Politics and Religion

[Tipsy]

Round 2 of the news pissing me off tonight; justifying platforms with religion - this is for both Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats:
Get this - this Bible says give the hungry food, clothe the naked, give water to the thirsty, give shelter to the homeless, etc. Treat your neighbor as yourself. And so forth. Does this means Christianity justifies all of this relief? Think of what taxes are - if you do not pay them, your property can be taken and you can face criminal charges. I don't know about you, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says use coercive force (ie taxing) to clothe the naked, use coercive force to give water to the thirst, use coercive force to give the hungry food, etc. You have the responsibility under your religion to do this, not the responsibility to use coercive force to steal from your neighbor and give it to someone else.

Republicans:
Why would God want you to dictate morality? It's not like he gave us free will and is giving us the choice to choose whether or not we get salvation. Since when does forcing someone to adhere by rules make them convert? Haven't history, released religious books/sermons/etc, and whatnot showed you that it doesn't work that way? Seriously, if you want a theocracy use a different religion that can actually be used to support your goals.

This all goes back to my overall theme of the night. Neither party has the best interest of our civil liberties in mind. You can vote for Republican and have all of your civil liberties that are moral, or you can vote Democrat and have all of your civil liberties that are politically correct.

 

[N[U]TS]

Round 2 of the news pissing me off tonight; justifying platforms with religion - this is for both Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats:
Get this - this Bible says give the hungry food, clothe the naked, give water to the thirsty, give shelter to the homeless, etc. Treat your neighbor as yourself. And so forth. Does this means Christianity justifies all of this relief? Think of what taxes are - if you do not pay them, your property can be taken and you can face criminal charges. I don't know about you, but I don't see anywhere in the Bible where it says use coercive force (ie taxing) to clothe the naked, use coercive force to give water to the thirst, use coercive force to give the hungry food, etc. You have the responsibility under your religion to do this, not the responsibility to use coercive force to steal from your neighbor and give it to someone else.

Republicans:
Why would God want you to dictate morality? It's not like he gave us free will and is giving us the choice to choose whether or not we get salvation. Since when does forcing someone to adhere by rules make them convert? Haven't history, released religious books/sermons/etc, and whatnot showed you that it doesn't work that way? Seriously, if you want a theocracy use a different religion that can actually be used to support your goals.

This all goes back to my overall theme of the night. Neither party has the best interest of our civil liberties in mind. You can vote for Republican and have all of your civil liberties that are moral, or you can vote Democrat and have all of your civil liberties that are politically correct.

First of I hate politically correct people. It annoys the hell out of me.

Secondly you need to brush up on christianity a little.

Third both parties just have gone south. Democrats more so than Republicans. I would much rather vote for an independent at this point and time but that is never the case with U.S. two party system.

 

[Tipsy]

Secondly you need to brush up on christianity a little.

Please expand upon this.

 

[CelestialBadger]

I'll respond to the democrat thing, since that's the platform I identify the most with:

Those principles are certainly present in the Bible, and I'm sure that some politicians use them as justification for social programs, but in order to make a case, I think you'd need to prove that religious principles are the sole - or even the most important - driving force behind social programs. I don't think they are, and I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that the only good reason to take care of homeless people is because God says to.

 

[Tipsy]

I'll respond to the democrat thing, since that's the platform I identify the most with:

Those principles are certainly present in the Bible, and I'm sure that some politicians use them as justification for social programs, but in order to make a case, I think you'd need to prove that religious principles are the sole - or even the most important - driving force behind social programs. I don't think they are, and I think you'd have a hard time convincing people that the only good reason to take care of homeless people is because God says to.

It's the fact that politicians are using these reasons to get people on their side. If you aren't for the program because of religious principles, more power to you, however the politicians keep manipulating religion now as they have throughout history and it bothers me.

 

[CelestialBadger]

The only thing I would call "manipulating religion" is if a politician tries to get elected on religious principles that they don't actually believe in. But no matter what their motivation is, if a politician tries to get elected on a platform of social programs that help the needy, and he manages to raise enough support to get elected, I don't see a problem at all. I mean, theoretically I don't see a problem. It seems like your gripe is more with representative democracy, not with politicians manipulating religion. After all, this flawless system allows us to vote people out if we have a problem with them "coercing" us into supporting various social programs, whether they're coercing us for religious reasons or just because they think it's the right thing to do.

 

[Tipsy]

The only thing I would call "manipulating religion" is if a politician tries to get elected on religious principles that they don't actually believe in. But no matter what their motivation is, if a politician tries to get elected on a platform of social programs that help the needy, and he manages to raise enough support to get elected, I don't see a problem at all. I mean, theoretically I don't see a problem. It seems like your gripe is more with representative democracy, not with politicians manipulating religion. After all, this flawless system allows us to vote people out if we have a problem with them "coercing" us into supporting various social programs, whether they're coercing us for religious reasons or just because they think it's the right thing to do.

What I mean by 'manipulating religion' is that politicians say that a religion says something that it doesn't. Bringing up social programs in the context of Christianity was to show it is one of these cases. Taking from your neighbor and giving to the poor isn't charitable, using your own resources and giving it to the poor is. Politicians saying that forcing these social programs is charitable and thus someone of a religion should support if they are practicing their faith is manipulating religion. Selling a social program to people on that basis bothers me, not the social program itself. I'm in favor of many social programs because I think they can improve the country, not because of the false idea that it's truly charitable. Selling these programs on the latter is my problem.

 

[CelestialBadger]

I understand that, but I don't know that it's a politician's fault for selling it so much as it is the electorate's fault for buying it. So I'm saying it seems more like a gripe with representative democracy. No, the bible doesn't say that you should take from your neighbor and give to the poor, but it does say that you should give to the poor, and if enough people believe that and are willing to vote in politicians who will enforce that belief, then it's a problem with the system more than its a problem with the politician.

 

[Tipsy]

I understand that, but I don't know that it's a politician's fault for selling it so much as it is the electorate's fault for buying it. So I'm saying it seems more like a gripe with representative democracy. No, the bible doesn't say that you should take from your neighbor and give to the poor, but it does say that you should give to the poor, and if enough people believe that and are willing to vote in politicians who will enforce that belief, then it's a problem with the system more than its a problem with the politician.

It's not the fact that the program is implemented but that people implement the program being ignorant of their religion. Furthermore, the reason I bring up politicians is that I hold them to higher standards. Also, it isn't the system I have a problem with - it's the motives of people. Ranting about results needs more concrete examples and that's why I'm not talking about that here, it's the motive behind the action that is bothering me, something that doesn't involve the system.