Posted on Mar 4, 2016
What is your stance on religion in politics?
22.3K
324
212
15
15
0
We all know about the separation of church and state, but we always see candidates appealing to their religious audiences. why is America so deeply held in their religious beliefs and why has that been brought into politics? on the flip side of the discussion, could we ever see an atheistic or agnostic president? have we had one that I am unaware of?
Religion
Politics
Office of the President (POTUS)
Election 2016
Pop Culture
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 55
24
24
0
You may thank whatever or whomever you believe in that our Founders were influenced by Western Civilization and its root in Judeo-Christianity when they fabricated this new nation. Our amazing people would never have achieved its preeminence among the nations of the world and history. By acknowledging each individual's right to decide and direct their own fate, they unleashed the creative genius and work ethic that built this great nation while others faltered. That same faith inspired the abolitionists to shed their blood to free others from bondage. That same faith inspired our people to place themselves in harm's way to defend the world from the tyranny of fascism and communism and now, Islamism. Anyone who would represent We the People in any capacity, in any office, would hopefully continue that tradition. Thus, anyone who would denigrate that tradition will not be supported by We the People. It is not necessary that they espouse a particular brand of religion, but at least acknowledge it and celebrate its important contribution to the fabric of American society. It is one of the threads that holds the rest together.
(24)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
MAJ (Join to see) - Western Civilization began in Ancient Greece, long before Christianity came along. The idea for our current form of representative government came from Ancient Greece and Rome. Concepts that pre-date Christianity by thousands of years. The laws and concepts framed in the Constitution come more from English Common Law than the Bible. I would agree that you are misinterpreting the word "based" in this context. I can only hope that you become more enlightened. Sadly, judging by the history of your religion, I know better.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Edward Wilcox - You are right about western civilization. I did not say that I misinterpreted the word based. There is probably more than a 'school' of learned writers who disagree with your enlightened interpretation. Your prejudicial ass/u/mption of my religion was a bad leap, for someone who CLAIMS, "I know better".
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Edward Wilcox - You are right about western civilization. I did not say that I misinterpreted the word based. There is probably more than a 'school' of learned writers who disagree with your enlightened interpretation. Your prejudicial ass/u/mption of my religion was a bad leap, for someone who CLAIMS, "I know better".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSgt Robert Marx - No doubt the bible had a huge influence on the society of the day, even today in order to get my point across I make reference to Bible parables and verses. At the same time we need to understand Biblical government is a government of Kings... the God of the Israelis gave them a King, not a Republic... and those Christian Kings in Europe didn't rule in the name of the people, they ruled by "Divine Right."
Our founding fathers recognized that both government and religion were better served if they remained separate. That's why the very first part of the first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thomas Jefferson clearly explains the intent here: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." None of this means Americans can or shouldn't be religious, only that government and religion remain separate institutions. A simple observation of Europe and how Christianity has fared with Christianity serving as the State religion should be more than enough to prove that keeping religion and government separate is wise... if that's not enough then look at Shinto and Japan, or Islam and most Muslim countries.
Our founding fathers recognized that both government and religion were better served if they remained separate. That's why the very first part of the first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thomas Jefferson clearly explains the intent here: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." None of this means Americans can or shouldn't be religious, only that government and religion remain separate institutions. A simple observation of Europe and how Christianity has fared with Christianity serving as the State religion should be more than enough to prove that keeping religion and government separate is wise... if that's not enough then look at Shinto and Japan, or Islam and most Muslim countries.
(0)
(0)
16
16
0
Separation of church and state is not included in the founding documents of this nation PFC Alexander Oliveira. When this nation was founded there was concern that a king-like figure would arise [Washington declined] and that a church would be associated with the government like most of Europe. Most of the early settlers to this nation were fleeing religious persecution in the nations they left.
Each person lives out a faith or lack of it in their daily activities. Statesmen and women and politicians have personal belief systems which may or may not be congruent or consistent. Honest people reveal what motivates them. Any politician who does not mention what they believe in is not to be trusted.
What are your thoughts COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) CW5 (Join to see) SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Forrest Stewart SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SGT Randal Groover SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
Each person lives out a faith or lack of it in their daily activities. Statesmen and women and politicians have personal belief systems which may or may not be congruent or consistent. Honest people reveal what motivates them. Any politician who does not mention what they believe in is not to be trusted.
What are your thoughts COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC (Join to see) CW5 (Join to see) SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT Forrest Stewart SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT SGT Randal Groover SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
(16)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - Damage or not is irrelevant, it is legal. A married person can legally have consensual sex with another married or single person whenever they feel like it and not infringe on another's rights. If my wife cheats on me, it is her right to do so, and my right to seek a divorce, or not. Just because your religion says it is not allowed, does not hold any weight on those who don't share it.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
When did the UCMJ change? USMC MAJ in big trouble having alleged sex with two over 21 Annapolis cadets, and he was not married.
(1)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - With all due respect, you mention the separation of church and state being in the Constitution-Where? If the First Amendment is the foundation for said argument, please show me where. The clauses in the First Amendment that deal with the topic are this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Where, in any of that, does it say anything about the separation of church and state? IN plain English, what those clauses do is limit the government in two ways-First, the United States Congress cannot establish a state religion. Second, it cannot make any law that limits the free exercise of anyone's faith.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LT (Join to see) said "Second, it cannot make any law that limits the free exercise of anyone's faith."
I'm sorry, but that's not a correct statement, legally. Hasn't been for over 140 years, since Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The government can prohibit specific acts and you can't use religion as a defense.
I'm sorry, but that's not a correct statement, legally. Hasn't been for over 140 years, since Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The government can prohibit specific acts and you can't use religion as a defense.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Col Joseph Lenertz - Outlawed religion and not having or endorsing religion are very different things. I have never heard of any attempts in the United States to make the practice of religion illegal anywhere except in government or public spheres with captive audiences, such as schools.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google