Effects of Religion on Government

[The Trendy Wolf]

Do you believe that the government should take ALL religions into account when making decisions, or should they consider every decision with a non religious, and non-biased, perspective?

Should all religions be considered and respected in government, even in national laws, or should all laws be made to benefit the common good?

This question has risen as a result of the recent ObamaCare controversy with the application of businesses being required to supply contraceptives (I believe), and people accusing this portion of the law as restricting religious freedom. In fact, lawsuits have also come as a result of this issue.

What is your opinion on this?

[sqishy]

Do you believe that the government should take ALL religions into account when making decisions, or should they consider every decision with a non religious, and non-biased, perspective?

Should all religions be considered and respected in government, even in national laws, or should all laws be made to benefit the common good?

This question has risen as a result of the recent ObamaCare controversy with the application of businesses being required to supply contraceptives (I believe), and people accusing this portion of the law as restricting religious freedom. In fact, lawsuits have also come as a result of this issue.

What is your opinion on this?

Governments should be secular, as it is a way to organise things and therefore should be done in a logical/rational/mathematical way. Everything else comes after. I think France did good in being a secular state.

[Lovelife090994]

I believe that any government should be respectful of others' beliefs. A secular government is not always bad but many are quite combative to faith, and when that happens the government is less secular and more anti-religious in a sense. Then again, the religious of almost any group would be offended if any of their beliefs are not taken into consideration. Secular governments and religious governments face the problem of many opposing beliefs and in a secular country not all the inhabitants are secular in beliefs.

[Harry Smith]

I believe that any government should be respectful of others' beliefs. A secular government is not always bad but many are quite combative to faith, and when that happens the government is less secular and more anti-religious in a sense. Then again, the religious of almost any group would be offended if any of their beliefs are not taken into consideration. Secular governments and religious governments face the problem of many opposing beliefs and in a secular country not all the inhabitants are secular in beliefs.

Yeah the secular government is very combative to the religious groups.

Government introduces gay marriage- Religious groups campaign against
Government introduces gay adoption- Religious groups campaign against
Government tries to introduce female Bishops- Religious groups campaign against.

The impression I've got is that religious groups are the ones which are generally campaigning against my rights. Look at the treatment of homosexuals in religiously governed countries such as Iran- it's leads to ugly brutal oppression on the basis on some Deity in the sky

[Sugaree]

Do you believe that the government should take ALL religions into account when making decisions, or should they consider every decision with a non religious, and non-biased, perspective?

Should all religions be considered and respected in government, even in national laws, or should all laws be made to benefit the common good?

This question has risen as a result of the recent ObamaCare controversy with the application of businesses being required to supply contraceptives (I believe), and people accusing this portion of the law as restricting religious freedom. In fact, lawsuits have also come as a result of this issue.

What is your opinion on this?

If they were to consider all religions, there would be no time to make laws! No time to get things done! Personally, I think government should be made partially of secular and religious representation, where neither side has direct power of the other to make laws that oppresses the other side. But it depends, largely, on where you live. If you were to live in Asia, the secular side would be very small as opposed to the religious side, which would be composed mostly of Buddhists. Here in America, for instance, most of the country is Catholic or Christian. Anyone of a different religious background would not have the equal representation they deserve. So this would not really work in the long run, but it IS an idea to strive towards.

I do not think having an entirely secular government is the answer, nor having an entirely religious government is the answer either. Like all things in life, we must find a balance to even things out.

Yeah the secular government is very combative to the religious groups.

Government introduces gay marriage- Religious groups campaign against
Government introduces gay adoption- Religious groups campaign against
Government tries to introduce female Bishops- Religious groups campaign against.

The impression I've got is that religious groups are the ones which are generally campaigning against my rights. Look at the treatment of homosexuals in religiously governed countries such as Iran- it's leads to ugly brutal oppression on the basis on some Deity in the sky

Two of your three points presented are valid. The government has every right to introduce things like gay marriage or adoption because, well, that's the realm which government has control over. Human rights are a government issue, not a religious issue. While I, personally, believe human rights should be an issue more religions should address, most religions are not going to address them.

On your third point, the government does not have any right. For a government to interfere in a religious group's own policy is asking for trouble. That would be like McDonald's trying to get their fries sold at Burger King. Better yet, it would be like me walking into your room and decorating it how I want it, not how you want it. The government could recommend to the church to institute a policy which allows female priests and bishops, but it can't just walk in and put a female priest or bishop into power without the church's consent.

