Why mixing religion and politics is bad

[Cephus]

Quote by: Jack To address the OP directly, I often wonder if those who want to inject religion into the government have given any thought to what would happen in their town, city or state if the majority of the population were Muslim or members of a religious cult? It's happened in Antelope, Oregon and Clearwater, Florida. Would they still support religious influence in government if that influence weren't Christianity? I don't think so.

Of course not, but it's not just Christianity, it's all religions that do the same thing. They have no problem imposing religion on everyone around them, so long as it's *THEIR* religion. The second someone else does it, they cry discrimination.

Theists, by and large, are hypocrites.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Soylent Green Evolution seeks change.

Only when there's a change in the environment, Soylent, but I suppose humans have significantly changed our.

Not all change works out and much of evolution involves dead ends. So it was with communism, because it simply couldn't compete. I see no reason to imagine that an even more radical form of communism... anarchy ...would prove any more competitive, particularly since no one has figured out a way to even attempt it.

Quote by: Soylent Green Lol now it's my turn to laugh. You present the constitution, an ideal that no government has ever been able to live up to and then berate communism for the same thing.

The difference being that capitalism combined with democracy works, because it makes use of the best AND the worst qualities of the humans species, while keeping a reasonable lid on the worst.

Communism advances only mediocrity and the currency of power.

Quote by: Soylent Green Again with the Mc Carthy communism propaganda.

Try to remember that I'm a liberal, Soylent. Communism is a system of economics, that's all. Totalitarian Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism were political systems that relied on communism. But you have to face reality... everywhere that communism has been tried, it's been rejected. Russia, China, Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc. etc. The sole remaining holdout is Cuba, and that's because our idiotic boycot has compelled Castro to dig in his heals and refuse to change.

It

Doesn't

work!

.

[SoylentGreen]

SonartTry to remember that I'm a liberal, Soylent. Communism is a system of economics, that's all. Totalitarian Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism were political systems that relied on communism

In a sense i agree with you, communism doesn't work, but then again nether does capitalism.
Because both are philosophies of economics and both are corrupted by government systems whether it be democracy or totalitarianism.

The examples of countries that have tried but failed is because they tried to soon. They happened in countries that were already polluted by class systems that separated the ruling from the ruled. It is not possible to create a communist style of life straight out of a primitive agrarian society. They attempted to bypass the necessary stages of capitalism and socialism that is needed first to create an educated and productive society and the next a leveled out playing field between rich and poor.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Soylent In a sense i agree with you, communism doesn't work, but then again nether does capitalism.

I think it works, provided you keep a lid on and regulate the worst excesses.

That's why I'm a Democrat!

.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Sonart . I think it works, provided you keep a lid on and regulate the worst excesses. That's why I'm a Democrat! .

Don't you think that is hypocritical. You wont consider communism because no one can give you an example of how it could be a Utopian society. In fact you insist that communism comes up with a Utopian model while being happy to accept capitalism, warts and all.

Why should communists be forced to design the perfect model, but not capitalists.

And yes capitalism does work provided you keep a lid on and regulate the worst excesses.

But had you lived a few hundred years ago and asked the ruling elite royalty or even the so called educated, if it was possible that a common merchant might be given the right to govern they would have had the same view you have towards communism.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Soylent Green In fact you insist that communism comes up with a Utopian model while being happy to accept capitalism, warts and all.

You seem to be missing the point... "warts and all" is irrelevant if you're not at least marginally successful. Once upon a time there were about 50 or so communist countries. Now there's two... North Korea and Cuba, neither of which seems to fit the description of a worker's paradise.

China, Vietnam and Laos are still listed as communist, but in reality they've all "Evolved" backwards towards market economies.

And forget the United States... too many warts still. The "Happiest Nation on Earth" is socialist... little Denmark. Followed by Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Australia, Finland, etc. The U.S. ranked about 16th.

And the common key to happiness seems to be not necessarily money but personal freedom combined with a degree of security. A socialist economy.

.

[WindWip]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Good, but why bother. Marx is only of historical relevance . We have over a hundred years to ponder what he said. But times change, people change, the technology has changed. And above all communism has changed. His view of violent revolution reflect the knowledge of capitalism that he had at the time. That form of capitalism has also changed.

You were the one who brought up historical materialism!
Which was defined by Karl Marx

Depends, as i asked, what does better imply? Better in that it is subjectively personally better, or better as in evolution attempts to improve on previous efforts.

