Religion in politics.

[plindboe]

One of the more famous Jesus quotes:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven: for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matt 5:43-45). A shorter version of the same quote can also be found in (Luke 6:27-28).

Saddam claimed to be a muslim to gain popularity in the Iraque population, and only visited mosques, when there were at least 20 cameras present. Seems to me like Bush is using a similar tactic. Neither of these men seem to follow the compassionate learnings of the religion they claim to belong to, and I doubt they are even religious themselves. Religion for them is a great manipulative tool for gaining popularity=>power. For instance the often used phrase "God bless America" in nearly all the big speeches, where the other great tool of manipulation; patriotism is also included.

btw, this post is not meant to be anti-war. My intention is to hopefully start some critical thinking among a few readers, mainly the US readers, instead of the blind following, I have witnessed ALOT of on different boards, since the Iraq crisis began. To live in a democracy doesn't just mean that you have the right to be critical, it means that you have a responsibility to be critical. Don't close your eyes, and expect that your leader will make the right decisions. Remember; Germany in the 1930s was also a democracy.

Peter :)

PS. It was after reading the following interesting article about european concerns about the mix of religion and politics in the US, that I felt something needed to be posted: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030404/pl_nm/iraq_bush_europe_dc_2

[iain]

Hi plindboe, welcome to the forum.

The Christian message can be taken in several ways (that's the great thing about the Bible - there's something there for everyone). You quote one passage but there are many many others in both New and Old Testaments which support violence against your enemies and death to the unbelievers. I think Bush has always been a "Fire and Brimstone" Christian rather than a "peace and love" Christian.

I am sure that Bush did use his religion to his benefit in the election campaign (and since) but so do most other US politicians. European politicians would do so too if they thought it would help them get elected.

Saddam was, by the standards of the middle east, an unsually secular ruler. I'm sure you're right that he did use religion to his advantage when he could; but he was no big fan of Islam in Government. Maybe now that Saddam has gone, the US can install a proper hard line Islamic government in his place :)

[plindboe]

Hi plindboe, welcome to the forum.

Thanks for your kind welcome. :) I love this forum already and plan to stay.


I am sure that Bush did use his religion to his benefit in the election campaign (and since) but so do most other US politicians.

It's not Bush himself I have anything against. It's about the way the US leaders come to power, that I worry about. The reason I worry, is because the US is the most powerful nation in the world today, and major events will happen during such a 4 year term, that will effect the entire world. Imagine if Gore had won that EXTREMELY close election, the world would probably look alot different today. What, if anything, would have occured on 11.Sep 2001? And what about the Kyoto protocol, Afghanistan, Iraq and the world economy going downhill? If Gore had a more appealing and less boring behaviour he would surely have won, or if Bush hadn't behaved in that down to Earth "I'm one of you" kinda guy, he would probably have lost the election. It's interesting to think about, that an election that has so little to do with politics will determine such major political consequences around the world.
American voters do in a MUCH higher degree than European voters focus on the person himself; his religion, his moral values and his family, instead of the actual content of his political opinions. I consider this dangerous, as it makes manipulation so much easier, as noone can dispute what a candidate says his personal values are. The most important factors for winning a presidental campaign, if I were to guess a top3 would be something like this:

1.Manipulation(religion, values, family, patritism, behaviour etc.)
2.Amount of money for election campaign
3.Actual political content

How can anyone trust such a person to deal with the entire world. He even have the ability to nuke a nation. What if he has psychotic delusions? How can anyone know before disaster strikes.(Off-topic; this was more a concern about giving a single man so much power, and not about election criteria)

Now I'm sure America is filled with lots of intelligent and reasonable people and geniuses(For instance look at all those Nobel prizes, the strong economy, the shows "South Park" and "The Simpsons";)). I don't believe the percentages of morons and intelligent people differ in any significant number to those of the European countries. But when it comes to politics it seems like the American public are manipulated like they were children, and they eat propaganda like it was candy. Good examples are the catch phrases that seems to be used all the time to simplify and to sell an idea; "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Coalition forces"(Despite only forces from 3 nations entered Iraq) and the laughably ridiculous "Axis of Evil"(though the consequences of naming these so-called "evil" nations turned out not to be so funny). If Americans aren't less intelligent than Europeans(which I firmly believes) what are the reasons? Maybe it has something to do with american children being taught from they enter school that the US always has unselphishly fought and made sacrifices for good and for freedom. This could explain the blind trust in the leaders, lack of critisism, and easy acceptance of propaganda that is seen so often. The low voter turn out are also interesting to notice. Here in DK it's usually between 80%-90% that turns up to vote, while I believe in the US it's more like 40%-50%(right?). Maybe most people in the US aren't very interested in politics(there could be other reasons though). If people aren't interested in politics, they might not make the effort to learn all the facts, and therefore know little about politics. Another possibility. Well, there are probably several factors.


