If there is a seperation of church and state here in the U.S. Is there room for a man of God in politics? Are the views of a righteous man completely respected in political arenas? Finally, Is it accepted honestly by the religious body? If so is there room or them to judge the ones that do not feel that it should be so?
2006-12-20 15:12:33 · 29 answers · asked by brys' 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
no. politics is a forum strictly for the corrupt and inept
2006-12-20 15:14:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think that political figures should be men of God. The idea of separation of church and state just means that the state has no jurisdiction over the church. The idea that the IRS needs to give a church some type of exemption is a violation of this.
Most people don't realize that the Tenth Amendment prohibits government from meddling in the day to day affairs of the American people. Government has no business in the schools. Otherwise, education becomes political indoctrination. We end up with an ignorant electorate that keeps electing thugs and criminals to office.
2006-12-20 23:29:40 · answer #2 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing that the "separation between church and state" is supposed to do is keep those in power from utilizing their religous beliefs against the population, or holding it over the heads of those who don't believe as they do. Many times in the past, those in charge of this or that government were also in charge of this or that religion, with less than positive results to say the least. Our founding fathers knew how dangerous such a combination was, and regardless of their own personal relgious beliefs they knew that the two should never empower one another, and should be kept "seperate" as much as possible....
Does this mean that a believer shouldn't be able to hold office? No, it simply means that a government, or government official, should not be able to enact laws that favor/endorse his/her religion over someone elses, whatever that religion may be...
In my community we recently had a controversy over either a picture of Jesus(as if there really are any) or the Ten Commandments(greatly reduced and revised by Jesus himself) hanging up in a public school or public building like the courthouse.....I feel it should be up to every community to vote on such issues...if the community doesn't have a problem with it, then it should be ok, so long as one religion isnt actually being FORCED on someone else then it isn't harming them in any way...
Don't forget how horrible it is to talk about Jesus, yet no one minds a Jewish star hanging just about wherever...hmmm
2006-12-20 23:28:40 · answer #3 · answered by fortwynt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A persons religion should not be a reason NOT to have them in office. However, it is the person of faith's responsibility if chosen to lead in a political role to not discriminate against another persons religion or non religion. Same goes for a person who is not religious and is voted in. I see no harm in a person relying on a higher power to help them with the decisions they must make every day. And the same should be said that just because a person is not religious that they cannot make the decisions needed to keep the people safe. Remember, those who came to this country were not all of the same religion. They came here so as not to be persacuted for believing what they wanted. They believed that all religions have the right to gather and do as they wish in their own buildings of prayer.
2006-12-21 00:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A man can be guided by his morals as it applies to himself but politics and religion do not mix. The reason is that in a free country there has to be "policy's" that apply to everyone equally. USA is a country based on freedom of choice. A politician bringing his set of religious beliefs into the political arena is a disaster.
2006-12-20 23:19:58 · answer #5 · answered by chuck 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Righteous and religious are NOT synonyms for one another. Which is one of the reasons that the separation of church and state was written into the founding documents of the US.
A person of either gender whose religion has taught them that it's right to reach out and help anyone and everyone, regardless of their beliefs, does belong in politics, in the education system, and in any and every other position of influence in any society.
2006-12-20 23:20:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well I dont know if by Law that's permitted, if it's so and the man chosen is really a man og God, honest and above all concerned in maintaining world peace (not as our "beloved" current President) then, let him be welcome to the world of politics, and let's hope he could make a change in this world. In my case I would respect that person.
Now the religious body should be proud of having a representant in politics, someone who could bring peace and bring back lost values.
2006-12-20 23:19:02 · answer #7 · answered by Abbey Road 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes,a real one,who knows God and His laws!
To resume His laws:
1. Thou shalt not KILL!-Be Veg!
2. Keep your body clean![it's a living temple!]
[no drugs of a any kind,including cigarettes]
3. No sex! [only for procreation]
4. No casinos[gambling]
The Devil [or Maya resides in these 4 actions!
PS. The politician or leader should defend his country from demoniac invaders though,in order to protect dharma or religion,as their agenda is to kill,rape and enslave religious people,kill cows for eating,and destroy temples for worshipping God....just like one should kill envious snakes!
2006-12-21 16:15:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that a person can run our country and still be a member of any religion, or an atheist. Their beliefs should make no difference to their ability to make decisions based on what is best for all of the people of this land.
After Bush, I hope we get a more moderate religious person in that office. I hope we all learned a lesson.
BTW, I never voted for anyone named Bush!!!!!!!!!!
2006-12-20 23:19:03 · answer #9 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. It should be the little man. That way people will look to the lower-class people as an actual source of knowledge, not beig judged on wealth or social status.
2006-12-20 23:16:14 · answer #10 · answered by Cold Fart 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Religion and state should be separate things... when ever this doesn't happen disaster does... remember the inquisition and take a look at middle eastern countries. Even in religion teachings God does not get involved in earthly issues
2006-12-20 23:17:38 · answer #11 · answered by Luis Armando 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