The role of faith in politics

[DeadtoSin]

What do you guys think should be the role of any faith/belief in politics? A faith/belief can be Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. This topic isn't a "Religion is a disease" topic, or any other topic bashing any religion. I would like to know what your faith is and what role you belief it plays in government.

You might be surprised to find that I am a Christian that is trying to fight for religious freedom in government. I'm not trying to make you guys live a certain way. I believe a fetus is a life, and cannot make a decision on his life, so that should not be allowed. However, in all other areas I am a major advocate of letting others act how they wish. I am part of a group of Christians that are trying to truly live like Christ and be a good example. I want to live out my faith, help the poor, and make my community a better place. I want to counteract the Christians who don't really understand what they believe, and become the hypocrites you guys talk about so often. I don't look upon anybody with distaste, not matter what sin is in their lives. I want to help them in any way I can, not force the federal government to "help" them. So without further ado, here is my beliefs on the role of Christianity in government.

This is something I wrote to some of my other Christian friends to persuade them on this line of thought.

First of all, I'm kind of wary of us trying to get the federal government to do our job for us. Thats sort of what I feel like we as Christians are really doing in government as of lately. I'm not talking about voting against what you believe, and things like that. Definitely, vote for the candidate that fits your ideals the closest. However, we really push Congress and the Judiciary to enforce our morals.

I have a problem with this. First off, I think we should be careful about the way we go about bringing morality to this nation. Doing it with the iron first of the Federal government is a scary road to turn down. Just think of the abuses the government could get away with if they had not only the power but the moral high ground to do it as well!

Also, consider how non-Christians perceive us. If they are REQUIRED to act in the same fashion as we are, how are we any different from they are? Obviously we know the difference, but a non-Christian person would feel no compulsion to make any commitment, and they'd see no real reason.

It really goes back to the Pharisees and their desire to live a holy life by doing it themselves. Sure, if we had a law against lying, people wouldn't lie. But think about it, does that really make them more holy? Only the desire to live a life like Christ's life and your belief in Him saves you. So when we force our ideals on people, you've got to think, is that man trying to live holy..or is he trying to not get arrested/fined?

In any case, I've been rather unhappy with the Federal government's decisions on social issues. I mean, look at Roe vs. Wade. Do we really want something like THAT case on the books for all the things we hold dear to us as Christians?

We should be shining God's love, not trying to force the Federal govt to do so.

I firmly believe that Congress should make no law in regards to religious practices. If a judge wants a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging outside his door, where is the harm? I have no problem with that. He could hang a Quran, or even a book by Richard Dawkins for all I care. If the government makes rules regarding religious practices, they'll use those laws against all faiths/belief systems.

 

[snex]

faith based decisions have just as much place in politics as they do in a profit-oriented business - none.

the goal of a profit oriented business is to make profit. faith doesnt make profit, therefore faith should not be used.

the goal of a government is to serve the physical needs of the people. faith doesnt serve the physical needs of the people, therefore faith should not be used.

since the pragmatics of using faith fails, i see no reason to even address the ethics of such an idea.

 

[DeadtoSin]

So if I believe that something is wrong to do, I should separate my ideas out into a work environment and then a church environment?

It is amazing, because I guarantee that someone would then call me a hypocrite for doing such a thing. It is completely illogical to think that I could separate what I do from my actions. What you do IS what you believe. It doesn't matter what you think you believe. Your actions are your beliefs. If you don't live out your beliefs, then those can't possibly be your convictions.

I advocate keeping the government out of all morality. The federal government should not legalize gay marriage. They should not make it illegal. The federal government should be so scared of all Americans to legislate morality that they'd never even consider it. Right now, secular morality is winning in America. You know why? Christians legitimized the use of morality legislation. Here in 30 years the tables may turn, and the secular society will cry foul.

I am trying to talk both sides out of using the government as some kind of police force for their beliefs. Secular society has beliefs too, don't use that cop out. Secular society has a collective desire to legalize abortion, why Christian citizens what to ban abortion. Why can't we let the states decide? I think it is wrong, and I'll vote against legalization of abortion. Voters can far more easily affect the decisions at a state level.

This is what the Constitution advocates. The states decide what to do, and the Federal government was a loose grouping of the states into a country.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The Constitution advocates freedom to do as you please, and mandates that the states cannot decide whatever they want to do. Citation: The Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[DeadtoSin]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th Amendment

 

[Gamer4Fire]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2

Read. The. Constitution. Buddy.

 

[DeadtoSin]

I'm not advocating that they deprive people of rights. Read. My. Post. Buddy. I'm advocating that the government stay out of religious activities and morality period. I'm saying that if any legislation regarding morality at all is to be passed, it should at least be passed by the state government.

I could understand you telling me that part of the constitution if I advocated legislation of morality. That would be stripping people of their free will and rights. How does that apply to my desire that the Federal government especially stay out of our private lives? It seems like your quotation of the Constitution backs my idea up!

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I'm not advocating that they deprive people of rights. Read. My. Post. Buddy. I'm advocating that the government stay out of religious activities and morality period.

The role of faith in politics

If a judge wants a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging outside his door, where is the harm? I have no problem with that. He could hang a Quran, or even a book by Richard Dawkins for all I care. If the government makes rules regarding religious practices, they'll use those laws against all faiths/belief systems."

Separation of church and state
-Art I clause 1.

The federal government should not legalize gay marriage. They should not make it illegal. [...]Right now, secular morality is winning in America. You know why? Christians legitimized the use of morality legislation."

All men are created equal
-Declaration Independence & Gettysburg Address

Secular society has a collective desire to legalize abortion, why Christian citizens what to ban abortion. Why can't we let the states decide? I think it is wrong, and I'll vote against legalization of abortion. Voters can far more easily affect the decisions at a state level.

