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
Here's the issue I see with mixing the two. Who's religion are we mixing with the politics? Yours? Mine? Cousin Larry's? The Druid up the street?
As most who present this arguement are Christian (taking the same latitude you did by paraphrasing the Founding Fathers), where does that leave the rest of us in the arguement? I'm a Jew. Does my religion count towards the political decisions? Drill deeper into that. Which Christian is the right Christian? The Catholic? The Lutheran? The Southern Baptist? That list itself is endless. Are Muslims allowed to have a say? What about the Aethists? Do they not count because, by their very nature, they are "God-less?"
Most bothersome, you stated in your original post, "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." By this definition, those who are not religious, or don't subscribe to the religion you have invisioned in your head, are not honest, have no integrity, and cannot lead out Country. Be careful of the slope you decide to take.
Seriously, you can get an "amen" from me when you decide which God you wish it to be spoken to.
As most who present this arguement are Christian (taking the same latitude you did by paraphrasing the Founding Fathers), where does that leave the rest of us in the arguement? I'm a Jew. Does my religion count towards the political decisions? Drill deeper into that. Which Christian is the right Christian? The Catholic? The Lutheran? The Southern Baptist? That list itself is endless. Are Muslims allowed to have a say? What about the Aethists? Do they not count because, by their very nature, they are "God-less?"
Most bothersome, you stated in your original post, "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." By this definition, those who are not religious, or don't subscribe to the religion you have invisioned in your head, are not honest, have no integrity, and cannot lead out Country. Be careful of the slope you decide to take.
Seriously, you can get an "amen" from me when you decide which God you wish it to be spoken to.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
SCPO Albert Lee Smith I believe there is only one God. I believe (as I have stated countless times before) that going to Church does not make you religious any more than being in the garage makes you a car. I believe that the moral standard for all of us comes from God's Word. Some have not been exposed to God's Word, but they have morals and integrity none the less, but I believe their morals and integrity came from (whether directly or indirectly) God's Word and can only be measured by God's Word. I have not attacked anyone. I have stated my beliefs, used facts to back them up, and have been vilified and voted down (with no explanation as they recommend on this site) by peers whom I have tried to show respect regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. My main premise remains the same: Our country is in bad shape and our leadership exhibits very little morality or integrity. Since it is my opinion that we receive guidance in these areas ultimately from God's Word, and there is only one God, I believe we receive our guidance from Him. The druid up the street would not qualify as his worship is pagan in nature, but the three religions that stem from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would qualify. Regardless of religion, I thought we could all admit the need for something in our leadership and government to make them more the standard and good example of all things worthy in our life and culture instead of the exception to the rule. I just wish that some of the people that were voting me down without an explanation would leave one purely for the purpose of mutual learning. From the time I posted this comment up until now I have not tried to offend anyone, but I guess it is easy to offend when you claim that this country was founded on Christian Tenets by men of Christian Faith and you give people references they can examine on their own and the word Christian bothers them so much that all they can do is lash out in anger. Even if they did not believe as I do (and we are all entitled to our own beliefs and I do not criticize them for theirs) then they could offer their opinion on what they thought would help this country that we have all served for and all care for.
(2)
(0)
SCPO Albert Lee Smith
PO1 Steven Kuhn Thank you for the response, and for going out of your way to prove my point, while at the same time giving yourself an opportunity to testify. That, my friend, is a metric ton of "I" statements. I'm not entirely sure where you were going with your "down vote" diatribe, as I'm relatively certain I didn't down vote you, but c'est la vie.
Morals and values do not come from religion, or God's word as you have said. They come from hard learned life lessons, either passed on from our ancestors or cultivated within ourselves through our travels through life. Does religion play a role? Absolutely, for the religious. The argument can be made that everyone, even the non-religious are religious in their beliefs, but that's a different conversation.
Herein lies the problem with your arguement. Most people don't care about the baseline religion our Nation was founded on. What they care about is the foundational idea that we are free to exercise ANY religion we choose. It's FREEDOM that this country was founded on, not a singular vision of a particular interpretation of your particular God's word. I applaud your right to believe as you do, and in fact encourage you to do so. I do not, however, believe that we, as a freedom based society, should all have to subscribe to it. Therefore, to be perfectly clear in regards to your originally posted question, I, Lee Smith, do not understand that mixing religion and politics is the only thing that can save our Country. I do understand that the continued exercise of Freedom, in all its forms, is what will save this great Nation from itself. The only thing that will save us is if Americans start treating EVERY American as their true brother or sister, with tolerance and mutual respect.
