Why does religion play a role in politics?

Post Reply New Topic

I am agnostic so am can understand people who are religious and atheists.

But what I don't understand is why religion playes such an important role in politics.

Why do we have bishops in the house of Lords?

I don't know the laws or religious institutions in the UK but just in general it makes sense that people would want the main guiding principle in their lives to extend to politics. When you think about it, is it really such a bad thing to allow religious leaders in a legislature when it is already filled with scummy lawyers and aristocracy?

As an American person of faith, I think it comes down to what drives your beliefs and actions. If you have a purely secular worldview, you might turn to science or philosophy for making moral choices. As a Christian, I define all morality in terms of a biblical worldview. Laws are made to protect people's rights, but the very idea of rights as God-given (e.g., not granted by the state), plays an important role.

Suppose someone asks why it's wrong to murder. A secular answer is going to differ from a religious answer once you go beyond a surface level response. The secularist might cite human rights, or couch their response in terms of the good of society as a whole. The secularist might point out that killing off other individual members of our species potentially limits the gene pool.

From a Christian standpoint, you're not just depriving another person of their life, but you are also attacking a being whose very character reflects the image of God. Of course that all rolls over into politics, since who we vote for in a democracy has a lot to do with the values they present. Sometimes secularists and religious people arrive at the same position on an issue even though they follow different thought processes to get there.

All that being said, it's also true that religion tends to become corrupt really fast whenever it becomes the official political power. I'm mainly Libertarian in my political views (unlike most religious conservatives in the US), so I think that people should have the freedom to do things that I personally find objectionable, providing they are not trampling the liberty of others in the process.

Well, politicians often need a *reason* to:

- Start wars
- Oppress people
- Ban fun stuff

... and while secular ideologies can often provide excuses for several of the above, Christianity and Islam in particular have been *very* good at providing justification for *all* of the above...

Because lawyers are trained in the law. Besides Christianity is not a guiding principle anymore as it once was. I depise most politicians but at least they have had training and an understanding of how a country is run.

If we have religious leaders to represent religion why not scientists to represent in the house of Lords. Science is used in everyday life and is an accepted and guiding principle.

Something I have noticed about your recent election is the focus on candidates being good christians.

This confuses me because it is never mentioned in british politics and doesn't seem important. How does being a good christian make you more able to run a country (of course im not against Christian leaders)

I don't think being a good Christian qualifies one to run any country. I'd rather vote for a competent atheist than a well-meaning but unqualified Christian. Obviously, though, there are plenty of other believers who would strongly disagree with me on that point.

I love christians who share your views it's so refreshing. I once had a run in with a crazy priest who told me I was going to hell for supporting my friends parents gay partnership. The reason I'm agnostic is due to the rejection of certain peoples such as homosexual people as it is a natural occurance

Theocracies are state cults, and although the few in the HoL make little difference it seems (and there are already many other hereditary nobodies, so nonsense isn't just religious), in the states, if it was left just to Republicans, they could have the biggest theocracy in history... although with their current nominee I doubt he cares about Jesus at all, although he manages to somehow convince the evangelicals that groping is normal... but, ultimately, if he got in the WH it'll be more like a fascist cult, where he very much assumes the role of god in the eyes of his cultists... which he already is, but imagine all state resources being reserved for just one person... even China doesn't have such centralized individuality in government, despite a one-party state... even Iran, closest to a theocracy, is able to change its government despite a religious leader.

So... yeah, if 50 states become the apparatus of one conman... the least I can think of is that at least I'm not there...

I'm thinking YOU rejected a people, as well. I'm thinking you became an agnostic because you didn't want to be associated with Christians. You can still be a Christian, IMO, and NOT reject gays. *I* am of the Christian faith, and *I* am not against gay people----and, as there's several gays in my family, it would be "too bad", for me, if I was; even my Bible-thumpin' sister accepted the gays in our family.

"Religion" is a "dirty word" to alot of people, because of the Fundies, IMO----and, alot of people, IMO, over-correct and reject religion all-together, because of the "fire and brimstone" stuff----and, that's really a shame, because religion is, IMO, just like most things, in that one size does NOT fit ALL.

As for the OP: Religion is a "code of ethics", one-could-say. Whatever one chooses as their "code", guides them in MOST, if not ALL, of their decisions / daily life / etc.----just like one who is Pro-choice would want to elect someone who is Pro-choice.

Calm down for just a sec there. I have no issues with Christianity and never claimed you cant be Christian and accepting of homosexuality that wasn't my only reason for being agnostic. I may have phrased it badly though so i apologise for that.

Many of my family and friends are christIan and non judgemental.I'm more than happy for people to believe in what they choose to believe

How am I rejecting people?

I just believe people should abide by a code of ethics where ever they are religious of not. I believe people should be good because theu choose too not because a religion dictates it. this is just my opinion however and I'm open to others ideas

I'm quite calm----it's just the way I post. Instead of moving my hands' positions to click on Italics or Bold, I capitalize words I want to emphasize----it would be the same, if I were speaking them.

I have no comment for the rest of your post.

I see, I just read capitals as shouting so misinterpreted. I am sorry if I did offend you about your religion

Is no comment a bad thing?

In the U.S., it began in the 1970s, when the Republican Party began appealing to Evangelical Christians as part of the "Southern Strategy". They have been key demographic for the GOP ever since.

The "Southern Strategy" refers to the Southern United States (except Texas and Florida) being associated with Evangelical Christianity. The South had traditionally been Democratic since the end of the Civil War, and people had become disenchanted with the Dems after Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965.

However, there are quite a few in the GOP who support abortion and same-sex marriage, of which opposition has traditionally been part of the GOP's platform.

Wow that's really interesting. I always wondered about that. Thank you for the info!

I can tolerate religions that are nothing more than a "code of ethics". It's when they put in all the supernatural nonsense that I ignore them, and supernatural nonsense has absolutely no business influencing politics. We need to base decisions on what's happening in the real world, not on what one particular religion arbitrarily decides is true. It's even worse when some religions openly refuse to adapt their beliefs to fit the facts - they absolutely cannot be allowed to influence politics.