Use of religion for political gain (1 Viewer)

[malkin86]

Alot of people these days are more into pick-and-choose religion where they basically customise and create their own religion - freaks.

I'd call that as being a reaction against the rules of religions that don't make sense/aren't palatable to the individual person... That's how the most currently successful schisms started, one person haring off and doing their own thing, and convincing others to follow. (Lutherans, LDS, early Christianity, to name a couple). It's just that these 'freaks', as you say, don't seem to want to convince others to follow - although it's a fairly safe bet that they will influence their children.

And as for the alleged 'manipulation of religion' being wrong... The second that you parade yourself as having a label, be that 'lefty' or 'Christian' or 'atheist' or 'gamer' or '(fill in the blank)', people will start to make assumptions/shortcuts about you and your beliefs/lifestyle/(fill in the blank). When you back up their assumptions by talking about your label openly, that generally confirms their beliefs about you. It's an easy way to get the attention of the people who might not care about politics, but who do care about their faith - or at least that *someone* who has a similar religion is in power, and not 'those godless heathens'.

*points at the case of Peter Hollingworth's GG-ship* A scandal that broke when he gained a secular office followed him from the church. Does that mean that the separation of church and state is very important, or even impossible?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Perhaps it's a slight backlash against religion, however you'll usually find they choose to still belong in the category of christian but they just don't believe in hell or something like that.

 

[Rorix]

But then why do we holler from the hills (maybe not the hills. But like a soapbox) that 'church and state should not be together!!'

But no system is ever totally religious free. People think it has gone too far when people simply vote for someone simply because their religion says so. It is also based on the premise that religion is full of shit and shouldnt go anywhere near running a country.

AFAIK that is the way it has been taken for the large part in the US but freedom of religion does not necessarily mean that the state has no religious influences but there is no State endorsed religion.

It's ridiculous to say anyone who is not agnostic cannot be elected to government.

 

[Sarah]

There's always been an underlying element of religious influence in Aust history.

You only have to look back at the early laws (18th, 19th century) regarding drinking, gambling, recreational activities and the push for a temperance society.

As for the use of religion for political gain, well relgion influences one's beliefs, values and ethics. These in turn do influence people's agendas whether they be in politics or not.

It might sound like a calculated move to use relgion as a basis for politics but if u view relgion as "that which gives meaning", then it's hard to seperate politics and religion as both of them are essentially appealing to an individual's system of beliefs.

 

[LaraB]

AFAIK that is the way it has been taken for the large part in the US but freedom of religion does not necessarily mean that the state has no religious influences but there is no State endorsed religion.

It's ridiculous to say anyone who is not agnostic cannot be elected to government.

no one has said that...

there's a big difference between electing someone on the basis of their religion or your religion alone (eg a lot of the peopel who voted for family first of Christian democrats etc...) and a person in power being religious...

im agnostic and i dont think it matter if a person in power is religious as long as this does not form the basis for their election or policies... the argument is that religion and the state should not cause each other to act/omit an act... they can co-exist just shouldn'tt overlap

and besides...not agnostic includes atheists too... agnostics and atheists are very different and extreme atheists are just as mental as extreme religious individuals...

 

[malkin86]

Actually, there was a party, not sure at what level, whose pamphlets actually said 'vote for us, because we're Christians'! One person was trying to give them out *during* my French class... I can't remember what party they were, because the teacher promptly confiscated them for being a distraction. They were red and blue and had an Australian flag on them... which probably describes everyone's pamphlets, eh?

As for "as long as [their religion] does not form the basis for their election or policies" people are always going to be influenced by their religion, or lack thereof.. you can't help it. It takes a great statesperson to recognise the influence that their religion has on their policy-making, and to adjust their policy-making to not simply reflect their beliefs, but rather, those of their constituents.

Sarah, where did you get that definition of religion from? "that which gives meaning"?? I thought it was more "what people believe about God or gods, and how they worship God or gods"

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But Lara... If you're religious then of course your beliefs will often have influence over your beliefs or policies.

 

[Sarah]

Sarah, where did you get that definition of religion from? "that which gives meaning"?? I thought it was more "what people believe about God or gods, and how they worship God or gods"

My definition comes from 2u high school religion. I still remember it becuase it was a simple definition for what religion is

If you confine religion as beliefs based on God or Gods, then you limit your understanding as to what religion is. Afterall, if that's the case, then religions such as Buddhism and Shintoism wouldn't exist.

