babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Faith and Politics

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Faith and Politics
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 23 September 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Shattering the faith-politics taboo

quote:
IN Canada's Parliament, where [Preston Manning] sat as a member for nine years, there is an unwritten rule: "Don't raise matters of faith and religion here; keep them private, or confine them to places of worship."

I think of this article every time someone decides to villainize conservatives like Stockwell Day or GWB for being fundamentalist Christians.

Is it true that politician should completely supress spirituality and go against what they beleive in, or should our leaders make their decisions based on the convictions that they and their constituents hold?

There are many bad examples of theocracy, but then what about the USSR and their forced atheism?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 23 September 2003 06:48 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

I think of this article every time someone decides to villainize conservatives like Stockwell Day or GWB for being fundamentalist Christians.

I'll happily continue to vilify Bush for his fundamentalism because he opens the door himself. See the thread elsewhere on babble today about the way he's pushing his faith-based agenda through administrative fiat after it was already repudiated by congress.

Edited because I don't think villainize is actually a word.

[ 23 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 23 September 2003 06:57 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bush is easy to vilify in this regard because he doesn't do what Manning recommends.
quote:
For believers of all faiths, this will also mean learning to speak, live and act wisely and non-coercively at the interface of faith and politics, so as to be a credit to both their faith and the political process.
What's offensive is that he enacts his faith coercively in matters of public policy. It is the lean to institutionalized faith in politics that's offensive in Bush, not that Bush is a politician of faith. Having faith perspectives in the mix in making public policy decisions can be enlightening, but they should no more dominate the discussion than any other enlightening material.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 September 2003 02:43 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Is it true that politician should completely supress spirituality and go against what they beleive in, or should our leaders make their decisions based on the convictions that they and their constituents hold?

There are many bad examples of theocracy, but then what about the USSR and their forced atheism?


Politicians and indeed any person living in this country are all free to worship however they see fit, as long as it harms no one else (so human sacrifice is not in the cards).

The sharp break-point comes as soon as a politician, any politician makes statements or introduces policies that are either intended or have the side effect of favoring one religious faith over another as a matter of governmental policy.

What may seem innocuous to you, Mr. Draxon, may well not be so when one considers that an atheist would look askance on something like having churches directly administer government programs without simultaneous legal restrictions on the church's natural tendency to discriminate in favor of those of the same religious bent and to proselytize those who are not.

[ 24 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2003 03:06 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it fundamentally dishonest for a politician to utilize faith to get elected, then claim they are villanized or persecuted when those beliefs are met with justified critical analysis.

Many on the right, for example, thought it hypocritical that Trudeau was never attacked for this Catholic faith; nor Chretien his. But neither had overtly used faith to appeal to a segment of the population for political purposes. Their faith was private and it was left that way.

Not so Bush the younger and Stockwell Day. They get and got probably much less criticism than they deserve and deserved.

Another type of flagrant dishonesty is exemplified by a local M.P. here in London, Pat O'brien, on the ssm issue.

If Pat has objections over this, or any other legislation due to his religious beliefs, then those should be stated up front to the electorate.

If he is to adhere to the latest admonisions from the Vatican, then perhaps he should resign his seat and run under the Vatican Party of Canada.

I think in a free and democratic society no one should be stopped from using thier faith to guide them while hammering out legislation.

However, if some or many people think that formalized delusional thinking is a bad basis on which to formulate, or oppose legislation, then we are as free to think or say so, and it's fair game; niether villanizing or ad-hominem in the least.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 24 September 2003 05:11 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Doc -

quote:
Politicians and indeed any person living in this country are all free to worship however they see fit, as long as it harms no one else (so human sacrifice is not in the cards).

Awww - Now what am I supposed to do with my authentic Aztec SunGod alter? God damn it! .. er .. i mean, non-partisan unspecified supernatural being of your choice darn it. (hey - I may want to run for office some day. Can't be too carefull..)

hehe

I have to lean more with Doc and Tommie on this. A politician may have a faith or belief structure, but he also has a job. That job is supposed to be the unbias and impartial administration of the confederated rights and interests which have been placed in his/her care in trust by the people of the country. Regardless of belief, the politician must discharge their duties in this respect only. Their personal religious beliefs cannot enter into it. If a politician feels that they cannot, in good concience, fulfill this duty without offending their belief, they may step down or remove themselves from a vote etc.

As to russia - I hear what you're saying Gir, but remember that making the statement 'there is no god' is still making a statement about the nature of god. Therefore, it would be more fair to say that there was NOT an abscence of religious influence in russia, but rather an absolute position about god that was enforced unilaterally. If the russian state truely did not allow religious belief to influence them, they would not have had an opinion one way or another.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
rev biff mojo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4392

posted 24 September 2003 05:50 AM      Profile for rev biff mojo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On a slightly different topic, I understand there has been some consideration given to using faith based tactics for airport security. Large icons from all the religions of the world are placed in the inspection areas of airport's departure lounges. Before boarding, passengers are required to shriek the most obscene and unspeakable blasphemies at the icons. The idea here is to filter out anyone with designs of detouring the plane from Topeka to Eternal Paradise.

Why, I bet they will be re-issuing steak knife sets as customer rewards gifts within weeks!


From: mortal coil | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca