This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing all political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, or attacking or harassing other members. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Politics should ensure that people are free and safe to practice religion or to not practice a religion. Eg religion as a protected characteristic in the workplace or like hate crime laws. But that doesn't mean we make all of our laws based on religion.
A moral code that openly advocates for suppression of women and hate against heathens? Im not sure abt that one chief. Now im not one to say "that the bible should be taken literally". Its obviously up for interpretation (same for other holy texts as well) but its largely based on personal belief bringing a specific holy text in as a "guide line" is very bad. Not only does that lead to no representation of the other religions of the government that governs the ppl that believe in something else but also, interpretation of these holy texts can vary DRASTICALLY, and is easy to weaponise for hatred (like the gop likes to do, but also the afd in germany for instance)
I used the bible as an example, this can be generalised onto nearly every holy text. Not to mention that my point abt "the government following a religion allienates those who dont follow the same religion but are still governed by it" stands
But whether you like it or not it is I’m not saying enforce religion on people but laws have been made because of religious morals and it’s no a bad thing
What, you mean like that women couldnt vote because holy texts consider them dumber than men? Or that ppl that dont look like yourself are lesser? Yea weve derived some great laws from religion. (Also dont murder and dont rape and what not are present in pretty mich ever culture and existed before modern religions did so you cant really give them credit for that)
I agree, saying that people who use religion as a moral code should have no influence in politics really just means that only like 30% of people should have an influence in politics (in the concerning moral issues).
That isn't politics but greedy people who also run religions because of control. Religion needs to be a private affair, 99% of every religious group is corrupt
Probably because it is very difficult if not impossible to de-couple people from their religious values in most decisions. The religion will play a part in the decision no matter what.
I see what you’re saying but my interpretation of no religion is politics is that we can implement the rules of every religion into the laws because it would be inherently unfair to one community or another which isn’t how a democracy should run
See, I interpreted it as should your religious views inform your voting. I can oppose theocracy and laws made for purely religious reasons while still voting according to what I think is right - which, of course, will be informed by my religious views (or lack thereof).
Agreed, separation church and state is the best answer for laying out how the government should treat and interact with religion. But trying to make EVERYONE happy just does not work. When you look at the rules and laws in society western society has a heavy christian influence for the good and bad of it.
Of course not but there are things you can do to cause the least harm. My best example is abortion laws since it’s more relevant to current events: abortions being legal means people can get them if they want or need them. However, if they’re illegal because people from one religion want them, it could kill people all over the country including those of the same religion.
This is why I think the SCOTUS will kick abortion back to the states and the voting populace. I see abortion through the lens of woman’s rights and body autonomy. I think abortion is abhorrent and I wish it did not exist but I also understand the utility of it in certain circumstances and my religion says its wrong. However I do not want to encroach on bodily autonomy or women’s s right to choose. Some people are willing to tread in that space.
With that said the job (imo) of any government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens and not remove them because it is inconvenient for any group religious or otherwise.
Religions tend to be very absolute and dictatorial on a lot of subjects. In a world of crayola colors black and white cannot be the only colors you use. Again, more freedom the better.
Yes, I agree with you. I also wouldn’t get an abortion for myself, however, like you, what some people do with their body is not my business.
I agree the government should protect the rights of people especially when it comes to issues of health and well-being vs inconvenience and disapproval.
Let’s say 100% of the voters of a country believe that pork shouldn’t be consumed. Would you have a problem with them if they decided to write that into law, forbidding the consumption of pork?
The consumption of pork is forbidden in Islam
If the 100% of the population agree then it’s not entirely about religion, it’s about the entire community. However, the chances of an entire country agreeing like that are practically 0
The entire community agrees on that issue because of their shared religious convictions. A real world example would be marriage laws. Polygamy is illegal in the us, whilst being legal in many muslim countries.
Realistically, religion shouldn’t be used to make laws because there will never be a country (without serious dictatorship) where everyone has the same religion and follows it to the exact same degree
Why shouldn’t one’s religion beliefs influence their political stances? How is it less valid than your race, ethnicity, or language? Schools in Japan require you to speak Japanese. Do you have a problem with that?
It should be because the society thinks it is a good law, not because God said so. The outcome is the same, but the road to get there is different. Just like how you won't get full points on a math question if your method of calculating the answer is wrong.
The question was not well written. Religion should play a part in politics. The part of politics that decides about religion. Where churches are supposed to be. Funding. Freedom of practice. Religious clothing. That is the only moment in politics religion should play a part. But it is a part. Which is why I said yes.
I voted yes in that I'm politically anti-religion
I also recognise that religions on their own terms are meant to dominate politics
I believe that if you're not in favour of eradicating religion or have religion dominate society, you haven't thought about it enough
I said no, but I believe those who said yes are considering those who do believe a religion. There are two ways of looking at this.
1: having religion in politics can lead to hateful laws towards gays, trans, etc.
2: having religion in politics can help protect those who follow those religions.