Edited for typos, not content. I should know better than to try to do this on a cell phone.
Morals and values do not come from religion, or God's word as you have said. They come from hard learned life lessons, either passed on from our ancestors or cultivated within ourselves through our travels through life. Does religion play a role? Absolutely, for the religious. The argument can be made that everyone, even the non-religious are religious in their beliefs, but that's a different conversation.
Herein lies the problem with your arguement. Most people don't care about the baseline religion our Nation was founded on. What they care about is the foundational idea that we are free to exercise ANY religion we choose. It's FREEDOM that this country was founded on, not a singular vision of a particular interpretation of your particular God's word. I applaud your right to believe as you do, and in fact encourage you to do so. I do not, however, believe that we, as a freedom based society, should all have to subscribe to it. Therefore, to be perfectly clear in regards to your originally posted question, I, Lee Smith, do not understand that mixing religion and politics is the only thing that can save our Country. I do understand that the continued exercise of Freedom, in all its forms, is what will save this great Nation from itself. The only thing that will save us is if Americans start treating EVERY American as their true brother or sister, with tolerance and mutual respect.
Edited for typos, not content. I should know better than to try to do this on a cell phone.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
That does not change my right to believe that morality and its benchmark come from God's Word. I did not say you voted me down. I said I had been vilified by my beliefs. It does not matter that we differ in our opinions as long as we can do it with mutual respect. I believe in your right to believe in what you think is right while I do the same. I left some references, have heard from both sides of the fence, and just want to figure a way that we can work together towards something that may be bigger than either or all of our opinions. Take care and thanks for the comments.....
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
not going to deep into this, keep it simple:
Morals, ethics, and integrity have nothing to do with religion in the United States when politics is involved.
Which religion? if Christianity, which of the 33,000 denominations will rule the day?
Why is it some of the most religious states, Alabama, Mississippi, basically the south, heavily conservative areas, are some of the worst places to live, take such poor care of each other, and are supplemented by money from liberal states?
Why is it that the supposed heavily Christian party, GOP, against socialism? Jesus was a socialist?
Finally, reference the Vatican, the Catholic church 1000 AD - 1700 AD and it's role in politics for further reasons it's a bad idea, then move on to most the middle east, and most current ISIS for more of the same, though on the extreme side of course.
Religion seems to be great at community level, but when power comes into play, something goes wrong
Morals, ethics, and integrity have nothing to do with religion in the United States when politics is involved.
Which religion? if Christianity, which of the 33,000 denominations will rule the day?
Why is it some of the most religious states, Alabama, Mississippi, basically the south, heavily conservative areas, are some of the worst places to live, take such poor care of each other, and are supplemented by money from liberal states?
Why is it that the supposed heavily Christian party, GOP, against socialism? Jesus was a socialist?
Finally, reference the Vatican, the Catholic church 1000 AD - 1700 AD and it's role in politics for further reasons it's a bad idea, then move on to most the middle east, and most current ISIS for more of the same, though on the extreme side of course.
Religion seems to be great at community level, but when power comes into play, something goes wrong
(2)
(0)
SGT Scott Curtice
nice seditment Camille Romero, but those quotes are fact, the nation was founded on a pluralistic base, because those involved didn't want the government interfering with their religion, and there were more than just Christians, and also several denominations of Christians that didn't agree with each others beliefs, so again let's keep it simple, all Christians come together and believe the exact same thing, and actually practice that belief, sacrifice that belief, then maybe you have a position to start talking about a role to govern by, but actually you still don't because history proves time and time again, religion and politics don't mix.
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against those of faith being politicians, that has always been the case, and always will be, it's one overall religion governing us that I have an issue with, not an individual using their individual faith to guide them. Big difference between the two.
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against those of faith being politicians, that has always been the case, and always will be, it's one overall religion governing us that I have an issue with, not an individual using their individual faith to guide them. Big difference between the two.
(1)
(0)
SGT Scott Curtice
I should have kept my answer simple from the start, Ted Cruz Jr is why politics and religion don't mix
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The question I would have to this would be who's religion would we use in regards to adding into politics? Why is one religion better than any others? Are we then going to exclude people who are Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, or any other religion because it is Christian? That is one of the things that is great about our country is that we don't have to worry about things like that here. If you can name me a country that has Religion and politics fused together that has stood the test of time than that would be a discussion that I would be willing to have with you. Things like that don't work, because there are vast differences in the way that religions are viewed. If we were to go solely based on the Christian religion, which interpretation would we go with? I am a Catholic, so would we go with that, or would we be using one of the Protestant religions?
