You can not form political judgments without a value system and you can not formulate a value system without relying upon religious beliefs even if you are an atheist or agnostic.

My value system has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with religious beliefs. Maybe I'm just special. :sssh:

You can not form political judgments without a value system and you can not formulate a value system without relying upon religious beliefs even if you are an atheist or agnostic.

 

Not following you here, can you explain more?

You can not form political judgments without a value system and you can not formulate a value system without relying upon religious beliefs even if you are an atheist or agnostic.

 

 

A value system does not inherently mean religious belief. A simple cursory evaluation of society and what needs to be avoided to prevent total chaos is sufficient.

To keep another thread on topic...

 

 

Does separation of Church and State mean that in allowing your religion to influence how you vote, you have done wrong?

 

Discuss.

 

When I think of the theory of separation of church and state, I view this issue more in terms of how organized religous establishments might attempt to directly influence our political process/environment. One must also remember that many of our founding fathers were tremendously influenced by their personal religious beliefs. I don't think you can completely set aside your religous beliefs when dealing with political matters. Having said that, I don't think allowing your religious beliefs to influence your decisions is a violation of the church and state separation theory, nor do I believe it is a violation when influencing your vote. To restate, imo the separation of church and state issue is related more to direct influence by established religous organizations on the political process not individuals making personal decisions with religious views having influenced their thought process.

When I think of the theory of separation of church and state, I view this issue more in terms of how organized religous establishments might attempt to directly influence our political process/environment. One must also remember that many of our founding fathers were tremendously influenced by their personal religious beliefs. I don't think you can completely set aside your religous beliefs when dealing with political matters. Having said that, I don't think allowing your religious beliefs to influence your decisions is a violation of the church and state separation theory, nor do I believe it is a violation when influencing your vote. To restate, imo the separation of church and state issue is related more to direct influence by established religous organizations on the political process not individuals making personal decisions with religious views having influenced their thought process.

I do agree that it's not a violation of seperation of church and state. However I think there have been plenty of instances where allowing mainstream religious beliefs to influence you wouldn't have produced the correct answer.

 

For instance, I have a hard time buying that mainstream religous beliefs could've swayed the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which in my mind was the right move.

When I think of the theory of separation of church and state, I view this issue more in terms of how organized religous establishments might attempt to directly influence our political process/environment. One must also remember that many of our founding fathers were tremendously influenced by their personal religious beliefs. I don't think you can completely set aside your religous beliefs when dealing with political matters. Having said that, I don't think allowing your religious beliefs to influence your decisions is a violation of the church and state separation theory, nor do I believe it is a violation when influencing your vote. To restate, imo the separation of church and state issue is related more to direct influence by established religous organizations on the political process not individuals making personal decisions with religious views having influenced their thought process.

:thumb:

 

With or without religion, we all have to make ethical decisions. Who we vote for has a lot of ethical questions involved: does the government have the right to tax the wealthy? should we be at war? do we legalize gay marriage? is torture acceptable in some forms? Since my ethical decisions are influenced by my religion, and with what Getslow about "what's freedom of religion if you are not allowed to practice it," I contend that it is perfectly reasonable to allow your religious beliefs affect your vote.

I do agree that it's not a violation of seperation of church and state. However I think there have been plenty of instances where allowing mainstream religious beliefs to influence you wouldn't have produced the correct answer.

 

For instance, I have a hard time buying that mainstream religous beliefs could've swayed the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which in my mind was the right move.

Your posts in this thread have more to do with how religion is irrational. Of course on those grounds religion should not influence ANY decisions, but that's not what I was going for. Go start that thread- I'm sure you'll get a great response. :lol:

A value system does not inherently mean religious belief. A simple cursory evaluation of society and what needs to be avoided to prevent total chaos is sufficient.

 

I'm taking the meaning of "religious "belief" in a very broad sense. For example, the idea that you can formulate rules for society independent of any particular religion is itself a "religious belief". For example, if "Should society be structured according to sharia law?" is the question, then why would it be a "relgious belief" if you answer "yes" and not a religious belief if you answer "no"? It seems to me that either way you answer that question your religious views are defined to one extent or another.