[Lovelife090994]

Yeah the secular government is very combative to the religious groups.

Government introduces gay marriage- Religious groups campaign against
Government introduces gay adoption- Religious groups campaign against
Government tries to introduce female Bishops- Religious groups campaign against.

The impression I've got is that religious groups are the ones which are generally campaigning against my rights. Look at the treatment of homosexuals in religiously governed countries such as Iran- it's leads to ugly brutal oppression on the basis on some Deity in the sky

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold off the insults, please. Do you honestly think every religious government is that way? Homosexuals are people too but they are no better than I am. Rights are a two-way street. They have their rights and I have mine. Hard part, keeping both parties happy. Now do not jump to conclusions. My answer was concrete and concise and in no way directed to you so why jump in so blatantly? I support female preachers, then again I am a Protestant Christian who believes God can call anyone to teach. Gay adoption? Fine, let them adopt but know that being gay doesn't automatically make the parents better.

Some Deity in the sky? My good sir, that deity may not be my deity but
not all who follow that deity think that way. You seem to have a narrowminded stereotype to the religious and again you bring up your rights being in jeopardy. Please, tell me which are. If you are feeling opressed then it is your right to do something about it. Hating all who are religious does not help.

And you can be secular without being combative to the religious, most of the religious and non-religious could care less of beliefs of others, why can't you?

[Korashk]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold off the insults, please.
There were no insults in that post...

Do you honestly think every religious government is that way?
They basically are. Not a ton of governments are non-secular, but the ones that are theocratic or heavily influenced by religion pretty much make up the shittiest places to live on the earth. Mostly in the Middle-East.

Homosexuals are people too but they are no better than I am. Rights are a two-way street. They have their rights and I have mine. Hard part, keeping both parties happy. Now do not jump to conclusions. My answer was concrete and concise and in no way directed to you so why jump in so blatantly? I support female preachers, then again I am a Protestant Christian who believes God can call anyone to teach. Gay adoption? Fine, let them adopt but know that being gay doesn't automatically make the parents better.
1.) Rights are not a two-way street. Everybody has the same rights, or what you're talking about isn't a right. Fact is, gay marriage doesn't infringe on religious freedom; at all. If gay marriage makes a religious person mad, the trend is that it's their private problem that nobody really cares about anymore because society is becoming more and more tolerant of diversity in society, and less tolerant of ignorant bigotry.

2.) Nobody is saying that gay people make better parents. Until recently it was all but ILLEGAL for a gay couple to adopt.

Some Deity in the sky? My good sir, that deity may not be my deity but not all who follow that deity think that way.
It's an expression.

You seem to have a narrowminded stereotype to the religious and again you bring up your rights being in jeopardy. Please, tell me which are. If you are feeling opressed then it is your right to do something about it. Hating all who are religious does not help.
Now you're just overreacting. He said nothing about all religious people or groups being against his rights (namely his rights as a homisexual). He claimed that the groups that campaign against his rights are almost exclusively religious, which is true.

And you can be secular without being combative to the religious, most of the religious and non-religious could care less of beliefs of others, why can't you?
Because the beliefs of others are directly affecting our lives in a negative way.

[Ace of Spades]

there were no insults in that post...


They basically are. Not a ton of governments are non-secular, but the ones that are theocratic or heavily influenced by religion pretty much make up the shittiest places to live on the earth. Mostly in the middle-east.


1.) rights are not a two-way street. Everybody has the same rights, or what you're talking about isn't a right. Fact is, gay marriage doesn't infringe on religious freedom; at all. If gay marriage makes a religious person mad, the trend is that it's their private problem that nobody really cares about anymore because society is becoming more and more tolerant of diversity in society, and less tolerant of ignorant bigotry.

2.) nobody is saying that gay people make better parents. Until recently it was all but illegal for a gay couple to adopt.


It's an expression.


Now you're just overreacting. He said nothing about all religious people or groups being against his rights (namely his rights as a homisexual). He claimed that the groups that campaign against his rights are almost exclusively religious, which is true.


Because the beliefs of others are directly affecting our lives in a negative way.

exactly

[Harry Smith]

. Gay adoption? Fine, let them adopt but know that being gay doesn't automatically make the parents better.

And you can be secular without being combative to the religious, most of the religious and non-religious could care less of beliefs of others, why can't you?

