Posted on Oct 27, 2014
Do you understand why mixing religion and politics may be the only thing that can save our country?
84.6K
813
602
22
15
7
Many people feel that the First Amendment calls for the separation of Church and State. No where in the Amendment do these words appear, but many people feel that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution. One of our Founding Fathers stated "Christians should vote for Christian Leaders" (paraphrased) and you can look it up to prove its validity. When I speak of mixing religion and politics I am speaking of the ethics and integrity of people who know they must answer to a Higher Power (I call Him God). We need people who know that the greatest among us must be the servant of all. The First Amendment prevents government from setting up a mandatory national religion and prevents the government from messing with each citizen's individual right to worship as he or she sees fit. Look it up and read it before you argue with me. I just want to know how you all would feel about having elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities. I am also enclosing a copy of an article I found in our newspaper (which surprised me as they tend to be pretty liberal!)! I am eager to hear your responses. Let's pick up this topic and run with it! it would not let me post the Newspaper article, but it basically says we need to stand up for people who truly stand up for God.
Politics
Religion
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 97
2
2
0
I find it interesting that some in the comments are mentioning ISIS as a comparison to modern Christianity (but no one mentions the crusades). In all aspects of the word, ISIS is quite radical—even Al Qaeda believes them to be radical—and have no comparison to the modern church in the least. That said, it is expected that the average person will draw information from their own surroundings (making choices based on the socio-economic climate in which they live). This is seen all throughout history. People base their decisions upon their accumulated knowledge within their given sphere of influence. ... Basically, we are slaves/puppets to the Zeitgeist of our idialectical natures.
Modern America is quite secular, and therefore it is natural for modern Americans to oppose anything having to do with the church. This is a post-Christian nation, and some of the accumulated knowledge comes from bad experiences with the church in childhood: maybe some pastor was preaching (spewing?) a "fire, hell, and brimstone" message that turned someone off? maybe an "idiot" Christian was making claims that contradicted things learned in school? God forbid, maybe some pervert within the church had his/her way with someone?
Most people are anti-Christian not because the tenants of Christianity are bothersome, but because the spirit of the times (zeitgeist) moves in a direction opposed to Christianity, but also because of personal memories that stain the mind. We have to remember, though, that we don't judge a religion by its members but by its teachings. Every religion has bad members (or as a dear friend always says, "There are always wolves hiding in the fold"), and we can look to ISIS as proof, but that doesn't mean that we throw Christianity out the door because of these individuals.
Instead, the religion of Christianity should be explored by systematically ejecting all American syncretized aspects on the religion (weird "Left Behind" beliefs, total abstinence of alcohol, etc.) in order to discover what a "pure" Christianity would look like based solely upon the teachings of the Bible—biblical Christianity.
(If you are interested in learning more about what I am talking about [Syncretism and Cultural Translation], see my paper titled "Hybridization Versus Syncretism: A Moral View of Cultural Translation in Israel During the Exilic Period and How That Relates to the Modern Church" at the following link: http://goo.gl/9EOs8G)
Modern America is quite secular, and therefore it is natural for modern Americans to oppose anything having to do with the church. This is a post-Christian nation, and some of the accumulated knowledge comes from bad experiences with the church in childhood: maybe some pastor was preaching (spewing?) a "fire, hell, and brimstone" message that turned someone off? maybe an "idiot" Christian was making claims that contradicted things learned in school? God forbid, maybe some pervert within the church had his/her way with someone?
Most people are anti-Christian not because the tenants of Christianity are bothersome, but because the spirit of the times (zeitgeist) moves in a direction opposed to Christianity, but also because of personal memories that stain the mind. We have to remember, though, that we don't judge a religion by its members but by its teachings. Every religion has bad members (or as a dear friend always says, "There are always wolves hiding in the fold"), and we can look to ISIS as proof, but that doesn't mean that we throw Christianity out the door because of these individuals.
Instead, the religion of Christianity should be explored by systematically ejecting all American syncretized aspects on the religion (weird "Left Behind" beliefs, total abstinence of alcohol, etc.) in order to discover what a "pure" Christianity would look like based solely upon the teachings of the Bible—biblical Christianity.
