Should Religion Matter in Politics?

[rug]

by Derek Beres
about 9 hours ago

Donald Trump is not the only person surprised by Ben Carson’s recent surge in national polls, which has propelled the former neurosurgeon into first place in the GOP race. In an election year poised to champion an ‘outsider,’ Carson’s seemingly calm collectedness sounds like a breath of fresh air to Trump’s erratic tirade of complaints and boasts.

Underneath Carson’s cool façade resides an apocalyptic fervor, however. While it comes out sedated and matter-of-factly, his philosophy is informed by his faith: Seventh-Day Adventism was founded on the notion of a pending End Times. Such musings have trickled out during Carson’s speeches, raising more than one inquisitive ear.

Separating religion from politics is as fanciful a notion as removing church from state. As a nation we have accomplished a great deal relative to certain nations, yet to others it’s laughable how deeply woven religious sentiments are in our politics. Given the outright religiosity of crusades against same-sex marriage and abortion rights, we have to question if we can ever truly separate our religious philosophy with our moral and political ones.

As religion professor Stephen Prothero argues in Religious Literacy, America is an exceedingly religious nation in terms of belief, yet sadly lacking in terms of religious education. Forget about knowing much about other religions, it seems that Americans know very little about our own traditions. As he writes,

Only half of American adults can name even one of the four Gospels.

Only one-third know that Jesus…delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

Most Americans don’t know that Jonah is a book in the Bible.

A majority of Americans wrongly believe that the Bible says that Jesus was born in Jerusalem.

http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/should-religion-matter-in-politics

[Igel]

1. Whatever people think is important in politics matters in politics.

That can be religion, race, language, or dietary preferences.

And to the extent that candidates think something's important--color of their ties (or scarves), whether to use a mic or not, whether to start a speech by saying "Hi," "Good evening," or "Whipply-doodly-ding-dong-SQUEE!!!"--that matters precisely to the extent voters think it matters.

Well, "voters" as defined by the media, which often means "media folk, including reporters and pundits."

Oh, wait, "pundit" is a religious term. Can't use that. Well, maybe, since it's not a Xian religious term.

[rug]

2. Whatever people think matters in politics is not always what's driving it.

[Yorktown]

7. Care to explain that sentence?

Whatever people think matters in politics is not always what's driving it.

[rug]

10. Nope. It's pretty clear.

[Yorktown]

17. Apparently not

[rug]

18. The subjective is not the objective.

Sorry you're having difficulty.

[Yorktown]

19. Still doesn't clarify what you originally meant

Sorry you're having difficulty clarifying.

[immoderate]

3. I think it should — unless it would lead to the wrong outcome.

--imm

[rurallib]

4. the four gospels:

Groucho
Chico
Harpo
Zeppo

[rug]

15. Don't forget the lost Gospel of Gummo.

[longship]

5. Two words: Article VI!

That is what the law says. Period. Done deal. No more debate about this.

Religion and politics is, and always has been, a toxic mix, which is something the founders knew and what today's theocratic GOP does not.

Makes me sick!

[rug]

11. Yup.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[longship]

12. Thank goodness that you've got my back, rug.

And I'll try to have yours. Even though that may disagree about religion.

As an a lifelong atheist I am not a lifelong asshole. I have many friends who are believers, and non-believers, and anywhere in between.

Rug, you are one of the good ones. Always happy to support your posts.

[rug]

13. Thanks, longship.

Accurate information is to discussion what bullshit is to disruption.

[longship]

14. Well put, my friend.

[Brettongarcia]

21. No gov test. But you can vote your preference

If you couldn't, you wouldn't have freedom of religion.

[NonMetro]

6. Ben Carson Believes The Earth Is 6,000 Years Old

His dismisses the science of climate change and says "God" is in control. So, well one's religion shouldn't matter in politics, I guess it does.

[Cartoonist]

8. Religion should not matter in politics.

Religion should not matter in education.
Religion should not matter in economics.
Religion should not matter in science.
Religion should not matter in anything outside of religion.

Until you can prove the existence of God, religion should be confined to the world of make believe and kept out of real world matters.

Religion should be regarded as a mill stone around the neck of humanity that defeats progress and creates war and oppression.

[Jim__]

9. Yes, it matters.

I may not vote for someone because they held certain religious beliefs. For instance, I might vote for a pacifist for city, state, or county office, but not for federal office - I realize pacifism can be a philosophical rather than a religious belief, but it is a tenet of certain religions. Also, I would not vote for someone who looks forward to the Battle of Armageddon.