Your posts in this thread have more to do with how religion is irrational. Of course on those grounds religion should not influence ANY decisions, but that's not what I was going for. Go start that thread- I'm sure you'll get a great response. :lol:

I'm sorry but I disagree. In everyday life, religion is fine and I really have no issues with it, as long as I'm left alone, I could care less what someone wants to worship. But when it comes to political decisions that could affect me, I don't want someone making the wrong decisions based on their religious beliefs. And like I said, I don't see how mainstream religion can lead to the right decisions in many instances. As I allude to in the example provided above.

 

And while I may think that religion is irrational, I'm not starting that thread, it's not an interesting enough topic for me to want to discuss. I will get 50 different variations of "religion is good and I'm wrong".

I think people vote based on which candidate's ideas and policies are closest to what you agree with. If you are a christian who is against abortion you are going to side with the pro-life candidate, probably a republican. If you are a Christian and believe in supporting poor people through welfare and taking a lot more from the rich to give to the poor then you are going to vote for a democrat. Now these theories aren't necessarily totally based on religion, but your religious beliefs could play a part in it.

It appears that some believe that the "separation of church and state" should occur within ourselves, personally, rather than being applied to state action, as the Constitution intends.

 

If I am personally opposed to embryonic stem-cell research due to my religious convictions, I am going to support and vote on legislation accordingly. To do otherwise is anathema, and to suggest that is irresponsible is fatuous.

You can not form political judgments without a value system and you can not formulate a value system without relying upon religious beliefs even if you are an atheist or agnostic.

 

Respectfully disagree shooter. Is respecting people and treating people nicely a religious belief? I submit it is not. I can be an agnostic yet still hold those values.

Respectfully disagree shooter. Is respecting people and treating people nicely a religious belief? I submit it is not. I can be an agnostic yet still hold those values.

:thumb: :thumb:

Can it?

 

Yes

 

Does it?

 

All the time.

 

Should it?

 

Probably not, it can get in the way of making the correct choice.

 

:thumb:

 

Ah, people really don't research what is best for the country, IMO.

Respectfully disagree shooter. Is respecting people and treating people nicely a religious belief? I submit it is not. I can be an agnostic yet still hold those values.

 

In the context of this discussion, I would call respecting people and treating people nicely part of your value system. A value system that was arrived at, at least in part, on a religious belief, your agnosticism.

 

Let me explain further. Everybody uses some kind of value system to determine how they should act. To arrive at a value system you need to make judgments and to make judgments you need some standard on which to base those judgments . Since if God exists, God would be the ultimate standard, you can not arrive at a value system without defining how you treat the question of God. Unless you know of a scientific experiment or mathematical equation that definitely proves or disproves the existence of God, science can not provide the complete answer. You must decide what you believe concerning God outside of science which makes it, in the end a question of your religious beliefs. Therefore, being an atheist or an agnostic does not exempt you from holding a minimal amount of religious beliefs. Therefore, everyone's value system depends upon some minimal amount of religious beliefs (if not more).

 

Next, I will provide and example of how many people fool themselves into believing they are excluding their religious beliefs from their politics when in fact they are not. Take, for example, the people who say they are personally against abortion but say they don't want to impose their religious beliefs on others so they are pro-choice. I have yet to hear one of these people say that they believe that God would want them to be pro-life but they have consciously chosen to disobey God. They defend their actions as moral which implies that they believe that God would approve of their pro-choice stance. I maintain that any statement on what God would or would not find objectionable is by definition a religious belief. So when a pro-life person maintains that abortion should be outlawed it is based on a religious belief. When a pro-choice person maintains people should be given a choice it is based upon a religious belief. I therefore conclude that while the pro-choice position is less controlling of others, it is based on religious beliefs just as much as the pro-life position is.

Edited April 24, 200917 yr by shooter