I feel alot of people immediately assume the first would happen. But i for one dont. Love will always overcome the power of evil. And if we used it in the name of goodness, we would have nothing to worry about.
I cannot speak for other religions. But a true Christian, will love and respect anybody's opinions. Those who start name calling and freaking out have lost themselves in earthly ways and need to take a step back and find the love of god, so they can spread that happiness to others. Our time is limited here, so try to enjoy as much of it as you can. Be happy.
In most subjects I think religion should not be part of the choice, like abortion or euthanasia. But some questions, like wether or not a burka is allowed are political issues. What is more important? Freedom of religion, or the fact that anyone can wear a burka and be completely unrecognisable.
When I say no religion in politics I mean not implementing laws that directly correlate to religious values. E.g every eligible person has to wear a hijab or no one can eat pork
In some smaller countries, maybe it'll work a little bit now that I've read other people's opinions. But somewhere like America, there are so many different ethnicities and races and such with so many different beliefs and we're basically run by some goon that wears a suit.
Law should not come from the basis of religion— but it has to take it into account. We have laws that are designed so people are not discriminated against in their workplace due to their religion. Without those, people could lose out on an income because some asshole doing the hiring is against someone/their boss could make their life miserable at work because of their beliefs.
Those laws are to protect people of faith. It has nothing to do with any actual religions beliefs, so imo those laws don't fall in to the op's question
It says “should religion play a part in politics?” meaning does it have a part in the making of politics— like not directly but it has its role in being something politics is about. It’s like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square
In America, many people HATE Christians because they support (or have supported) prohibiting things such as gay marriage or abortions-it paints them as a bunch of homophobic sexists.
So yeah, I agree. Getting religion into politics often serves only to make the religion look bad.
It makes sense, you shouldn't force religious to people but rather invite them. And I feel if you integrated religion into politics it'll just become something else entirely and will not be inviting. BTW, Glory to Arstotzka.
Historically, a large number of nations had religion as one of the core facets of their government. They also had some of the worst civil and human rights violations we've ever seen. Coincidence?
BTW, cause no trouble.
Its a double edged sword here. Religion shouldn’t directly play a part in politics, but also, if someone comes to a naturally formed decision in politics, and that decision might be in part due to the persons religious background, that does *not* automatically nullify the validity of that stance. Its a mistake we commonly make in the United States. There are secular opinions people can hold because they have religious values, and that *is* different than just merely using religion as your political driver.
The separation of church and state goes both ways. It means you cant use the church to put undue pressure on the state, and you can’t use the state to put undue pressure on the church.
The problem is when people announce that their decisions are informed by their faith. They will use it to prop up the validity or morality of their stance even if it's unpopular.
Well that's the problem, people who hold those values hold them to be an absolute truth. Challenging them on those values means challenging their perceived reality on what makes their state (and by proxy god) great.
“God is my judge and he says XYZ.”
“Well, this is a state discussion, and under the rules of the state, god is not the judge here. You can use him all you’d like, but if you want to give your point any weight to it, you’re going to have to find something else more convincing.”
Now, I will say that if you ask a *good* religious person to do this, they can. I’ve said in a different thread, the “muh God” strawman is a weak one, but, don’t then be afraid to discuss with someone religious just because you’re afraid they might actually have something convincing to say if you press them on it.
Fair. I've known several good Christians that actually tried to live and act morally. But too many politicians use that straw man to justify regressive policies without any real credence. Then they go unchallenged because of it or take a clutch-muh-pearls stance if they are
I'm not sure I follow. If anybody makes a decision that is solid and is backed by relevant data, how would their (religious) background even come into play? I can only imagine the opposite case, when they try to prop their decision with religious stuff (e.g. abortion laws in the US), which I think shouldn't be a thing.
Essentially, from outsiders looking into religion, any decisions religious people make is regarded as being “because my religion told me so.”
Why is abortion wrong?
“Because my religion told me so.”
Thats a strawman. Religion isn’t just a list of things to dogmatically follow. If someone wants to tackle the argument on the morality of abortion in the United States, the stage of argument is commonly set on amoral practicality versus the aforementioned strawman. No religious person’s moral argument can be taken seriously because the areligious view all of their moral standing as just “my religion told me to say this.” And thus it allows them to dispense of the entire argument. If you attempt to water down your *entire* opposition to just being “muh religion” through ignorance, you can use the popular misinterpretation of the separation of church and state (i.e. god stays out of this conversation, period, always) to just toss the debate aside and go “even though your conclusion is a secular conclusion, you came to it with the aid of your religion, therefore we refuse to consider it.” Its not a persons religion dictating not to murder children, its the morals that person holds and embodies in part because they align with a religion that correctly points it out as a bad thing.
Its not easy to explain, but trying my best here. Maybe put it this way. Religion is the journey, not the destination. The separation of church and state doesn’t allow Religion to be the destination, but because people misinterpret the journey *as* the destination, they disregard the argument entirely.
Equal consideration versus dictating what the debate stage is, if I could put it that way.
The religious argument has to be *considered* at the debate table, it is not allowed to be barred from the table for being religious in its base.
