Election 2008 - Church v. State

[Brother Charn]

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.p ... ef=topnews

This article encapsulates my core misgivings concerning Palin, and overtly conservative politicians in general, without providing resolution.

I like religion, especially my own, and believe that we are all better off when 'moderate' religion plays a significant role in our lives.

I like our free country, and think that for reasons of free speech, worship, equality and simple fairness that it should remain unmolested by any one particular religion.

I want my politicians to be guided by a firm moral compass, so they are able to resist the personal temptations that come from being in lofty government positions where it is easy to slip and self-serve, sometimes without even realizing it.

Notwithstanding that, I also greatly desire politicians to be as non-denominational as possible, to ensure that one religion does not get legal favor.

When you think about it, it is an unfair contradictory standard, almost impossible to achieve one without bringing the other into question. Religion is certainly not required to have a firm moral compass, but it is easier to assign that quality upon someone who belongs to a faith that you understand, especially if that faith has one or more elements in common with one's own. Consider it a halo effect.

So, I should maybe not criticize Palin for having a denominational faith (Assembly of God, which my wife describes as "friendly Pentecostal"), even if I do not understand the finer points of it. The problem is that my experience with Pentecostals is one of oppressive religious indoctrination, strict interpretations of the bible, focus on the Rapture (to the extreme of it affecting one's choice of mortgage!) and deep intolerance and mistrust of anything outside that narrow, narrow band of Godly activity.

Having said that, with what we have been told about her own personal beliefs - beliefs that appear to be exaggerated versions of my own - and despite the ticket she is running on and my already-growing weariness for the media/election/saturation clustering, I think there is at least the possibility that she would strive to do a good job without forcing her specific beliefs on the country... with the possible exceptions of overturning Roe v Wade, and promoting abstinence-only sex-ed in schools. What is best for all the people of the US, regardless of religion? Who can answer that?

The problem is, it doesn't matter how pretty or potentially awesome Palin might be - and I don't care how mavericky McCain is. Eight years of GOP is enough.

dw aka Brother Charn

[Harbinger]

I am what you might call a hard core atheist. I do not believe in the supernatural at all. At the same time, I don't berate or think less of anyone else for their spiritual beliefs. OK, maybe fundamentalists a little. I think organized religion is a man made system for control. No one could be more disappointed with Palin's religious convictions than me. However, I will cast my vote for the McCain/Palin ticket this November because I care about how much of my money I get to keep. Obama's ideas are not new. It's Carter all over again. Raising taxes on "big" corporations will only weaken the economy. The "big" corporations will increase prices to hold margins. And who will pay the price increases? You.

I think I went over this in another thread- Every dollar that is spent becomes five more dollars in the "economy". So every paycheck we keep in this country only strengthens our "economy" that much more. Corporate tax breaks allow growth which in turn creates more jobs. More jobs means more money in our "economy". If someone doesn't have the ambition to improve their earning ability, I don't feel a bit bad about the wage they earn. They can always pick up a second job. I don't understand the 6.1% unemployment. Are people unable to pack their bags and go to where a job is? I've done it. I spent a summer in a tent while in college to save money. I've slept in my car as an adult
to save money on rent because I had credit card debt and keeping a good credit rating was extremely important to me. I knew I would need it in the future. I picked up a shitty second job at Amazon.com, got my debt down, and got an apartment.

It's no one else's responsibility but my own for my well being. It's certainly not the government's as Obama wants me to believe.

[Zahir]

Well, I am totally in support of the separation of Church and State. I am not convinced Governor Palin is, at least not to the minimal level necessary in my eyes (we all disagree on details, after all).

My own faith simply isn't focused on rules. While the organizations and individual clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches may take all kinds of stands, dogma is a very narrow matter. More, the emphasis is not on keeping to a particular rule-book but rather opening one's heart to God--what we call "worship" (as opposed to frankly what many churches seem to believe in--groveling).

As for taxing the wealthy, the above scenario is extremely simplistic. For one thing, it leaves out an important part of the Democractic plan--namely, tax relief for the lower and middle classes. It also ignores tax cuts for the wealthy for investment.

[Zarathustra]

Zahir, how can the federal government give tax relief to those who don't pay income taxes? Obama is talking about wealth redistribution, not tax relief. His "95% getting a tax cut" is misleading, since 50% of us don't even pay income tax.

[Plissken]

A of G is disturbing, though. I have a childhood inspired aversion to having anyone who believes that strongly that it is their responsibility to help God along with Armageddon that close to the button.

[Farsailer]

Regarding Obama backing off of his tax plan, I would hazard to guess that he finally caught up with the history of the last guy who raised taxes in the teeth of an oncoming depression... and has begun to realize that could be him too. Goes to show Obama cares about how he is remembered. which is not necessarily a bad thing if sanity breaks out.

[Prebe]

who believes that strongly that it is their responsibility to help God along with Armageddon that close to the button.

Please don't tell me that you all are close to placing an armageddonist as the second in command! PLease!! I want to believe you are sane!

As for the subject of the thread: I think that politicians should be required to renounce religious faith of any description. Not that I mind religious people (other than fanatics), but a person who holds a high office should NEVER act on anything but empiric evidence. Or at the very least, theories that are subject to change & falsification.

[Plissken]

Being forced by the State to renounce your religion is one of the things that Will Happen in the End Times...

And it's a really, really bad (and Constitutionally impossible) idea.

That said: Yeah, AofG is a full-blown speaking in tongues, rollin' around on the floor, this world is just a veil of tears which will end soon (so we might as well "Drill, Baby! Drill!") and we'll all (by which we mean 144,000 True Believers, everybody else will burn, Baby! Burn!) be happier in the afterlife, church.

