Religion In American Politics - Some Questions...

[Eric D]

First, this topic is nothing about diapers or AB DL...

but as I must imagine that there is a broad variety of people from very different "places" online here I guess it's a good a place to ask as it gets...

I'm not american, I haven't spent more than three months (all in all) in the US. I'm not religious - I don't believe in ANY GODS - and especially I would not believe in what the church and some preacher tells me to believe.

With the whole pre-election thing going on in the US right now (It's very wildly discussed and debated even here in switzerland btw ) - and the iraq war and "bush-era" too I keep wondering about this:

The United States of America officially classify as a Secular State (for those who don't know - here's an excrept from wikipedia:

A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions. Most often it has no state religion or equivalent. If there is a state religion, this should have only a symbolic meaning, not affecting the ordinary life of its citizens, and especially not making any distinction based on someone's religion.

)

So basicall - the US as a country doesn't stand for religion, should be perfectly neutral in these matters (neither supporting nor oppsing) - and especially should not base any decisions on religion.

now I keep wondering, why is it then, that Religion, and I must say especially the christian sects are such a HUGE influence and part of a candidate - many - more so the republicans - feature a very god-centered rethoric - on top of them all George W. Bush.

I'm not wanting this to become a debate about G.W. Bush and whether some think he's bad or good - I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion - but it's not what I'm asking here.

But let's stay with Bush -> most of his reelection rethoric or pre-war / post 9/11 / post kathrina / post whatever speeches are VERY religious and VERY Christian Centered. Why is such a thing being "tolerated" in form of political speaches of that level (it doesn't get much higher up the echolon than the president when it comes to public speaches, now doesn't it?)??

Why does seem so important in a modern 21st century country?

Why do people of a officially Secular State "buy into that" so heavily?

Don't get me wrong - I find nothing wrong if someone - as an individual - endorses religion, is a firm believer - if it helps and makes the individual a happier human - than that is perfectly fine with me.... but we're talking about a Country - the United States, an officially secular country who at least towards the outside world acts like one of the least secular countries in existance.

Take Iran (another somewhat actual political topic, I know) for example - they're an Islamic God State - their politics and their structure are heavily tied in with Islam - some may say "radical islam" but I will not go as far.

Or take the Vatican - it's the popes own small lil' crackin country in midst of Italy... sure the Vatican is a Christian Country.

Both examples above have the thing in common, that they make no big deal about being "secular" - they aren't and they don't promote otherwise.

However the united states, standing in for a strong democratic movement politically, also trying to be a "world leader" (successful or not - again not the question) - officially having adapted secularism, and yet promoting one of the strongest and toughest christian/god centered rethorics in politics?

For me, this is hard to imagine to go "hand in hand".

and about

ot affecting the ordinary life of its citizens

- take abortion for example (I don't want to discuss here whether abortion is ok or not, I will also try not to state my opinion on it) - most of the political oppisition force in the US make heavy use of christian values and ideas to justify saying abortion should be made absolutely illegal - how is such a position in a secular state even possible?

Or take public schools where darwinism isn't teached but biblical creationism - that for me is parting with the secular idea on the worsest level.

it's children - of all religions - being force-indoctrinated to learn a non-scientific view on how things came to be - not only non-scientific - but a very strong christian idea. I have a good number of believers, christians amongst my friends, but there is no single adult in there believing in christian crationism - some give it a "chance" or a "after all it's a thesis and is a historical part of mankind" thing... again - I don't want to make this into a fight about whether the darwinistic fraction or the creationists are "right or wrong" - but I believe a school should either be only "scientific" or at least show both things and explain their VERY DIFFERENT origin. And if they do biblical crationism, than why not hinduistic or budhistic, or rastafarian, or islamic ... or whatever... every religion has it's creation-myths - so why not be open - after all that's what I'd expect of a secular country.

also the fact that (most) US Presidents have to / have been / are expected to be sworn in over a bible - how secular is that ? A country basically requiering this? (I know he/she can decline - but it would create a "public problem"...)

Or that in front of a judge a testomony under oath can or ist most frequently taken on a bible?

Swearing on a bible ??? common, for someone like me, a very non-religious person, that wouldn't be very right or binding, would it?

I've never broken a word once given, but I don't swar on books, gods or persons. and I believe a secular state should completely abbandond such practices.

Or why not make it simply and abandon the imho hyporcite and wrong idea that the USA are a secular country - as for the past eight years at least they have at least in abroad public appeared as being VERY CHRISTIAN and only rarely, slightly secular.