 

[malkin86]

Shinto has kami - Buddhism's just different.

 

[Rorix]

im agnostic and i dont think it matter if a person in power is religious as long as this does not form the basis for their election or policies... the argument is that religion and the state should not cause each other to act/omit an act... they can co-exist just shouldn'tt overlap

What NTB said.

 

[LaraB]

But Lara... If you're religious then of course your beliefs will often have influence over your beliefs or policies.

i said religion should not be the BASIS for policies decisinos etc...

there's a difference between something influencing you and something forming the basis/sole reason for virtually every decision you make...

 

[Monkey Butler]

Exactly - case in point, the gay marriage thing. The majority of opposition for gay marriage comes from a Christian point of view. Howard's "marriage is for making babies" was a thinly veiled "the Bible says it's wrong". Sorry, didn't want to get into that debate again, I just thought I'd agree with Lara.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i said religion should not be the BASIS for policies decisinos etc...

there's a difference between something influencing you and something forming the basis/sole reason for virtually every decision you make...

Yes Lara but christians honestly believe that gay marriage is wrong, it's their belief, even if perhaps they got the idea entirely from the bible it's still their staunch belief - do you really expect them to go against it?

 

[somechick]

In history of western civilisation, it has been the case for individuals to find meaning and order and structure in society. This is achieved through religion AND politics. You cannot separate religion from politics because they have always been interwined. Western society has its roots in ancient greece etc and can even go as far back as Ancient Egypt. What these governments did was structure their worlds around their religion. You give power to a minority group (a party) and have an unisigned contract which the individual expects to get protection and a sound way of life. Religion is that too, a way of life. So their definitions essentially, alike in some sense. Every nation has its history (for us its based on narratives of imperialism, conquest and social darwinism i guess), and it is only due the occurances of the 20th century (eg wars, nuclear age, terrorism) when things are being questioned and what we find is a way to try and resolve things to its most egalitarian and democractic. The problem is, that we still have the internal conflicts where religion is trying to bring things back to the past, and politics is trying to take things to the future. These binaries that we place on Religion and Politics simply dont work anymore. Perhaps its simply the case that religion and politics are like two helixes in the structure of civilisation, we can't escape from it, or try to structure/order them to neatly fit society.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

When does politics become politics and not a religious belief?
Alot of religious beliefs are humanist and have very little to do with anything spiritual, it is very plausable that someone could come to these beliefs without prescribing to a religion...

 

[LaraB]

When does politics become politics and not a religious belief?
Alot of religious beliefs are humanist and have very little to do with anything spiritual, it is very plausable that someone could come to these beliefs without prescribing to a religion...

not really...

every agnostic i know... ie humanists... all sa they don't believe that it is a 'religion'.. they simply use the word as people get what you mean better than if you say "the beliefs i choose to abide by" or whatever...

 

[LaraB]

Yes Lara but christians honestly believe that gay marriage is wrong, it's their belief, even if perhaps they got the idea entirely from the bible it's still their staunch belief - do you really expect them to go against it?

hmm...well...not all christians believe that,.... depends on your particular beliefs...

but still - i dont think you get what i'm saying...

yes it's fine if you believe that but say hypothetically an MP is propsing a bill which will outlaw gay marriages, they can't simply say its wrong because of xyz religious reasons... yes they may come abo9ut the idea of the bill for their religious reasons but they must support it with other proff eg impact on society, economic cost, etc...

ie - they can't propose the bill and say "you have to vote for it coz its religoius 'law'.. i mean yeah technically they could say that but no one would vote for it because religion isn't accepted as a BASIS for political decisions although it can be an influence upon it...

obviously they don't have to go against their rleigious belief just for the sake of keeping politi s secular - i mean, MP"S have a conscience vote in most cases etc... but if something is in the best interests of the nation eg going to war, i highly doubt MP's whose religious beliefs say to 'love your fellow man' etc will refuse...

and if 'religion' is the basis for political decisions - how do you explain parliament and each party getting around the fact that there are cathollics, protestants, muslims, agnostics, atheists, jehovahs, jews, etc etc etc all making up the collective political body? each of these gropus have different views and opinions.. many hate each other... some aim to convert everyone and those who don't are condemned... if religion was the basis for political decisions we would be in a totally anarchical state as there are so many conflicting religions and within these reliogions there are those who stick by all of it and those who pick and cohose and those who misinterpret it etc etc etc