And she gave a sermon in which the War in Iraq was "God's Work," and asked the parishioners to pray for her oil pipeline plan to succeed.

Be comforted.

It's almost all over.

[Avatar]

Not surprisingly, I'm in favour of seperation. I don't think you guys have actually got real seperation though. You might have it in law and even in policy, but it's too important to the voters to just never mention it. I somebody here said it..."An atheist could never be elected president."

As far as I'm concerned, the president opening cabinet meetings with a bible reading and prayer is not seperation.

--A

[SoulBiter]

Being forced by the State to renounce your religion is one of the things that Will Happen in the End Times...

And it's a really, really bad (and Constitutionally impossible) idea.

That said: Yeah, AofG is a full-blown speaking in tongues, rollin' around on the floor, this world is just a veil of tears which will end soon (so we might as well "Drill, Baby! Drill!") and we'll all (by which we mean 144,000 True Believers, everybody else will burn, Baby! Burn!) be happier in the afterlife, church.

And she gave a sermon in which the War in Iraq was "God's Work," and asked the parishioners to pray for her oil pipeline plan to succeed.

Be comforted.

It's almost all over.

I dont think all of thats Assembly of God Church. I think the 144,000 comes from a church called "Jehovahs Witnesses"

[Kil Tyme]

Please don't tell me that you all are close to placing an armageddonist as the second in command! PLease!! I want to believe you are sane!

Which reminds me, here was the alternate ending of the president in West Wing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CdKuLRmg8k

(pardon, but i just love that creepy Sheen scene)

[wayfriend]

I've got nothing against the fact that we select leaders who are religious, but not too religous, in general. If people assume that a bit of religion gives you a moral compass, but too much religion puts you off the deep end, they have the right to choose that way in an election.

But there is a bit of embedded religion in the execution of US practices that we can't seem to root out. "In God We Trust". Swearing on the bible. Etc.

It's not for lack of trying. It's one of the things the ACLU is good for. But people won't vote for changing some things, even though they should never have been that way in the first place.

At some point, the majority religion rejects attempts to be completely swept aside, and has the clout to make its will felt.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Here's a list of the religions of all the past Presidents:

www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

[Plissken]

Being forced by the State to renounce your religion is one of the things that Will Happen in the End Times...

And it's a really, really bad (and Constitutionally impossible) idea.

That said: Yeah, AofG is a full-blown speaking in tongues, rollin' around on the floor, this world is just a veil of tears which will end soon (so we might as well "Drill, Baby! Drill!") and we'll all (by which we mean 144,000 True Believers, everybody else will burn, Baby! Burn!) be happier in the afterlife, church.

And she gave a sermon in which the War in Iraq was "God's Work," and asked the parishioners to pray for her oil pipeline plan to succeed.

Be comforted.

It's almost all over.

I dont think all of thats Assembly of God Church. I think the 144,000 comes from a church called "Jehovahs Witnesses"

The 144,000 isn't exclusively the property of the JW's. Quite a few of the more Armageddonist sects believe that there will either be 144,000 worthy living in the Last Days to rise up and meet Christ in the air, without the need of death and resurrection, or that, in the whole of History there are only 144,000 who will be found worthy of Salvation.

(Again: Anywhere near the button is bad!)

[Zahir]

Giving anyone who drools a little at the thought of the world being destroyed access to any major weaponry disturbs me.

BTW, by virtually anyone's standards I am in the lower class or the lower middle class. And here's a newsflash--I PAY TAXES. Yeah, the Randites and the Born Again Free Marketeers say I don't, but then they're not a group in really close contact with reality.

Like way too many evangelicals, come to think on it.

My late lady's father was a Pentacostal Minister. Nice guy. Never tried to push anything down my throat. But he believed the Antichrist was walking the earth and that seriously colored his world view. Not in a good way.

[Avatar]

Thought the 144,000 was the Mormons myself.

Interesting link HLT. Personally, I prefer the "no specific denomination."

--A

[Prebe]

Being forced by the State to renounce your religion is one of the things that Will Happen in the End Times...

Well, not forced (I said "required"), more like "If you want the job, quit your religion". Just like: "if you want to walk into a hospital put out your cigarette.". Nobody is forcing you to become president or to walk into a hospital.

Bad example that can easily be twisted, but you know what I mean.

And it's a really, really bad (and Constitutionally impossible) idea.

A bad Idea? Perhaps. But I think you are just being frightened by the apparent extremity of the idea. Replace God with Santa Claus/the boogeyman/whatever (I'm gonna get whiped for that one as usual, I know) and suddenly, it doesn't seem so extreme a demand that your political leaders promis not to do make decissions based on these figures and the legends that suround them.

As for the inconstitutionality, you are of course right, but I was speaking of my general preference and not specifically the US.

(Again: Anywhere near the button is bad!)

Yeah, and you didn't do much to soothe me.

[Avatar]

Sorta like, "if you want to join the boy scouts, you have to swear an oath to god" ?



--A

[Prebe]

Touché!

Yes, sort of like that. Although I feel that it would make a lot more sense, and I'd feel a lot less sorry for the Prez.

As for the US constitution having a separation between church and state, how is that even possible if the prez isn't an atheist? Every religious person must - at least to some extent - base his decissions on his belief, and hence be mixing church and state.

[aliantha]

It's kinda the same thing as journalists being objective.

We have no state religion in the US. We don't tax churches; by the same token, churches are not allowed to be involved in the running of the government.

For my money...Sarah Palin is Pat Robertson in a skirt. The thought of having her a heartbeat away from the Presidency scares the hell out of me. By picking her for Veep, McCain has done a nice job of solidifying my vote for Obama-Biden.