Christian ideals and executive politics.

Post Reply New Topic

Lets try this again. The last thread got derailed when a certain WPer chose to impugn the sexual orientation of a sitting governor.

I read this interesting article today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... is/243616/

It asks a few pointed questions about the policies of politicians who are avowed christians.

In short:

1: Is it appropriate for a politician - sitting or otherwise - to organize or offer support to events that are overtly religious in nature?

2: Can a politician who is in good faith a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ - be that person real or imaginary - ethically separate the christian bible's estimated 2,500 separate admonitions to care for his fellow man from other tenets of bible when making policy according to their faith and beliefs?

3: Is it appropriate, in a nation that professes freedom of religion, for a political executive to make policy according to their own faith regardless of differing religious traditions within their sphere of control?

4: Does a politician who makes their faith a central message of an ongoing campaign for office show appropriate respect to their religion by doing so? Keeping in mind that this unavoidably casts it under the microscope of public opinion.

The 1st Amendment is Freedom of Religion not freedom from religion.

Governor Perry has just as much right to publicly show his faith, as any other American.

I have to say I agree with Inuyasha this time, "of" not "from". Our founding fathers were Christian. They did not intend for this to be a godless country. They did not intend to keep religious men from office, but to keep the office out of religion. Unfortunately, I don't think that they really thought about the nonreligious or those with non-Christian beliefs. I mean, they probably thought "God" was generic enough to keep everyone happy, completely ignoring the heathens who didn't believe in a god at all.

If you are talking about lending their name to a "cause", I don't know how you could say it isn't appropriate, especially if they are not currently in office. If you're talking about giving official government backing, in terms of financial means, well... probably not appropriate.

I won't limit my answer to Christianity. Devout followers of any faith would have a hard time separating their religion from any other aspect in their life. How could you possibly ignore something that so could so greatly influence every decision you make? That's who they are. It's probably not right, or realistic, to think that they should or could decipher exactly what is influencing each decision they must make, and then what? If a specific viewpoint they have is directly influence by a religious belief, then should they alter it? Opt out of that situation? That said, no.. I don't think it's right for them to specifically make a policy according to their own faith. In fact, I think it's absolute BS.

I personally love when politicians let their devout faith be their loudest platform, it lets me know who NOT to vote for. I'd be more pissed to find out they're closet fanatics. That said, just because a candidate says "Yeah, I'm Christian" doesn't mean I won't vote for them. I judge how they actually stand on the big issues, whether or not we seem to be somewhat on the same page, then cross my fingers that they're being honest about it.

In ancient Israel it was forbidden for a King to enter a temple and perform Priestly duties such as burning incense.

That's a popular concept but it's just not true. Some of the founding fathers were christian but more of them were deists, which is awful close to being an agnostic.

50 years after the founding of our nation there were complaints that none of our presidents had been religious men. Square that with the idea that they were christians.

Only if he is not abusing his powers of office to "... favor the establishment of any one religion".

Dunno ... has it ever happened?

Yes. Keep in mind that if a Christian can do this, then so can an Atheist.

They may think so, but to me such a man looks like a carny barker for a third-rate tent revival show.

Yes, as long as they are not doing so on the state dime. State employees- including elected officials- retain their own religious freedoms, but they may not abuse their position to direct state resources to a particular religious cause.


No.


Yes. A person's faith is an inseparable part of their worldview, moral and ethical code, and identity. Voters have the right to take the values of a candidate into consideration, and ideally an elected official should be able to offer some reasoned justification for their policy, but faith will always be an influence in the views and actions of the faithful. To make a prohibition here would effectively bar all religious people from serving in public office, and such an act would violate the Constitution's injunction against religious tests.


Usually not.

We all see the founders in our own image

A large number of them were deists. Some considered themselves to be Unitarian. Some were Freemasons. Over 50% of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalian/Anglican. Many deists went to church regularly and identified with the religions they were raised with while feeling that no faith had proven, undeniable truths. Just because they explored possibilities, rejected mainstream ideas, and had minds to think for themselves doesn't mean that the core of their beliefs weren't still some derivative of Christianity. Though it's not common, just because a man can think outside of the box, doesn't mean he can't be Christian or think of himself as one.

As for 50 years later... those complaints don't really mean much to me for several reasons. One, who are the people making these statements? Frame of reference? Meaning, for the most part, to judge a person's "religiousness" you'd compare it to yourself, or people around the one in question. Two, the early 1800's aren't like now.. It's not like the country knew daily every move the President made. Was it headline national news? "President Washington Skipped Church for the Third Week in a Row". Three, we're talking about men who weren't afraid to reject certain religious ideas, of course they'd be viewed as not very religious by their contemporaries. If I tell a Christian I don't believe in Hell or that I don't believe Jesus is the incarnate son of God, they assume I'm an atheist. It's not like people back then were any more open-minded or educated than they are now.

