Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 26, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 133

Religion in politics?

:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Should Christianity be combined into politics?

I mean, it seems to already be so, since everytime a president finishes a speech, he needs to say "God bless America" and at the inauguration he must swear on the bible.

But is this really necessary? Shouldn't it be a choice? Not everyone is Christian/religious after all.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconthespiderfrommars:
TheSpiderFromMars Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You must swear on the Bible? Pffft, ridiculous! What if you're an atheist? By the way, do you have to be Christian to be a president in the US?
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Apparently. :/ I wish we had an atheist president... (me being an atheist myself *shot)
Reply
:iconthespiderfrommars:
TheSpiderFromMars Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yeah, it's a very strange and unneccesary rule.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 4, 2012
No.
Reply
:iconmaddmatt:
maddmatt Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012
It is a choice. You are still free to be Christian with all the constitutional rights to religion and free speech even when you are the President.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Eh. All of the founding fathers were mostly religious and at least believed in God. What's wrong with us is that we keep deviating from the past. What's wrong with God Bless America? does it offend you so?
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Well, I am an atheist, and it can be a bit awkward for me at times.
Reply
:iconwhy-did-kenji-die:
Why-did-Kenji-die Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012
Lol. It's part of the nation's history. If you read any of the founding father's speeches/writings (we all should) it is jam packed with religous stuff
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I know DX
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"Should Christianity be combined into politics? "

no.

"I mean, it seems to already be so, since everytime a president finishes a speech, he needs to say "God bless America" and at the inauguration he must swear on the bible. "

formalities of a majority Christian nation. As for "swearing on the bible", you may legally swear on any religious text of your choosing.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Ah, ok, got it! Thanks!
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Christianity should only be combined into politics if other religions are as well. Spirituality and moral values aren't limited to any single religion. If anything, religion is just a culture's expression of them. No country or religious group benefits from being a theocracy. Politics should stay in the government, and religion should stay in the churches, but if you separate spirituality and morality itself from the government, you end up with a total mess.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
:iconapprovalplz:
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
:iconthank-youplz: Yeah, religion and politicians need to have a certain balance of power. In a way, both need to know when they're stepping over each other's boundaries.
Reply
:iconkinoc-kun:
Kinoc-Kun Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Well, yes and no. If we allow parts of Christianity to be practiced like prayer or leaving "God" in the pledge and on the money I see nothing wrong with it.

But don't force people into it as that's honestly the opposite of what we're all about. Christianity is meant as a religion of peace of unity, not violence. Sadly people take it the wrong way and use religion as an excuse for doing what ever they want in the name of their deity.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
:iconfacebooklikeplz:
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
the first amendment protects the freedom of religion. the government can't touch it.

but no where does it say the government can't be influenced by the majority religion. in this case it's Christianity. for anyone here who wants christian values out of the US government you have got to change the values of the people first.
Reply
:iconrestinmotion:
RestInMotion Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Influence by values, sure. Influence by religion? No. There is a separation between the two. The ignorance that religion can create should be left at the door. Otherwise we'll have more Bachman's, Cain's, Akin's, etc...
Reply
:iconcrimsonmagpie:
CrimsonMagpie Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
~Zer05um said it as well as I could.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yes indeed XD
Reply
:iconblack-allison:
Black-Allison Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
No because I do not live in a Christian country.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Lucky.
Reply
:iconaazmatazz:
Aazmatazz Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
In the UK we have seats in Government reserved for the church:

'The Church of England, as the established church, is represented in Parliament in several ways.'

'In the House of Lords, the 26 most senior English archbishops and bishops sit as the 'Lords Spiritual'

I think this is wrong because this is the very same church who opposes woman bishops and gay marriage.
It's such a backwards way of looking at everyday modern life, where men don't just love woman and white people aren't the overwhelming majority.

I think we have surpassed religion, and surely it can only be a matter of time before these fairy tales of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and Creationism give way to science, evolution, facts, but despite what you believe in. The Church (Religion) has no place in politics.
Reply
:iconnerofly:
nerofly Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
The Church of England does not oppose women Bishops, in fact, the Church has already voted and agreed that this will happen. What is being debated at the moment is how it will happen; specifically, what allowances will be made for those parishes within the CofE who cannot in good conscience accept the authority of a woman bishop.
Reply
:iconaazmatazz:
Aazmatazz Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
how can you in 'good conscience' not accept the authority of a woman bishop?
Reply
:iconnerofly:
nerofly Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
Because they don't believe there's a biblical precedent for such a thing.
Reply
:iconaazmatazz:
Aazmatazz Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
So based on a book written years ago, they refuse to accept the authority of a woman bishop?
Does no one else seem to think that's a little backwards, a lot has happened in society and the world in general since 'the old days'
Reply
:iconnerofly:
nerofly Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
That book is kinda important to bishops.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I definitely agree with you. :iconfacebooklikeplz:
Reply
:iconblack-allison:
Black-Allison Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
The Church of England, much more gay and woman friendly than the Catholics in my opinion. At least in England they let you be openly gay without kicking you out of the door.
Reply
:iconaazmatazz:
Aazmatazz Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That is very true, but I feel they sort of HAVE to be gay and woman friendly because of public opinion, if that makes sense.