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
MAJ Carl Ballinger Mormons also follow Jesus. Perhaps they're right and you're missing out on a few extra books.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I am a Christian. When I vote, I do so according to my beliefs. In other words, I vote for the person I believe will be the best "godly" leader for this country. According to Proverbs 29, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
However, taking the text of the question directly I have to say no. I think the general idea of the text of the question itself is a bad one. BUT after reading the rest of the question, I see your point. But I have a question. If we are so bent on finding good qualified candidates to run for office, why is it that when someone runs for office, we automatically see that person as a crook just after money and power? Just a little food for thought...
However, taking the text of the question directly I have to say no. I think the general idea of the text of the question itself is a bad one. BUT after reading the rest of the question, I see your point. But I have a question. If we are so bent on finding good qualified candidates to run for office, why is it that when someone runs for office, we automatically see that person as a crook just after money and power? Just a little food for thought...
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
That is a good question and worthy of an answer. I do not determine a person as a crook because they want to run for office. I would prefer a person run because they desire to serve but we must have a means of support to live while we are "ambassadors on this earth". Not trying to leave you hanging, but I will leave you with a very good question another member left with me (which I am still studying on): What candidates do you consider to be upstanding in the morality, integrity and Christian walk (if applicable as many people have strongly affirmed that I am attacking them by stating my belief that morality at its essence comes from God's Word)?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Arguing religion or politics is generally a waste of time. For the most part, people have their minds made up and can't be influenced by YOUR facts (and let's be clear and say that's just what YOU think are facts.) However, I have two suggestions:
1) Regardless of which side you are on, quit thinking that you have the right to not be offended. Put on your big girl panties, suck it up, and try to make a semblance of a real life for yourself.
2) If you are religious, read 2 Chronicles 7:14. Now remember the story of Lot. According to that story, God would have spared Sodom if only 5 righteous people were in it. So quit bothering everyone else, find 4 who believe as you do, and do what your own book tells you to do. If you don't, quit blaming everyone else for the failure.
1) Regardless of which side you are on, quit thinking that you have the right to not be offended. Put on your big girl panties, suck it up, and try to make a semblance of a real life for yourself.
2) If you are religious, read 2 Chronicles 7:14. Now remember the story of Lot. According to that story, God would have spared Sodom if only 5 righteous people were in it. So quit bothering everyone else, find 4 who believe as you do, and do what your own book tells you to do. If you don't, quit blaming everyone else for the failure.
(2)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
PO3 Romero, I do not have any problem with people posting their opinion, including opinions I don't necessarily agree with. You said you read PO1 Kuhn's post, but let me provide a quote:
I am offended by people attacking without reading the intent or checking the resources. I am offended by people not taking the time to read before they give their opinion. I am offended by people who have fought for America as I have not taking the time to see that I am looking for good ideas from people I respect and trust (as they know what it is to serve) and yet I am attacked without cause.
PO1 Kuhn HIMSELF says he is offended. PO1 Kuhn HIMSELF says he was attacked. PO1 KUHN claims that someone who disagrees with him didn't take the time to read before giving their opinion. 1st, WHO is PO1 KUHN to insist someone has to read his citations before giving an opinion? Second, how can he KNOW that the person disagreeing did not read the citations? Does he have a Predator spying on me, or is he hacked into my computer? Third, it is the height of hubris to assume that not agreeing with presented citations means you didn't understand them, as if all the knowledge in the world is contained within PO1 Kuhn's citations.
For THESE REASONS ALONE did I counsel him (and now you) to be LESS CONFRONTATIONAL in presenting your points. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. It does not diminish me in the least to not be able to convince someone else of the rightness of my cause. I recognize that opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has one, and no one thinks their stinks as bad as someone else's. It's a shame that so few people with a strong belief either for or against religion aren't more tolerant about people they cannot convince.
I am offended by people attacking without reading the intent or checking the resources. I am offended by people not taking the time to read before they give their opinion. I am offended by people who have fought for America as I have not taking the time to see that I am looking for good ideas from people I respect and trust (as they know what it is to serve) and yet I am attacked without cause.
PO1 Kuhn HIMSELF says he is offended. PO1 Kuhn HIMSELF says he was attacked. PO1 KUHN claims that someone who disagrees with him didn't take the time to read before giving their opinion. 1st, WHO is PO1 KUHN to insist someone has to read his citations before giving an opinion? Second, how can he KNOW that the person disagreeing did not read the citations? Does he have a Predator spying on me, or is he hacked into my computer? Third, it is the height of hubris to assume that not agreeing with presented citations means you didn't understand them, as if all the knowledge in the world is contained within PO1 Kuhn's citations.
