The fundamental idea that politics and religion should not intersect or overlap is flawed. It sounds great in theory; however, in reality I would suspect that most people do not divide their worldview into secular and sacred. For better or for worse, the marriage of politics and religion will not be undermined by political correctness or even the laws governing the seperation of church and state.
We as a society must be mature enough to realize that although we all come to the table of brotherhood, we all do not sit on the same side. All Christians, Muslims, and Jews did not come to the table of America via the same journey, parentage, cultural perspectives, or starting points. Naturally we will not all share the same views on social or political issues. How someone understands his or her faith and how a person uses his or her vote are part of a total picture of how we as a collective people create our world views. The IRS should not seek to antogonize churches for participating in the democratic process. Yes, the church is an institution that is a community of faith, but the church is also an institution that is a community of concerned citizens who usually share the same or simular values and worldviews.
What people vote for or against is usually an extension of what they believe on a sacred level.
Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with like-minded people who happen to belong to the same institution discussing and exercising their right to vote for or endorse a particular candidate.
2007-01-29 10:08:50 · 4 answers · asked by Andre L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
What I find most interesting about what you've said here is that when I saw your question alone I thought you were going to say the opposite of what you said in greater detail here above. And I agree with most of what you've said. I'm not sure what you mean by "the marriage of politics and religion," and it sounds to me as if that might be unconstitutional. That is, it would be unconstitutional for government and churches to be "married." But saying that church and state must be separate does not mean that religious views are irrelevant to the law-making process. So in that regard, I agree with you.
2007-01-29 11:45:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The instant churches publicly endorse a political candidate or lobby in support of anti-abortion, or in opposition to same-sex marriages, they should IMMEDIATELY lose their status as a tax-free entity.
Separation of church and state should also mean that the churches stay out of government matters.
2007-01-29 10:23:05 · answer #2 · answered by guido_the_love_bird 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Very well put. I have no problem bringing politics into a religious setting, but I do think its wrong to bring religion into a political discussion. As it stands today in America, God is used for convenience in a political discussion. He cannot be mentioned in schools, yet His word is used extensively for political discussions regarding Gay Marriage and Abortion. You can't pick and choose where you want God to preside.
2007-01-29 10:17:49 · answer #3 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, churches should be discouraged from publicly endorsing a specific candidate, it's anti-democratic, the churchgoers need to make their own decisions as to who they think they should be elected, they must not be told whom to vote for
and if they are "like minded" people then they should freely come to the same decision as to who to vote for, but it MUST be their decision
2007-01-29 10:16:10 · answer #4 · answered by Nick F 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