Any inputs ?

[Eric D]

oh and before someone gets this wrong:

I AM NOT ANTI AMERICAN OR ANTI RELIGION ....

I have a good number of american friends... have visited the country for a couple of times and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Same with religion - I find it an interesting subject - and have read most of the "standard books" for the most "known" religions... read the old and new testament, the q'ran, and some other things - I find it very interesting, but I can not / don't need to / don't want to associate myself with a religious system and don't beleive in god, christ, allah, jehova, angles, lucifer or roman gods and heros (nice mythology - I like the heroic stories a lot - but stories they are for me and not much more.)

I don't mind if anyone believes in anything - personal choice

but I'm just a firm believer (now here it comes ) in personal freedom and that especially matters such as religious should be personal, and personal only. A country shouldn't have a religion, it shouldn't stand in for one believe - especially not a democratic country where so many different people of very different origin and with very different believes reside in.

I think that at least a modern western secular government should do it's best to keep religion and politics well separated - especially if it scorns other countries over such things.

[justindiapers]

"Secular", like everything else in life, is not black and white. The US does not have a official state religion, something that several European countries still have - including some cantons of Switzerland, if Wikipedia is to be believed. (though I realize that that's usually more of a thing that has never been repealed rather than an actual meaningful status)

Religion isn't just a set of ceremonies or rituals, it's a set of core beliefs and values that affect everyday life. Many of those core beliefs are obviously specific to a religion, such as Jewish Kosher laws. But some of those core values are general good society values. Theft and murder are considered sins in nearly every religion that I know of, but that doesn't mean that a country which has laws against theft and murder is nonsecular.

The problem is that there is no clear dividing line between the religious values and the good society values. A politician might be against enforcing "religious laws" in the sense that he wouldn't post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or create a law against using the Lord's name in vain, but if he is deeply religious, then the "good society laws" that he supports are probably heavily influenced by his religion.

Take abortion, for instance. Fundamentalist Christians generally believe that abortion is murder. To them, this isn't an issue of breaking some religious law, it's a core societal value that shouldn't be broken regardless of religion. There are religions and cults that believe murder is not a sin, but we don't allow those people to commit murder because that's what they believe in. Therefore we shouldn't allow abortion just because some people think it's okay. Or so their logic goes.

The US is far from the only country with that debate, and our abortion laws are more progressive and less influenced by religion than those of Spain or Ireland, for instance.

Here's my opinion. The US has a mostly secular government, though less secular than most European countries. There are few laws in the US that enforce purely religious Christian values. The only common ones that I can think of are laws regarding marriage, and alcohol sales on Sunday. (which are prohibited or restricted in some states) I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting, and of course, I'm ignoring the occasional archaic law that is no longer enforced but has never been repealed. (which practically all countries have)

However, since the US government is (sort of) representative of the people of the US, and since the US has a (very vocal) minority of highly conservative Christians, we're going to lag behind the rest of the world on the issues that are sort of religious - like abortion, gay marriage, and capital punishment.

As for my personal beliefs, I'm agnostic, pro-abortion, socially libertarian, and economically left-center. So I'm far from a defender of the American right wing.

[redneck diaper boy]

It is true there is no offical religion in America. There is an attempt to make "Secular Humanism" the official religion of America.

The American Constutition simply reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Too many people forget this part: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Here are some quotes from our founding fathers:

John Adams

August 28, 1811

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."

Ben Franklin

Congressional Congress, 1787

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

John Jay

(America's first Supreme Court Chief Justice and Co-Author of the Federalist Papers)

October 12, 1816

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

George Washington

In his Inaugural Speech, April 30, 1789,

"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes...."

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."

If you study our history, you will see that a total wall of seperation is a myth. Only in the past 60 years, the so called progressive courts have so perverted our Constitution

[Eric D]

thank you so far for the very intersting replies...

@justindiapers

yes it is correct, that some swiss cantons ("states") do still have a "state-religion"... but it's just paper these days... they actually recently changed the federal basic laws where there was something like (not literally): "All men are equal in front of god" to something like "All man are equal in front of the law".

But what I was saying more is, take european politics, and there are only very rare god-related comments in public speeches... there's only very rarely a statement like "may god protect us in this dark hour"... or any such thing. And it's a rare thing to see people swear on bibles or ther holy texts... I'm not going as far as to say it's all absent, but it's rare.

While I find, at least with what we get to see over here in europe (and yes we do love a good bit of dramaturgism - especially in foreign politics ), that every time I see George W. on tv, or read texts about the new candiates or hear speaches - GOD plays a HUGE role.

