Religion and the Government

Post Reply New Topic

This basically stems from things I've been thinking about mainly how government plays a role to the religious. Looking at the whole social issues, economic issues, etc. I think it is something that certain people deserved. Especially in America where a majority claim to be religious.

I'm wondering how people can have completely anti-religious/spiritual views and still claim to be religious? Individualism, capitalism, disregard for the welfare of others, supporting drugs/alcohol consumption, are not religious ideals. I would consider a person who claims to believe in God and follows/believes these things to be a complete hypocrite and an atheist. People complain that they've lost money, houses, etc. to the point they even forget about God. This is not something religious people should do, they are forgetting a fundamental principle in religion: All of this is God's. I am not well versed in all the religions but I haven't heard of many which claim that you should fill up in greed and not give out freely from your wealth (whether material or immaterial), or that you should feel more important than other people. How can you hoard all that is and find the audacity to claim you know God? If you actually did you would stop such practices. It's very misleading.

Politics is something I'm at odds with. Although I consider myself conservative, I find the whole right-wing party to be completely irreligious despite their cries in championing Christianity. Televangelists entertaining the viewers with hate speech, materialism, and talks of war; most are even gluttonous, it's pathetic to me. I cannot see what role a religious person should find within government. Nationalism, politics, etc are not things a religious minded person should become involved in. To support policies that are completely immoral to the religious, how can that be? In politics people push aside religion to acquire votes for the support of the people, or for other reasons. This is fine, but as you can see, is not something the religious should do, in which case they would no longer be religious. Despite feeling that a religious society is best for a person to live in, Religion and government cannot mix. It will come at the expense of the other. Religious laws could become heavily one-sided coming at the expense of other people's beliefs. And what would government know about religion? I read that China is implementing rulings to control who will be elected the next Lama. Incredible.

Why should religious people become involved with government or advocate irreligious activities and principles?

All of this is basically wrapped in this quote: "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal (is God), follow him."


Don't forget to click caps-lock when replying. I await the love.

/pop-corn ready and cruise control on.

I think the problem is that humans are hypocrites. I find Christianity to be hypocritical by nature, and as most Americans are Christian, the possibility for hypocrisy is pretty wide.

I do not see how individualism or the derivative thereof, capitalism, really necessarily stands against religion, I mean, you can assert that they are anti-religious ideals, but that is simply your own interpretation as others would and do say otherwise.

However, the fact is that most people are not religious, therefore we cannot assume them to be so.

As for the relationship between religion and government... well... that is a difficult issue anyway, as if all is God's then shouldn't you have a government that seeks to serve him? If you have the latter, then isn't it effectively a theocracy? After all, I do not think that most religious texts draw clear lines, and liberal lines around what governments need to do.

Following religious ideals wrt compassion and altruism is all well and good until you find yourself trapped in a capitalist framework when the s**t hits the fan - as is the case in this age we're living through now. Then you've got to decide whether to press on with what you believe in to your own massive inconvenience, or take a more realistic view that sometimes you've got to concentrate on your own survival.

It actually all stems from a single factor. The giving up of reason for irrationality.

Firstly: Why religious people seek political office (of any kind.) When one gives up their mind in dealing with reality, they must resort to the only other alternative to deal with others. Force. The only legitimate way of converting people to an irrational view point is to force them to it, and government currently provides the only legal way to do this without being thrown in gaol. So, religious activists seek political power to pursue their programs of dissemination.


Why religious people promote "irreligious" ideas? Well, apart from being slightly of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy... these people have defaulted on reason, so one can not expect reasonable action. And the result is THAT persons experience of religion.

Just because a politician approves a law authorising cannabis usage or abortion for example, doesn't mean he supports those things himself. But this is the core principle of secularism and separation of religion and law: laws should be based upon motivations that are irreligious in nature. A president or politician who only signs laws he personally agrees with is not a good politician, because politics involves making compromises and pushing aside your own believes sometimes in favor or the demands of the majority of people. Just because someone is Christian/Muslim/whatever doesn't excuse him from signing a law that many people want but is against his particular religion. Without the will to practise his profession separated from his own (religious) opinions, we would get a dictatorship of a specific leader pushing through only his own personal believes.

To sign the laws that contradict with his religion but that many people ask for doesn't make a person a bad christian, it makes him a decent politician though.

religion is the opiate of the masses.


or maybe a more appropriate and modernized:

religion is the date rape drug of choice for the government.