I said I haven't seen a strong argument for something and now you're trying to tell me my statement is wrong. I seriously have no clue what you are trying to prove here. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove that wrong. First, because for the most part you have no clue what arguments I have seen and secondly because "strong" is subjective, meaning that I am the determinant of whether I think an argument is strong or not.
Seriously Soilent, pick your battles - this is worse than arguing over semantics.

I could have but then that would have been a straw man. Instead i used the example of woman suffrage because like any philosophical view, which both woman suffrage and anarchism are. They are dependent on acceptance of the idea.

Fine, give me a rational reason why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Because any form of centralised government inevitably leads to revolution whether violent or not. Change is the only consistent factor in society and a centralised government apposes change.

Why does a centralized government always lead to revolution? If it works and everyone is content I see no reason for a revolution to occur. Do you think that another form of government might not lead to revolution?

[SoylentGreen]

WindWip You were the one who brought up historical materialism! Which was defined by Karl Marx

Yes I brought up historical materialism, not marx. The same as if i had brought up democracy doesn't mean that i have to accept the view of plato.

I said I haven't seen a strong argument for something and now you're trying to tell me my statement is wrong. I seriously have no clue what you are trying to prove here. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove that wrong. First, because for the most part you have no clue what arguments I have seen and secondly because "strong" is subjective, meaning that I am the determinant of whether I think an argument is strong or not. Seriously Soilent, pick your battles - this is worse than arguing over semantics.

Fine if you wish to remain deliberatly vague in order to keep your claim, so be it.

Fine, give me a rational reason why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Because women accepted their role as second class citizens and it was not until they spoke up and fought against the then current thinking of the role of women , was it changed.
In other words suffrage , like anarchism is a philosophical ideal. Time and acceptance of the philosophical ideal is the common factor.

Why does a centralized government always lead to revolution? If it works and everyone is content I see no reason for a revolution to occur. Do you think that another form of government might not lead to revolution?

This has already been explained . Sonart and i have been discussing why government and evolution are in direct competition to each other.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Okieslims In my opinion, right wingers tend to be the most patriotic people in America. That said, they also tend to be the most religious people in America, and they seem to desire their religion to be incorperated into our schools, laws, etc. If you disagree with them, they make claims that we would have no laws or morals without christianity as a guide and point to the decloration of indipendence and many other founding documents that reference God to strengthen the words on the paper. I think this mind set lessens the freedom we have in America and I think it is leading us down a dangerous path. I would like to draw a comparison to other countries that incorperate religion into their laws and schools. Muslim nations that live by the book to a far greater degree than the vast majority of christians ever would. Religion, when mixed into the laws of a society, works to remove freedom from the people. A long time ago a friend of mine, in the air force, witnessed a man get his head cut off in the middle east(forget which country he said) for cheating on his wife. This happened in the middle of a town square. Would this have happened if people didnt use the law to punish this man for sinning against God? Women are forced to cover themselves from head to toe, people that believe in other Gods are expelled from the community or worse(sometimes killed), and punishment for sins follows the brutality of the old testiment. Right wingers love to link left wingers and middle easterners together to make the left seem more radical. I think that the middle easterners have more in common with the religious right though. I think the only difference is that middle easterners live by their religious scriptures..they walk it... and American christians simply talk it.. but they want to incorperate it into the laws and do a whole lot more walking and thats kind of scary. SO I hope this little-early mornin rant helps some of you folks realize why mixing religion and politics is a dangerous-freedom sucking practice.

I did not wish to wade through over 100 posts so I will just respond to the O.P. shown here.

I agree with most of what you said.

Those things already in the Consitution or Bill of Rights should remain even if they are simular to one of the 10 commandments or whatever is promoted by a religion.

People who do not advocate a religion might have a secular opinion that some morals are okay, like not stealing from someone else. Like being honest and so forth. Just because religion claims those are the things they advocate, even compassion, these attitudes and or good motives should not be ignored just because religions might also adovate them.

The main objection is the act of worship. To pray or bow down to some devine identity. That activity should not be mixed in with political activity or forced on kids in schools.

But that is a tricky thing because the consitution insures the right to worship as you please and so someone into politics should be allowed to worship or pray even when at work, as long as he/she does not involve others into his/her private activiity.

Then again they should have have to hide their beliefs from view because that is getting too private, people do not live in a closet.

So I see a thin line and where to draw it is uncertain in my opinion.

[isaone]

Quote by: Sonart And the common key to happiness seems to be not necessarily money but personal freedom combined with a degree of security. A socialist economy.

Well said !!

Bernie Sanders has become my hero. He actually states in public that he is a Democratic Socialist. I hope he starts a movement.