IMO yes you have.

 

If you allow your religious beliefs to cloud your political judgement you'll be making decisions based on your faith which is the same as trying to push your beliefs off on everyone whether they want them or not.

 

If we wanted to make decisions based off faith, we'd be a Theocracy, and last time I checked that's not the case.

 

But it's not unlawful to do so... this discussion is going to turn out bad I think

IMO yes you have.

 

If you allow your religious beliefs to cloud your political judgement you'll be making decisions based on your faith which is the same as trying to push your beliefs off on everyone whether they want them or not.

 

If we wanted to make decisions based off faith, we'd be a Theocracy, and last time I checked that's not the case.

 

I have read this statement several times over the past few days and I cannot understand how you could make such a statement. By this thinking any belief is biased and should not be used to make decisions. In that vain of thinking an environmentalist should never vote for someone who is for cap and trade. Your ability to make a decision does not have to be seperate from politics. In fact and I'll repeat it, there is no such thing as 'seperation of church and state. The Constitution just says the government will not place one faith over all others, not exclude religion totally.

I have read this statement several times over the past few days and I cannot understand how you could make such a statement. By this thinking any belief is biased and should not be used to make decisions. In that vain of thinking an environmentalist should never vote for someone who is for cap and trade. Your ability to make a decision does not have to be seperate from politics. In fact and I'll repeat it, there is no such thing as 'seperation of church and state. The Constitution just says the government will not place one faith over all others, not exclude religion totally.

 

I'll give you an example...I believe gay marriage is disgusting and is wrong because of my religious beliefs. I would never not vote for a candidate because he was pro-gay marriage. If you decided to not cast a vote for a candidate who was otherwise best suited to run the country except for his stance on gay marriage, you would be doing a disservice to the country as a whole.

My religous beliefs are at the very core of who I am. They absolutely impact how I vote. If they had no impact, they really wouldn't be beliefs, ... just theories.

 

:thumb:

 

From a Christian standpoint, I don't think its possible to separate your faith from any aspect of your life. If a person can put their faith in Christ aside when making any decisions in life, including political, then I would question the validity of their faith.

 

That doesn't mean we aren't capable of making the wrong choice or a mistake even when we try to use our faith as a guide, so I'm not interested in getting into a list of what choices a Christian should make regarding various issues. My point is simply that a Christian's faith should be central in any decision they make.

 

I would assume that would/should be the case with most, if not all, religions.

 

So, to answer the question...not only can religion influence political beliefs, I would argue that it if your religion is of any importance to you, then it should influence your political beliefs.

 

:thumb:

 

Some decsions do not require religous beliefs. Gun Ownership is one.

 

I think that some people are also mixing the "one Issue" voter in with this discussion.

 

I do not see how if religion has shaped who I am, how I act, and what I believe, then how can it NOT be a part of my political beliefs as well.

 

Seperation of church and state falls more with the govt. than individuals.

Seperation of church and state falls more with the govt. than individuals.

 

I would say that it is ENTIRELY on government. The Bill of Rights is a set of restraints on government power, not a manifesto of how we're all supposed to think and act.

So if my reasoning was that I thought war was dedgrading to humanity each of whom has an individual right to life and liberty in order to pursue life as they see fit, that's perfectly fine? What about if I preferred allowing the United Nations, international courts and the practices of mediation and negotiation between parties to solve such disputes because resources are better used in peaceful efforts that make people's lives better? Or finally, what if I believe that our use of aggression in Iraq has actually created a situation in which the effects of intervention are far more violent that what we went in their to stop and other means of ending Saddam's reign of terror were available?

 

I asked this question for a reason: our political philosophies will always draw on our own life experiences and perpectives. Each of the above would seem to be in accord with each other and each would be a perfectly valid reason to oppose the war. Well, the first I made up off the top of my head drawing on some international legal principles about human dignity. The second is drawn directly from the Humanist Manifesto, written by a decidedly anti-religious organization and at an extremely secularist tilt. The last one is drawn from just war theory that I pulled word-for-word from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

Three very different ways of looking at the world and yet they arrive at a very similar conclusion. Why I'm trying to say here is this: to my mind, a devoutly religious individual CAN NOT separate their religion and the way they vote; maybe there are some who can... and I'm not taking it on myself to judge the conscience of another person on that matter. But to ask someone whose life experiences and perspective are shaped, if only in part, by religion to abandon that particular part of themselves is absurd.