There are 18 choices, 30 votes for Kazrith's debate

should politics make decisions based on thier religions?

The only oppositions for going against same sex marriage is a gut feeling, and because your religion says so.


  • i say no

    a politic cannot make a sound decision if he/she has to pull out his/her bible (or religous book) every time he makes a decision. that doesnt seem right for the people.

    16%  Voted for by chibi-kaiyaska, Kazrith, Xyraz, et8706, pnktrky.
    View 10 comments
  • :

  • Why not?

    If you truly believe in something the its kind of like your religion. Not all desiscions should be based on it, but morality issues should be because your religion defines your morals. People just get the wrong thoughts about religion, its not all bad.

    13%  Voted for by StabbingArtToDeath, insanepyro6, Lutzilla, looking4realtruth.
    View 4 comments
  • :

  • Irrelevant

    The politicians opinions, religious or otherwise, should be completely irrelevant. All desicions should be made for the good of his constituents, as this is a represantative republic (not a democracy as people are so fond of saying). As this is the case, the politicians opinions are irrelevant once he has been elected. He was elected based on his ideas and opinions which met with the agreement of the voters. Thus, once in office, he simply expresses those opinions of his constituents in whatever forum he was elected to.

    Ah, wait, an addendum. I would like to point out that, though the politician can use it in his reasoning, religion is never a viable argument in a political debate what with seperation of Church and State and all that.

    10%  Voted for by BecomingCold, heresyistheway, Valleyman.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

    NO! for several very good reasons. 1. The Crusades. 2. The Spanish inquisition. 3. every other incident that was started because of religious difference. If a politician uses their religion to make decisions, he/she singles out every other religion's/cultural group's views. Politicians are supposed to be there to make a decision that is best for the country based on all points of view. This doesn't actually happen, but it's what is supposed to. Besides, think about if a politician worshipped that guy who made all his followers drink cyanide. Would he therefore try to get cyanide put into the water supply? It would be following his religion.

    10%  Voted for by BecomingCold, Aedon, ThePranksterKing.
    View 7 comments
  • :

  • History, illusion, myth.

    I was roaming the net, and I found this wonderful site. I decided to read most of these comment which are completely void of any historical background, and statements made by comment ignorance because our current times. I agree with “hereseyistheway”. Out of these posts, his/her is by far the most accurate. To add simply to what he said, Jefferson actually wanted a “wall” between church and state. A wall which would simply mean that one would not have the interference with the other. Ie, the policies of the state can not interfere with the practice of the church, and likewise the church can not interfere with the policies of the state. There is a complete schism between the two, and never shall the two meet.

    Now, I would also like to make a comment on that “you receive your morality from religion” or whatever. Actually, if that is true, and church doctrine having a moral ethic can not, through a historical imperative interfere state policy. Morality, actually is more imposed socially. Take for example Aristotles virtue ethic. Nevertheless, since the state deals with the community, and the community is the society, utilitarian ethics, or even deontological ethics of Kant would be far better than any church ethic. We must remember that all the founding fathers were taught within the Enlightenment period. That means that reason was the “guiding” light of action, and religion (rightfully so) should be a mere superstition.

    Moreover, despite the contemporary rhetoric of your right wing Christian fundamentalist, Christianity has never, and will never be apart of the found principles of the United States. The Constitution, if any of you ever decide to read it, is completely secular. There is not one word of God, be it a Christian god. The only reference you will find of a God is within the Deceleration of Independence. And with that, that is A) not a legal binding document, but moreover simply because it says a “creator” does not necessitate that is be a metaphysical God transcendent which we can find our salvation. The creator for all we know could be matter. Moreover, there is no link between the United States and religion. This is a recent development that started probably around the 1970s. Havent you guys ever noticed that Christian evangelical Christians are a lot like the Brady Bunch? Ie, family values, etc are socially constructed historical inaccuracies which has been imposed in contemporary society. Thus, if you look at the statistics of the so called nuclear family, family values, etc of the past, youll see they never existed. In fact, they are a construction, be it, relatively new. In reality this is an illusion heralded by Christian fundamentalist that devised more from television shows than real historical moments in American history.

    Another reason why religion has no place in politics or for that matter in contemporary society is the mere fact that it is an outdated doctrine that, if it was any good, served its purpose 2000 years ago. Times change, and through new advances of technology, medicine, information, knowledge, etc. No religion can possibility foresee, or even answer such possible questions. I dont know how anybody in the 21 century can possibly believe in such mythical superstition.

    Today, we dont have to look very far concerning how religion and political policies have actually impeded and retarded the growth of knowledge and medicine. Take for example stem cell research. This has the potential to cure many genetic diseases and be a revolution in medical and human affairs. Yet, despite that potential, religion has suspended the production and advancement of life, and further development of life. Its a mode of human creativity to reproduce the creative forces of human potential. Rather they use some garbage sentimental argument that a cell somehow is a human being. If and when I scratch my arm and dead skin cells flake of, then the same is the result of the same biological entity of a stem cell. That is only one example how idiotic superstitions such as religion has perpetually done more damage to mankind than any other institution.