European politicians would do so too if they thought it would help them get elected.

They probably would. Fortunately it doesn't play a role at all, in European countries, since religion is not an issue in politics here. Looking at the dangers when mixing religion and politics, it would probably mean a sure loss if a European politician said in every speech "God bless *Insert European country*". (Uh, well I can imagine maybe Ireland could be an exception)

Peter ;)

PS.Sorry for the quite messy rant, and the slightly different topic, than in the top of this thread, but I felt it was some important points to make.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by plindboe
PS.Sorry for the quite messy rant, and the slightly different topic, than in the top of this thread, but I felt it was some important points to make.

Allow me to welcome you as well and to thank you for the points you've raised.

To many of us in America right now, the perception is that the right wing has literally lost its mind. (See my thread about political extremism.) Honestly. We're not sure what to do about it. Religion is a complicating factor, but you overestimate its importance; right here on this board you will find persons with very extreme views who profess to not be religious.

How do you get to first base with people who, for instance, equate Greenpeace with Al Quaeda? You might as well argue with a holy roller.

Hope lies in the possibility that the right has now so lavishly overplayed theri hand that the backlash will knock them out of power for a decade. One can only hope.

[Smalso]

Welcome, plindboe.

You have raised some interesting points from a perspective that we in the U.S. do not see often enough. After I digest it a little, I will offer some comments.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Sundog

Allow me to welcome you as well and to thank you for the points you've raised.

To many of us in America right now, the perception is that the right wing has literally lost its mind. (See my thread about political extremism.) Honestly. We're not sure what to do about it. Religion is a complicating factor, but you overestimate its importance; right here on this board you will find persons with very extreme views who profess to not be religious.


Thanks for the great welcome.

How do you mean I overestimate it's importance? You mean during the election campaign? Do you think an atheist could become president of the US? And I do mean an atheist who is open with his beliefs.

Or do you mean I overestimate the damage it can do in the US government? If it's moderate religion, I'm convinced it will do no harm. If it's instead fundamentalistic, then it can do great damage. I don't believe Bush to be a fundamentalist, but some of the republicans on the extreme right are. I watched a debate on danish TV the other day, where they mentioned that some of the actual ideas some of these fundamentalists have, is that Jesus will be born again within some years in Israel. These people base their politics towards the Israel-Palestinian conflicts upon these religious ideas, and strongly oppose a separate Palestinian state because of it. If these people have a big influence on Bush, it could be very damaging, wouldn't you agree?

Peter ;)

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Smalso
Welcome, plindboe.

You have raised some interesting points from a perspective that we in the U.S. do not see often enough. After I digest it a little, I will offer some comments.

Thanks. :) Looking forward to them.

Peter ;)

[DanishDynamite]

Hej plindboe og velkommen til.

Nice post.

I won't get into why American politicians are usually religious or at least pretend to be religious. I think the fact that a majority of the voters are religious explains it. As to why so many Americans are religious when most of the West isn't, that's a whole other debate.

However, I do have a theory as to why most American politicians constantly display their patriotism and/or appeal to patriotism. I think it is because patriotism pervades society and is thus a safe card to play. And it pervades society because in a land of immigrants from many countries, it is paramount to encourage patriotism.

Thus, children in most American schools, from the first grade and up, are made to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance". A recital which most of them don't understand until they are much older. Some might call it indoctrination. Nothing similar exists in Europe (at least in northern Europe).

Likewise, the military runs several high schools. To my knowledge, this is unheard of on this side of the pond. Children in military uniforms, marching, saluting the flag, etc. Somehow, I associate that with totalitarian states.