Well, this means he supports the governmental moral framework that allows for this.


What shall we consider irreligious? I would consider the idea of a moral by which to make these decisions to be a religious concept in its own ways. Not only that, but why should a religious person accept these things? Because you say so? Because a past rule said so?


Ok, well, not necessarily so. It depends, a politician of any sort is only considered good if his constituents agree with his choices, his own opinions are immaterial, and if his opinions are the same of his people, then there is no problem.


Nothing excuses him, but just because someone is a politician, doesn't excuse him from following his religion despite the demands of the masses. After all, most religions say that their own demands are above that of any other.


Can a person separate their actions from their will? We do what we will, we reveal our preferences through our actions, so therefore, a politician who places his job above his faith does not hold his faith as well as one who does not do so. By some religious texts, he is condemned as faithless.


Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Now, your claim is that the people are a master for the politician, the issue he cannot serve the people AND God according to the text, therefore he serves God first to be a Christian in true faith. Therefore real Christians either cannot faithfully fulfill your role of politician and thus are a priori excluded from power by your idea on the workings of the system and thus secularism and religion exist in tension, or I am simply very bad at theology. As William Craig Lane, a Christian philosopher, noted in a discussion about politics and terrorism, secularism is not supportive of real faith but rather of a faith that is only a hobby.

Religion is not concerned with pragmatics. You have to to remember that the example for Christianity is a guy who willingly had himself killed on the cross after a while of stirring up controversy and wandering like a bum.

As much as the objectivists hope to be Vulcans, irrationality is built into the human mind, and in a sense is rational.


This is mostly true, I would change "irrational" to "not sharing common premises" or some such.

Philosophically speaking, neither rationality OR irrationality is built into the human mind. It is a virtue; an action undertaken to achieve a value. And irrationality is what we are if we are not rational. There is no region of the brain that one can point to and say "that's the irrational part."

I myself do not wish to be a Vulcan... being AS is quite enough for me. And I don't want to speak on behalf of any Trekkie Objectivists that might be out there. As for what you intended by it... ad hominems are not welcome by me and won't be responded to in future.




I am not stating anything about people that don't share my premises. I am commenting about people whose fundamental orientation with reality is based on non-reality or an invented reality. That is, by definition, irrational. There are plenty of rational people that do not share my premises. But I am not commenting about them. Indeed, that isn't the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is about RELIGIOUS people seeking political power.

Religion is the political expression of faith, which is the belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven, or in things that can not be proven to be real. Religion is based on a series of apocryphal events by people who can not be proven to have lived in places that no longer exist.

Politics uses influence as its medium of exchange, compromise as its ethics, and deception as its core morality.

Anyone who does not see the connection between politics and religion understands neither one.

Philosophically speaking the entire idea of virtue seems to be nonsense, and the entire division between the 2 modes is false with the reality being one of rigor as opposed to reason, for that latter always serves the passions.

Perhaps not.


Ad hominem? I did not use one. The comment on Vulcans was rather offhand, and such did not take the form

A Person A makes claim X
B There is something objectionable about Person A
C Therefore claim X is false

Which is necessary for an ad hominem to exist. I referenced a characteristic of Objectivists in a mocking manner while within the valid logical form

A Objectivists seek rationality
B Rationality is a false ideal
(unstated premise) C False ideals are bad ideal to aspire to
D Therefore Objectivists have a bad ideal

The only difference is that instead of the clean idea of A, I used A' which is "Objectivists seek to be Vulcans" Vulcans being a sci-fi race that is associated with the ideal of rationality. The argument is still legitimate as A' is roughly equivalent of A.


How can a view ever be irrational unless it contradicts itself though? The definition of irrationality has nothing to do with reality so much as coherency, and many theists are more coherent than a number of atheists, including some proclaimed objectivists I would say(not a reference to you btw, no personal insult intended). Because of that, it seems that religion is a set of accepted premises rather than a purely irrational thing.

I agree here. I understand the whole "no true Scotsman" but I don't consider the majority of Americans, or the world for that matter, to be religious/spiritual. Yes they believe in God, but they don't follow any principles which actually makes them religious. I even at times digress. When a follower associates with people who are clearly not religious and/or who advocates for laws/practices that are immoral (to said religion) it chips away the spirituality of the person. I notice this with myself. I wonder why all the Christians on TV haven't. Something which made me laugh recently, I read of a Swami who owns a million dollar mansion and drives very expensive vehicles. He was caught on camera trying to rent his temple to people who wanted to throw a party with lots of liquor.