To a certain extent, the personal beliefs of anyone who is running for political office matter.

[stone space]

32. I will vote (and have in the past voted) for a pacifist for President.

I may not vote for someone because they held certain religious beliefs. For instance, I might vote for a pacifist for city, state, or county office, but not for federal office - I realize pacifism can be a philosophical rather than a religious belief, but it is a tenet of certain religions.

[Angry Dragon]

16. nope

[Brettongarcia]

20. Belief in the End makes it happen

A president who wants the Apocalypse, because he thinks his religion comes out on top. With his finger on the launch button.

That is the scariest thing I've heard in a very long time.

Watch out. Belief in the End may be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[rug]

23. Except there is an end. It is the nature of things.

Cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante, in terras.

"What once sprung from the earth sinks back into the earth."

Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Book II, line 999.


Granted, he also said this more than two thousand years ago:

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

"Only religion can lead to such evil."

Book I, line 101


Yet, all things do end.

[Brettongarcia]

30. So you don't care about causing an apocalypse?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I don't believe this.

I don't for a moment believe that only half of American adults can name even one of the Gospels (although I can well believe that you could produce a poll that appeared to show that).

[rug]

24. The same can probably be said for a Shakespeare play.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Only half of Shakespeare plays can name at least one of the gospels?

I suspect more Americans cannot name a Shakespeare play than cannot name a Gospel, but even there, I doubt it's near 50%.

[PATRICK]

28. Off the subject but

Shakespeare is required reading most high schools? When theater was the only public diversion it was a staple but not in schools and not with the general readership- of the literate that is. And how much education sloughs off the uninterested mind over the years? The most church going nation sleepwalks through Sunday this much or are denied the simple facts during the drawn out services?

Key values, embarrassing to ANY establishment are downplayed or swiftly rationalized into pablum. Most youth "fall away" for decades until time to put their children into the short gentle gentle cycle of the traditional package. In America, most churches sort of weed out "disturbing" ministers while finding nice looking weed patches to cultivate to the point of actual moral heresy(the highest more than the sexual mores). I know generally good congregations don't seem that bad, but it is a good thing the most common prayer includes a plea not to be tested.

What matters to most points to the predominance of money fear above all. Generosity is a carefully restrained, regulated virtue overall. In politics any demagoguery or revolution rises or falls on the state of money. Ironically the blindness created by fixating on lower or evil values(outright hate or joy in the misery of others) defeats the interests of the money devotee as much as with an addicted gambler returning to the guaranteed loss. One is never quite sure on the moral plain but money is an absolute god of our own making. We always lose in the end. No wonder the number two consolation/distraction is fantasy denial/scapegoating.

Seeing what happens to ordinary people when just a bit of extra power or money is cast their way is to witness someone re-baptized in acid. Few if any at all escape the moral wounding that goes with working thence to grow or maintain personal possession. The boundary skin can be very thin indeed. Regaining power through religion for some still be part of the same moral vulnerability, the same bad transformation. In a sea of money, a lot of people can be islands.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. In my High School, the only required Shakespeare play was Romeo and Juliet, and that was

a college prep course. It was sad.

Worst of all, we took turns going around the class, each student reading out loud 2-5 pages at a time. There were about 3 of us capable of doing it without completely tripping over every third word. Out of a class of 23.

If there is a hell, one entire circle of it consists of very loud demons butchering Shakespeare from platforms on the walls.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

33. But Shakespearean plays aren't used to justify bigotry, homophobia, misogyny and violence

The comparison is ridiculous - you don't see people justifying lower pay for women simply because of the behavior of Regan and Goneril in King Lear. Or people justifying the banning of marriage between disparate groups of people because of the Romeo and Juliet tragedy. I didn't see the Paris attacks this week being attributed to some obscure passage from Macbeth, and the idea that that would happen is as ridiculous as your inappropriate analogy between the Bible and Shakespearean fiction.

The only similarity between the Bible and Shakespearean plays is the fact that they're both fiction - one a badly written and horribly inaccurate and inconsistent "historical" record, the other a group of compelling and thought-provoking missives on human nature and the weaknesses inherent in humans. I'd posit that Shakespeare does a far better job of illustrating the human condition than the cobbled together book of inconsistent and bloody goatherd myths from the stone age that is the Bible.