I'm sorry when did I say gay parents are any better? When did I mention that at all?

Korashk pretty much summed up what I'm going to say very nicely and a lot better than I could of put it.

As I said before in Britain major religious groups and parties have campaigned against my rights a citizen. I simply want these rights and when the church stop blocking my rights then I'll be more respectful of them.

Also where did I insult you in that post? My post was specifically targeted at the religious organisations in the UK not every single christian in the world

[Lovelife090994]

I'm sorry when did I say gay parents are any better? When did I mention that at all?

Korashk pretty much summed up what I'm going to say very nicely and a lot better than I could of put it.

As I said before in Britain major religious groups and parties have campaigned against my rights a citizen. I simply want these rights and when the church stop blocking my rights then I'll be more respectful of them.

Also where did I insult you in that post? My post was specifically targeted at the religious organisations in the UK not every single christian in the world

Then specify which rights someone is attacking. And you were very general in your last post. Forgive my lack of clarity and if I jumped to conclusions, forgive me again, but if I made a mistake, then correct me and we can work this out.

[Harry Smith]

Then specify which rights someone is attacking. And you were very general in your last post. Forgive my lack of clarity and if I jumped to conclusions, forgive me again, but if I made a mistake, then correct me and we can work this out.

I outlined 3 clear points where the church infringed my rights.

Under both the United Nations convention on human rights and the 2010 Equality act I have a right to marry a man-something which is now being passed through parliament. However Religious Groups including the Head of the Church of England have opposed these moves and actively campaigned to stop me-someone who has never attended church from marrying the person that I love.

This isn't the first time the church have attacked mine and millions of other gay people's fundamental civil rights

[Sugaree]

I outlined 3 clear points where the church infringed my rights.

Under both the United Nations convention on human rights and the 2010 Equality act I have a right to marry a man-something which is now being passed through parliament. However Religious Groups including the Head of the Church of England have opposed these moves and actively campaigned to stop me-someone who has never attended church from marrying the person that I love.

This isn't the first time the church have attacked mine and millions of other gay people's fundamental civil rights

You know, every time something bad happens, you need to stop running to the United Nations about it. They can't do something every time someone is being persecuted. They are just figureheads doing figurehead things. They have no real power. So what if they have a convention on human rights? That doesn't mean each individual country that belongs to the UN is actually going to follow whatever is established by the UN.

[Harry Smith]

You know, every time something bad happens, you need to stop running to the United Nations about it. They can't do something every time someone is being persecuted. They are just figureheads doing figurehead things. They have no real power. So what if they have a convention on human rights? That doesn't mean each individual country that belongs to the UN is actually going to follow whatever is established by the UN.

The universal declaration was set up after WW2 to actually allow a global viewpoint on key human rights issues and allow for countries to actually have a global agreement. It's been included into UK law. The UN was just part of the argument, along with the EU human rights act and the Equality Act

I was asked for Proof of my human rights not being allowed and I gave two examples- I don't expect the UN to get involved in British domestic policy- I was pointing out that the right to marriage is a legal right

[Sugaree]

The universal declaration was set up after WW2 to actually allow a global viewpoint on key human rights issues and allow for countries to actually have a global agreement. It's been included into UK law. The UN was just part of the argument, along with the EU human rights act and the Equality Act

Right, but that was the European Union's choice to pass those two acts on RECOMMENDATION of the UN. You act as if the UN is some all-encompassing power that can so much as change the course of social policy when it can't. If that were the case, China would have given Tibet back.

[Harry Smith]

Right, but that was the European Union's choice to pass those two acts on RECOMMENDATION of the UN. You act as if the UN is some all-encompassing power that can so much as change the course of social policy when it can't. If that were the case, China would have given Tibet back.

I agree that the UN is rather powerless in territorial disputes but they've helped establish a good legal framework such as the Geneva convention and the declaration of human rights, I agree that the UN doesn't always enforce them but I wanted to outline the legal argument in favour of gay marriage

[Lovelife090994]

I outlined 3 clear points where the church infringed my rights.

Under both the United Nations convention on human rights and the 2010 Equality act I have a right to marry a man-something which is now being passed through parliament. However Religious Groups including the Head of the Church of England have opposed these moves and actively campaigned to stop me-someone who has never attended church from marrying the person that I love.

