![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another."
-- John C. Danforth, Episcopal Minister, former United States senator from Missouri, and former United States ambassador to the United Nations.
(no subject)
no, its quite easy.
the true cause of Christ's teachings is not "never do this" and never has been. This puts Jesus's approach completely at odds with the approach of the Torah or some parts of the Koran.
Learn how to choose, learn the consequences of the choice on yourself and on others around you, make the wise choice that may be against the crowd ("strive to enter by the narrow gate").
the approach of the fundies is to limit choice. the approach of Christ is to educate people on the power of choice so that they may CHOOSE the right thing.
its as simple as that.
yes, things get complicated when one person's choices affect another in ways to which the other has little to no say (abortion, "pulling the plug"), but there you go.
Now I can advocate for "choice" and at the same time strongly push people to "choose life".
but that is entirely different from taking away their choice.
that is not and never shall be a right granted to me by the government or by God. God grants me the liberty of choice, the same he grants all. To remove choice from others is to go against God's will.
(no subject)
Silly thing to say. Every political view is divisive be it religious or secular or what ever.. I mean consider Communism vs Capitalism.. We almost destoryed the world over that one and it had nothing to do with religion.
(no subject)
Realize that "Godless Communists" was an emotional hot-button. Because the Communists outlawed the practice of religion and suppressed it violently, it was seen as modern-day persecution of religion... and NOTHING stirs the faithful to action better than their faith getting trampled on. Why, if they ever won, and took over the U.S., they'd abolish religion.
Since the fall of Soviet communism, politicians have painted several other issues as "opposed to Christianity" or "threatening decent morality everywhere". The teaching of evolution and the simple tolerance for queer sexualities are two of the modern favorites. But back in the day, the threat of Communism eclipsed them both.
(no subject)
Fact is to say religion is the MOST divisive is to be ignorate and anti-religion. Ignorate since many conflicts have been base not in faiths but in race or tribe or nation. Germany attack France and they were both Christian nations. Iraq attacked Iran and they are both Muslim nations. The list is endless. To try to lay all the troubles of the world on the people who has faith is a very hateful and narrow minded thing to do.
Sure religion is divisive. But no more then anything else is. If you can only get one type of milk and you have three people asking for different kinds of milk then the milk becomes divisive. If you are trying to build houseing for the poor and the only place you can build it is in a nature preserve then nature is divisive or the poor are. If oil supplys run low then the oil becomes divisive. I could go on all day.
(no subject)
Communism is both a political AND economic system. The economic aspect had nothing to do with religion, but the political one sure did. It's not Communism Vs Capitalism you should be pointing to. It's Communism Vs Democracy.
(no subject)
In the USA you can talk to any two Christians and you will get a wide range of views. Their are Christians as liberal as you are. There are Christian far more conservative then myself. People united over causes not over banners. Not all who oppose abortion or homosexual marriage are christians or even conservatives.
The Conflict with Communism vs Capitalism had NOTHING to do with religion but was a conflict of government forms. While in such a conflict people looked for support from any number of sources including invoking religion. But all because someone say God is against them does not mean that was the reason for the conflict.
Like it or not religion isn't the MOST divisive of issues. Put four people on a raft and one peace of bread and you will quickly learn the food can be far more Divisive. I would say the MOST divisive things are resources... oil, water, food, shelter, etc. Second most would be property issues... law, land, property, jobs, etc. Third would be power issues.. speech, voting rights, type of government, etc.. The last divisive would be beliefs... religion, role of government, colthing, etc.
(no subject)
I said Capitalism doesn't have anything to do with freedom of religion. Capitalism is about economics. Democracy has to do with freedom of religion.
If you frame it as "Capitalism Vs Communism", youre right. But that's not what it was all about.
Democracy Vs Communism was absolutely about religion (and lots of other freedoms too, but religion was primary for the opposition to it here). The Religious right in this country were the most rabid anti-communists we had, and coined the term "Godless Communists". The communists banned religions. All of them. People had to practice in secret.
Their economic practices had nothing to do with how they treated religions.
Just look at China if you want an example of what I mean. Progressive Economics but just ask the Dali Llama and Falun Gong what they think of their religious freedoms they enjoy under the one party "communist" state.
(no subject)
But the other half about it being a religious conflict I disagree. The differances were no over religion but degree of freedom. Yes, that did cross over in to religion, but that is the the reason just some of those covered under freedom. It could be just as justly said that a free press was the reason, or freedom to assemble, or protest, etc. The differance was not religion but degree of freedom.
