Please note: No offence is intended... This is a genuine question, for personal study!
For example... George Bush Stated that a the Free people are given the right to Freedom by a GREATER God...
In Muslim politics there are also many challenges issued in the name of God (Allah) and many other things that go on in the name of Allah!
My point... is it not inflammatory to remark that your God is GREATER..? (G. Bush's comments!)
And is it not selfish too kill innocent people in the name of Your God..? (Some other religions)
Thank You... Your comments are appreciated!
Peace and Good Will to You all... No matter where you are in the world!
2006-09-18 01:59:21 · 14 answers · asked by AZRAEL è 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, historically religious principles have shaped and moulded the principles of society which have now become our laws. For example in england there's a close correlation between what we consider to be a sin and what law tells us is a crime. Church leaders have for a long time been very powerful. What is not, in my opinion, an acceptable course of action is for a country's leader (Bush or Blair) to 'ask their god' to guide their choices. These leaders should be making choices based on the needs of the people they are ultimately there to serve! Whilst these people may get strength from their beliefs (i have no problem with that) i don't personally like the idea of the leader of my country replying on something as whimsical as a 'sign from above' when making decisions that affect me and the country as a whole.
As for the whole killing in the name of religion thing, thats a different matter, the predominant 'western' mode of thought in current times does generally lend itself to the conclusion that killing is wrong full stop. Even for religion. However, there are different world views which are founded on completely different moral, ethical and spiritual values and as such can condone killing in the name of religion and even promote it. This is exceptionally hard for us to understand.
It makes a change for someone on yahoo answers to open this up for discussion and i think your question is a lot healthier and more responsible that the barage of abuse and hatred thats been appearing recently!
2006-09-18 02:13:44 · answer #1 · answered by seaside_girl_03 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its a political trick, propaganda if you will. By constantly referring to a divine power, those who believe in that divine power may be swayed to the politicians side believing that person has some kind of Holy approved agenda. This will lead to their god taking responsibilty for their actions,
"god said our killing is justified/holy/approved/ordained etc"
which is the shield that many cowards stand behind, blame a divine power who can't be held accountable for their human actions against others.
If you keep repeating something often enough people will start to believe it, much the same as Hitler did with the Jews. Does anyone honestly think that Germans in the 1930s actually wanted to have people killed on their behalf, their neighbours, shopkeepeers, doctors, etc, because they were from another racial group. Of course not, but they saw that it was written everywhere (anti-semitism), in advertising, in govt literature, on the radio etc so in the end they go with it because people always follow the crowd and don't like to stand out.
The same is happening in the US, everywhere people are told about fear, there is even a slogan for it "the War on Terror".
TV, Radio, Newsprint, Govt spokespeople all refer to it increasing the fear level to the point where everyone reaches the "join the pack for safety" point and then BANG some nation, culture or whatever poor target has been picked, gets it in the neck.
In times of trouble or strife, to stand out is to risk death, to be part of the crowd ensures a higher survival rate (ask the wildebeest's or antelopes about this).
All in all, governments should be secular even if 100% of the nation are of one faith. If they are, it won't be any different from a theocratic govt, if they are not at least the minority still have a say.
*********
Nothing to Say:
"The communists believe there is no god"
Not true unless you edit it to Maoist/Soviet (fascist) style communism, but then neither were communist states, they just called themselves that. Communism in its proper sense is about communal government and property sharing, belief within communism is perfectly acceptable up to the point where it effects secular matters. Even then if all people within the communist structure were of the same faith it wouldnt be a problem.
2006-09-18 03:50:04 · answer #2 · answered by The Pirate Captain 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because every belief results in a set of actions or "rules" about how we live.
The communists believe there is no god, so they try to destroy the role of churches and mosques. Ironically, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in the US but this does not prevent the beliefs of Christians and Jews being over represented.
Moses and Muhammad were political as well as "religious" leaders so the separation of God and state/politics is theoretically not possible and politics and government is part of the teachings.
It also makes sense that God would give guidance on all things, including politics.
2006-09-18 02:24:48 · answer #3 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a couple of things come to mind--in the fedralist papers the stuff wriiten by the founding fathers the phase wall of separtion is used only once --in a letter by thomas jefferson--he said this country will not long survive if wall separates church and state. the founders of the country believed that the country would work most rightly and well when informed by,and led by bible readers and bible believers;that you couldn't even call yourself an american if you weren't a bible reader and user;did they all think the same?no! but they were unified by bringing god to the forefront of civic life, and doing the best they that knew how, to do right before god and country. thank you very much for asking and have a fine, fine day in the nieghborhood!!!!!!!!.
7
2006-09-18 02:50:02 · answer #4 · answered by marklove831 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In any argument where the speaker feels they are losing the game the appeal is always to a higher authority and there is after all no one able to question God or the concept of God. It is an emotional appeal similar to' I swear on my mother's grave' or 'let God be my judge' Trouble is it often works especially to the mass audience.
2006-09-18 06:33:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Using religion in an arguement or statement usally only serves 1 purpose to inflame,anger and challenge other peoples beliefs.
Also in history rulers/leaders have used it to gain there own selfish needs.
2006-09-18 05:04:30 · answer #6 · answered by mic s 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
...because, together with patriotism, religion is the easiest way to get people behind a leadership, make them obey the leaders, because it is "moral" to do so,and make them froth at the mouth at anybody who does not belong to Their nation or religion.
People in that state of mind are so much easier led to partake in, or at least approve of, even the most outrageous atrocities, let alone anything else.
2006-09-18 02:24:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's handy for these people to find somebody to blame who can't answer back, because that way they can carry on with the killing game. All of them.
2006-09-18 02:48:46 · answer #8 · answered by Dover Soles 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because God is the creator he is the alpha and the omega he is the beginning and the end he is the king of kings lord of lords! I know this Because I go to church.
2006-09-18 02:14:38 · answer #9 · answered by michael b 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is probably used because of a lack of more serious and credible sources - and a lack of coherent argument.
2006-09-18 09:54:43 · answer #10 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