This isn't the first time the church have attacked mine and millions of other gay people's fundamental civil rights

Okay then I misunderstood. Sorry, I had no idea you are gay. Be thankful you are confortable with yourself to know what you like and maybe whom, some are still lost and confused. I am sorry about the fact that you cannot have a homosexual er, marriage in the UK. Same-sex marriage is legal in a handful of countries and states in the US, although the money to travel there plus the cost of a wedding if any would be quite costly if not redundant.

The UN does not have political power at all really in some ways. They are representatives and support groups that do have a positive effect but they have no rights or jurisdiction to change the laws of the British Parliament.
From what I know, the UK is largely Catholic, yes? Well, then, you my good sir have every right to be mad, just don't blame the entire Catholic Church.

In time you will marry if you so desire, may be to a man, may be to a woman, love is not picky or so I've been told. Before I rant about love and mention all this stuff on ideal love, I wish you the best but know that while I disagree with homosexuality and same-sex marriage, I would never vote againast it. I usually am silent on the whole issue to save myself from persecution edgewise.

Any suggestions on what YOU can do IF anything?

[WaffleSingSong]

Okay then I misunderstood. Sorry, I had no idea you are gay. Be thankful you are confortable with yourself to know what you like and maybe whom, some are still lost and confused. I am sorry about the fact that you cannot have a homosexual er, marriage in the UK. Same-sex marriage is legal in a handful of countries and states in the US, although the money to travel there plus the cost of a wedding if any would be quite costly if not redundant.

The UN does not have political power at all really in some ways. They are representatives and support groups that do have a positive effect but they have no rights or jurisdiction to change the laws of the British Parliament.
From what I know, the UK is largely Catholic, yes? Well, then, you my good sir have every right to be mad, just don't blame the entire Catholic Church.

In time you will marry if you so desire, may be to a man, may be to a woman, love is not picky or so I've been told. Before I rant about love and mention all this stuff on ideal love, I wish you the best but know that while I disagree with homosexuality and same-sex marriage, I would never vote against it. I usually am silent on the whole issue to save myself from persecution edgewise.

Any suggestions on what YOU can do IF anything?

Uh, hate to be picky, but Britain is Protestant, England has the Church of England and I am almost positive Scotland is Presbyterian. No idea about Wales however.

Anyways, I have no problem at all that, for example, we have "god" in our national pledge, or the fact that it says "In God we Trust" on our Dollar, but when someone said (and there from my school) said that we should incorporate the 10 commandments into the government, that's when I get stuffy. I don't mind religion having an influence on government, but I dont want the government to completely control it.

[Jean Poutine]

Uh, hate to be picky, but Britain is Protestant, England has the Church of England and I am almost positive Scotland is Presbyterian. No idea about Wales however.

Anyways, I have no problem at all that, for example, we have "god" in our national pledge, or the fact that it says "In God we Trust" on our Dollar, but when someone said (and there from my school) said that we should incorporate the 10 commandments into the government, that's when I get stuffy. I don't mind religion having an influence on government, but I dont want the government to completely control it.

You did well. A government who would include the 10 commandments into the Constitution or anywhere else would be called a theocracy, and rightly so.

Should all religions be considered and respected in government, even in national laws, or should all laws be made to benefit the common good?

The current predominant school of thought in law is legal positivism, that posits that law exists in a vacuum, is complete in and of itself, and should take into account no other thing but the law, including disregarding the merits of the law. In other words, if the law is morally deficient, that does not mean ipso facto that it should not be law, even if law in an ideal world should strive to uphold moral decency.

In a world where ethical principles are often codified in the Constitution of the country (see the Bill of Rights), this means that even if said Bill holds morally deficient legal rules, this should not be a reason to disregard the law, even though it is constitutionalized. For example, let's say we introduce a right to slavery in the Constitution of Canada. From a positivist standpoint, this is law and law should be upheld, no matter how abhorrent, and since this is the Constitution, all lesser laws should be interpreted with that principle in mind. In natural law theories, as slavery is horrendous to the very vast majority of people in Canada, the law is null simply because of that factor.

My opinion as a jusnaturalist, or proponent of natural law, is that the power of laws end when they conflict with standards that are against common sense, be they unwritten or codified. I think it is only right that if the legislator were to codify unwanted or lacking moral principles into law, that what people of the given country view as "morally right" could prima facie invalidate the law. For example, given that a majority of people view the PATRIOT Act as a disgusting piece of legislature, and that it is again certain moral standards commonly held by the people, such as the presumption of innocence, I think that it should be overturned by these principles and disregarded by the people. In essence, speaking from a Kelsenian point of view, there is something higher in the hierarchy than the Constitution and that would be those common (to the country) moral principles.