To make their public image look good they shake hands with the gays and allow woman to become priests but apparently it goes to far allowing woman bishops and gay marriage.

I just don't think people with ideals like this should run a free thinking and supposedly open country, or have any power over it
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Student Filmographer
I think it's a terrible idea to get religion mixed up with politics. Because then, you get all sorts of people trying to enforce their religious ideals because they have that power.
If they had a firm belief that homosexuals are the devil*, and abortion should be made illegal because it's part of their religion, what's stopping them from trying to force their ideas into the public?
They could very easily stop equal rights for LGBT or lower the abortion limit/get rid of contraception if it's what they believed, and what the people around them believed.


* INB4: here we go again, can't we have a thread without the gays popping up?

My point is still relevant.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Those are my thoughts exactly.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Professional General Artist
I think religion should be kept as far from politics as possible, to the extent that I think religious belief should automatically discount you from holding office. After all, we'd query a leader who believed in fairies or unicorns and based their morality around them.
Reply
:iconkinoc-kun:
Kinoc-Kun Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"I would tax the rich and help the poor, end our wars, grant full equality to all people in this nation (gays and women) provide the most excellent healthcare, and reduce our debt with foreign countries."

"Sorry, but you believe in God, next!"

That's your logic. You're honestly no fucking better than the religious people you bash. :P
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Professional General Artist
On the contrary; the difference is a crucial one and is, alas, unclear to many. Belief in the supernatural implies a world-view that does not correspond to observed reality, thus undermining the principles of altruism as described above. Such a person would make an excellent VP or minister however - provided that appropriate checks and balances (read psych evaluation) were in place.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Haha, very true!
Reply
:iconknightster:
Knightster Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012
This.
Reply
:iconpunker--rocker:
punker--rocker Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

Without religion, the true idea that our rights come from God becomes irrelevant and seemingly inaccurate. If our rights didn't come from God, then the only other place our rights could come from would be the government. However, if our rights came from the government, then the government would have the power to take them away. Nothing would be sacred. Nothing would be safe. So yes, religion is a necessary part of government. I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR A THEOCRACY. It is simply vital for our liberty that our leaders recognize that we are wholly dependent on a subject to God, and that everything we are blessed with comes from Him.
Reply
:iconborogovelm:
BorogoveLM Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012  Student General Artist
If you believe that the government is based on the rights of people, and that the rights of people are based on god, that is theocratic.
Reply
:iconpunker--rocker:
punker--rocker Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Theocracy is a government run by a specific religion.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
But not all people in the U.S. are Christian. Take for example Buddhists and Muslims. They ARE U.S. citizens after all.

Not to mention, the constitution prevents the government from taking our rights away. And our rights did come from the government. That's why there is no segregation in our country. That's why women have rights.
Reply
:iconpunker--rocker:
punker--rocker Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No, they're not, and that is completely irrelevant. We welcome all people into our country, but we are a nation founded on Christian principles and that will never change.

The Constitution only "prevents the government from taking our rights away" as long as the politicians respect the foundation on which the Constitution was written. I happen to believe that many people in the government--both elected and appointed--no longer respect that foundation, and that is why we are seeing an erosion of our basic inalienable rights. If you believe that our rights come from the government, then you acknowledge that we are a country ruled by men, not law, and that those men have the power to give and to take as they please, Constitution or no Constitution.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
We ARE ruled by law, but the law wasn't created by cats or something. Humans did slowly build up our law.

And how exactly are our rights being taken away right now? Cause I definitely do not see that happening in the United States.
Reply
:iconpunker--rocker:
punker--rocker Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Our law must be based on something other than a mere human decree, otherwise it can be changed just as easily as it was made.

