I think the distinction is that as individuals politicians are free to practice their religion and are undoubtedly influenced by it but when it comes to making policy religion shouldn't be a stated or major factor in decision making. Also policy shouldn't be enacted that favors or discriminates against a particular religion. So while a politician is free to be a Christian they shouldn't make policy that favors the Christianity over any other religion. Also a lot of people are bringing up the keeping religion out of government out of worry that religion will influence government yet the idea of separation of church and state is also about keeping government from influencing religion. If religion were to play a role in government then that would also open up religion to government oversight removing the independence of religious institutions.
Religion is not something you can 'check at the Door' Just like 'science' if you beleive it to be true you have to govern to it If you beleive in . . uhm .. . Safety Standards . . and beleive ignoring it would be detrimental to the world/Country . ..you have to govern to that end I think when people start governing to things they don't even beleive in . . . .it becomes a bloody mess. Whoring themselves to various groups for money and influence. Be it Religion . . . Be It whatever I think everyone should have some Moral Core Beleifs I think everyone should have a code of ethics they work with it To basically say All code of Ethics are fine. . . except Religious ones is just as bad as saying the only Code of Ethics that matter are Religious ones Rocket River
we all have various sets of beliefs and assumptions we work in. you can't pretend that you can hire or elect anyone to do a job and that those things won't be influential in their decision making process. if someone truly believes that harvesting stem cells is morally reprehensible, then i would expect them to vote against it. i would expect them to take action against it. i might discuss with them different ways of looking at it. but you don't have to believe in Jesus Christ, Allah, or YHWH to have a system of morality that makes certain things in this world turn your stomach.
It would be silly to assume that someone who is religious could just "turn that off" when they enter a particular job or office. That being said, a politician should temper any associated religious convictions inasmuch as they interfere with the constitution, good judgement, or (to a certain extent) the will of the people. That being said, voting for someone simply due to religious ideology is atrocious, particularly if that ideology involves something contrary to constitution (*cough* - gay marriage). Your vote should be cast for that person who best upholds not only your own standards/policies, but also will abide strictly by the law of the land.
I think religion in the US tends to be very focused on showiness over substance - not just for politicians but for ordinary citizens too. I think there's a public guilt thing about appearing properly religious - I can't recall where it was but there was a study i read that indicated that a lot of studies showing how much americans went to church, etc tended to be highly inaccurate insofar as people had a distinctive tendency to exaggerate upwards.
fixed that for ya there's definetely places where its more about style than substance, but there's also plenty of Churches thats the other way around. People will see what they want to see based on what their general leanings are.
But even that is subjective, rhad. There's very little that all of would agree is INHERENTLY constitutional in practice. I'm not against gay marriage. But I have a hard time believing that James Madison would have been cool with it. Or would have thought for a second that it was "constitutional." What is constitutional is left for judges to argue about. It isn't concrete or black and white. What's considered absolutely unconstitutional in one generation is considered absolutely constitutional 2 generations later.
I don't think this is your position, but these overly formal, originalist arguments are really silly, IMO. It reminds me of some case where Rehnquist tried to cite the originalist argument for the fact that an airport lobby wasn't a "traditional public forum" for 1st amendment purposes. The framers did not know or have any conception of airports. If you took a framer an airport they would sh-t their breeches because there are giant flying metal dragons over their heads. not really clear on what church you're talking about here.
Very true - but also a powerful benfit, IMO. And this is precisely what I mean. I really don't get the obsession people have over what the founding father's intended. Who cares what they themselves felt or supported - the documents they wrote clearly outline a really great system of social equality and fairness. Madison probably did not care for civil rights for blacks, or suffrage for women either - but the documents clearly support those, and as we as a society mature, these hypocrisies are sorted out (hopefully, anyhow). I understand your point. I guess I have a hard time understanding how someone could misinterpret the literal meaning in the bill of rights - but it has happened, time and time again. People have voted (indirectly or directly) to flaunt that which is supposed to be "unflauntable". I'm not really sure where to go from here...
1. no, it's not my position. i just find it funny to hear people throw the words, "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" around about subjects like this. it's nothing more than opinion. what you might see as constitutional, i might see as blatantly unconstitutional. there is no "right" answer...only the answer the court gives us. 2. the Church with capital "C". i'm around lots of churches for lots of different stuff.
nowhere, really. because ultimately i think you and i agree on that particular topic. it's all case by case. i just have a hard time starting with the words, "it's unconstitutional!!!" or "it's constitutional!!" lawyers do that in their briefs (he said, briefs...tee hee)...and then judges decide depending on their viewpoints and through the lenses of the assumptions and beliefs they have.
hotballa: I disagree. As a whole, our society is very religious, at least from an identity standpoint. Poll after poll shows an overwhelming number of Americans consider themselves religious, or very religious or whatever. Yet, at the same time, our society is obsessed with supposed religious immorality: Violence. Sex. Corruption. Etc. My humble opinion, but it seems like a huge amount of people determine how they feel about something, how they interact with society, their morals vaccuumed off from the religious dogma they supposedly abide by. After these convictions are ascertained, then the veil of religious righteousness is put back on. Easy example - racists who are also fundamentalist christians.
I saw this press release from an A/V company yesterday which obliquely referred to religion and institutions thereof as "the worship market." What a fantastic turn of phrase.
I agree with all points made rhad. you pretty much nailed it. We are a land filled with hypocrites, religious AND non-religious alike. Yet, I still know a good amount of churches who do God's work, whether it be charity work or evangelical work. Therefore I can't let Sam's statement go without bringing it down to a more appropriate level.