Plus, Shakespeare's writings aren't seen as "the infallible word of God", and there aren't cults, sects and religions springing up to impose a bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, and violent brand of religion based on his writings.

In one I see a large amount of value (Shakespeare), while the other (the Bible) arguably provides a net-negative influence on science, the arts, and humanity in general. We'd be better off without the Abrahamic religions, but the loss of Shakespeare would be a blow to our collective knowledge of humanity and the arts.

Again, the comparison is ridiculous, and provides a false equivalence that I think was intentional on your part. Debate and argument are okay, and make up most of the dialog in the Religion group, but when one argues in bad faith and with inapt and inappropriate analogies, which I think you're doing, it's clear that your tactics aren't to further the conversation, but to muddy the waters with false analogies.

These are fairly well know tricks from one-line response apologists, and I suspect I know for which sect you're acting as an apologist , although I won't spell it out because most regulars here know which direction your allegiance lies. (as an aside, it's amazing how many non-Progressive ideas are defended by you on a regular basis, simply because your allegiance lies with your homophobic, misogynistic religion rather than with the general values of Humanism, most of which are supporting pillars of Progressive thought).

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. Jury results

It speaks from beyond the grave...

On Sat Nov 14, 2015, 01:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

But Shakespearean plays aren't used to justify bigotry, homophobia, misogyny and violence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=217428

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

He's gone from rebutting the post to attacking the poster, with no more than baseless accusations of defending "non-Progressive ideas".

Read what he's replying to. It's clear he's unloading whatever personal animus he's been nurturing. This is what makes DU suck.

"Again, the comparison is ridiculous, and provides a false equivalence that I think was intentional on your part. Debate and argument are okay, and make up most of the dialog in the Religion group, but when one argues in bad faith and with inapt and inappropriate analogies, which I think you're doing, it's clear that your tactics aren't to further the conversation, but to muddy the waters with false analogies.

These are fairly well know tricks from one-line response apologists, and I suspect I know for which sect you're acting as an apologist , although I won't spell it out because most regulars here know which direction your allegiance lies. (as an aside, it's amazing how many non-Progressive ideas are defended by you on a regular basis, simply because your allegiance lies with your homophobic, misogynistic religion rather than with the general values of Humanism, most of which are supporting pillars of Progressive thought)."


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Nov 14, 2015, 01:15 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This isn't what makes DU suck.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow up, alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The writer is entitled to make assumptions about the background of the other writer.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The post was just fine, right up to the last paragraph where he launched into a very nasty personal attack on Rug, for little reason that I can see in this thread.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pompous and self-satisfied, but not hideworthy as I see it.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster makes valid points but does devolve into personal attacks...too bad

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cleanhippie]

35. What makes DU suck are frivolous alerts by posters on forced vacations.

[Lordquinton]

37. To be fair, it's the only way he can reply

How do you alert on an alert? That was clearly someone trying to get around a timeout.

[goldent]

38. Don't people come to DU for the alerts?

I know I do. The fact that they are hidden, but you can still peak always cracks me up.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I can't imagine being so obsessed with DU

that after getting kicked out yet again for violating community standards I would sit at my keyboard desperately searching for anything that could possibly be twisted into a hide-worthy post from one of those here I've convinced myself are out to get me.

It must be a very bitter experience. Perhaps instead a time out would be better spent not reading du. Take up an offline hobby? Crochet?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Shitty alerts by vacationing DU'ers is what makes DU suck.

Although the 0-7's sometimes provide some amusement.

[tk2kewl]

26. yes, in that...

An educated electorate should reject any cadidate that invokes their religion as a reason for electing them

[Brettongarcia]

31. Yes, a president should know about government

More than religion.

Or for that matter, more than brain surgery.

We know that a president wouldn't necessarily make a good brain surgeon. So why do we think a neurosurgeon like Ben Carson, would make a good president?

He'd be a disaster running our government. You actually need long experience in - guess what - government and international relations.

[willvotesdem]

27. Yes what ever your superstitions are if you actually believe them are important.

Lying about your mainstream religious beliefs SEEMS to be prevalent in American politics. You can really only tell by a persons actions not what they say or how often they go to their place of worship.

[rug]

29. You can't tell much by what they post on the internet either.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Only indirectly.

Attitudes to women's rights, gay rights, abortion, the death penalty, freedom of speech etc, should matter in politics.

Those things are heavily influenced by religion.

But religious self-identification should not matter directly.