Religion in Politics and Government

Well, I had typed a long-ish opening paragraph, but screwed it up by clicking on AutoSave. :p

Suffice to say....I'm pretty fed up with the growing amount of religion in (US) politics. The Republican primaries have showcased this for all to see, but I don't see too many people saying it's bothersome. Why is that? :bulb:

There are more polls comparing Evangelicals to Catholics, how far the Bible belt reaches, more preachers and bishops using the pulpit to influence voting, more Christian conservative issues being discussed....and somehow, in all this mess, a sectarian government has been painted as a bad thing. :confused:

What do you think? What's the role of religion and "values voting" in politics/legislating? How do you know when it's gone too far and tipped into a form of theocracy instead of democracy?

Calling the US government a theocracy might be a bit farfetched, but countries heavily infested by religion is looked down upon by more atheist / agnostic countries. The logical explanation for that being that they have no connection whatsoever, and are more capable to screw things up through prejudice than actual goodwill.

You mean countries look down upon countries that are different from them? Novel insight there. Of course what you really mean is that countries with people different from you are worthy of being looked down upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland

Calling the US government a theocracy might be a bit farfetched, but countries heavily infested by religion is looked down upon by more atheist / agnostic countries. The logical explanation for that being that they have no connection whatsoever, and are more capable to screw things up through prejudice than actual goodwill.

---

I dunno, Sweden's one of the world's most secularised countries and prejudice seems to be thriving here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Well, I had typed a long-ish opening paragraph, but screwed it up by clicking on AutoSave. :p

Suffice to say....I'm pretty fed up with the growing amount of religion in (US) politics. The Republican primaries have showcased this for all to see, but I don't see too many people saying it's bothersome. Why is that? :bulb:

---

Because it's actually been shrinking since the early-to-mid '90s and not growing? You might be noticing it more now, can't begin to comment on whether that's an accurate perception or not, but if it is it's because the ebb tide is making a particular wave more visible. Well, that and how everything is more visible as continue with this "Information Age."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Because it's actually been shrinking since the early-to-mid '90s and not growing? You might be noticing it more now, can't begin to comment on whether that's an accurate perception or not, but if it is it's because the ebb tide is making a particular wave more visible. Well, that and how everything is more visible as continue with this "Information Age."

---

Yes, everything is more visible now since digital media and social networking. It seems more extreme since 2001, with the wave of anti-Muslim sentiments in particular, after 9/11. The political atmosphere grew more polarized, and by '08 some were claiming Obama was secretly a Muslim, the Rev. Wright thing turned into "who qualifies as a Christian", and even Romney was declared a cultist by the Republican Christian conservatives. McCain wasn't able to keep the rhetoric out of debates, or a religious litmus test by 'the base', and that partly explains why Palin was chosen as his running mate. Then (R) like Bachmann capitalized on the Tea Party, and combined religious and political "fundamentalism" together. By the 2010 elections, some of the first legislation was based on birth control/Planned Parenthood, and sexuality in general, with a distinct religious bend. :bulb:

From DOMA to DADT, Prop 8 in CA, some 30 states banning same-sex marriage, bills introduced to define Personhood or redefine rape...to moral conscience challenges to the ACA, the Blunt amendment, religious groups getting candidates to sign promises of pro-life and hetero marriage agendas...outlawing Sharia law, protesting Park 51, denying permits to build mosques or Islamic centers...and everything in between.

I don't think it's just my perception that religious-based legislation on things like women's healthcare/birth control/abortion has dramatically increased in the last few years. (Pretty sure I posted some charts in other threads for comparison.) And, of course, now the topic of marriage as a civil right for all, or an exclusive status based on religion is all the buzz. The RNC head has stated their party doesn't see this as a civil rights issue, while Catholic bishops, church pastors, and legislators are combining politics and religions in ways that make me very uncomfortable. :sour:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I dunno, Sweden's one of the world's most secularised countries and prejudice seems to be thriving here.

