if he wins.... is he just no fun to spar about? I mean, we're all so tired of the Bush jokes by now anyway. Or is he a milquetoast maverick? Geritol GI John? See, it's just no fun to make fun of him... he's just not that bad of a guy. It's his dastardy Bushy-GOP friends you have to guard your future against...

dw

This is not to be cruel, but there's a good chance that McCain will experience the effects of old age, either illness or death, during his presidency, should he win. That leaves a good chance for the VP to move into his place, and she is far more anti-choice than any male politician I've known of. Palin, having dedicated herself to Feminists for Life (the discussion about her hijacking the word "feminist" has been an interesting one among myself and like-minded women, but that's a whole other thread) has made clear how far she is willing to go to end abortion rights. They have eluded to the idea that women who have abortions should be criminally prosecuted, and they are anti-birth control, too. They believe and perpetuate the lie that the pill causes miscarriage (self-abortion, in their thinking). For me personally, those are the reasons she freaks me out more than McCain.

[MK]

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I've heard so far is that Palin is personally against abortion, will probably work to have Roe V. Wade overturned (which puts her in company with around 50% of the country), and that she is religious.

I have yet to hear where she has used her "bully pulpit" to make her religious convictions public policy.

She hasn't yet been privy to a "bully pulpit" that would allow her to do anything about Row vs. Wade (but she did use the pulpit she had to get her brother-in-law fired) State governors have no such power. I felt I laid my argument as to why I believe it would be more likely than not that she would go after abortion rights, given the chance. What part did you disagree with?

I'm not sure that half of Americans are anti-choice. I've honestly never looked for the numbers, but I think I will right now. From my perception, they aren't, but I'll be interested to find out.

Well, that took about two seconds. Rawedge Rim was right. What's interesting, though, is the amount of women actually having had abortions being at about 50%. Unless every single liberal woman in America has had an abortion, conservative women are getting them too, just as reproductive rights proponents have said all along.

[Avatar]

*shrug* If McCain wins, I expect him to be a single term president anyway.

Of course, now that Hilary has set the precedent, we could see a Palin ticket for the reps in 2012...

--A

[taraswizard]

Does everyone know there are extremist views about the eliminition of religious influences in political life (FYI, it comes from what is called the 'liberal/enligntenment thought' in Europe); examples, in France's Third REpublic (1871 - 1941) minister's of religion were constitutionally disenfranchised as group and prohibited from holding public office in any capacity. In modern Mexico, there are similar restrictions.

Zahir, nice point made much earlier about the U.S. Constitution having TWO section dealing with religion and our republic's political life. Obviously, the First Amendment regarding establishment, at the Federal level, of specific religious sects and denominations. When the Constitution was ratified several states had established religions, not sure which ones. Until the passage of the 14th Amendment such an action by a state would have been constitutionally allowed.

There's another section of the Constitution dealing with religion, its Article Six, dealing with qualifications for office. The language is specific to 'religious tests'; however, in my opinion many of the SCOTUS decisions dealing with church state seperation draw as much inspiration from that section as the first amendment.

Next here's a potentially OFF Topic part of my message. Former Senator Barry Goldwater, whom many modern conservatives consider their intellectual and political inspiration, notoriously did not have any affection, patience nor much use for religious elements. BTW, he and his wife were huge supporters of Planned Parenthood on the national level and in their home state of Arizona.

[MK]

Does everyone know there are extremist views about the eliminition of religious influences in political life (FYI, it comes from what is called the 'liberal/enligntenment thought' in Europe); examples, in France's Third REpublic (1871 - 1941) minister's of religion were constitutionally disenfranchised as group and prohibited from holding public office in any capacity. In modern Mexico, there are similar restrictions.

Zahir, nice point made much earlier about the U.S. Constitution having TWO section dealing with religion and our republic's political life. Obviously, the First Amendment regarding establishment, at the Federal level, of specific religious sects and denominations. When the Constitution was ratified several states had established religions, not sure which ones. Until the passage of the 14th Amendment such an action by a state would have been constitutionally allowed.

There's another section of the Constitution dealing with religion, its Article Six, dealing with qualifications for office. The language is specific to 'religious tests'; however, in my opinion many of the SCOTUS decisions dealing with church state seperation draw as much inspiration from that section as the first amendment.

Next here's a potentially OFF Topic part of my message. Former Senator Barry Goldwater, whom many modern conservatives consider their intellectual and political inspiration, notoriously did not have any affection, patience nor much use for religious elements. BTW, he and his wife were huge supporters of Planned Parenthood on the national level and in their home state of Arizona.

Contrary to propaganda, leftists are not looking to make being religious and a politician illegal. I don't know of one leftist organization that states that, and none promote a litmus test. Nor are we anything but historically interested by the earlier movements that wanted to (although it's not hard to understand our ancestors position, since religion had so much blood on its hands after being involved in state affairs. I can't imagine I'd have to give references) What we do want, however, is what the constitution says. To a right wing religious person, not promoting a particular sect of Christianity is doing just that. To a non religious American, the Christian religion is one entity, and they make clear themselves that they are one by accepting each others baptisms and referring to the vast majority of sects as "the body of Christ". I don't really understand the argument that a particular religion doesn't want favoritism, when in fact, it very much does.

Now while there certainly have been conservative leaders who, like Barry Goldwater (from what I've read, he is not exactly loved by the religious right, which is the dominant force in the conservative party) are reasonable, there have been far more who want their religion to take center stage in the political arena. We know this because they have said it and done it. They actively promote an entirely religious agenda. As I said earlier, it's not that they are religious that bothers me, but instead, how their religious beliefs effect me.

Still, my question lingers. Why do so many on the right want to force the rest of us to live under a government that recognizes a religion that says we are evil? What is the reason for pushing for it? The argument that our founding fathers wanted it that way falls short, since we know darn good and well that a good percentage of them didn't even believe in God. At the time the Constitution was written, only about 10% of people in America even attended church. There was a vacuum created by the ditching of the old ways, and many, many frontier people were into folk magic, and they were creating cults left and right. In light of this, I can't imagine that the founders were ever thinking, "we must make America a Christian nation". Quite the opposite in fact. They said we must not over and over.

What in the world would be the benefits of calling us a "Christian nation"?
Jesus said, "render unto God what is God's, and render unto Cesar what is Cesar's". Even He talked about church and state being two distinct things. I'm not a Christian, but it seemed to make sense to their savior that separation is a good thing. What gives?

[Cail]

First, we need to dispel a few myths.

-The Religious Right is a small but vocal minority. They don't control the GOP, though their loudmouthery has had an affect on the GOP's pandering.

-The vast majority of Americans (of any political stripe) define themselves as "religious".

-The vast majority of Americans couldn't care less whether or not our money says, "In God We Trust", or whether the 10 Commandments are hanging in a courthouse.

-The vast majority of Americans think it is a colossal waste of time to argue over minutiae like whether we're having a Christmas party or a holiday party.

-Pretty much everyone agrees that the Constitution guarantees that there will be no state-sponsored (or mandated) religion. Where the controversy lies is whether or not the mention of a bearded fat guy in red PJs is a violation of the Constitution.

[Brother Charn]

-The Religious Right is a small but vocal minority. They don't control the GOP, though their loudmouthery has had an affect on the GOP's pandering.

So, taking that cue, I guess the only question is do we believe Palin either belongs to or will continue to pander to the "religious right" should she be elected?

I feel compelled to use quotes on 'religious right' because it seems to be one of those bogeyman tactic demographic groups... like 'leftist socialists', 'granola-munchers', 'dittoheads'.

I scoff at the term at the same time that I fear having the country run by a member of it.