If we work on the basis that an elected official must act as if he has no values or opinions or beliefs, then

A. I feel very sorry for the country condemned to be governed by people who will govern with even less principle that those we have now.

B. In such a country Christians [I cannot speak for other belief systems] who cannot actually leave as one would wish to should listen to the Mennonites and not hold public office..

If we permit elected officials to HAVE values and principles, if we in fact elect them because we value their values and not just because the media made hem sexy, then I see no reason why they should not be allowed to talk about their values [one does wish some electables would talk about what their values really are especially before we let the media elect them].

As to their basing their proposal and votes and vetos on those values - why would you vote for a swine who would vote against his values?

Anyhow - given the theory of checks and balances - since when does a mayor or governor or president in this country rule [ignoring the occasional aberration like Boss Tweed, Mayor Daley, and the Kingfish] actually rule? Some try to lead and may even succeed, but it does not seem that Mr Obama's hopeful and ever changing ideas have been enacted by fiat.

If you are elected president here, you wind up swearing: ""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." A Christian might be more likely to take such an oath seriously.

But you are getting a Religious Right politician.

........ sexy? Where were the sexy candidates when I was voting?


Do you really believe that? You said that with a laugh, right?

A religious right politician will defend the Consitution of the Confederate States of America.

There are 2 relgious freedom clauses of the First Amendment. There is the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

The Free Exercise clause says that you can practice whatever relgious beliefs you see fit. The Establishment Clause says that the church and state are seperate and that it is unconstituntional for the state to try to enforce relgious dogma or relgion by any means. That means that Perry can believe whatever he wants, but he cannot as a government offical endorse any religion nor can the state endorse, give preferential treatment or fund relgion in any way. What Perry did at the stadoum was borderline unconstitutional because it was a endorsement of the Christian religion and the relgious action of prayer by the governor.

Your statement that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from relgion is BS. You cannot have freedom of religion if you also don't have freedom from religion by unbelivers. The state is meant to be completely secular, and if you don't believe me please read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferons essay on relgious freedom to the colony of Virginia, Madison's letters on relgious freedom, and Article 11 of the Treaty of the Barbary Pirates that was passed by Congress and signed by some dude named John Adams.

I studied political philosophy so the First Amendment is something that I know very well. I am also proudly a 20+ year member of the ACLU.

I think there has to be a line between legislating according to values and legislating according to doctrine.

A minor example - Mormons are forbidden from drinking alcohol. Methodists as well, iirc, and out in the bible belt you do still run into dry counties where they have outright prohibition on the sale of alcohol.

In Utah, where a substantial portion of residents are not mormon and to partake, there is no outright prohibition but the state is famous for having unusual liquor laws, such as only weak beer being available at grocery stores.

At every legislative session, there are legislators - even experienced legislators - who make attempts to make the liquor laws more restrictive regardless of any factual basis that there is a need to do so.

Recently the state demanded an unusual labeling requirement for alcopops that essentially outlawed their sale within the state of utah, because the manufacturers are unwilling to have a different label just for utah. I don't personally care because i can mix vodka with a fizzy drink just fine all by myself and don't need any help from the manufacturer, but i still find the sentiment slightly offensive.

There was also an attempt to ban the sale of refrigerated beer, based on an argument that if you have to wait a few hours for your 4.0% ABV beverage to chill in a refrigerator before drinking it, this would reduce incidence of drunk driving and incidence of teens procuring beer through an intermediary which they then consume before going home.

Which is preposterous for many logical reasons, but this only got scuttled by someone pointing out that many of the beers that are legal to sell in Utah grocery stores are unpasteurized and will spoil rapidly in unrefrigerated storage.

Now, I understand that mormons shouldn't drink alcohol, but they sure seem to spend a lot of time worrying that someone who isn't mormon might be drinking alcohol.

If you define Christian as "a jerk from among the Barkers or the Powervolk who sees a practical advantage in affiliation with a Christian freligious organizaton" - and they exist, much like the Powervolk officer who once urged me to join the Masons - that would deserve a horse laugh.

But I fear my definition of Christian is the much less popular one. much ridiculed here, of "person who actually believes or adheres to and so far as in him lies practices the principles laid down by the Christ and affirmed by many if not all Christian religious organizations." If such a one takes an oath, it is because he intends to keep it, not because it is what you have to say to get handed the keys to the car.

It has never been common, and these days is most unlikely, but there have been and may be again people of principle who accidentally get into office. Even I was department head once.

As for sexy - maybe you did not find Hope and Change sexy any more than I did, but a lot of people apparently did by into the glitz.