Given that many religious principles directly conflict with the moral standards most people hold dear and believe in, that should be sufficient to get such a law neutralized. By definition, most religious moral principles are not universal since their acceptance requires to adhere to that particular religion. In your example, an universal health care law including an exception for female contraception would be in conflict with the right of women to choose and do what they please with their body. Women who do not want contraception can simply elect not to take it. Given that these women are in the minority in most developed countries, and that the freedom of women to dispose of their body as they will is a well-accepted moral principle, that should be sufficient to render such a law null and void on the basis of its moral turpitude. In essence, natural law protects from backwardness and the tyranny of the minority by ensuring that common decency is not drowned by what a minority who holds significant power think as "decency". Given today's globalized world, this becomes exceedingly important.

Alas, it isn't so, but it should be.

[workingatperfect]

I don't think religion should have any influence on government. I find it silly that god is included in any national, er, symbols, for lack of a better word. Especially for a country that's supposed to be tolerant of so many religions, including lack of religion and belief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the citizenship process, you have to say the pledge of allegiance. So if you don't believe in God... Well you just have to out your own beliefs aside for a minute, don't you? Otherwise you're "un-American" for not wanting to say the pledge.

As for the birth control... I'm a little torn on that.. Places like churches that practice a religion that's against it, that's one thing. But businesses, which aren't allowed to hire based on religion, should offer it to workers, whether the owner of the business believes in it or not. Just because they practice a religion doesn't mean all of their employees do.

[AgentHomo]

Governments should be secular, as it is a way to organise things and therefore should be done in a logical/rational/mathematical way. Everything else comes after. I think France did good in being a secular state.

This. A completely secular nation. Also tax all religious groups and organizations.

[tovaris]

every decision with a non religious, and non-biased, perspective

[Danny_boi 16]

Do you believe that the government should take ALL religions into account when making decisions, or should they consider every decision with a non religious, and non-biased, perspective?

Should all religions be considered and respected in government, even in national laws, or should all laws be made to benefit the common good?

This question has risen as a result of the recent ObamaCare controversy with the application of businesses being required to supply contraceptives (I believe), and people accusing this portion of the law as restricting religious freedom. In fact, lawsuits have also come as a result of this issue.

What is your opinion on this?

Government and religion must never mix. If one wishes to live in a state governed by religion, I would recommend a theocracy like state like Iran or Vatican City. However, if one wishes to like in a state like the United States of America, I would recommend government must remain secular. Religion and government must stay separate. Frankly, I don't care about the religious view of corporations, because corporations don't vote. And all these lawsuits has not constitutional or any other legal weight whatsoever.

[Typhlosion]

No, governments should maintain a secular perspective. Respecting every religion and keeping the country in check like so is literally impossible.
Too many conflicting ideologies, too many people abusing their religion for things generally seen unethical/immoral.
Imagine Kopimism having their way. Goodbye to intellectual property? I think not!
But asking non-biased views is expecting too much. Every human is biased on themselves.

But then again... What the hell ObamaCare???:what:

[Walter Powers]

My issue is that I think we may be taking secularism to far, it's becoming state ednorsement of Atheism. When kids get in trouble for reading a bible at a public school, somethings very wrong.

[World Eater]

When kids get in trouble for reading a bible at a public school, somethings very wrong.

It's happened in my school. No one complains about it.

[Typhlosion]

My issue is that I think we may be taking secularism to far, it's becoming state ednorsement of Atheism. When kids get in trouble for reading a bible at a public school, somethings very wrong. Where did you read about that? For me, it just feels like you found that story on a christian website that at least distorted the facts.

Giving the benefit of doubt, bible-reading in schools is perfectly legal and so is praying. However, a school must not force kids into religious studies, reserve time for prayer or endorse any religious activities if it is a state-funded school. Doing so would discriminate against other religious groups.

[rogoshtalmour]

They ALREADY DO TAX RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS!!!!! They just don't tax them directly but they do tax the people that are members of those groups and organizations. Why should a person be taxed OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. But sure go ahead keep believing politicians somehow have the right to hard earned money from everyone else. Even though they didn't work for that money they just believe the government has a right to it anyway. This is tantamount to slavery pure and simple.