---

Prejudice in law is institutional discrimination, though. Laws that protect minority groups from discrimination are meant to ensure everyone has the same right to equal treatment, under the law, and can take a grievance to court. Sometimes that leads to cultural changes over time...like accepting interracial marriage as a norm instead of anathema.

Seems to me the American Fundamental Christian Conservatives are complaining about legislation that will change the importance of their values, or they're fearful of "social engineering" that will legalize/legitimize something anti-thetical to their religious beliefs. :hmm:

Non-Protestants were heavily discriminated against until at least the 1960s...Abortion was illegal until the 1970s. Homosexuality was a crime in many states even past the '70s. Atheism was far less acceptable than today as recently as the 1990s. So I don't know which world you lived in before...

At one time slavery was legal, blacks were 3/5 of a human, and women couldn't vote. What's your point, Loki?

We live in a post-Civil Rights society now. Public schools can't begin the day with a Christian prayer, teachers can't use the Bible to teach science, and theories of evolution can't be replaced with theories of intelligent design. That doesn't mean today's political process isn't infused with religious-based agendas from the extreme right-wing.

No idea what world you've been living in during this election cycle....where the Republican party ceded to CPAC-Values Voters-AFC and Christian Conservatives. Santorum felt like puking on JFK's speech about separation of church and state. Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich spent months trying to convince primary/caucus voters they were the true Christian Conservative to lead the Republican party....even painting Huntsman and Romney as "posers". And where did Romney choose to make a commencement speech, after he was the presumed nominee? Liberty University. :rolleyes:

This isn't like the older GOP that had a smallish but vocal faction of religious Moral Majority leaders to appease, and incorporated them into the larger party that not only included secular fiscal conservatives and ideological 'moderates', but kept the religious zealots at bay. No, this is a new iteration of politicians who court voters based on religious affiliation FIRST. The new GOP = Grand Old Preachers. Log Cabin, pro-chioice, libertarian-leaning, non-Christian or secular ideologues have been given an impossible "choice" in Republican party politics.

Those "choices" are being used in/by the Democratic party, too. Things like Prop 8 pitted Bible thumpers against the black community *and Catholic Hispanics*, religion vs culture, and used a ballot initiative to enact discriminatory law against a minority. Current issues of sexuality and sexual orientation are being used by religious groups as a referendum on their religion instead of human or civil rights.

You admitted as much when debating whether blacks would vote based on affiliations of race or religion, and which ideology would trump the other. All you have to do is look at today's 'collection' of church sermons, to see how insidious Religiosity has become. :donkey:

A better question is what's your point? In case you haven't noticed, my point addressed your rationale for having this thread. Of course, you seem to have forgotten what your own thread was about (allegedly a larger role for religion in public life) and moved on to your next tangent. :bored:

And newsflash: just because people are whining about something doesn't mean they're doing something about it. And "influence" implies something actually getting done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

A better question is what's your point? In case you haven't noticed, my point addressed your rationale for having this thread. Of course, you seem to have forgotten what your own thread was about (allegedly a larger role for religion in public life) and moved on to your next tangent. :bored:

---

Fuzzy acknowledged the "rationale" for this thread. It's based on a perspective, and comparing it to historical contexts. Your "point" didn't address any of the open-ended questions in the OP, and you didn't use the opportunity to give your own perspective of religion in politics or government. No, all you've done so far is make a snarky comment to Kaz, and then to me.

Look, if the "rationale" for your posts is nothing more than snide comments aimed at other posters, your POV on the topic and issue goes missing. We already know you have a pretty low opinion of me, and many other members here. But you haven't done much to explain your own opinion on the topic, turn it into any type of persuasive discussion, let alone defend your disagreements. Talk about tangents. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

And newsflash: just because people are whining about something doesn't mean they're doing something about it. And "influence" implies something actually getting done.