The states decide what to do, and the Federal government was a loose grouping of the states into a country.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
-Art XIV stat 1 clause 1


Would you like to play a game?

 

[DeadtoSin]

The separation of church and state doesn't apply to his ability to put something outside his office in my eyes. But lets run with your argument. Marriage is a tradition of the church. That being the case, the government should have no say in gay marriage. So even though all men are created equal, the church would have the right to say no to holding a gay marriage. The government should not regulate marriage of straight or gay couples. This should be a church issue due to your quotation of separation of church and state.

On the subject of the privileges we are getting into whether it is a womans right to choose. That is a completely different topic, and that would probably end up hijacking this one. Lets try to shy away from this point on both sides all together so we can stay on topic.

Separation of church and state
-Art I clause 1.



All men are created equal
-Declaration Independence & Gettysburg Address





No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
-Art XIV stat 1 clause 1


Would you like to play a game?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The separation of church and state doesn't apply to his ability to put something outside his office in my eyes. But lets run with your argument. Marriage is a tradition of the church. That being the case, the government should have no say in gay marriage. So even though all men are created equal, the church would have the right to say no to holding a gay marriage. The government should not regulate marriage of straight or gay couples. This should be a church issue due to your quotation of separation of church and state.

On the subject of the privileges we are getting into whether it is a womans right to choose. That is a completely different topic, and that would probably end up hijacking this one. Lets try to shy away from this point on both sides all together so we can stay on topic.

Marriage has everything to do with taxes so it has everything to do with government involvement and equal rights.

When a person is acting in the authority of a judge (or cop or teacher) then he is the government and the government cannot make an establishment of a religion.

When a woman has something happen to her body, she has the right to do whatever is in her best interest, not the best interest of a small sac of cells.

 

[snex]

Marriage has everything to do with taxes so it has everything to do with government involvement and equal rights.

ehh, this isnt necessarily the case. married couples who both work actually take a tax *hit* so if you both work, you are better off not being married. you only get tax benefits when you can count your spouse as a dependent (and those benefits are offset by the cost of having to pay for your spouse anyway). there is no reason you shouldnt be allowed to apply for dependency without "marriage."

everything that marriage does can be done by a private contract instead. this would negate silly laws like anti-polygamy laws since the contract would define the terms of the "marriage" instead of some lame attempt at our current one-size-must-fit-all marriage laws.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

What are you talking about? Other than the fact that the marriage tax has been temporarily repealed until 2011, the way the marriage tax was applied has more to do with how similar you and your spouses incomes are, not different. And beyond that, it also doesn't affect you if you file separately instead of jointly. Married people with dissimilar incomes generally enjoy a better tax situation than two single people who just live with each other. It is an obvious advantage to get married, from an economic (and therefore public) point of view.

 

[snex]

Married people with dissimilar incomes generally enjoy a better tax situation than two single people who just live with each other. It is an obvious advantage to get married, from an economic (and therefore public) point of view.

your second sentence does not follow from your first. it ignores the percentage of spouses with similar incomes, which i suspect will continue to rise as more women continue to enter the workforce and get equal pay to men.

it also ignores the cost of having a spouse with a much lower income than you. yes you get a tax break if your spouse makes a lot less, but you still have to buy stuff. will the tax break cover the extra amount of stuff that *you* have to buy because your spouse cannot afford it? doubtful.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

your second sentence does not follow from your first. it ignores the percentage of spouses with similar incomes, which i suspect will continue to rise as more women continue to enter the workforce and get equal pay to men.

What? The part where I say that you ignore this tax rule if you file separately instead of jointly? If you file jointly it become a combined total, but if you file separate it doesn't. Some might consider it a roundabout way of doing it, but it is a valid course to take.

it also ignores the cost of having a spouse with a much lower income than you. yes you get a tax break if your spouse makes a lot less, but you still have to buy stuff. will the tax break cover the extra amount of stuff that *you* have to buy because your spouse cannot afford it? doubtful.

If your spouse makes less than you and they were single instead, they would be able to afford less and live within their means. Your having more money than them and increasing there standard of living doesn't mean either of you get a free ride. One person's standard of living increases and the other decreases but you get a tax break so it doesn't decrease as much compared to living with a free loading friend who doesn't contribute at all and not getting a tax break on top of it (unless you merry your friend then you'd have more money because of tax break).

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

Wow this thread got off topic quite quickly.

In regards to the role of faith and politics, basically my stance is everything Jim Wallis says XD Read God's Politics or The Great Awakening to see what I mean.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

We are not off topic, we are discussing how marriage is both a political as well as faith based issue.

And I'm not going to read your books, I didn't come here to pick up homework. Instead of posting an empty entry telling us how much you agree with some books, you should instead be telling us what they books mean to you in your own words. Otherwise I just think you're some jerk who likes to show how smart they are by saying that they read a book sometime.

 

[Zombie Lucille Ball]

Wow the Debate Hall sure is a friendly place.

Jim Wallis' books are hardly ones you brag about reading in an internet forum, lol.
Basically Jim Wallis was one of the pastors that GW Bush called up once a week when he was first elected. Mr Wallis quickly dropped out of those calls and wrote God's Politics after Bush was re-elected in 2004, largely due to appealing to evangelical Christians on "moral issues". Wallis lays out exactly why the religious right is terribly wrong and downright dangerous. He now believes that the monopoly of the religious right is over, and democrats are finding their religious voice (and are no longer afraid to use it). But he believes it's peoples jobs to stay outside of the system and influence it from there (MLK jr is a favorite example). He would like to see candidates apply their faith towards their moral positions and policies. No longer exploiting it (republicans) or shunning it (democrats).

And no I do not work for Sojourners or Jim Wallis or anything... I just think they get it incredibly right.