But I guess what you have said about " US has a (very vocal) minority of highly conservative Christians, " explains a lot...

yet I have a hard time to believe that the rest of the borad public "just shuts up and swallows" this.

@redneck

the quotes are interesting and in my opinion show a great deal of US-history. It was for sure mostly christians who were involved in founding your country - some quite less "extreme" than others, some not dedicated ot a faith at all - others very strict believers.

Take john adams, your second president - his father originally wanted him to become a minister as far as I know, but he went to study law.

none the less - he was no free of religion, his quot you mentioned:

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."

Implies the for him very obviously important part of religion - I guess stemming from a blieve and lifetime in which people not having any religion were scarce or didn't "promote the fact" as they would have done today.

I ask you - personally - what is your view on god in politics - is there a necessity for strong christian rethoric in US American presidential campaings and actual speeches by the president?

What does it mean to you - if your president after a natural catastroph says something god related?

Don't get me wrong - I am all for the fact that your president is human, and has a VERY GOOD RIGHT on being christian, on being close to god, on trying to live according to his personal faith - but I believe it should stay "personal" and shouldn't be too obvious preacherlike when going public.

[redneck diaper boy]

To answer your question, I have no problem with religion and politics.

I think most Americans are scared to death of a theocracy. I voted against my own two preferences, in the Florida primary, bacause I believed they had no chance of winning. I voted for Romney. My first choice was Ron Paul. My second choice was Mike Huckabee.

Both Paul and Huckabee want to overhaul our tax code which I am in favor of.

Regarding the Iraq war, we have to stay there. We cannot allow the Islamic Facist to control the world supply of oil. We cannot allow the Islamic facist to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Both Paul and Huckabee would secure the borders.

I do not like John McCain but he is the lessor of the evils. Clinton and Obama are both Communist. The thought of a Marxist America scares me

Despite all of the candidates rhetoric, their opinions will probably change quickly when they assume the office. The President is privledged to information that the candidates don't have access to. The world's security is in the hands of one person. Once the new president is briefed, their actions my not match their rhetoric.

thank you so far for the very intersting replies...

@justindiapers

yes it is correct, that some swiss cantons ("states") do still have a "state-religion"... but it's just paper these days... they actually recently changed the federal basic laws where there was something like (not literally): "All men are equal in front of god" to something like "All man are equal in front of the law".

But what I was saying more is, take european politics, and there are only very rare god-related comments in public speeches... there's only very rarely a statement like "may god protect us in this dark hour"... or any such thing. And it's a rare thing to see people swear on bibles or ther holy texts... I'm not going as far as to say it's all absent, but it's rare.

While I find, at least with what we get to see over here in europe (and yes we do love a good bit of dramaturgism - especially in foreign politics ), that every time I see George W. on tv, or read texts about the new candiates or hear speaches - GOD plays a HUGE role.

But I guess what you have said about " US has a (very vocal) minority of highly conservative Christians, " explains a lot...

yet I have a hard time to believe that the rest of the borad public "just shuts up and swallows" this.

@redneck

the quotes are interesting and in my opinion show a great deal of US-history. It was for sure mostly christians who were involved in founding your country - some quite less "extreme" than others, some not dedicated ot a faith at all - others very strict believers.

Take john adams, your second president - his father originally wanted him to become a minister as far as I know, but he went to study law.

none the less - he was no free of religion, his quot you mentioned:

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."

Implies the for him very obviously important part of religion - I guess stemming from a blieve and lifetime in which people not having any religion were scarce or didn't "promote the fact" as they would have done today.

I ask you - personally - what is your view on god in politics - is there a necessity for strong christian rethoric in US American presidential campaings and actual speeches by the president?

What does it mean to you - if your president after a natural catastroph says something god related?

Don't get me wrong - I am all for the fact that your president is human, and has a VERY GOOD RIGHT on being christian, on being close to god, on trying to live according to his personal faith - but I believe it should stay "personal" and shouldn't be too obvious preacherlike when going public.

[special lil kitty]

"Regarding the Iraq war, we have to stay there. We cannot allow the Islamic Facist to control the world supply of oil. We cannot allow the Islamic facist to acquire a nuclear weapon."

Excuse me a minute, but it IS their oil - not ours and quite frankly they should be able to use it for anything they want - even if its just but loob because if they DID cut off trade with the major developed nations they would cut their own necks and collapse their own economies.

