Religion and Politics – Twins separated at birth?

It seems these two will always be tied together. The most common topics seem to be:

Abortion and
Environment (because it was created for us, we should at least try to take care of it. So I'm asking all you “Hemi” drivers out there, What car would God want you to drive, The Hemi or the Honda?)

so when does one religious beliefs override political beliefs?

For example – Environment (no way I'm picky abortion for this, and the example is bad, but you should get the point)

If there are two candidates to pick from(neither candidate was in the office before)
Candidate 1 – Known liar, cheater and generally all around bad guy. But loves environmental issues and goes to church every Sunday
Candidate 2 – Known man of his word, charitable and other good traits, but doesn't care a bit about the environment. Thinks toxic waste does not exist.

Who do you vote for? Does your religious beliefs force you to vote for Candidate #1? If your church supported candidate #1, what would you do?

 

Your logic is flawed.... The new Hemi's are variable displacement. Pretty GREAT gas mileage (compared to other v-8's).

 

This is what's confusing about MT's ban from R&S. Beliefs are ridiculed without restriction in NOTD, leading to more of that than actual political discussion. I know the forum name isn't 'Politics', but that's the premise on which that forum was created.

 

Some other points to ponder about this
- I'd like to keep the present day politics out of this if possible, or at least this years election debate, if this becomes to political, let's move to NOTD
- Hitler was a Catholic, did the people of germany who supported him think he was a good Catholic (nevermind those that feared him)
- Middle eastern contries and their goverments seem to be heavily influenced by religion

 

A lot of people shape their morality from their religion. It only makes sense that they support those who share the same morality and most likely the same religion.

 

I tend to agree that ones own morality comes into play, human nature. But in a free society, as a voter I beleive the political agenda should stay to the commons of culture and religion. Everyone agrees that stealing is stealing, therefore cutting down up theif is a good political agenda. But what if my religion said "pot" was okay, would I vote for the only candidate that supported legalizing pot if the rest of his political agenda was hog wash . . probably not. I would have to recognize that not everybody in society shares the same moral belief that pot is great and pick the better candidate for the job.

 

I think for an issue to be a litmus test for a voter it has to be a very important issue to that voter. Certainly abortion is the main issue that springs to mind when one is discussing a litmus test. I think most pro-life people would argue that abortion is such an important issue that it trumps most other issues. On the other hand pro-life people tend to be more conservative and more likely to agree with other positions held by pro-life candidates.

I guess my answer to you would be that we can not seperate who we are from how we vote. Who we are is shaped by our religion, or lack thereof, so religion and politics are more or less inseperable.

 

If we are living in a free society with a religious majority that believes religion and politics are more or less inseperable and votes that way. . .what do you end up with over time? To an outsider looking in, it might look like our views on some middle eastern goverments of today, a some what closed society based heavily on a particular religous belief. IMO you have to seperate the two and vote for whom you feel is better in a free socieity.

Any other thoughts? . .

 

I think the difference is that our society has certain safe guards to protect the individual. Our society is founded on freedom of religion. As long as we hold true to that we will never start executing infidels so to speak.

I also think it is fair to judge christianity compared to Islam. You do not see the totalitarian regimes in christian nations.

 

for whatever reason, the democrats can only gain traction by being "not republicans". republicans tend to have a similar set of political morals (those morals that have some political aspect -- abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) the democrats can't field a candidate that is too similar to the gop candidate because not all democrats would support that candidate (for example, if they have the same view of the environment, who do the environmentalist vote for?). the democrats need to field a candidate that is universally "sort of" representative of their whole group, rather than very representative of some and not at all representative of others. it's a quid pro quo deal -- you support my abortion rights, and i'll support your homosexual freedoms, deal? as a result, you get polarized candidates i think this is because of our election system, myself, but that's a different debate.

anyway, the end effect is that people who agree with you 100% are generally not going to be nominated so you'll always have to pick the one that's closest and it'll always entail making some sacrafice of some position. it's just a question of what's most important to you. i'm guessing republicans probably agree more closely their candidate than dems, tho.

i'm not religious at all, so my religion doesn't enter into it. some things are more important to me than other things. same with christians, only they identify those things as being based on religion. it doesn't matter what their motivation is, it's the same effect -- some things are more important than others.