The first point you made is also true, but depends on the society and how accustomed to it the person is. For a Muslim charging interests on loans is completely forbidden, but to us in the west it is to be expected; many even feel happy/content when getting less than 5% while to a muslim it would be completely unacceptable. I believe that even the catholic church at one point forbade its followers from receiving profits. Of course no one today would really want that. It is easier to change the interpretations than it is to change the person. I do this too since I find no reason to sacrifice an animal for atonement, neither the idea of fasting.

The last part is taken as well, but we must understand that all of it is impractical in day to day living. There are very few pious theocratic rulers outside of legends. A great amount of them have been horrible and fanatical. In my mind a secular nation is better (secular as in free to worship and not freedom from worship). If a theocratic government took over then which religion would be in charge? What kinds of foods will be acceptable? All these things will have to be dealt with, and it won't be to the benefit of all worshipers whatever be their identity. It is why it would be more practical to have a religious society than a theocratic government; after all the government cannot be in charge of a "revival". I also feel that the privacy and choices made by the person are highly more valuable/reasonable than forcing the person in public to perform in things he is utterly useless in.

There is no perfect society for a religious person unless the people themselves change, or forced to change. I don't advocate the latter and I won't be hopeful of the former either. Certainly I do not advocate a status quo. Plenty of religious leaders have become involved in societal shifts without themselves being involved in government. However, it would not be possible to be in government as it would be very impractical, both to the people and the person.

I must ask you to explain what you mean here, I am not sure I follow what you mean and to what exactly you are referring to.



I must disagree with you here. Vulcans are not Objectivists. Nor are they humans. Nor in any way do you prove the assertion that Rationality is a false ideal. The line: "as much as Objectivists hope to be Vulcans" proves nothing other than a quasi argument from intimidation type assertion spoken in a diminunitive manner intended to discredit the position being "Objectivism" in general. I haven't really ever seen Star Trek so I won't discuss that here. I merely respond to the tone and manner of your post, and it was something I disagreed with. I am not normally good at 'reading between the lines' even in text. But it certainly appeared to me that your intent was as I have stated.

Perhaps you are correct in asserting that it is not strictly an ad hominem on your part. I will strongly maintain that your argument in the form: "As much as the objectivists hope to be Vulcans, irrationality is built into the human mind, and in a sense is rational" does not strictly adhere to logical forms or proper conduct.




According to every online dictionary I have checked "irrationality" (in this context) is defined as : without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. or variations thereof. Some substitute the word logic for reason, and some are more verbose than others. What you might be getting mixed up with is context. I use irrationality as the absence of the virtue Rationality. You seem to be switching my context to the context of a specific argument. I.e. an irrational argument: not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical"

A person can be Rational, and make an irrational argument. Through failure of attempt or being incapable of formulating a certain argument in a certain circumstance. But the distinction is that a person who is Rational will always be open to be persuaded by rational arguments from those of differing view points. An irrational person is not and can not be. Because their conclusions are reached thought sources other than reason and logic. And therefore they have a psychological imperative to vehemently oppose any such discussions or dissections of their positions.

Like you, I have also witnessed Irrational people present logical and consistent arguments for certain things. I have also been witness to Rational people presenting wildly irrational claims and propositions. My main proposition in this thread was that people who arrive at their conclusions (and one can not arrive at God (or any unreality such as mysticism) though logic) by the employment of means other than reason can not be argued with nor can they argue with reason. It is impossible. Because of this the only way for them to persuade a rational person to their views (or anyone of differing views) is by Force.

And government is the only way to do this legally without being thrown in gaol.

You called rationality a virtue, I suggested that virtues do not exist.


Umm.... I know that Vulcans are not objectivists. I do not prove, I state that rationality is impossible, and then go on to say that irrationality is a better state of affairs thus saying that rationality is a false ideal. No, the line "as much as Objectivists hope to be Vulcans" is not an argument at all, save in the minds of some idiots, and at it's worst is mocking. If you'll note though, the statement was an off-hand comment surrounded by other statements, if I were attempting to make an argument from intimidation, then that would be more along the lines of my central argument and not found with other statements. Not only that, but, in informal argumentation, jabs at an opponent are not uncommon and can even have illustrative purpose so long as they are not too over the top(as mine wasn't). Heck, Izaak, the tone and manner of my posts is *always* condescending, so the entire criticism is not logical but stylistic and towards a minor statement where the terminological difference can be noted and easily understood.