For THESE REASONS ALONE did I counsel him (and now you) to be LESS CONFRONTATIONAL in presenting your points. I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with me. It does not diminish me in the least to not be able to convince someone else of the rightness of my cause. I recognize that opinions are like a$$holes - everyone has one, and no one thinks their stinks as bad as someone else's. It's a shame that so few people with a strong belief either for or against religion aren't more tolerant about people they cannot convince.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Camille Romero
SGM (Verify To See): Please look at my comment and read again. Now, please tell me how you think I am being arrogant, aggressive, hateful, or confrontational in any way. - ????? - So, then, why do you say you would like to counsel me? -?????- Also, have you read plenty of Kuhn's remarks prior to forming an opinion on something he wrote, so as to not take his commenting out of context? Perhaps Mr. Kuhn could have worded his ideas better; it is not hard to misinterpret what someone is really trying to say in text sometimes. However, knowing Kuhn from the little we have chatted and what I have read, I'm pretty sure I know his heart is in the right place: sincere concern for his country. (I do wish to "counsel" you, Sir, that your comment re: opinions at the latter part of your post is not all that sweet, and could have been left without saying).
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
PO3 Romero, first please tell me where I said you were being arrogant, aggressive or hateful? I don't believe I did any of those things, although it is aggressive to put words in my mouth that I did not speak. Confrontational is another issue. You said, " I think many people here have forgotten where this country has gotten its roots ...", and I think that is demeaning and disrespectful. (Disrespectful not as a question of rank, but to another human being who must believe as his conscience dictates.) I certainly have not forgotten that the pilgrims fled religious persecution, or that a great many of the founders were religious. I also recognize that religion has managed a great many mistakes (Salem witch trials, Inquisition, ...) in part because the people who started them were completely certain that their view alone was the only correct one and that God commissioned them to pound it into the heads of the ignorant heathens.
"Perhaps Mr. Kuhn could have worded his ideas better" Good, that's a start. We are connecting at least a little bit, which means I got at least some of my point about being confrontational across. I don't have a problem with where his heart is or how sincere he is in his belief. My counsel (that word means "suggestion", not that I was doing his NCOER) was that he would have better luck getting people to agree with him if he were less confrontational.
Sweet is perhaps in the ear of the beholder. If I were less sweet than you would like, perhaps it was to suggest that you also are less sweet than you believe. And that also is my counsel, which again is my suggestion. It doesn't matter a bit to me if you accept it or not. I simply try to help people express themselves in a way that doesn't automatically lead to conflict.
"Perhaps Mr. Kuhn could have worded his ideas better" Good, that's a start. We are connecting at least a little bit, which means I got at least some of my point about being confrontational across. I don't have a problem with where his heart is or how sincere he is in his belief. My counsel (that word means "suggestion", not that I was doing his NCOER) was that he would have better luck getting people to agree with him if he were less confrontational.
Sweet is perhaps in the ear of the beholder. If I were less sweet than you would like, perhaps it was to suggest that you also are less sweet than you believe. And that also is my counsel, which again is my suggestion. It doesn't matter a bit to me if you accept it or not. I simply try to help people express themselves in a way that doesn't automatically lead to conflict.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
i don't really think mixing religion with politics. i mean politics are already screwed up as is and mixing religion in with would be like [ and no offence ] pouring gasoline on bonfire. it would be more messed up then it is now.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
SN Brian Riter if you had honesty and integrity in the elected leaders in our country who looked out for you and me and our needs because it was the right thing to do and more important than their own personal pleasure or lining their pockets with money do you think America would be better? America was founded on Christian Principles by Christian men of faith, and America was better because of it. All morality and integrity have their base roots in biblical principals.