There has to be right to self determination and invasion for natural resources is no better than Hitler minus the final solution (but i know quite a people around that would not mind making it a nuclear desert - in other words - final solution on a scale hitler could have only dreamed of).

Also, with the US christian fascist around, do you really expect them to want to go to a gun fight with a knife? Lets keep in mind WHO is the only nation that has actually USED nukes. You got it, the US of A.

Also, how do you define fascism? Often the definition is such that if you look at the US, it applies there too... lol

Also, I'm as South Georgian, USA as you can get... before you call me something else for EXERCISING my right to free speech... lol

Now about clinton and obama... sorry, they are not communist. They are no better than Bush. They will not actually do much different anyway. I don't like them either, so please don't associate them with us real Communist. They would not know Marxism if it bit em in the balls.

[redneck diaper boy]

Man has to do what man has to do to survive. If you need water you would kill to get it. We need oil. Oil is the lifeblood of America. Yes we kill for oil.

Had we not used the atom bomb, more people would have died. I lived through the "cold war". I remember the bomb drills at school. We thought we were going to get nuked! I remember going to the fallout shelter once a week.

If you have ever read the Communist Manifesto you will see that the American Democratic platform matches the writings of Karl Marx.

I will take Christian Facism over Communism any day.

The first attempt of Communism occured in early America. Captain Miles Standish found out quickly that the psuedo utopian society would be exploited by lazy people.

As for Hitler, he was not a nice guy. I question recorded history with regard to the holocaust. My grandmother was relesed from Auschwitz. If it was a death camp, why am I here? The alleged gas chambers would have killed the Nazis that were allegedly doing the gassing. The alleged gas chambers were not sealed. There was no provision to remove the Hydrogen Cyanide gas from the chambers.

Getting back to history, Hitler was an angel when compared to Joseph Stalin. Stalin killed 28 million people. Hitler has nothing on Stalin.

"Regarding the Iraq war, we have to stay there. We cannot allow the Islamic Facist to control the world supply of oil. We cannot allow the Islamic facist to acquire a nuclear weapon."

Excuse me a minute, but it IS their oil - not ours and quite frankly they should be able to use it for anything they want - even if its just but loob because if they DID cut off trade with the major developed nations they would cut their own necks and collapse their own economies.

There has to be right to self determination and invasion for natural resources is no better than Hitler minus the final solution (but i know quite a people around that would not mind making it a nuclear desert - in other words - final solution on a scale hitler could have only dreamed of).

Also, with the US christian fascist around, do you really expect them to want to go to a gun fight with a knife? Lets keep in mind WHO is the only nation that has actually USED nukes. You got it, the US of A.

Also, how do you define fascism? Often the definition is such that if you look at the US, it applies there too... lol

Also, I'm as South Georgian, USA as you can get... before you call me something else for EXERCISING my right to free speech... lol

Now about clinton and obama... sorry, they are not communist. They are no better than Bush. They will not actually do much different anyway. I don't like them either, so please don't associate them with us real Communist. They would not know Marxism if it bit em in the balls.

[Eric D]

Ok, now we have a discussion about hitler, fascism, christian fascists, communists, fake communists, nucear bombs, killing for oil, invasion forces and what not - sounds like something every decent movie should feature (please forgive me the sarcasm).

About the holocaust first - I am not a big fan that this time of misery is being used basically for extortion to the very day - BUT I CONDEMN SERIOUSLY What had happened - but I also believe the history should be given some "rest" once in a while.

However, redneck, I advice you to simply give the movies Eisenhower had have comissioned locally in germany and polen - which btw are public domain these days) - a good look. It's about mass-graves, about many dead bodies - about tortured people - about the dead found ones piled in shacks... I've seen a few of thr KZ installations myself when I was travelling through that parts of the world - there are killing installations - albeit YOU have to know, that the nazis did use the camps also as "normal" POW camps - not everyone there was condemned to die.

It is unfortunatly a true event.

And yes, you're right - stalin did authorise the killing of nearly 30 million people...

even worse Chinas beloved mao did get close to 60million.

stalin once also said something rather memorable about numbers and statistics:

"10 dead people are a tragedy, 10'000 just a number in a statisitic".

But to say that either Stalin, Mao, Polpot or hitler is the "worst" or one is "harmless compared to the others" is outrageous. They & their cronies have been responsible for much grieve, suffering and last but not least death for bad reasons.

You are maybe perfectly right if you say that there are USAmericans willing to kill for oil - but it's not the right way to go imho - but it's another topic.