(If you are interested in learning more about what I am talking about [Syncretism and Cultural Translation], see my paper titled "Hybridization Versus Syncretism: A Moral View of Cultural Translation in Israel During the Exilic Period and How That Relates to the Modern Church" at the following link: http://goo.gl/9EOs8G)
Digging for the truth...to set you free. Online CV/Résumé and blog. Find published and unpublished papers, etc.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
When politics and religion are mixed, all hell breaks loose! The Founding Fathers knew that all too well, which is why they designed our constitution the way they did. The sad chapters of European history where this occurred drove their thinking inducing them to create something that breaks away from it. Now, there are forces in our beloved country trying to drive us back to the system that our country was created to relinquish it.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Jefferson and madison both wrote letters and papers about the seperation of church and state and why that is important.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Letters do not override the Constitution. If it is not stated directly in the Constitution in cannot be implied by letters taken out of context. For instance, Jefferson's letter was an assurance to Baptist's Churches who feared the government would try and close them that they were protected to worship as they saw fit because there was a wall between them and the government protecting them where the government lacked the power to manipulate or control religions or interfere with an individuals right to practice them as they saw fit. Jefferson was a Baptist himself. It was not separating religious men from serving in office, it was separating government from controlling religion.
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
"it separated gov from controlling religion" which would also mean using religion to influence the creation of laws.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I am very surprised and at the same time very grateful that someone decided to post a question such as this one. I believe whole heartedly that our countries leaders should be Christians. Our constitution and laws a based off of God's commandments. I believe that our country is having the troubles that we are having because we are moving away from its foundation. We are giving so many rights and authority to aetheist and we are forgetting about the rights of those that believe in God. They are taking God out of everything, but my child is still asked to celebrate halloween in school. But they cannot celebrate Christmas in school, it must be called a winter festival. Also they are actually working on a new religion that combines Christianity with Islam, what sense does that make? Who compromises on religion? It is a way of life and not up for compromise. I wish for once that this country would not just consider the rights of those that do not believe, but those that are believers as well. I believe that if this country would stand up for people who truly stand up for God, God will once again bless this country and bring it out of this hole that it is currently in.
(2)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
"Actually working on a new religion that combines Christianity with Islam" Who is this "they" you are referring to? Where do they get the power to form a new religion? Will it be called Christislam, or Islanianity? Will they meet in Mosques or Churches? How will we know them? Can't you see the whole idea is absurd and spreading nonsense like this serves no purpose except to inflame the passions of persecution. "They are taking god out of everything" Not true. All schoolchildren are free to pray or acknowledge their god however they see fit. They just cannot have school officials leading prayer or proselytising in the classroom.
(1)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
Just another effort to explain away the natural world with a god. Stephen Hawking says;"One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary." And so goes your "new" religion. Down the drain with Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh and all the rest.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Ultimately, religion will not change anything as long as the hearts of men are evil. There is a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is true of even the religious leaders of our time. I completely agree that those on top should be servants of all men, but I understand that when money and influence get in the mix, you will have morally weak individuals buckling under the pressure. And even the best of us is not nearly as "straight and narrow" as we deceive ourselves into believing we are, or that we portray to the public. Nothing made of men is not failed in some way. be it church, state, family, infrastructure, technology, NOTHING. We have to be the change we seek. PERIOD!!!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Ehtics based in religion is all good and dandy if they apply to the changing ethical society. Case and point: homosexuality was a practiced thing in both Greece and rome (I'll point this out later) but is spurned by the Abrahamic religions (judiasm, Christianity, islam). Why it's spurned is because of the inherent animosity between ancient rome and the jews (crucifixion, burning) there's a lot. In fact, much of the roman culture was spurned by jewish, and as a result the corresponding religions of muslim and Christian religions. Examples being gluttony, fornication and coveting wealth. These things permeate today. Why? residual from our roots in the Christian religion of course.
That being said, ethics are very, very subjective and as a result cannot be adhered to by a state, especially in the form of a religion or promotion of a religion. This will infringe upon the liberty to choose your own morality. (utilitarianism was a big philosophical theory around this time)
Also, things that were ok in the bible would not be ok now. Stoning a woman for adultery, killing an architect for a collapsed roof resulting in maiming or death, etc. all of these in Leviticus (and Hammurabi as well [theme here]).
