What's new

Question Regarding Politics and Religion

To me this is more interesting from the standpoint of our representative government. Does an atheist politician represent his constituency if most of them are religious? Can a muslim politician represent a largely Christian populace? Or can one religious sect, that derides another (say southern baptist vs mormons, or something) represent that faction within their constituency?

Also, asking anyone to leave some core facet of their personality out of their decision-making is like asking a white guy to not be white, but only in these certain circumstances. A core belief will ALWAYS influence someone in their decisions, even if only subconsciously, be it religious or whatever.
If a politician can not represent different view points from their own they are a poor politician.

To me one of the main functions of government is to protect minority groups. The majority and/or groups in power dont need help with their interests.

I firmly believe religion has no place in politics. One of the worst things that has happened in politics is the Christian right taking over the Republican party back in the 50s or so. Since then they have forced both parties to go away from true conservative/liberal view points and focus on moral issues that should not define being conservative/liberal. Those issues are not really something that should be in politics at all let alone the main issues.

Again if a politician can't put aside their religion and morals they don't belong in politics regardless of which side they are on. Governments role isn't to be moral police, particularly in cases where moral choices don't effect others.

A Muslim majority country should not force people to follow their beliefs neither should a Christian majority country.
 
To me one of the main functions of government is to protect minority groups. The majority and/or groups in power dont need help with their interests.

It's a corner stone of liberal democracies. An essential element of good government
 
If a politician can not represent different view points from their own they are a poor politician.

To me one of the main functions of government is to protect minority groups. The majority and/or groups in power dont need help with their interests.

I firmly believe religion has no place in politics. One of the worst things that has happened in politics is the Christian right taking over the Republican party back in the 50s or so. Since then they have forced both parties to go away from true conservative/liberal view points and focus on moral issues that should not define being conservative/liberal. Those issues are not really something that should be in politics at all let alone the main issues.

Again if a politician can't put aside their religion and morals they don't belong in politics regardless of which side they are on. Governments role isn't to be moral police, particularly in cases where moral choices don't effect others.

A Muslim majority country should not force people to follow their beliefs neither should a Christian majority country.

But where do you draw the line? People say we can't legislate morality, but how do you not? We legislate murder, theft, rape, minimum wage, what type of healthcare (bc healthcare for all for their health benefit is a moral issue), etc.
 
But where do you draw the line? People say we can't legislate morality, but how do you not? We legislate murder, theft, rape, minimum wage, what type of healthcare (bc healthcare for all for their health benefit is a moral issue), etc.

Are you arguing against murder, rape and theft being crimes? If so carry on, if not its not really an argument. Healthcare, welfare all these sorts of things are matter of public policy, I don't see them a necessarily religious, they only become so over issues like abortion and euthanasia, which in my humble opinion are personal choices and nobody elses.

As an aside you see all these right to life nutcases carry on about abortions, where were they during anti war protests?
 
I don't care what religion my president is at all.
Makes no difference to me whatsoever.

I hate trump. Have no idea what religion he is or if he is even religious. (Anyone know?)

I mostly look for a president who seems intelligent, classy, well spoken, caring, and confident. (Reasons I liked obama and hated george w and hate trump)

If this is your measuring stick then why hate Bush? He had some of these qualities. To me at least. The biggest hit he would have is being well spoken. There is more than one way to show these attributes.

They are things that I like in a president as well.
 
But where do you draw the line? People say we can't legislate morality, but how do you not? We legislate murder, theft, rape, minimum wage, what type of healthcare (bc healthcare for all for their health benefit is a moral issue), etc.

For me a good starting point is not viewing it through the morality lens and view it through a lens of "Does this damage someone else?"

Yes there is always a morality aspect to things but that should not be the driving force IMO.
 
Holy nonsensical post

Forgive Boris for I forget you young pups were not educated in history. You probably do not even know who JFK is let alone that him being a Catholic was a huge deal an moral victory for the Vatican. Oh, excuse me again. The Vatican is the Roman Home an seat of the Catholic faith. JFK got assassinated for being Catholic did you know that?

More recently, President Obama was both the first black person [edited] to become president. I can explain to you youngins that both of those are MORAL VICTORIES that should be celebrated regardless of POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.

I can hate Obama an still appreciate a country WILLING to finally appoint a black man! What is so hard to understand about that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive Boris for I forget you young pups were not educated in history. You probably do not even know who JFK is let alone that him being a Catholic was a huge deal an moral victory for the Vatican. Oh, excuse me again. The Vatican is the Roman Home an seat of the Catholic faith. JFK got assassinated for being Catholic did you know that?

More recently, President Obama was both the first black person AND the first Muslim to become president. I can explain to you youngins that both of those are MORAL VICTORIES that should be celebrated regardless of POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.

I can hate Obama an still appreciate a country WILLING to finally appoint a black man! What is so hard to understand about that?

Your style of communication.
 
Forgive Boris for I forget you young pups were not educated in history. You probably do not even know who JFK is let alone that him being a Catholic was a huge deal an moral victory for the Vatican. Oh, excuse me again. The Vatican is the Roman Home an seat of the Catholic faith. JFK got assassinated for being Catholic did you know that?

More recently, President Obama was both the first black person AND the first Muslim to become president. I can explain to you youngins that both of those are MORAL VICTORIES that should be celebrated regardless of POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.

I can hate Obama an still appreciate a country WILLING to finally appoint a black man! What is so hard to understand about that?

Obama is about as Muslim as I am. About as black as I am too but that's another matter. Anyway everybody knows Elvis shot JFK over a gambling debt.
 
The Obama is a Muslim also made 0 sense to me.

1. He's not

2. Even if he secretly was, I do not care. It makes 0 difference.
 
The Obama is a Muslim also made 0 sense to me.

1. He's not

2. Even if he secretly was, I do not care. It makes 0 difference.


Indeed, and as a secret Muslim double agent he sure killed a lot of other Muslims... That there are people in the world who believe this **** makes my head spin, it also drives me ****ing insane that there are politicians out there that so morally bankrupt that they will attempt to exploit these people and their lack of rationality for their vote. I live in a country where voting is compulsory so i make a point not to vote, for a large number of reasons but one is that if my vote is worth as much as someone who isn't engaged in the process and can be duped by arseholes, whats the point?
 
Back
Top