Do you understand why mixing religion and politics may be the only thing that can save our country?

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, your Christians are so unlike like your Christ" m. gandhi

We need to believe in Something!

While many of you are voting me down with no explanation as to why, I would like to remind you that I posted facts from our own American History that are easy to look up. The references I mentioned are Washington's farewell address, and the bibliography of our Founding Fathers. Also, the first two acts of Congress were to print up Bibles for use in our schools to teach our children morality and discipline and to print copies for each member serving in each branch of government. This can be looked up in the annals of Congress. The Supreme Court upheld Bibles and prayer in our schools for almost 200 years using legal precedent until the Supreme Court using no legal precedent changed direction in 1962 and voted the way they did just because that was their opinion. They cited zero legal precedent. So check the sources I have repeatedly given you and then respond. I have not tried to offend anyone, just tried to open their eyes to true facts in our American History.....that we can take pride in.

Where do you get the idea that one must be religious to be moral? I would much rather vote for an atheist than one who relinquishes control to his or her god. How many crimes against humanity have taken place, and are indeed, still taking place, based on religious beliefs? This country seems to be more sharply divided between those who would have us become a theocratic state and those vehemently opposed. We do not need to mix religion and politics. History has taught us that and is primarily the reason this country was founded in the first place. Do you know that a recent Pew Research survey showed that the second largest denomination in this country behind Catholics were "Nones"? And you can look that up. The nones constitute almost 22% of our population and is the fastest growing segment of all "denominations". I hate using that word because having no religious preference is not a denomination. So, let's not regress but move toward electing people based on their qualifications and character and not on their religious beliefs.

I agree with PO1 Kuhn,
To know that we are getting people in Congress that will do a fair and honest days work I feel they should have Christian values. I know a lot of people don't agree with this but lets look at what we have in there now before You all close your eyes to this reading. We have a lot of personnel in Congress now that could care less about the American people. They get elected so they can build their nest egg for the time they serve while Americans are suffering for their past decisions. As an example, One of the biggest decision made was when Congress decided to take the interest from Social Security so they could make it look like our budget had been balanced all these years. Now, not only is the deficit gotten bigger but Social Security is in trouble. Their solution to this is to raise the age so Americans get their earned Social Security benefits at a later time, or to go and have people invest in 401K retirement instead of Social Security. If Congress would have left Social Security alone with the interest it was getting, it would be solvent and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since Congress is on a different retirement system then the rest of America, the American people get the shaft. And it has been Congress that has been making the decisions that have affected Social Security and the present trouble it is in. There are too many people in Congress that are thieves, adulterers, and just down right lazy. I don't see any of them concerned with the present mess we are in on the Deficit we have, nor any other real issue affecting our Great Country. The only time we hear from them is during re-election speeches about what they did, which amounts to basically, doing what they got elected for in the first place. Nothing impressive at all. We always hear about saving the Middle Class, telling us how they are going to fix the budget, more jobs.... and nothing gets done after they are reelected except, their pockets get bigger. As PO1 Kuhn, pointed out, get Christians in there, they know who their Master is and they know will be more honest and trustworthy. I agree with His assessment. I can understand there are a lot of people out there that disagree but I don't see a lot of them coming up with a better solution to the mess we are in. Look at all the personnel being cut in the Armed Forces. We were supposed to have an Armed Forces to defend our Country. All we think about is having enough troops to sustain several Wars but nothing being mentioned about sustaining Wars to protect our Country. It's always someone else we are protecting. The American people also paid a high price for Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused our deficit to grow to 13 trillion dollars with no relief in sight and within the past 4 months we have started talking about getting involved with Iraq which is a terrible mistake. We can go in and save this Country time and time again, but this Country will never be able to take care of itself. They will listen to anyone that is willing to die for their Country where they don't have to. Why aren't we letting the UN decide who goes and defends these Countries instead of the US sticking their nose into these domestic Countries while the American people continually pay the price for this. If we are going to fight in another Country, they need to pay us to do it. It should be the American people funding these Wars. Again, as long as we have the type of Congressional idiots we have in there now, we will never be able to have a better America.

A few more thoughts on this topic...

1) When I took my oath of office, I used the word "God". To me, "god" means what it means to me, not what it means to you.

2) One of my best friends post-deployment is the chaplain where I'm stationed. At the end of every meeting I've had with him we've prayed. But I'm praying to MY God, not yours.

3) I've been to church often over the last few years and many times throughout my life. I like the ritual and I like the people. My son was a topic of a mormon's talk (retired COL) who was going on a mission and asked me to attend his speech before leaving. I'm not a mormon, but I attended and it was great and the speech brought tears to my eyes.

4) It's arrogance to assume that atheists don't have something they consider a "God". And you compare me to many of the top televangelists and I'll be willing to put my moral credentials up against their's any day.

This is really interesting discussion. Sooo....just trying to understand your point, you think anyone in a political position should "acknowledge" some type of higher power? What about acknowledging the citizens they serve as the higher power? Would that count in your opinion?