Case and point, let morality change with the times. We may not agree as a population, but that's just how we work as humans. we change. I'm by no means saying that religion is bad. In fact, the writing of morality somewhere is good, but now with a set of laws coming from man now and not ... well... man...(many men wrote the bible[council of Nicaea], no matter how divinely inspired it was and as a result is fallable just as we are) we can accommodate change within the guidelines of writing and still maintain order among ourselves. (I promise, there will never come a time when the movie 'purge' becomes a non-fiction.)
That being said, ethics are very, very subjective and as a result cannot be adhered to by a state, especially in the form of a religion or promotion of a religion. This will infringe upon the liberty to choose your own morality. (utilitarianism was a big philosophical theory around this time)
Also, things that were ok in the bible would not be ok now. Stoning a woman for adultery, killing an architect for a collapsed roof resulting in maiming or death, etc. all of these in Leviticus (and Hammurabi as well [theme here]).
Case and point, let morality change with the times. We may not agree as a population, but that's just how we work as humans. we change. I'm by no means saying that religion is bad. In fact, the writing of morality somewhere is good, but now with a set of laws coming from man now and not ... well... man...(many men wrote the bible[council of Nicaea], no matter how divinely inspired it was and as a result is fallable just as we are) we can accommodate change within the guidelines of writing and still maintain order among ourselves. (I promise, there will never come a time when the movie 'purge' becomes a non-fiction.)
(2)
(0)
Cadet 1LT (Join to see)
I actually did extensive research on the crusades. (William of tyre, council of Clermont and pope urban II, fulcher of chartres, Thomas asbridge, johnathan riley smith, etc etc etc.) The reason for the crusades was a means to attempt to mend the great schism that had been brought about, to funnel some very violent knights to keep from killing each other and peasantry, and to provide a very serious penitent act for these knights to endure as sanctioned by the aforementioned Pope so they would not be condemned to hell for their killing. (in essence, making killing in the name of god a thing and permissible). Really, I did my HW on that one. I'll show you my 22 page paper on the whole thing regarding cause, purpose and identification of the crusades. Also, homosexuality has been around long before writing. sure God's Word was around long before the nation of Israel, but not long before the region of Phoenicia. It went by a million names: Phoenicia, then Canaan, Palestine, the holy land, levant, middle-east, etc. it's many names to the same place. the thing is though that the peoples culture and as a result their values have changed. Before the Hixos (mercenaries, most likely the jewish peoples from the old testament) left Ur (basically Baghdad region) their homosexual-scorning Yahweh did not have any influence in what was then known as Phoenicia. In essence here, my time table is spot on.
Additionally, our founding fathers were indeed Christians, however wasn't it Jefferson who stated that a lighthouse was more useful than a church? Founding father there. Also, it's not the morality that kept us up this long, and it certainly wasn't the founding fathers. Lincoln cleaned up a mess that they just swept under the carpet for a hundred years or so. Their ideals for the military was actually the opposite of today. They were strongly against a standing military, as that would be an immediate threat to the freedoms of the people. (oppression history of England and such, free quarter) If they saw our military today and how strongly the people supported it they would be appalled. Additionally, if they saw how involved we are now in international affairs, they would be petrified. The foundation of our nation has Christian undertones, yes. I completely agree. However, it is not this that made us what we are now. Every generation's effort made us what we are now. It is unfair and impractical to attribute our nation's success to people who have only had a hand in it for the latter half of their very short lives.
v/r,
CDT Gorgone
Additionally, our founding fathers were indeed Christians, however wasn't it Jefferson who stated that a lighthouse was more useful than a church? Founding father there. Also, it's not the morality that kept us up this long, and it certainly wasn't the founding fathers. Lincoln cleaned up a mess that they just swept under the carpet for a hundred years or so. Their ideals for the military was actually the opposite of today. They were strongly against a standing military, as that would be an immediate threat to the freedoms of the people. (oppression history of England and such, free quarter) If they saw our military today and how strongly the people supported it they would be appalled. Additionally, if they saw how involved we are now in international affairs, they would be petrified. The foundation of our nation has Christian undertones, yes. I completely agree. However, it is not this that made us what we are now. Every generation's effort made us what we are now. It is unfair and impractical to attribute our nation's success to people who have only had a hand in it for the latter half of their very short lives.
v/r,
CDT Gorgone
(1)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
The reason for the Crusades sir is that many areas that had been Christian had fallen to the rising flood of Muslim jihad and Europe was being invaded. That is why England and France put away their long time rivalry in the cause of a common enemy. Talk to an actual Knight of the Cross and see all the things you can learn.