---

Yeah, religion in politics and government is nothing more than people whining about some thing or other, and trying to influence legislation by whining the loudest. None of it really matters in Intro to Poli-Sci with Dr. Loki. :donkey:

GGT, the evangelical vote - let alone that of Catholics - is far more complex than you realize. See here: http://www.economist.com/node/21554201

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You mean countries look down upon countries that are different from them? Novel insight there. Of course what you really mean is that countries with people different from you are worthy of being looked down upon.

---

No, I really think atheists have more sound arguments than Chistians. Facts triumph faith.

You mean being an atheist in itself make you more objective on all issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazuha Vinland

No, I really think atheists have more sound arguments than Chistians.

---

On which issues??? :confused:

Absolutely! As an atheist myself, I feel qualified to make this judgment. I am objective as fuck.

Atheism, Fuck Yeah! :o

Do not begrudge those you left behind, just because you found a sour taste in your own mouth... Or was it not objectivity you were weeping after earlier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Absolutely! As an atheist myself, I feel qualified to make this judgment. I am objective as fuck.

---

The problem is that while you might be objective, there are plenty of people out there being unobjective, irrational morons, who also happen to be atheists, simply because more people are being raised without religion, not because they've arrived at the conclusion through logic, skepticism, and introspection. I know you were probably making a joke, but I'm also using this to point out to Kazuha Vinland that stupidity and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

There are also plenty of atheists who became atheists for "the wrong reasons" (the religious doctrine of religion x can't explain something important, therefore God doesn't exist). It's quite likely that atheists are overrepresented among top thinkers, but there is no short supply of dumb atheists.

Over, he says.

Rule #12. :(

Quite frankly, I'd be more concerned about someone who believes in astrology or some new age mysticism than a theist who doesn't take their religion too literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Rule #12. :(

Quite frankly, I'd be more concerned about someone who believes in astrology or some new age mysticism than a theist who doesn't take their religion too literally.

---

I've found homeopathy to be more dangerous.

I'd throw that in with the new age mysticism. Don't see how they're any better than Christian Scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Fuzzy acknowledged the "rationale" for this thread.

---

Don't start that. Don't twist what I said and put words in my mouth to try and make it sound like I'm on the same page as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Rule #12. :(

Quite frankly, I'd be more concerned about someone who believes in astrology or some new age mysticism than a theist who doesn't take their religion too literally.

---

Careful there, you're offending Saint Reagan...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Don't start that. Don't twist what I said and put words in my mouth to try and make it sound like I'm on the same page as you.

---

Next you'll tell her to use logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'd throw that in with the new age mysticism. Don't see how they're any better than Christian Scientists.

---

There are plenty of educated people who are naive to the fact that homeopathic medicine is a sham, or why its a sham (ridiculous levels of dilution, like cures like, etc).

Being educated doesn't necessarily make you smart or knowledgeable. It certainly doesn't mean you'd be knowledgeable about areas outside of your immediate interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Being educated doesn't necessarily make you smart or knowledgeable. It certainly doesn't mean you'd be knowledgeable about areas outside of your immediate interests.

---

Most educated people wouldn't be fooled by people saying crystals, magnets, holograms, or my socks have mystical/spiritual powers, but they might purchase a product called Lovarum* that bills itself as a cure for an upset stomach if it was sold in the same store that sells drugs, or even the same aisle that sells actual medicine.


* I made this name up. Not an actual drug or homeopathic product.

There's a Ph.D. physicist here who regularly preaches against evolution (and for creationism). :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's a Ph.D. physicist here who regularly preaches against evolution (and for creationism). :p

---

Oh, I have a fun game. Ask him if he'll agree to give you a penny this week, and each subsequent week here-after give you twice what he gave you the week before. If he declines because he realizes he'll eventually be giving you millions of dollars, state that this is untrue, small incremental changes over time never amount to major changes. Its only a theory that he'll be giving you millions of dollars, and we can't be certain unless we observe it with our own eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

There are plenty of educated people who are naive to the fact that homeopathic medicine is a sham, or why its a sham (ridiculous levels of dilution, like cures like, etc).