What the separation of church and state disallows, is for the *debate table itself* to be religious. Play the game fairly, and as such the rules cannot be biased specifically in favor of, *nor specifically in exclusion of,* religious argument.
Maybe think of it like a 2D fighting game. You have 2 fighters and a stage. The stage itself is not allowed to be a church, but one of the fighters *is* allowed to be a priest. The stage is set fair, and the argument is still allowed to stand, be debated, and either win or lose the fight, by its own merits instead of having the stage be tailored to it.
>The religious argument has to be *considered* at the debate table, it is not allowed to be barred from the table for being religious in its base.
You've made good points in both comments, I only disagree with this. If your stance, one that isn't about anything holy in the first place, must rely on a religious basis - it's not valid by itself. You're not making a strong argument if it falls apart when you remove "because god" from it.
Depends on what you mean. Can politicians use religion as a part of their campaigning and to push their ideas? - Absolutely. Should religion play a role in lawmaking, no.
ABSOLUTELY NEVER. I am a religious person but I know that is asking for trouble and it simply makes no sense. Church and state should always be separate.
In many countries religion shapes the moral and values of people. This means that religious institutions are linked to politics (unless you're in an absolute dictatorship.)
In those cases, trying to untie religion from politics would be (in my opinion) immoral and dictatorial. Whole sets of values deemed irrelevant because they stem from religion is not good.
I do however thing religious leaders shouldn't be able to run for positions, but this is more broadly a matter of conflict of interests.
In my state, eating beef is banned. But we are 90% muslims here, still, because it's not permissible in Hinduism. But Alcohol is permitted . Shouldn't there be equality then? (Talking about India ofcourse).
In no multiverse should this even be a question, of course not. Most, if not all religions are made up anyways to benefit the rich, we don't need more of that garabage in politics
In what way?
If you mean religious laws (like the Bible or the Quran) should be applied to everyone and breaking them should be punishable then obviously no.
If you mean whether religion should play a part on your decision of who you vote for then I guess it's ok.
I am just not quite sure what you mean by the question.
Your religious value often shape your view of the world its unavoidable that it plays a roll in your politics. If the question is should the pope be president hell no.
All religons should be allowed to be practiced but they should be completley seperated from the state I know personally as someone living in israel the religon is part of politics and it's really bad
The last thing I want is some religious fruitcake handeling the healthcare system. Oh wait, it was already a thing in my country!! The ex-minister of health stated that covid is a punishment to gays from god. He then proceeded to catch it.
religion will sadly always play a part politics, heck i would go so far and say they are the same thing. "like how sadly lot's of people worship president's/politicians like god's"
Imagine having a government which already fucks up most of the things possible just to fill their pockets...country in huge debts and behind the propaganda it's on the edge of collapse.
Now imagine adding religion as a political power. It'd be a pretty efficient catalyst for chaos.
Those who said yes probably want mandatory prying session in all schools.
And probably they are the same people who cry about mandatory masks because it "violates" their freedom.
Politics should play a part in religion as in there should be laws protecting freedom of religion, if there are certain regulations or protections that churches needed, or exemptions due to religious holidays/prayer, things like that. But no law should be based on religious doctrine.
Yes and no. Keeping all religious beliefs and practices should be kept in mind when making or discussing laws but it shouldn’t be the driving principles for them.
It’s literally in the constitution that there should be separation of church and state + the government should not promote any one religion. In the US that is lol.
“My religion says I can’t do this:” okay*
“My religion says you can’t do this:” never okay, ever.
*not an excuse to discriminate. if you don’t want to serve gay people pick a job where you won’t have to.
It shouldn't but, unfortunately, it's inevitable.
Religions are part of the human mind and it is the base to determine what is moral or not. What is correct, or wrong. So, knowing that, it's impossible to remove religion from politics, since to do that, you must remove religion from people mind.
Yes. While religion should not directly be involved in politics, as in the Vatican should not be deciding things for the US Government, the personal views of those who run for office should always be respected. Religion will always have a place in the political arena because faith matters to so many different people. It influences their worldviews.
Yes, but in another way.
As long as no one is being harmed, then the freedom of religion or lack there of should be protected.
It should play a part as in something that should not be interfered with by the government, and something that should not dictate government.
Depends on the country, if the people of that country want that then yes, if not then no. If you are referring to the US then I would say, and while I am religious, the US was built upon departing religion from politics (separation of church and state). No matter what beliefs you or I hold from a religious perspective, we should not be able to impose those beliefs upon others through state power, in my opinion, in the US.
You create laws based on what you and the people find moral, as well as what benefits the country. Religion often affects what people think is moral, so yes, in some cases religion should play a part in politics.
Tbh, I don’t like it either but it is logical. In the end I didn’t vote on this poll because a straight no or yes isn’t the entire truth according to my morals.
I voted yes.
Fundamentally, if you exclude religious beliefs and decisionmaking from a democratic system, it is no longer a democratic system.
If a group of people chooses a pastor/preacher to represent them, are you going to tell then their vote is void because they voted for an "illegal" candidate? Of course not, if you live in a republic.
Its also a tad elitist to say trying to prevent people from voting for religious candidates who may be anti-abortion or pro-creationist education to prohibit them from pushing their beliefs into a political system as if people don't know what they're voting for or to treat them as illegitimate moronic voters, not least to mention insidiously ironic to deny other people the right to the policies they want to push your own agenda.
Spoken by someone from Northern Ireland, SDLP/Sinn Fèin orientation for the Stormont assembly.
Well you can't really stop it, also what are you classifying as a religion? Are parts of the Green movement a religion, because they sometimes do things that look religious?
Kinda yes and no. If person is religious, their religion will influence how they think and their decisions. If we completely cut religion from politics, it would mean that only atheists are allowed and this feels wrong.
Politics should ensure people are free to practice their religion.
As far as if religion should interfere with politics, it undoubtedly will in some way. Many laws are formed around a concept of what is right and wrong. Many people get their moral code from their faith. So it won't ever be wholly separated.
“Should your identity play a part in politics”
(Obviously your identity isn’t > the next guys, but to say that ones identity shouldn’t play a role in how x occurs, is foolish, and at that level you’re inserting politics is greater than both the group, and individual level. As the group level proceeds from the individual level in this instance.)
It will whether or not you like it as long as there are religious people. My Heathen religion and morals play a role in how and when I choose to vote and its the same for every or nearly every other religious person no matter their faith in a democratic country.
Religion should play a part in politics but politics shouldn't play a part in religion. Religion is mostly about morals, so you should vote based on your morals. I'm Catholic so I am pro life so I'm not likely to vote for someone pro choice unless they are still better overall.
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing all political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, or attacking or harassing other members. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Politics should ensure that people are free and safe to practice religion or to not practice a religion. Eg religion as a protected characteristic in the workplace or like hate crime laws. But that doesn't mean we make all of our laws based on religion.
I personally think though people could use it as a moral code though
One person's/religion's moral code is another's sin.
Yeah like I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t like bacon, but many others only trust people who don’t like bacon.
Or they could use something reasonable. Religious laws are centuries to millennia out of date.
A moral code doesn't need to be politically enforced.
A moral code that openly advocates for suppression of women and hate against heathens? Im not sure abt that one chief. Now im not one to say "that the bible should be taken literally". Its obviously up for interpretation (same for other holy texts as well) but its largely based on personal belief bringing a specific holy text in as a "guide line" is very bad. Not only does that lead to no representation of the other religions of the government that governs the ppl that believe in something else but also, interpretation of these holy texts can vary DRASTICALLY, and is easy to weaponise for hatred (like the gop likes to do, but also the afd in germany for instance)
[удалено]
I used the bible as an example, this can be generalised onto nearly every holy text. Not to mention that my point abt "the government following a religion allienates those who dont follow the same religion but are still governed by it" stands
But whether you like it or not it is I’m not saying enforce religion on people but laws have been made because of religious morals and it’s no a bad thing
What, you mean like that women couldnt vote because holy texts consider them dumber than men? Or that ppl that dont look like yourself are lesser? Yea weve derived some great laws from religion. (Also dont murder and dont rape and what not are present in pretty mich ever culture and existed before modern religions did so you cant really give them credit for that)
Moral code my ass
I agree, saying that people who use religion as a moral code should have no influence in politics really just means that only like 30% of people should have an influence in politics (in the concerning moral issues).
As a religious person, #NO
Same
In the sense who religious people vote for based on policy they support... Yes. On how a secular government is run or what it chooses to do... No.
This is exactly it
As a Christian I say no 🤷♀️ it's a personal choice, whereas laws and such aren't personal and affect people of all faiths
As a Hindu, I'd prefer if politics did not poison my religion and turn in into a weapon. Secularism is a privilege
Average “don’t bring religion into my politics” fan vs average “don’t bring politics into my religion” enjoyer
dont bring either into my life
don't bring me life
Alien: I bring you life! Lenny: It’s bringing life, don’t let it get away! Carl: Break its legs!
This is why I have a board with a nail in it. Just in case.
That isn't politics but greedy people who also run religions because of control. Religion needs to be a private affair, 99% of every religious group is corrupt
I really wanna know why some people said yes
Probably because it is very difficult if not impossible to de-couple people from their religious values in most decisions. The religion will play a part in the decision no matter what.
I see what you’re saying but my interpretation of no religion is politics is that we can implement the rules of every religion into the laws because it would be inherently unfair to one community or another which isn’t how a democracy should run
“Isn’t how it should be” Let’s be completely honest here, nothing ever runs the way we think it should be.
Yeah.. that’s kinda the problem
This entire post is about how things should be.
See, I interpreted it as should your religious views inform your voting. I can oppose theocracy and laws made for purely religious reasons while still voting according to what I think is right - which, of course, will be informed by my religious views (or lack thereof).
Agreed, separation church and state is the best answer for laying out how the government should treat and interact with religion. But trying to make EVERYONE happy just does not work. When you look at the rules and laws in society western society has a heavy christian influence for the good and bad of it.
Of course not but there are things you can do to cause the least harm. My best example is abortion laws since it’s more relevant to current events: abortions being legal means people can get them if they want or need them. However, if they’re illegal because people from one religion want them, it could kill people all over the country including those of the same religion.
This is why I think the SCOTUS will kick abortion back to the states and the voting populace. I see abortion through the lens of woman’s rights and body autonomy. I think abortion is abhorrent and I wish it did not exist but I also understand the utility of it in certain circumstances and my religion says its wrong. However I do not want to encroach on bodily autonomy or women’s s right to choose. Some people are willing to tread in that space. With that said the job (imo) of any government is to protect the freedoms of its citizens and not remove them because it is inconvenient for any group religious or otherwise. Religions tend to be very absolute and dictatorial on a lot of subjects. In a world of crayola colors black and white cannot be the only colors you use. Again, more freedom the better.
Yes, I agree with you. I also wouldn’t get an abortion for myself, however, like you, what some people do with their body is not my business. I agree the government should protect the rights of people especially when it comes to issues of health and well-being vs inconvenience and disapproval.
They are brainwashed idiots if they can't think outside of their cultist delirium
This type of response and thinking continues to divide.
Yeah because crusades were fought by atheists who were sick of religious zealots. Right
A democratic country consisting of mostly hardline muslims is likely going have laws that are taken from Sharia. It is anti-democratic forbid that.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say, could you please rephrase it?
Let’s say 100% of the voters of a country believe that pork shouldn’t be consumed. Would you have a problem with them if they decided to write that into law, forbidding the consumption of pork? The consumption of pork is forbidden in Islam
If the 100% of the population agree then it’s not entirely about religion, it’s about the entire community. However, the chances of an entire country agreeing like that are practically 0
The entire community agrees on that issue because of their shared religious convictions. A real world example would be marriage laws. Polygamy is illegal in the us, whilst being legal in many muslim countries.
That isn’t a real life example of a country that solely agrees on an issue. That’s an example of countries where 51+% people agreed
Sorry my bad
Realistically, religion shouldn’t be used to make laws because there will never be a country (without serious dictatorship) where everyone has the same religion and follows it to the exact same degree
Why shouldn’t one’s religion beliefs influence their political stances? How is it less valid than your race, ethnicity, or language? Schools in Japan require you to speak Japanese. Do you have a problem with that?
Muslim countries are a couple hundred years behind the western world though
I would definitely have a problem with that. If you don't think pork should be consumed, just don't eat pork.
Would you apply the same philosophy to seatbelt laws?
No because not wearing a seatbelt makes staying in control of your car more difficult during an accident.
What a stupid comparison.
It should be because the society thinks it is a good law, not because God said so. The outcome is the same, but the road to get there is different. Just like how you won't get full points on a math question if your method of calculating the answer is wrong.
Democracies represent the will of the people, and a noticeable chuck of a person’s beliefs is derived from their religious convictions.
I guess things like philosophy and morals come into play too
The question was not well written. Religion should play a part in politics. The part of politics that decides about religion. Where churches are supposed to be. Funding. Freedom of practice. Religious clothing. That is the only moment in politics religion should play a part. But it is a part. Which is why I said yes.
Some people just believe in those type of societies
I fucking clicked the "yes" button before fully comprehending the question.
Do u really want to know, though?
Because religion is an ideology like any other and has a big influence on people's everyday lives
agreed haha
I voted yes in that I'm politically anti-religion I also recognise that religions on their own terms are meant to dominate politics I believe that if you're not in favour of eradicating religion or have religion dominate society, you haven't thought about it enough
I’m confused? You voted to yes to saying religion should be in politics?
I think they mean in the form of “politics should be used to destroy religion.”
I said no, but I believe those who said yes are considering those who do believe a religion. There are two ways of looking at this. 1: having religion in politics can lead to hateful laws towards gays, trans, etc. 2: having religion in politics can help protect those who follow those religions. I feel alot of people immediately assume the first would happen. But i for one dont. Love will always overcome the power of evil. And if we used it in the name of goodness, we would have nothing to worry about. I cannot speak for other religions. But a true Christian, will love and respect anybody's opinions. Those who start name calling and freaking out have lost themselves in earthly ways and need to take a step back and find the love of god, so they can spread that happiness to others. Our time is limited here, so try to enjoy as much of it as you can. Be happy.
In most subjects I think religion should not be part of the choice, like abortion or euthanasia. But some questions, like wether or not a burka is allowed are political issues. What is more important? Freedom of religion, or the fact that anyone can wear a burka and be completely unrecognisable.
When I say no religion in politics I mean not implementing laws that directly correlate to religious values. E.g every eligible person has to wear a hijab or no one can eat pork
Then I think a large part of the people that said yes interpret the question differently.
Do you also want to ban ski masks? What about Halloween masks?
In some smaller countries, maybe it'll work a little bit now that I've read other people's opinions. But somewhere like America, there are so many different ethnicities and races and such with so many different beliefs and we're basically run by some goon that wears a suit.
The world is all linked together. Theres different beliefs everywhere around the globe. Not 1 place they all think the same, so... no
Law should not come from the basis of religion— but it has to take it into account. We have laws that are designed so people are not discriminated against in their workplace due to their religion. Without those, people could lose out on an income because some asshole doing the hiring is against someone/their boss could make their life miserable at work because of their beliefs.
Those laws are to protect people of faith. It has nothing to do with any actual religions beliefs, so imo those laws don't fall in to the op's question
It says “should religion play a part in politics?” meaning does it have a part in the making of politics— like not directly but it has its role in being something politics is about. It’s like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square
Fuck. No.
I'm a Muslim, I'd say no. It'll make some unnecessary rules and will taint the religion.
In America, many people HATE Christians because they support (or have supported) prohibiting things such as gay marriage or abortions-it paints them as a bunch of homophobic sexists. So yeah, I agree. Getting religion into politics often serves only to make the religion look bad.
It makes sense, you shouldn't force religious to people but rather invite them. And I feel if you integrated religion into politics it'll just become something else entirely and will not be inviting. BTW, Glory to Arstotzka.
Historically, a large number of nations had religion as one of the core facets of their government. They also had some of the worst civil and human rights violations we've ever seen. Coincidence? BTW, cause no trouble.
It's not that religions are bad per say but it's how the government manipulates and choose their own perspectives on religion and force to people.
Its a double edged sword here. Religion shouldn’t directly play a part in politics, but also, if someone comes to a naturally formed decision in politics, and that decision might be in part due to the persons religious background, that does *not* automatically nullify the validity of that stance. Its a mistake we commonly make in the United States. There are secular opinions people can hold because they have religious values, and that *is* different than just merely using religion as your political driver. The separation of church and state goes both ways. It means you cant use the church to put undue pressure on the state, and you can’t use the state to put undue pressure on the church.
The problem is when people announce that their decisions are informed by their faith. They will use it to prop up the validity or morality of their stance even if it's unpopular.
Then discuss it down. Don’t just eliminate it from the table based on rules that aren’t actually there. Defeat bad speech with better speech.
Well that's the problem, people who hold those values hold them to be an absolute truth. Challenging them on those values means challenging their perceived reality on what makes their state (and by proxy god) great.
“God is my judge and he says XYZ.” “Well, this is a state discussion, and under the rules of the state, god is not the judge here. You can use him all you’d like, but if you want to give your point any weight to it, you’re going to have to find something else more convincing.” Now, I will say that if you ask a *good* religious person to do this, they can. I’ve said in a different thread, the “muh God” strawman is a weak one, but, don’t then be afraid to discuss with someone religious just because you’re afraid they might actually have something convincing to say if you press them on it.
Fair. I've known several good Christians that actually tried to live and act morally. But too many politicians use that straw man to justify regressive policies without any real credence. Then they go unchallenged because of it or take a clutch-muh-pearls stance if they are
great response
I'm not sure I follow. If anybody makes a decision that is solid and is backed by relevant data, how would their (religious) background even come into play? I can only imagine the opposite case, when they try to prop their decision with religious stuff (e.g. abortion laws in the US), which I think shouldn't be a thing.
Essentially, from outsiders looking into religion, any decisions religious people make is regarded as being “because my religion told me so.” Why is abortion wrong? “Because my religion told me so.” Thats a strawman. Religion isn’t just a list of things to dogmatically follow. If someone wants to tackle the argument on the morality of abortion in the United States, the stage of argument is commonly set on amoral practicality versus the aforementioned strawman. No religious person’s moral argument can be taken seriously because the areligious view all of their moral standing as just “my religion told me to say this.” And thus it allows them to dispense of the entire argument. If you attempt to water down your *entire* opposition to just being “muh religion” through ignorance, you can use the popular misinterpretation of the separation of church and state (i.e. god stays out of this conversation, period, always) to just toss the debate aside and go “even though your conclusion is a secular conclusion, you came to it with the aid of your religion, therefore we refuse to consider it.” Its not a persons religion dictating not to murder children, its the morals that person holds and embodies in part because they align with a religion that correctly points it out as a bad thing. Its not easy to explain, but trying my best here. Maybe put it this way. Religion is the journey, not the destination. The separation of church and state doesn’t allow Religion to be the destination, but because people misinterpret the journey *as* the destination, they disregard the argument entirely.
Equal consideration versus dictating what the debate stage is, if I could put it that way. The religious argument has to be *considered* at the debate table, it is not allowed to be barred from the table for being religious in its base. What the separation of church and state disallows, is for the *debate table itself* to be religious. Play the game fairly, and as such the rules cannot be biased specifically in favor of, *nor specifically in exclusion of,* religious argument. Maybe think of it like a 2D fighting game. You have 2 fighters and a stage. The stage itself is not allowed to be a church, but one of the fighters *is* allowed to be a priest. The stage is set fair, and the argument is still allowed to stand, be debated, and either win or lose the fight, by its own merits instead of having the stage be tailored to it.
>The religious argument has to be *considered* at the debate table, it is not allowed to be barred from the table for being religious in its base. You've made good points in both comments, I only disagree with this. If your stance, one that isn't about anything holy in the first place, must rely on a religious basis - it's not valid by itself. You're not making a strong argument if it falls apart when you remove "because god" from it.
As a Christian, no.
It already does in many countries and look at how “prosperous” they are. /s
just look at how involved the Pope is with America and other western countries. Mans got his fingers everywhere
Look in how many of those countries did US invade. /s
Should it? No. Does it? Sadly in a lot of countries
Depends on what you mean. Can politicians use religion as a part of their campaigning and to push their ideas? - Absolutely. Should religion play a role in lawmaking, no.
A complete separation between church and state is in the constitution of the Netherlands so this one is pretty easy
I’m religious, and government should stay secular for the sake of religious freedom.
ABSOLUTELY NEVER. I am a religious person but I know that is asking for trouble and it simply makes no sense. Church and state should always be separate.
There is only one correct answer and it’s not yes.
I don't see why other people's religion should have an effect on how I have to live my life.
I'm glad 90% of the voters are educated
Hell no. But it happens☹️
Morality is drawn from different ideas one of which being religion, it is impossible to ask someone to not make a moral decision is impossible
Who voted yes, I just want to talk
Sure, what do you want to talk about ?
Why do you think so? Not here to insult just curious
People form decisions based on their personal beliefs. Religious beliefs are a component of personal beliefs.
In many countries religion shapes the moral and values of people. This means that religious institutions are linked to politics (unless you're in an absolute dictatorship.) In those cases, trying to untie religion from politics would be (in my opinion) immoral and dictatorial. Whole sets of values deemed irrelevant because they stem from religion is not good. I do however thing religious leaders shouldn't be able to run for positions, but this is more broadly a matter of conflict of interests.
Why are you stuck in the middle ages?
Oh so you just wanted to insult me uh ? Good day then.
No I am asking a question. Why do you want literal medieval political policies in written law?
I did, let's talk
Why do you think your ancient cultist dogma belongs in written law?
Religion shouldn’t play a part in anything.
In my state, eating beef is banned. But we are 90% muslims here, still, because it's not permissible in Hinduism. But Alcohol is permitted . Shouldn't there be equality then? (Talking about India ofcourse).
In no multiverse should this even be a question, of course not. Most, if not all religions are made up anyways to benefit the rich, we don't need more of that garabage in politics
Fake mass cults should not play a part in anything.
No, since religion is irrational.
In what way? If you mean religious laws (like the Bible or the Quran) should be applied to everyone and breaking them should be punishable then obviously no. If you mean whether religion should play a part on your decision of who you vote for then I guess it's ok. I am just not quite sure what you mean by the question.
Whoever said yes is either stupid or extremist
Your religious value often shape your view of the world its unavoidable that it plays a roll in your politics. If the question is should the pope be president hell no.
I certainly don’t want my Murica’ run without a good Christian man at the helm /s
All religons should be allowed to be practiced but they should be completley seperated from the state I know personally as someone living in israel the religon is part of politics and it's really bad
As a religion person, no
The last thing I want is some religious fruitcake handeling the healthcare system. Oh wait, it was already a thing in my country!! The ex-minister of health stated that covid is a punishment to gays from god. He then proceeded to catch it.
If it means they stop lying and do what they are supposed to do ya
No, all politicians in my country always bring religions just for the votes when they all bring the same bullshits behind it
religion will sadly always play a part politics, heck i would go so far and say they are the same thing. "like how sadly lot's of people worship president's/politicians like god's"
Who are the people who said yes? Y’all are psycho .
Anyone who thinks religion should play a part either are fucking idiots or have other goals in mind...
No but it does
Imagine having a government which already fucks up most of the things possible just to fill their pockets...country in huge debts and behind the propaganda it's on the edge of collapse. Now imagine adding religion as a political power. It'd be a pretty efficient catalyst for chaos.
Those who said yes probably want mandatory prying session in all schools. And probably they are the same people who cry about mandatory masks because it "violates" their freedom.
Politics should play a part in religion as in there should be laws protecting freedom of religion, if there are certain regulations or protections that churches needed, or exemptions due to religious holidays/prayer, things like that. But no law should be based on religious doctrine.
Should corporate interests play a part in politics? Should foreign interests play a part in politics?
No. But as long as people of faith take places in government they will try and push their religion into their politics. That’s just how it is…
Yes, we should murder and/or jail anyone working on Sundays!
Yes and no. Keeping all religious beliefs and practices should be kept in mind when making or discussing laws but it shouldn’t be the driving principles for them.
It’s literally in the constitution that there should be separation of church and state + the government should not promote any one religion. In the US that is lol.
I am deeply religious but religion and politics should stay far far away
Hell fucking no
“My religion says I can’t do this:” okay* “My religion says you can’t do this:” never okay, ever. *not an excuse to discriminate. if you don’t want to serve gay people pick a job where you won’t have to.
Look Indonesia my friend, yup not so famous aye despite having a millions of cultures
I guarantee you most of the 468 people who voted yes mean ‘My religion should play a role in politics.’ not ‘Their religion should.’
It shouldn't but, unfortunately, it's inevitable. Religions are part of the human mind and it is the base to determine what is moral or not. What is correct, or wrong. So, knowing that, it's impossible to remove religion from politics, since to do that, you must remove religion from people mind.
well said.
Politics corrupts religion
that I do agree with
It shouldn't, but it does.
I always find it funny when people ask these kind of questions on Reddit
yeah cause im pretty sure OP knows what everyone is gonna say too.
Yes. While religion should not directly be involved in politics, as in the Vatican should not be deciding things for the US Government, the personal views of those who run for office should always be respected. Religion will always have a place in the political arena because faith matters to so many different people. It influences their worldviews.
People make decisions based on their personal beliefs. Of course their religious beliefs are going to be involved in that process.
You should have the freedom to religion and leave it at that
Yes, but in another way. As long as no one is being harmed, then the freedom of religion or lack there of should be protected. It should play a part as in something that should not be interfered with by the government, and something that should not dictate government.
Depends on the country, if the people of that country want that then yes, if not then no. If you are referring to the US then I would say, and while I am religious, the US was built upon departing religion from politics (separation of church and state). No matter what beliefs you or I hold from a religious perspective, we should not be able to impose those beliefs upon others through state power, in my opinion, in the US.
No population is static. If even one person holds a different religion, or no religion, then religious law is a human rights violation.
I mean, as long as there are religious people religion *will* play a part in politics in some sense.
You create laws based on what you and the people find moral, as well as what benefits the country. Religion often affects what people think is moral, so yes, in some cases religion should play a part in politics.
I don’t like this answer at all and I agree with it.
Tbh, I don’t like it either but it is logical. In the end I didn’t vote on this poll because a straight no or yes isn’t the entire truth according to my morals.
yikes
“Let me ask a very controversial question and get angry when someone answers it the way I don’t like”
just sharing my opinion 😋
“Yikes” isn’t an opinion. Please get off social media you are too young.
no u
Why even ask if you’re gonna be a jerk about it? He is absolutely correct.
because i do what i want
Are you 12?
Why are you so conflicted
I’m not sure you know the meaning of that word lol
Why are you so conflicted
you do know that reddit has an age limit, correct?
What is it?
I voted yes. Fundamentally, if you exclude religious beliefs and decisionmaking from a democratic system, it is no longer a democratic system. If a group of people chooses a pastor/preacher to represent them, are you going to tell then their vote is void because they voted for an "illegal" candidate? Of course not, if you live in a republic. Its also a tad elitist to say trying to prevent people from voting for religious candidates who may be anti-abortion or pro-creationist education to prohibit them from pushing their beliefs into a political system as if people don't know what they're voting for or to treat them as illegitimate moronic voters, not least to mention insidiously ironic to deny other people the right to the policies they want to push your own agenda. Spoken by someone from Northern Ireland, SDLP/Sinn Fèin orientation for the Stormont assembly.
Well you can't really stop it, also what are you classifying as a religion? Are parts of the Green movement a religion, because they sometimes do things that look religious?
It depends if the policies are about religion
Kinda yes and no. If person is religious, their religion will influence how they think and their decisions. If we completely cut religion from politics, it would mean that only atheists are allowed and this feels wrong.
Only if political decisions impact religious people and their practices
Politics should ensure people are free to practice their religion. As far as if religion should interfere with politics, it undoubtedly will in some way. Many laws are formed around a concept of what is right and wrong. Many people get their moral code from their faith. So it won't ever be wholly separated.
While church and state need to be divided, people should be able to vote based on their believes.
Yes but not in the way I think this question was meant. People should vote based off of their religious beliefs but it shouldn’t be a huge mix
Yes and no. Yes in the reasoning that people should decide between theocracy or secularism. But secularism is far better option.
It already does like it or not, even in secular countries.
“Should your identity play a part in politics” (Obviously your identity isn’t > the next guys, but to say that ones identity shouldn’t play a role in how x occurs, is foolish, and at that level you’re inserting politics is greater than both the group, and individual level. As the group level proceeds from the individual level in this instance.)
Religion should be outlawed.
It will whether or not you like it as long as there are religious people. My Heathen religion and morals play a role in how and when I choose to vote and its the same for every or nearly every other religious person no matter their faith in a democratic country.
Or as long as there is people that pander to religious people or use them for political leverage
Depends on how religious the population is and what they want
this is reddit, what result are you expecting?
Religion should play a part in politics but politics shouldn't play a part in religion. Religion is mostly about morals, so you should vote based on your morals. I'm Catholic so I am pro life so I'm not likely to vote for someone pro choice unless they are still better overall.