But the qoute of the thread mentioned the the divisive nature of religion and put it in such wording as to suggest that religion was "the most divisive" which I thing is greatly wrong.
(no subject)
Freedom of Speech, Assembly et al, torked off the liberals here. Freedom of Religion torked off the Conservatives alot, but not as much as the presumption that the State was G_d, which was pretty much in the Soviet Constitution.
Religion I think was #2. #1 was the Marxist Doctrine that the workers shall violently overthrow the ruling class as a matter of inevitability. Basically Marx had said "The Commies are Gonna Get You", and by definition, they werent going to work through democracy.
(no subject)
See we can come to agreement sometimes.
Still there are many out there that feel if only they had organized the socialistic society then it would have truely worked. Communism is far from a dead issue and sneaks around with titles like socialism and such.
I like the Democratic system.. sure it isn't always fair or perfect but it give us the ablitiy to change when we learn it is going wrong.
(no subject)
To a certain degree I agree with this. I think it doesn't come down so much to one religion or another, or even one political outlook or another. But rather what is one's worldview, and is one politically active. People act on their worldviews. If my worldview is one where I believe social justice is everyone's business, and that government should lead the way with it, it matters not whether that worldview comes from my Chritianity and Christ's focus on helping the poor, or from my secular, liberal upbringing. You can label me one thing or another, but when the rubber hits the road it is the worldview that drives my opinions and actions, not my "label".
"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement."
Again, I agree to a certain extent. Even if the "religion" is secular humanism. But on the other hand, our political parties SHOULD reflect our worldviews. Else why would we support them? The Democrats have power because those of similar mind support and vote for them. Same with Republicans.
Is that not the heart of Democracy?
"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment."
Perhaps. But the definition of "carrying out a religious program" will differ wildly depending on who you talk to. To those who have the worldview that said program supports, it is only the logical, right thing to do, not necessarily a specific religious agenda hiding in a back room plotting to take over the country. To those who do not share that worldview, it is obvious to them that the program is religious in nature and ther people supporting it are mere sheep who follow their church leaders' words without thinking.
And I think that is why conservatives, in general, are seen as backward-thinking and cold, with the underlying idea that they just don't understand the liberal's points, and if they did they would be enlightened and agree. And why liberals, in general, are seen as immoral and idealistic, and if they only understood "real life" and had a non-changing moral compass, they would be enlightened and agree.
And that's not even getting into the dichotomy between those who think government's main goal is to support the individual's rights over those of the community, and those who believe the opposite. What the government's role should be in any given discussion usually is pretty close to the heart of the disagreement.
(no subject)
except they don't. we have 2 choices, one dimension, where we have 3 (or more) dimensions of stuff to deal with: economic policies (lessaiz-fare capitalism to socialism), individual freedoms vs. protecting the members of society, and the power of the local & state governments vs. the power of the federal system on the nation as a whole.
this is where single issue politics get involved.
some people are "republican" because of the abortion issue (protecting society, in this case the unborn's right to become part of that society), while others are republican because of the gun issue (individual freedom).
some people are "republican" because of the emphasis on smaller federal government ("states' rights"), yet they were at odds last month with the "must protect the members of society" side of the republican party when it came to the Schiavo case.
and BOTH sides don't represent the majority of the people in economic issues because in spite of their campaigning, their finances that keep them campaigning (and therefore in office) are all lobbies from corporations looking for favors. on BOTH sides. so neither side speaks correctly for individual freedom in the face of corporate control of our resources. pure lessaiz-fare capitalism is at odds with individual freedoms AND protecting the members of society, since both of those purposes have aspects of social welfare involved.
there would need to be at least 6 parties to come close to approximating the current state of the country, and the more centrist ones would be the winners almost every time.
the real problem in how we see elections as black or white is that the more vital part of the electoral process (getting the right candidates to start with) is ignored today. few people vote for candidates for congress or state legislations at the primary level, except those who really strongly support one (and centrists/moderates rarely feel the need to "strongly" support anything). so the extremists get the wins at the primaries and suddenly the core vote is a choice between extremists.
when the moderates DO get involved in the primary process, common sense can suddenly take over against conventional wisdom. That's how "Uncle Newt" lost.
(no subject)
*Always*
(no subject)