---

There are a lot of things like that. You don't actually need science or facts to convince people of things, just sciencey or facty sounding words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Oh, I have a fun game. Ask him if he'll agree to give you a penny this week, and each subsequent week here-after give you twice what he gave you the week before. If he declines because he realizes he'll eventually be giving you millions of dollars, state that this is untrue, small incremental changes over time never amount to major changes. Its only a theory that he'll be giving you millions of dollars, and we can't be certain unless we observe it with our own eyes.

---

That follows logical rules from which it's easy to extrapolate. The heavy random factor in evolution is what throws a lot of the more educated people I've met who question it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Oh, I have a fun game. Ask him if he'll agree to give you a penny this week, and each subsequent week here-after give you twice what he gave you the week before. If he declines because he realizes he'll eventually be giving you millions of dollars, state that this is untrue, small incremental changes over time never amount to major changes. Its only a theory that he'll be giving you millions of dollars, and we can't be certain unless we observe it with our own eyes.

---

For the record, that's a horrible analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

For the record, that's a horrible analogy.

---

1) I'm terrible with analogies
2) Its just meant to deal with micro vs macroevolution that people like this sometimes bring up, not all of evolution.

The point is that your analogy is not representative of microscale or macroscale evolution. Doubling something (a 100% increase) is hardly a 'small' change; evolution happens on the base-pair level, which even for the smallest of genomes is a very small percentage change indeed. It is somewhat more analogous (if we had to use a monetary analogy) to compound interest on a bank account - say, a 1% increase every year. If you asked your same intelligent person if they'd take out a loan with 1% interest for a fairly nominal sum, they might readily agree because the overall payment will be relatively small... and thus miss your point about evolution after all.

Even that analogy is flawed, though, since evolution is largely about accumulation and selection rather than compounding. Let's just stick to actual arguments rather than analogies, shall we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

The point is that your analogy is not representative of microscale or macroscale evolution. Doubling something (a 100% increase) is hardly a 'small' change; evolution happens on the base-pair level, which even for the smallest of genomes is a very small percentage change indeed. It is somewhat more analogous (if we had to use a monetary analogy) to compound interest on a bank account - say, a 1% increase every year. If you asked your same intelligent person if they'd take out a loan with 1% interest for a fairly nominal sum, they might readily agree because the overall payment will be relatively small... and thus miss your point about evolution after all.

---

I would have used this, and realized the same thing about doubling, but Loki isn't Philip J Fry.

Quote:

---

Even that analogy is flawed, though, since evolution is largely about accumulation and selection rather than compounding. Let's just stick to actual arguments rather than analogies, shall we?

---

Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Don't start that. Don't twist what I said and put words in my mouth to try and make it sound like I'm on the same page as you.

---

I didn't mean to suggest that you were. Only that perspective matters, which you acknowledged.

It's still my impression that a large number of bills/laws being introduced are based on a particular type of Fundamental Christianity at their root. Whether it's pressure from Southern Baptist Coalition, Family Research Council, Catholic bishops, etc. They may have different views on the role of government vs church, but their agendas still revolve around sex/sexuality, family planning/birth control/abortion, and marriage as defined by their religious beliefs.

Some fundamentalists take their Give-a-Fish or Teach-to-Fish deep into politics and legislating -- education, healthcare, welfare, safety nets -- and take it to extremes. Too deep and too extreme for my personal preference. Example: defunding Meals On Wheels for elderly or shut-ins, on the belief that churches or charities can do it better, provide for everyone who needs the service, and it shouldn't be part of tax dollar budgets.

Thanks for the link, wiggin. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I didn't mean to suggest that you were. Only that perspective matters, which you acknowledged.

---

No. Perception is hard to dispute, since it is subjective and fairly personal. I said I wasn't in a position to argue about how you perceived things.