The original question is fallacious at best; it poisons the well of possible answers, suggesting that if you don't believe that the ONLY way to save America is to implement subjective religious beliefs on all citizens, and that the Constitution is some how ok with or can endorse that, then you want America to fail. You need a lot more than a random quote from a random Founding Father to back up that assertion.

The separation between church and state is purely legislative, the amendment to the constitution states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This basically means that a congressman can have religious views to guide their morals, but laws cannot be passed to hinder the free practice of religion in the United States. They may vote on laws in the way that their religion tells them, but they may not make laws to stifle anyone else from doing so as well.

So yes, it is constitutional.

First, which religion do you believe will "save" our country? What if that only works for half of the population, because only half of the population is a part of that religion (percentage used only to illustrate a point, as I do not know what percentage of the United States follows which religion).

Second, just because someone claims to be "religious", does not mean that they are honest and have integrity or honor. How do you know they are actually being "honest" about their religious beliefs and not just using the facade of piety for political gain? How do you sort out the actual honorable politicians from those who are only masking their dishonesty pretending to practice their religious preference?

Third, how do you sort out the different interpretations of what IS honest and honorable? What do you do in the case of someone who is devoutly following a religion and believes that it is honorable to purge the world of all other religions? To them, that is "honorable", because it is the interpretation they have decided is correct for their particular religion.

Fourth, there are countries which have decided to mix religion with politics. They are referred to a "THEOCRACIES". You may have heard of Iran? That is a perfect example of a country that has mixed religion with politics. It doesn't matter what the religion is, because there will always be those that come into political power under that kind of system who believe that they can, not just decide what you have to think and act like, but what you must believe to remain a member of that society. When I say, "remain a member of that society", I am not referring to exile, but to execution. ISIS, ISOL or the Islamic State is a religious political movement and they truly believe it is honorable and moral to kill or enslave anyone who does not follow their belief system, or convert to it. Once you put religion directly into government you open up a huge can of worms.

While I agree that having politicians be honest, honorable and moral would be great, how do you tell? I personally base my decision on who to vote for on their entire life history, not on whether they appear to be "religious". I think about their campaign and score them on positive and negative campaigning. If they attack their opponent, they lose points, if they stay with the issues and suggest solutions for the issue (not vague statements like, "I have a plan", but actual substantial solutions). You can never know what is in a politicians heart until they are in office. Politics is, "the art of the lie". There is an old joke that goes, "How can you tell if a politician is lying?" The answer to that is, "Their lips are moving". Promises from a politician are smoke on a windy day. Once the wind changes, the smoke changes direction.

Our legal system was pretty much based on three of the Ten Commandments. "6. Thou shalt not kill" (or in some interpretations the word murder is substituted for the word kill). "8. Thou shalt not commit theft" (or steal can be substituted for 'commit theft', if you prefer). "9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor" (this is where the perjury laws spring from, though in several translations it is sometimes stated as 'thou shalt not lie'). There are certainly laws based on several of the others ("7. Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "10. Thou shalt not covet" come to mind). We follow 4. Keep the Sabbath Day Holy, not by law, but by tradition. We even account for the different Sabbath Days of the different "major" religions by having a "weekend" that lasts for two full days.

What I have shown in the above paragraph is that our government is HEAVILY based in religion already. Just because it is based in religion doesn't mean that it is always "good", per se. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the laws that we already have when held up to the light of the US Constitution. The final interpretation of which, we leave up to nine "wise elders" who are scholars of the law and the Constitution. If they are all scholars, shouldn't this mean they have had the opportunity to use the same research materials and sources to make their decisions? If they are using the same resources, shouldn't that mean they would come up with unanimous decisions each and every time? Again, it comes down to personal interpretation, not a "cut in stone" foundation.

If our legal system, which I have shown to be based in one of the most fundamental religious principals for two, if not all three major religions in this country, can be interpreted differently by each and every one of the "learned elders" (if you haven't figured it out, I am talking about the Supreme Court of the United States), how is it that making certain that our government being run with strict religious principles would be any different than it is now? Would each and every politician agree on everything? I contend that would not be the case at all, because as with each and every decision you and I make is colored and led by our PERSONAL experiences and beliefs, so would those of the "religious politicians".

I am, personally, very devout in my faith, but I would never try to force my belief system on anyone else, because I believe in our Constitution and the First Amendment of it. Making the government follow strict religious guidelines, would by default, cause to come to pass a de facto State Religion. The religion would be that of the majority of the voters, because that is who would ALWAYS get elected and those elected would follow what THEIR religion says. This would disenfranchise all of those in this country who have a different belief system, because they would have no representation in the government.

Yes, our government has become immoral and dishonest, but more religion is NOT the answer. Having an educated electorate is. How many people do you know that say, "I always vote Democrat, so I have to vote Democrat again", or, "my parents were Republicans, so I vote Republican". It isn't about the ISSUES, but about following tradition. Until we can get the voting public to actually focus on the issues and solutions we will always have the same problem. And until politicians are actually punished for lying to the public we will continue to be mislead. Religion enters into it, not at all.

So...who's religion do you think we should mix with politics? And are you advocating that atheists have no place in our political process?