No, it does not strictly adhere to logical forms, this is an informal argument. Unless you want to start setting up syllogisms for me to knock down, it is rather useless to hold any side to this. If you really wanted to, you could attempt yourself to set up a syllogism, but it would essentially hold to the form I had already given you as a basic model for what I said(perhaps added, changed, or implied premises) and thus is not dishonest crap. Not only that, but I am not a stickler for "proper conduct", I don't have to respect you, and even if I did respect you, I doubt I would compassionately hold your hand just to make you feel better.


Right, and where is reason necessarily lacking? A man who rose from the dead offers you goodies for doing what he tells you, you want these goodies, therefore you do what he says. Nothing anti-rational in that basic premise, perhaps somethings anti-materialist, but that isn't a problem. I don't care about your religion though Izaak, just as you think little of the religions of others, and frankly Randism is on many levels a religion. This is not to say that Ayn Rand's ideas are terrible, but the woman claimed to solve the "Is-Ought" problem for goodness sake!


A "Rational" person therefore does not exist as nobody is always open to be persuaded by opposing arguments. Not only that, but not all positions can be up for argumentation, as some premises are set such that they cannot be challenged. How about this though: if a Rational man can always be persuaded, then can you become a skeptic to the virtue of Rationality based upon the following argument?:

1. Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
9. and so on, ad infinitum.

Let's just insert P to be "logic", or "Rationality", or the notion that 1+1=2.

Not only that, but Izaak, nobody reaches their conclusions by reason and logic, and this idea is as old as David Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.", and as fresh as the confirming data from psychology and neuroscience. The latter 2 even acting somewhat to show that this "man of pure reason" is a being that could hardly function due to the fact that man has endless reams of data to sort through if he ever dares to logically express *any* opinion.


Hmm.... I would think that apologetics would not be *that* bad, where a person could never rationally be religious.

Kalam Cosmological argument:
"Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause."

There is also the moral argument:

" 1. Moral norms exist and have authority beyond the socially mediated. It is, for example, perfectly coherent for someone like Wilberforce to say "slavery may be approved of by society, but it is morally wrong".
2. If they truly have such authority, there should be a rational argument why human beings should act in accordance with moral norms, over and above the reaction of society.
3. The existence of God, who is wholly just, observes everything relevant about human actions and can attach appropriate long-term sanctions to behavior provides such a rational argument, better than alternatives.
4. Therefore, to the extent that (1), (2) and (3) are accepted, belief in God is more reasonable than alternative worldviews that do not offer such explanations."

The argument from personal experience:

" 1. Experiences are things to be trusted unless they are false
2. To have a false experience means I am either crazy/high/altered state or that God exists
3. I had a divine experience
4. I am not crazy.
5. Therefore God exists"

Or the argument from historical evidences:

" 1. If a religion is true then historical evidences will support that truth
2. Historical evidences support the truth of X religion
3. Therefore X religion is true"

Obviously #2 is the most questionable argument, but there are some who use this notion.

Heck, I think there is even an argument from design based upon damage

" 1. The notion of damage exists and is objective(a bone can only be broken if there is a position that can be considered well, a person can only be sane if there is a position of insanity)
2. Any notion of unwellness means that there is a proper state or a teleology to an object
3. Teleology does not exist without designedness
4. Therefore there is a designer
5. Therefore God exists"



I agree with the notion of a government can provide force to make others do as you want them.

The correct religion. Which religion is the correct religion? Your religion, because you would not choose to believe something without believing it is true. (Note, I do not specifically mean "You, oscuria" but rather the generic you, being that object selected)


The foods that are acceptable by the religion considered acceptable. Yes, all of these things will have to be dealt with, but don't these things have to be dealt with anyway? After all, as a believer, do you not also have to judge what foods are unacceptable in the first place? You would not accept baby flesh on the market, would you? I doubt it. This is not a matter of all worshipers, only the worshipers of good doctrine. Why should we care about those who hold to evil doctrines?


I never said that the government would be in charge of the revivals. I don't know what you say by "perform things he is utterly useless in", but honestly, if your religion is good, then how can you place choice above goodness? Wrong choices are clearly not good, and if good is to be pursued then choice should be curtailed in pursuit of goodness.