Just a theory though.....(like evolution) ;)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Likewise, the military runs several high schools.
Eh?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Eh? I believe it is called JROTC. (http://www.jrotc.org/jrotc_benifits.htm)

[plindboe]

Hej DanishDynamite, tak for velkomsten. I agree with your entire post, very nice points.


I won't get into why American politicians are usually religious or at least pretend to be religious. I think the fact that a majority of the voters are religious explains it. As to why so many Americans are religious when most of the West isn't, that's a whole other debate.

Yes, that explains it, but there are still differences since Italians are a very religious people too, and from the knowledge I have from that country, I do not believe that Italian politicians will ever use religion as means of getting elected. I believe that for Europeans religion is mostly a private issue, while Americans tend to be much more open about their beliefs. But that we have found a possible explanation, is in my opinion not relevant, since the problem is still that the American politicians use it as a tool for manipulation. Another imporant concern one might have, is how countries across the world perceive the Christian rhetorics, especially countries in the middle East. They believe the Americans are crusading, and when the leader of the very nation they feel most threatened by use these rhetorics, I actually find their reaction to be quite understandable. Also remember to consider that in that region people are generally very interested in history, and they do not tend to forget past crimes easily, even when hundreds of years have passed. They "remember" the Crusades very well. Another problem is that the Arab nations have some of the worst examples of the consequences when religion and politics are mixed. They should be shown how wrong this is, by using the western world as examples where this doesn't occur. That religion is such an obvious part of the leadership of the most powerful nation in the western world, kinda ruins the entire idea of a good role-model.

Just some thoughs,

Peter ;)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by plindboe
[B]Imagine if Gore had won that EXTREMELY close election, the world would probably look alot different today. What, if anything, would have occured on 11.Sep 2001?B]
The planning for 9/11 started long before the 2000 election, remember the 1st attempt to take out the WTC (way back in '93)was during the Clinton admin.
And what about the Kyoto protocol
The US President, under the Constitution, cannot ratify a treaty. Only the Senate can, and the Kyoto accord was DOA in the Senate. I won't get into the numerous reasons why this was the correct action in this case.

Afghanistan, Iraq and the world economy going downhill?
If Gore was president, the Taliban would still be harboring Al Queda, lopping off heads and other body parts, oppressing women, etc.
Saddam would still be shooting at planes in the no-fly-zones while hindering weapons inspections.
The world economy would still be going downhill due to the bursting of the tech bubble (remember what Greenspan said about the irrational exuberance in the markets way back in '96?)
2.Amount of money for election campaign
Bingo!! You get elected by flooding the airwaves w/ negative comments about your opponent.
The religious types will send a few votes your way if you pander to their simple world view, but they are really just a small (but vocal) portion of the voters.
As for political views of the politicians, who knows what they are? They spend a fortune hiring consultants who prevent them from commenting on anything remotely controversial.
The low voter turn out are also interesting to notice. Here in DK it's usually between 80%-90% that turns up to vote, while I believe in the US it's more like 40%-50%(right?). Maybe most people in the US aren't very interested in politics(there could be other reasons though). If people aren't interested in politics, they might not make the effort to learn all the facts, and therefore know little about politics.
I think it has more to do w/ disillusionment w/ the 2 political parties, the perception that they are controlled by moneyed special interests.

And welcome to the forum, I'm new myself. In fact, I was called a "matriarchal totalitarian communist" on my 1st post. :D

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:If Gore was president, the Taliban would still be harboring Al Queda, lopping off heads and other body parts, oppressing women, etc.
Saddam would still be shooting at planes in the no-fly-zones while hindering weapons inspections.
The world economy would still be going downhill due to the bursting of the tech bubble (remember what Greenspan said about the irrational exuberance in the markets way back in '96?)Your crystal ball predictions are interesting and I won't affect them except to clarify a point. While I don't recall Iraq having fired at planes in the no-fly-zone, Iraq had every right to do so. The no-fly-zone was not instigated or sanctioned by the UN.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I believe it is called JROTC. (http://www.jrotc.org/jrotc_benifits.htm)
Oh, that. JROTC is an elective course at some high schools. Not quite the same thing as "the military runs several high schools."