You don't see our rights being taken away? May I humbly suggest that you open your eyes? Drones--some smaller than an inch and completely silent--are all over our country, spying on American citizens. People at airports are treated as guilty of terrorism, with no rights at all, until proven innocent. Catholic institutions are being forced to provide contraception, which is against the tenets of their faith. Voter fraud is so rampant that many peoples' votes become irrelevant. The United Nations is attempting to force its "treaties" on gun ownership, the "rights" of a child, the hoax that is global warming, and the treatment of disabled persons on the American people--in other words, they are trying to regulate what weapons we can own, what property we can own and use, and what medical care we can give to disabled people. In order to start a business, people have to wade through miles of red tape and spend thousands of dollars in "compliance" with arbitrarily created regulation. People are being taxed at high amounts to pay for government programs that they don't even support, and that are not allowed under the Constitution. The President of the United States is sending troops overseas to fight illegal wars that have little to do with national interests, and then those very soldiers are being blocked from voting in national elections. In some storm-ravaged areas of New England, people are being prevented from giving food to the starving because the government can't "monitor" nutritional content. The government is trying to prevent kids under eighteen from working on their family farms.

Look, in a truly free nation, I am my own person and I can do what I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone else. If I want to do something dangerous and stupid, I can do it as long as I'm not forcing someone else to do it with me against their consent. If I want to start a business, I can do it and the government has no say in my decision. If I want to build a house, I can do it and I don't need anyone's consent. If I want to invent something, I'll use my own mind, my own money, and my own two hands. I don't need help from the government, and I don't need permission. Our country used to be a nation of self-educated, innovative, and fiercely independent men and women. Unfortunately, we are not this country anymore.
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
1) Well yea. At the airport, people NEED to check for terrorists. Unless you'd rather die on an airplane.

2) Just HOW many cases of voter fraud have there been this year?

3) Global warming is not a hoax. Ice glaciers are melting, and the sea level is rising. Slowly, but steadily. Unless a lot of people are peeing in it.

On the other points, I can see what you mean. But you can't just build a house ANYWHERE. You can't build a house in someone else's backyard. I'm not saying you will, but that's what those laws are for. It's the same with mining. No one is just allowed to start mining in your yard without consent. And you can't just build a house in, say, a national wild park. Once again, not saying you will, but that's why those things are done.
Reply
:iconpunker--rocker:
punker--rocker Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
1) But private companies do a much better job at airport security than the TSA and do so without invasive searches and scans.

2) The last count I heard was 50,000 reported cases of voter fraud on election day. This includes voter districts where turnout was well over 100%, districts where 100% of votes were for one candidate (always for Obama, incidentally), voter intimidation, campaign material inside places of voting (always from the Obama campaign, incidentally), etc. This does not include individual instances of dead voters, illegal voters, double voters, etc. With these cases added in, the number of cases of voter fraud would skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands.

3) Global warming itself may be occurring, although it is incredibly difficult to measure given the poor state and very unequal dispersion of weather stations throughout the world, but the idea that humans are causing climate change is utterly inconceivable. As has happened through the entire history of the world, some parts are warmer, some parts are cooler. Some glaciers and snow-cover are growing, some are shrinking. The sea level has been rising about 2 mm per year. I'll spare you the myriad of sarcastic comments about being terrified that just popped into my head. :)

No, you can't do whatever you want on someone else's property. It is a completely legitimate function of the government to enforce property rights, which is what you are referring to. I happen to believe that state governments are better-equipped to deal with cases of property rights infringements, but that is beside the point. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
Reply
:iconzodiacgal:
zodiacgal Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
1) There are always gonna be scans.

2) I see you're a Romney supporter.

3) Thanks for sparing me the sarcastic comments. I can't take the end of the world people who are dead serious seriously anyway.

Well, that WAS what you were implying. You may not have meant, it, but that's what it sounded like.
Reply
:iconrandomrobskii:
RandomRobskii Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Student Filmographer
Not being funny, but would you rather there was no airport security at all?
Or do you fancy another couple of planes launched into another two skyscrapers?

I'd rather be treated like I was carrying a bomb than not, you never know who's dodgy.
Reply
:iconpunker--rocker:
punker--rocker Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nope. But I happen to realize that the TSA is completely incompetent at their job, even with using their completely invasive searches. Did you know that you could strap on a knife or a small gun under your clothes, and if you kept your arms at your side while walking through the x-ray machine, they probably wouldn't catch it and you could take the weapon on the plane without a problem?

(I think part of the problem is that airplanes are "gun-free" zones. If every person on the hijacked airplanes had been packing a Glock, there would have been no 9/11.)

Airports that have opted to use private security companies are doing a much better job of protecting their passengers and are doing so without the blatant invasions of privacy.
Reply
Add a Comment: