Religion and Politics

I would like to address this question specifically for those of faith, however, if others would like to participate....well....it is a free forum.

The question is, how should religion intermingle with religion, if at all? In addition, is it possible to divorce the two? We see Reverend Wright supporting the Obama camp and see the religious right supporting Palin and company.

Is any one side more righteous than the other or are both on equal footing?

Originally posted by whodey
I would like to address this question specifically for those of faith, however, if others would like to participate....well....it is a free forum.

The question is, how should religion intermingle with religion, if at all? In addition, is it possible to divorce the two? We see Reverend Wright supporting the Obama camp and see the religious right supportin ...[text shortened]... alin and company.

Is any one side more righteous than the other or are both on equal footing?

I'm not so sure Rev. Wright is a fan of Obama these days. He has said he acted like a politician when he broke ties with him.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I'm not so sure Rev. Wright is a fan of Obama these days. He has said he acted like a politician when he broke ties with him.

He had no choice considering Wright's continued rhetoric. Having said that, politically, McCain has about as much choice about courting the religious right with Palin as Obama has in cutting ties with his former friend and spiritual advisor for the last 20 or so years. In effect, both are doing what they need to do in order to have a shot at winning the election which means cutting ties with Wright for Obama and courting the religious right for McCain.

Now we have established what needed to be done from a political perspective. Now how about what should be done from a religious perspective? What say you?

Really I am most interested in how Christians view their role in politics. For example, JW's view any involvement in politics as "sinful". They seem to think that any involvement tarnishes them when they participate in such matters because it is so corrupt. Others, however, seem to think that because it is so corrupt, Christians should begin to have a voice in it in an attempt to help clean some of the corruption up.

No matter your position in the matter one thing is for sure and that is you MUST show Washington the money if you wish to have a voice. If you have the money, they have the time no matter your position. Therefore, should it be beneath Christians to show Washington the money in order to have a voice and try and effect change or should Christians try to effect change as light unto the world without being polluted by politics? Really I can relate to both sides of the isle. As a result, it has always troubled me a little bit.

Originally posted by whodey
Really I am most interested in how Christians view their role in politics. For example, JW's view any involvement in politics as "sinful". They seem to think that any involvement tarnishes them when they participate in such matters because it is so corrupt. Others, however, seem to think that because it is so corrupt, Christians should begin to have a voice in it in an attempt to help clean some of the corruption up.

I am yet to see a Christian go very far in politics without getting involved in the corruption themselves. I think that many people (religious or not) when the realize that it is a choice between standing on principle or furthering their career - choose the career.

Most politicians I know of in my Country (Zambia) and the US claim to be Christian.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Most politicians I know of in my Country (Zambia) and the US claim to be Christian.[/b]

Well as far as I know, there have been NO Presidential figures in US history that has not claimed to be a "Christian". It is simply uncharted territory and if someone breaks the mold I think they would be taking a risk because it is uncharted territory. It is simply part of the US culture. Granted, as time passes this the culture of the US has changed substantially from what is was so perhaps one day we will have an atheist step in someday. Who knows? Before this happens, however, they would probably have to take some polls to assess how much the majority of people feel about atheism. As for right now, I think it would be a huge mistake politically.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]I am yet to see a Christian go very far in politics without getting involved in the corruption themselves. I think that many people (religious or not) when the realize that it is a choice between standing on principle or furthering their career - choose the career.

Of course, you are only discussing governmental politics, however, what about politics within the church? What about politics on the job? It seems to me that politics follow us wherever we turn no matter our beliefs. Within these settings we have tendencies to tarnished by corruption as well, no? Do we then regress further into an isolationary shell of some kind simply based on the fear of being "corrupted" by these as well?

Christians NEVER claimed to be perfect, rather, they only claim to be lights unto the world. Therefore, can their light shine in every other facet of human interaction other than governmental politics? In fact, I have heard it been argued that the US was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and was responsible for many of the rights they have afforded us.

Originally posted by whodey
Before this happens, however, they would probably have to take some polls to assess how much the majority of people feel about atheism. As for right now, I think it would be a huge mistake politically.

The political system must be terrible if it is based on polls.
Surely its just a matter of an atheist getting into politics and getting elected?
Did Obama have to get approval from polls before entering politics? Did Hillary?

Well as far as I know, there have been NO Presidential figures in US history that has not claimed to be a "Christian".
I was under the impression that some of the founding fathers were if not outright atheist, then certainly not Christian. I don't know a lot of American history though.

Originally posted by whodey
In fact, I have heard it been argued that the US was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and was responsible for many of the rights they have afforded us.

You hear people repeating this ad-nauseum. Usually to try and justify god being on our coins, under god being in our pledge of allegiance and other violations of our constitution.

There is a lot of evidence that most of the founding fathers were deists at best and didn't believe in an interventionist god.

It's a pretty vague and unsubstantiated claim.

Originally posted by whodey
What about politics on the job?

I had a workmate who refused to get involved in the union or vote for union leader due to his religious beliefs. It didn't stop him from actively supporting a candidate though. He simply wasn't allowed to stand for an elected post or vote. Dictatorship type posts are fine.

Christians NEVER claimed to be perfect,.
I am sure that some have. But then you will say "well they weren't Christian".

rather, they only claim to be lights unto the world.
Oddly, I don't think I have ever heard a Christian make that claim. The closest I can think of is a Sunday School song along the lines of "I'm going to be a light"

Therefore, can their light shine in every other facet of human interaction other than governmental politics? In fact, I have heard it been argued that the US was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and was responsible for many of the rights they have afforded us.
I think you would find that Christians try to lay claim to principles that are not exclusive to them. In fact I think you would not be able to name one single principle that is exclusive to Christianity or even initiated by it.
In Zambia, nearly everyone claims to be Christian, the government declared it a "Christian Nation" and so on. Yet that didn't stop corruption, nor did it stop the president from traveling around the country bribing churches. The Churches were lining up to accept bribes from him.
I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church and some of the other denominations too, as they are often willing to stand up and speak out about political things that they feel are wrong. But some other pastors /denominations set a rather bad example.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]The political system must be terrible if it is based on polls.
Surely its just a matter of an atheist getting into politics and getting elected?
Did Obama have to get approval from polls before entering politics? Did Hillary?

Now you are getting the bigger picture. That is part of what is awry with politics.

As for Obama, he had to have political success in order to get to the position he has attained today. In effect, he had to be popular to a certain degree for others within the Democratic party to want to take a chance on him in the Presidential race. Hillary was to a lesser degree because she has her husbands popularity to help maneuver her where she is today which helped land her a job as Senator of New York. In fact, perhaps this is one of the reasons Obama beat her in this years race?

"W" is another example of what I am talking about. How did he get to where he is today? It all came about because of Reagan. Because of the popularity of Reagan, Bush Senior became politically significant which was passed down through his son.

Popularity is essentially born from charisma and the ability to communicate well. This can be seen with Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Then those around them can often ride the wave of their popularity through their recent memory. In fact, you see McCain try to ride this wave as well with political adds showing his talking to former President Reagan. In addition, he has formed an alliance with someone who appears for the time being to be charismatic and a good communicator in the form of Sarah Palin. Will it be enough, who knows? All I know is that McCain has a much better chance with Palin than without her no matter the objections from the left no matter if they have merit or otherwise.

Now as far as taking political positions based on polls, Clinton was often criticized for doing so. That is one of the things that seems interesting to me about McCain. He defended the support of the ongoing effort to rebuild Iraq into a democracy even though the polls told him he was insane for doing so. I believe his quote was, "I would rather loose and election than the war." Inexplicably, however, he has overcome the odds to this point with a great deal of support from the American people despite what the polls tell us his position should have been. What can I say, it was a gamble that till this point has paid dividends for him.

If you question this view of the need to be popular to be successful in modern day politics, what is it then based upon? I think the closest argument would be that one has to be wealthy and/or have political connections. Then again, this is partly dependent upon ones popularity in the higher social circles is it not?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You hear people repeating this ad-nauseum. Usually to try and justify god being on our coins, under god being in our pledge of allegiance and other violations of our constitution.

There is a lot of evidence that most of the founding fathers were deists at best and didn't believe in an interventionist god.

It's a pretty vague and unsubstantiated claim.

You certainly can argue that not all the founding fathers were "Christian", however, there is no disputing the fact that the culture in which they lived was dominated by Judeo-Christian thought. In fact, you can point to quite a few that claimed to be Christian.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Christians NEVER claimed to be perfect,.
I am sure that some have. But then you will say "well they weren't Christian".

rather, they only claim to be lights unto the world.
Oddly, I don't think I have ever heard a Christian make that claim. The closest I can think of is a Sunday School song along the lines of "I'm going to be a light"

\

I guess this is part of why I wanted Christians to respond to the post. That way we do not have to rehash points of theology such as we are all sinners, therefore, we need Christ for redemption. In addition, Christ said that we are to be lights unto the world, meaning, we should show love to our fellow man in various ways so as to be lights unto the world.

As for your personal experiences, it saddens me that you have not experienced as much. But then, I guess that is for another thread. 😉