The atomic bomb - sure it kind of "made the point" clear to most out there - but it wasn't really justified.

And especially if one can say "Hiroshima" was an unfortunate requirement to end the war - then what the fuck was nagasaki for??

Don't need to demonstrate something like that twice - every one listened to the first bomb - it was devasting and did kill hundred-thousands within seconds .

Clinton & Obama & other democrates are sure not "far right wing" - actually they're not "right wing" at all - but they are from the democratic "left-wing"... not like "far left or anything"... and having read the manifesto btw. their rethorics and ideas are quite far from it.

Iraq - yes it is entierly my believe that pulling out too early would present a problem for the region - destabilizing it even further - you need, at least once in your foreign military history - to get the act together and make a good conclusion somewhere - clean up your own backyard a little.

I guess even the democratic candidates see that instant pullout would serve no one.

[justindiapers]

Ok, now we have a discussion about hitler, fascism, christian fascists, communists, fake communists, nucear bombs, killing for oil, invasion forces and what not - sounds like something every decent movie should feature (please forgive me the sarcasm).

I don't know about every decent movie, but definitely every decent thread involving right wing Americans has to have those topics. Godwin's Law must be proven as quickly as possible.

But what I was saying more is, take european politics, and there are only very rare god-related comments in public speeches... there's only very rarely a statement like "may god protect us in this dark hour"... or any such thing. And it's a rare thing to see people swear on bibles or ther holy texts... I'm not going as far as to say it's all absent, but it's rare.

While I find, at least with what we get to see over here in europe (and yes we do love a good bit of dramaturgism - especially in foreign politics wink.gif ), that every time I see George W. on tv, or read texts about the new candiates or hear speaches - GOD plays a HUGE role.

But I guess what you have said about " US has a (very vocal) minority of highly conservative Christians, " explains a lot...

yet I have a hard time to believe that the rest of the borad public "just shuts up and swallows" this.

Actually, I think you're partially correct on the "just shuts up and swallows" part. For things like swearing on a Bible, I think that is a result of many Americans being conservative. By conservative, I do not mean right-wing political values, rather, I mean people who either don't want the status quo to be challenged, or don't want to challenge the status quo themselves. I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. described it best:

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

Things like swearing on a Bible still exist more because "that's the way we've always done it" than for any other reason. If we were starting over, with no preconceived notions of how government should work, I think the average American would not support such things.

(By the way, swearing on a Bible is slowly being replaced by secular oaths in courts, and Congressmen are no longer sworn in on a Bible, though they sometimes pose with one for swearing-in ceremony photos)

As for politicians talking about God, that tends to be mostly confined to conservative politicians from conservative areas of the county. Those politicians are usually trying to appeal to fundamentalist Christians. I would say that, at least in those areas, many moderate Christians don't care that those politicians talk about God. They may be for a secular government, but they know that most politicians don't do most of what they say they will anyway.

This is compounded by the way that our election system tends to only give you two candidates with a chance of winning, so many people vote for the lesser of the two evils. A conservative who is for a secular government might vote for the preachy, non-secular candidate simply because he agrees with that candidate on more issues than the other candidate.

Anyway, to go back to your very first question, I think the key is that while some politicians talk about God, that talk rarely translates into non-secular action. Sometimes it does, like with the Ten Commandments being posted in some courthouses, or intelligent design being incorporated into Kansas school teachings. But even then, moderates and liberals often react strongly and those things are overturned. Evolution is now taught in Kansas schools again because most of the conservative members of the Kansas Board of Education lost the next election and were replaced by moderates and liberals.

So yes, the US is somewhat less secular than most European countries. But I don't think any country today is completely, 100%, secular. And while the rhetoric of some politicians would lead outsiders to think that we're not very secular at all, ultimately, purely religious beliefs are rarely put into law. (again, with exceptions like marriage) I think that makes us more secular than non-secular.

[Eric D]

I don't know about every decent movie, but definitely every decent thread involving right wing Americans has to have those topics. Godwin's Law must be proven as quickly as possible.

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice"

thank you for your reply - well put btw.

The quote of Dr. King is very good - and sums things up quite reasonably imho.

Your explanation makes perfect sense to me...

I think you're right about that if you'd "start with a clean sheet" it would most likely be different.

I feel like the topic has given me some insight - yet I'd love to hear more

How is it, do you in the US get let me say: translated french debates of their presidential elections? or the german ones? (I don't think swiss election are being discussed on an international "public" level unless our right wing guys again make some "faux-pax"....)