Respectfully,
Steve
Respectfully,
Steve
(0)
(0)
Cadet 1LT (Join to see)
Do you know of any way I can attach the document? Also, I would beg to differ on your previous statements. Additionally, being a Knight of the Cross means that you are biased and possibly even fed false information to further support the organization's cause. I assure you, the First Crusade was solely political in intent. If Muslim invasion was the biggest reason for the call to pilgrimage, then why did Pope Urban II not send the crusader knights to the Iberian Peninsula to fight against the moors there? Instead, he sent them to the Byzantine Empire to fight the Turks. From a geographical standpoint, Spain is far closer to home than the majority of the crusaders as well (most crusaders coming from modern day france) and in addition to the geographical importance of this decision, there was a very close tie with the French monarchy and the Vatican. Why would the Pope instead send knights in the opposite direction? An attempt to mend the schism that split the eastern and western Christian churches. He even mentions in the Council of Clermont in all accounts (italicize here) 'all accounts!' that it was called in aid of the Christian brothers in the east.
I'm enjoying this conversation. Hopefully I can send you my paper. I have some very extensive research put into it in addition to a lot of sources you may find very interesting.
v/r,
CDT Gorgone
I'm enjoying this conversation. Hopefully I can send you my paper. I have some very extensive research put into it in addition to a lot of sources you may find very interesting.
v/r,
CDT Gorgone
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It should be separate plain and simple. People who have religious views aren't bad people but if left unchecked end up thinking that they have a moral right to set laws for those of us who don't believe.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
When we first started this great nation of ours, almost all of the people in politics and a majority of our Founding Fathers were in fact Christian. We could have abused authority and tried to keep it that way, but chose to adhere to the validity of the freedom of religion. Voting for someone of a religious mindset does not get you a dictator who is above the law. Quite the contrary, you get someone who knows every decision they make they will have to answer for not o ly from their fellow men and women, but of God Whom they purpose to serve. I am just trying to address the obvious decline in morality and integrity in our pool of elected officials out of our mutual love for our country. Thank you for your opinion.
R/
Steve
R/
Steve
(0)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
PO1 Kuhn, It's my humble opinion that your religiosity is interferring with your ability to use sound judgement. You repeatedly insist that morality and integrity can only be obtained by walking with christ. That says that those of us that do not believe cannot be moral or have integrity that would equal the set of those values carried by the faithful. Not True. I would suffice to say that the morals and integrity of freethinkers is much more desirable than that of the flock. I would much rather my elected officials be responsible to the electorate without a fall-back position onto belief in the supernatural. There is no evidence that any god exists and therefore no evidence that any believer has any inside track to better moral judgements.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
True religion can't survive in politics so has no place there. I think more aptly you mean government. Politics is unethical and dishonest by its very nature. The government and the U.S. cannot survive as a "pure" country. Too many filthy things need be done to survive in this world. Religion has no place in governmet because no matter how religious someone is, or how much the constitution says we can all practice equally, as soon as the government was populated by a majority of one religion over others, those others would be allowed only at the whims of the majority. Sooner or later they minorities would cease to be allowed to exist. I would illustrate examples but they so numerous to mention. Even in this country. Now, if those that worked in government actually held dear the beliefs they profess to the masses, then this question would be moot.
(2)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
No one is condemning religion. I said it has a place just not in politics. I am curious though. Why is it Christians so often rage against those that fail the follow their beliefs and cry religious intolerance but yet practice the very same against everything else that doesn't fit within their paradigm? Religion is and should be important to those that practice it. It's best practiced with those of like faith and held dear in their hearts. It doesn't need to be force fed to us with a governmental shovel. So to repeat since you seem to be lacking your aforementioned critical thinking skills, I'm not condemning religion nor am I suggesting the government do so. I'm saying that government and religion should share a healthy separation. That men that run this country should do so as their conscience dictates be it as an atheist, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Jedi. If we look out for the great whole then religion won't matter but to the people who find peace, solace, and strength in their faith.
(1)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
And for the record SPC, don't ever presume to know what I will or won't do. It's presumptuous and arrogant and while I encourage free thinking, I don't encourage unprovoked disrespect. So next time, make your point without invalidating it by being an a hole.