    6%  Voted for by Bannockburn, Aedon.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.--Thomas Jefferson

    Firstly, I'd like everyone to realize that: THE AMERICAN GOVENMENT IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO CHRISTIANITY. Okay. You want to know why this is a simply impossible idea? Who is the man who practically ALL of the Declaration of Independece? That's right. Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was a beliver in a Creator, his beliefs resembled deism but he asked never to be put into any sect, but he was certainly NOT fond of Christianity saying once, "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

    And much more. And if you look at many other "Founding Fathers" they were either diests or agnostics. John Adams rejected the whole "Trintity" and Christ thing, and was a Unitarian. Benjamin Franklin claimed Deism at times, and is well quoted in saying he believed in god, but not so much in Jesus.Thomas Paine, being very influencial on everything having to do with the American Revolution, help perhaps the most hate for Christianity, read any of his works.

    Now that that has been cleared up, the topic of this thread:

    No. Religion should not enter into a politicians public affairs. While it may not be the best example, Kerry is a Catholic and so against abortion in accordance to his religion. But he realizes that not all Americans are Catholic, and that he can no more outlaw abortion on the soul reasoning of his religion than he could birth control. It is perfectly fine for a President to have a religoin, or not have one. The main thing is that he have morals. While you might say "a persons religion is a persons morals" you are wrong, in a way. If a president uses his morals to make a judgment his morals should have sound judgment, not just "The Bible says so", "The Qu'ran says so", "Buddah says so". It should be based in science or a mass (and no mass is not just 51%) feeling of the nation he is representing. Bush and his desires to keep marriage from homosexuals is wrong because his basis for it is PURELY religion. And that has no place in the government.

    6%  Voted for by heresyistheway, Bannockburn.
    View 1 comment
  • :

  • Extremes

    I agree with webdemon666 about the separation of church and state and the need to be impartal to each religious perspective. I even agree with the removal of public prayer from schools and I am a devout christian who is passionate about serving God. I am aware that in the past religious people marginalized others who had different opinions. As a general rule, ingnorant people do ignorant things, whether they are religious or not. My concern is that we as a people will swing to the other extreme and create a completely secularized society. By that I mean a society where religious people don't even have a say in how the government spends it's money because they base their opinions on what the Bible/Koran/Buddha/etc. says on how to be good stewards of our finances. This kind of stuff is already happening in places like France and it would be a sad thing to repeat here.

    Voted for by Lutzilla.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • unavoidable

    I think that some decisions are unavoidably ruled by religious persuasions. An obvious example would be aboriton. If one's religion condemn's abortion, how could one politically support it. If religion really matters to a person, I think it must play a part in one's political make up.

    Voted for by jonesz12.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • the truth

    Let me explain this for the people. The first amendment of the constitution protects freedom of speech and religion for the people. The bill of rights also says that government will not recognise any one religion. what this means is that political decisions will not be based on dogma. also all Americans have the right to worship when they want where they want and how they want. so it is fine to say a prayer before congress but it is not right to base law on the churches dogma. Your magical separation of church and state does not include restricting the right to say a prayer on government property you have to realize that the church of England way back when called anyone that was not of the church a heretic and the punishment was either exile or death. that's why the pilgrims came to the new world. They landed at plymouth rock because the ran out of beer but that's another story. any way when you say separation of church and state realize that that simply means the church cannot influence law.

    Voted for by webdemon666.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • We need to rethink this

    A religious person can no more prevent their views concerning God from affecting their political views any more than an atheist can prevent their lack of veiws concerning God from affecting their political views (I hope that was clear). We are talking about our core set of values here and no matter where they originate from, be it religious, philosophical, or other, it is impossible for anyone to keep their core values from affecting how they think, feel, and interact with the world. The only way to prevent religious values from affecting public policy is to deny religious people the right to engage in the public forum. That would be inherently undemocratic. Democracy has given us the opportunity to arive at a collective agreement as to what values and ethics will eventually shape our laws. The end result may be unreligious but that doesn't make the religious perspective less valid than any other perspective.

    Voted for by Lutzilla.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • Well...

    America's foundation is interwoven with Christianity. To say a politician can't use religion as a guidance to morality issues is just hypocracy.

    Voted for by ElisaRose.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • Yes and no

    If you happen to be religious, then of course the religion's views will be your own. If these are your views, you should act on them. I happen to disagree with religion at all, so I overall say no.

    Voted for by Chessmaster.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Of no concern to me

    Politicians can make up whatever they want based on whatever they want. If I don’t agree I don’t comply damn the consequences.

    Voted for by Happy 420.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • No

    Politics should go go by thier religion or there beliefs but by the greater good for the America. What will make America grow to become a country where there is a small amount of crime and ignorance. Polictics descisons should echo the wishes of ALL americans not just the people that believe in the politics religion.

    Voted for by RiseFromThyAshes.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • If you consider the world is still in dark ages then yes

    which idiot has thought of combining relgion with politics. its like declaring the Beatlles same as the prime minister. culture has nothing to do with politics:

    Voted for by bezigrad.
    Add a comment