R/
Steve
R/
Steve
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Thomas Jefferson today would be a scientist and probably an atheist. Same with Ben Franklin. Adams was not a main stream Christian even at the time. The founders were products of their time. Modern science was not even an option back then when it came to explaining life.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
PO1 Steven Kuhn
you have not checked out a single reference I have mentioned, have you? I did not say that any preacher should tell me how to vote. I stated from historical fact that our founding fathers were Christian and that they founded our nation on Christian principles. If you check out what I have referenced you can address this fact and determine whether I am correct or incorrect.
r/
Steve
r/
Steve
(0)
(0)
PO3 Julia Perry
Hey, Steven PO1 Steven Kuhn, Church Hill, TN: I wasn't entering into a dialogue with you, per se. I just chose this morning to express the issue that matters to me the very most, as pertains to politics and religion. I don't think it was fair for you to make an accusation that I was remiss in the dialogue, because seeing what you had to say was sinply the first of the comments as I scrolled around the page, and I just utilized the empty comment field as a launching point, to say what I had to say. And, if you still have issues with anything that I referenced, let's just put it like this: my late father was a Seminary Professor and career ordained United Methodist pastor. I come by my opinions on this topic naturally. Maybe one of these days you and will find ourselves in dialogue on something, but that wasn't my intent today, so please let the debate just trail off.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
I was not trying to attack you or anyone @PO3 Julia Perry. I was just asking people to check the resources I provided as support to my supposition. Please forgive me if you felt in any way disrespected or attacked.
R/
Steve
R/
Steve
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
They should be separate institutions. In America our 1st Amendment states that we have the freedom of religion. Understanding that there are several religions that guide many of us through life must recognize that one sole religion does not reign supreme. That Amendment was written this way so that you and I may raise our children under our own religious beliefs and congregate with others of the same belief and be free of ridicule. We shouldn't rule based on religious grounds unless it is completely universal. This is why we have a government for elected officials to gather and set moral standards of society. People vote officials in to represent their assumed beliefs. The system we have works. That is why the US is the best nation in the world.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree with the premise that leaders with traditional Judeo-Christian values would be a huge step in the right direction for our country. Regardless of the label with which they identify themselves (Catholic, Methodist..), I think a solid Christian background is highly desirable. Of course it's not just a background or foundation, but the commitment to living your beliefs every day. The values upon which our country was founded have been diluted at best, and discarded at worst.
There was originally no "wall of separation", and the phrase has been co-opted to further an atheistic agenda. Our founding fathers, yes even Ben Franklin, were religious men, and crafted our founding documents and the government bodies designed to administer those documents with God in mind. I think our government and country benefit greatly from having religious men and women elected and appointed into those offices.
There was originally no "wall of separation", and the phrase has been co-opted to further an atheistic agenda. Our founding fathers, yes even Ben Franklin, were religious men, and crafted our founding documents and the government bodies designed to administer those documents with God in mind. I think our government and country benefit greatly from having religious men and women elected and appointed into those offices.
(2)
(0)
SFC Jeff L.
By the way, for clarification - When I say "religious men and women" I'm not talking about people who actively hold any official religious position such as a pastor or other church leadership position simultaneously holding public office. I intend it to mean "people with a strong religious foundation" as to the way they live their lives.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SSG Brad Porter
Can you provide evidence that Jesus was against the religious - or just those that were not of his religion?
If so, why did more than a dozen religious organizations arise out of his opposition to religion? Why would the all-knowing God not set in order events that would lead to non-religion and the development of a personal relationship with God and a fellowship (community) who like minded believers with no defined leaders, pastors, preachers, etc.? Why did he ever mention tithes if he didn't want organizations? Were you supposed to just throw 10% of your money out?
Jesus set in order a set of laws that essentially founded the Christian Church by providing them with tools to instill fear and control and is responsible for more deaths than we can comprehend with the religious wars of the last millennium.
Can you provide evidence that Jesus was against the religious - or just those that were not of his religion?
If so, why did more than a dozen religious organizations arise out of his opposition to religion? Why would the all-knowing God not set in order events that would lead to non-religion and the development of a personal relationship with God and a fellowship (community) who like minded believers with no defined leaders, pastors, preachers, etc.? Why did he ever mention tithes if he didn't want organizations? Were you supposed to just throw 10% of your money out?
Jesus set in order a set of laws that essentially founded the Christian Church by providing them with tools to instill fear and control and is responsible for more deaths than we can comprehend with the religious wars of the last millennium.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I would rather keep them separate. Not having a "National religion" is what makes us unique in this world. It is one of the few things that allows each and every one of us to keep our identity. Mixing the two would give politicians easier access to making laws based solely on some national religion, rather than on what should be universal. I do not and will not serve a country under a theocracy because that is what we will become. We will lose our ability to choose and it will be forced upon us. The more laws that take away a people's right to choose for themselves without repercussion the more this country goes the way of the Roman Empire.
(2)
(0)
PO1 Steven Kuhn
I do not envision incorporating them, only the morals and integrity they are supposed to generate. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe that our political system would function better for our people and our nation if our leaders had a moral compass. I believe that they can get this direction only from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google