Religion and Politics Don't Mix - Just ask Henry the 8th!
Posted: Friday, July 11, 2008
by LeahG Artist
Cartoon & Illustration Services
Religion and Politics do not mix for the simple reason that it can get in the way of what people want and if the state is listening to what people want and legislating accordingly then clearly religion is something that in these modern times has no place in Politics.
People want to live in 'sin' ie together without marriage, multiple sexual partners and so on.
Athiests believe in one less God than most religious people and yet they are looked down upon by those who deny all Gods except their own. Most religions as far as I can tell have similar moral codes, thus these are pretty much societal norms and any decent government is wise to heed them regardless of whether these codes are promoted under the umbrella of religion or not.
We all agree 'thou shalt not kill'
We all agree 'thou shalt honour they mother and father' and so on.
There is a lot of common ground there. This is where the emphasis should be rather than on any individual religion. Also settling for any specific religion would alienate much of the voting public and so not the wisest move for any wanabee candidate. Atheism is growing as are alternative religions. Selecting one above others to represent a Political view point could lead to accusations of discrimination.
Candidates who are religious would be wise to try not to let their beliefs affect their decision making. For example, should a Catholic Prime Minister/President decide to make abortion illegal the ramifications would be far reaching, despite the fact many of us believe this is immoral whether we be religious or not, we cannot legislate on a 'belief' when there are 'real life' factors which require serious consideration before any decision is made.
There are countries today that have Political systems based on religious beliefs, consider Sharia law in some Arab countries. Is this really the way we want to go?
LeahG Artist and Designer
Leah left the retail and health management world a few years ago to become a freelance writer and artist. She now enjoys creating funky vibrant cartoons and illsutrations for websites, promotional materials and as gifts. Leah would love to illustrate her own children's books in the future. Presently she is creating cartoon and cartoon mascots for business clients.
Visit LeahG's Cartoon and Illustration Services website here for updates and latest art work.
Leah left the retail and health management world a few years ago to become a freelance writer and artist. She now enjoys creating funky vibrant cartoons and illsutrations for websites, promotional materials and as gifts. Leah would love to illustrate her own children's books in the future. Presently she is creating cartoon and cartoon mascots for business clients.
Visit LeahG's Cartoon and Illustration Services website here for updates and latest art work.
This Article has been viewed 1,998 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsI'm the anonymous above, I forgot to log in.Hi David thanks for your comment
As you know doing right because you feel in your heart it is the right thing to do is very different to doing right because you fear going to hell. That said, anything which facilitates doing 'right' is no bad thing unless the rules you agree to follow are out of date or just plain wrong to begin with. Without the ability to discriminate from right and wrong yourself, things can go very awry.
You are in good company, I also forgot to log in! :)
Maintaining seperation of church and state is essential to maintaining a free society. I still marvel at people who think otherwise. Great article. Thanks for speaking out.Thanks Dan, glad you liked the article.
The first amendment says nothing about the separation of church and state. Read it!
Rev Michael BrescianiI am not American, but a look at Wikipedia re first amendment says the following:
The First Amendment to the US constitution is a part of the US Bill of rights that expressly prohibits the US Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the Establishment clause) or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the free exercise clause), etc
Continued response to the Rev.
The establishment clause is:
"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. "
According to wiki.
Wiki's good but it ain't no constitution!
Rev MB
Good article Leah. Writing is a freedom of expression, ideas and feelings; this piece is very thought provoking. Good Work. Kudos!!!!Thanks Roschelle, glad you liked it. Debate is pretty healthy too! :)
Hi Leah - I saw this article a while back but did not have much time then...so this is a bit late. I think the issues around politics-religion are so complicated that it is tempting to give up. The situation - and that's the key word, or context - of Henry VIII had to do with a Church mandated by the State. The Church had become a religious and political entity, with pressure points going back and forth between it and the king. The king used the church, and vice-versa. That kind of situation, where a leader or ruler could stranglehold the church or the church could try to do the same in reverse, is what the American founders strongly sought to avoid; they knew the persecutions that came out of any disagreement by a religious leader toward the king. Hence, beheadings and hangings and such.
Any society not influenced by religion or not having freedom of religion, such as former USSR, shows the effects. Without a belief in God, there is no basis for morals or ethics, which come from distinctions of good/bad. If there is a "higher good" ...from whom/where do moral or ethical distinctions come etc? Most of these interesting and important distinctions are very hard to express...so I'll stop there. Glad you opened up the discussion.
~ JaneHi Jane, thanks for the comments. I have to disagree you with regard to religion being the foundation of all things good and moral. There were good and moral people long before religion and there still are. The prisons aren't full of atheists afterall.
I am not anti religion and I do believe in God but I know many who do not and they are VERY good people and certainly better than some religious folk I know who despite praying regularly have very black hearts.
People are good and bad at the end of the day and have a dose of each in variable measure, some based on nature and some on nurture. But one thing we can be sure of and that is that religion doesn't make people good.
I don't know about Russia but there are many largely atheist European countries that have the best education, best health care and lowest crime rates in the world, so again, religion would not appear to be a necessary influence in good government.Hi, Leah - thanks for your response. One of many things I like about Searchwarp is the dialog that goes on. I look forward to reading your next article.
Have a good rest-of-the-weekend! ~Jane
I just did a quick Google and in 2000 there were more theist than atheist prisoners, and most the theists were C of E followed by Roman Catholic. Smaller % re the other religions, very much smaller.
The separation of church and state simply means thefreedom to practice any faith you choose. The state cannot impose one religion for the country and cannot persecute anyone for religious beliefs,including atheists' non-religious beliefs, Since America was founded by people who wanted topractice Christianity freely and some who just wanted to live in freedom, and Christianity teachesfree will to choose right from wrong with guidelines,We are not forced to practice Chritianity but as founding fathers we have the right to express our praisethen everyone agrees that is good,you don't have to follow those rules but unbelievers do not have the right totake down expression in a belief in a HigherBeing that brought Christian people here in the firstplace to enable us all to worship or not, in peace.(please scroll down further) I conclude at the endthat I don't mean to sound dictatorial, justexplainable. Ihope you get to read a few morecomments at the bottom.just be thankful that they are able to practice anyfaith freely without persecution , that is the meaning of separation church and state. Therefore the ex-pression of God on our coins or swearing an oath toGod on a Bible in a courtroom is not discriminationagainst different religions or atheism in America, it's a salute to a Higher Being in any belief or in oneselfinthe case of atheism. That is the trueist kind of respect. I don't mean to sound dictatorial, justexplainable.Thank you for your detailed comment, it is appreciated.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.