(0)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
MAJ, I am more than comfortable with a man voting his conscience and beliefs. Make no mistake, I am not anti religion. Far from it. I was simply responding to the notion that politics and religion should be intertwined due to corruption etc. Nothing more.
(0)
(0)
MSG(P) (Join to see)
Also. I didn't see this as a question about voting as much as establishing more "Christian" beliefs in political decision making. Maybe I didn't read it correctly
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Jesus NEVER existed and was a ‘mythical character’, historian claims
Writer Micheal Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus (illustrated) existing. He is thought is to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
You are adding to the fun MAJ (Join to see) , and if it comes from the internet that Al Gore made then it must be true, right? Have you checked out one single reference I have given to you? Do you fear checking out the original validity of my posts and the references therein on the basis that I may be speaking from truth and that it might add more validity to my talking points? I respect your right not to believe, as long as you will respect my right to believe and also check out references when offered. I will not and do not ridicule your disbelief, I respect it because it is your right. Do you respect mine?
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
Yeah, I did not respond to the bait either as I felt it was not worth stooping down to comment. I do not have anything against the gentleman and will continue to pray for him, you, me, and a whole bunch of humanity.
(2)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
I'm not sure what "documented in ancient history" means, but if it involves mention in writings for which we possess contemporary original sources, there are a bunch of Roman, Hittite, Hurrian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian, Indian and Chinese persons who are lined up several hundred deep ahead of Jesus.
(1)
(0)
CPO William Hughes
MAJ: "There is no person more documented in ancient history than Jesus". Care to provide references? Or is this just another unsupported statement of your unswerving faith? PO1 Kuhn: "it was not worth stooping down to comment" Aren't you the one who always wants folks to check your references? There is NO contemporary historians of the time that mention anything about Jesus as I've mentioned in other posts. The events of the supposed crucufiction (the sun stopping in the sky, earth opening up and dead rising from their graves) are not supported by any historian of the time, but you and the Maj can certainly go on believing as you want, just don't send any of your followers to my house to proselytise to me.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't understand- save our country...from who or what exactly? The aliens from Quintonia? This is America, we took an oath to serve and protect the Constitution, not to change it, right? In my opinion, when I've observed religion and politics mixing, it made me throw up a little in my mouth. There's probably a really good reason why it's separate. To me it's like watching the devil do good deeds. Let the bad continue to be bad and let us stay good and be do-gooders. There are more do-gooders, so eventually more good will come of it. So there you have it. Why reinvent the wheel? It's already round :)
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
If you do not see the death throws that America is in right now then I would have to start even earlier in history to show you where we once were and bring you back to where we are today and let you judge the difference for yourself. When we cannot get the truth about Benghazi from our own Government and men of valor ran to the danger to protect others and did not get the help they called for then something is wrong with the wheel you want to allow to keep spinning......
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
[actually, that's "throes"]
I reckon that the major problem we face now is the degree to which manufactured crises (you mentioned "Benghazi") are allowed to dominate the national discourse. I can certainly agree with the condemnation of the essential voiding of our social contract with our serving and veteran service members.
But things have been (and probably will be) worse. We haven't had any huge national demonstrations involving vets establishing tent cities and protesting their treatment recently, but we probably should.
I reckon that the major problem we face now is the degree to which manufactured crises (you mentioned "Benghazi") are allowed to dominate the national discourse. I can certainly agree with the condemnation of the essential voiding of our social contract with our serving and veteran service members.
But things have been (and probably will be) worse. We haven't had any huge national demonstrations involving vets establishing tent cities and protesting their treatment recently, but we probably should.
(1)
(0)
SA (Join to see)
Yes, these are valid points and arguments but what can we do about it except let it go since nothing will become of the truth on that matter. It's sad I know, but sometimes we have to move on and learn from it- next time try and elect someone who isn't already purchased by corporations or major energy (oil) interests, but that's far and between. Just look at my local politics, Joni Ernst, just elected. She's been bought by the Koch brothers, however, if she didn't have strings attached and didn't want to do away with the federal minimum wage, she would actually be a pretty decent representative! Think positive and educate others on their decisions next election- that's really all we can try and do. Conspiracy theories aside (which I love), I think we can do better next time.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google