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
While I don't recall Iraq having fired at planes in the no-fly-zone, Iraq had every right to do so. The no-fly-zone was not instigated or sanctioned by the UN.
I may be mistaken, but I thought Iraq surrendered to the coalition in Gulf War I. Iraq then was bound by terms of the surrender, which included limits upon their right to attack coalition forces.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Oh, that. JROTC is an elective course at some high schools. Not quite the same thing as "the military runs several high schools." My information stems from a British documentary on a particular High School in the states. The school was devided into two parts: the Ground floor "normal" high school, and the 1st floor "military high school". The children in the military high school wore military uniforms, were instructed by people in military uniforms, marched around in units in the gym (carrying unit flags and Old Glory), saluted those of higher rank, were called in for "chewing out" sessions if they had done something against the "code, etc, etc. It is possible that this wasn't an example of JROTC (I don't remember), but it certainly was a high school run in military style. And it was not just this high school, it was a military program implemented across the US. If it wasn't JROTC, perhaps you know what it was?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
If it wasn't JROTC, perhaps you know what it was?
Probably a private school. There are a few "military schools" out there. Often parents select these schools for their boys who are getting into trouble, hoping that the firm structure of the program will straighten them out.

I don't know anyone who has ever gone to one, myself.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I may be mistaken, but I thought Iraq surrendered to the coalition in Gulf War I. Iraq then was bound by terms of the surrender, which included limits upon their right to attack coalition forces. Annan on the no-fly-zones (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/nofly/2002/1119nofly.htm)
Probably a private school. There are a few "military schools" out there. Often parents select these schools for their boys who are getting into trouble, hoping that the firm structure of the program will straighten them out.

I don't know anyone who has ever gone to one, myself.You may be right. In any case, my claim that "the military runs several high schools" is unaffected.

[Smalso]

The Constitution of the United States specifically states that no religious shall be required for holding any public office in the United States and that is technically the case. But the reality is much different. I don't expect that an avowed atheist would make it past the exploratory committee stage if he or she were to run for president. How many times have you heard someone say that he or she does not practice any particular religion but claims to believe in God none the less? Of course, politicians will claim anything in order to be elected. But when religion becomes entwined with politics, should it come as a great surprise when we wake up one morning and find that it has become an integral part of the government?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

You may be right. In any case, my claim that "the military runs several high schools" is unaffected.
The "military academies" have the look and style of a military institution, but they're just play acting.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
WildCat:Your crystal ball predictions are interesting and I won't affect them except to clarify a point. While I don't recall Iraq having fired at planes in the no-fly-zone, Iraq had every right to do so. The no-fly-zone was not instigated or sanctioned by the UN.
I don't use a crystal ball, I read the bubbles in beer, but it only works w/ Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for some reason. I have witnesses who can verify that I once predicted a 98 yard Brett Favre touchdown pass on 3rd and 10 against my beloved Bears, I'll bet I can win the million $ if Randi tests me during a Bears-Packers game.:D
Obviously, I was speculating about Al Gore and the rest, not predicting.
As Dr. Benway said, the NFZ's were part of the treaty ending GW I.
But back to the topic of this thread, I don't think most Americans really care to mix religion and politics. But they don't speak out against it much because it's not nice to criticize someone's religion here, so you just roll your eyes and bite your tongue. And most Americans think they're more religious than they really are, IMO.

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:I don't use a crystal ball, I read the bubbles in beer, but it only works w/ Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for some reason. I have witnesses who can verify that I once predicted a 98 yard Brett Favre touchdown pass on 3rd and 10 against my beloved Bears, I'll bet I can win the million $ if Randi tests me during a Bears-Packers game.:D Obviously, I was speculating about Al Gore and the rest, not predicting. Anyone who sees the world through the bubbles in his beer can't be all bad. :)
As Dr. Benway said, the NFZ's were part of the treaty ending GW I. And, as my link shows, DrBenway was wrong.
But back to the topic of this thread, I don't think most Americans really care to mix religion and politics. But they don't speak out against it much because it's not nice to criticize someone's religion here, so you just roll your eyes and bite your tongue. And most Americans think they're more religious than they really are, IMO. Religion and politics are currently very mixed. Those who roll their eyes in order to be "nice", instead of speaking out, must lie in the bed they've made.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by WildCat

I don't use a crystal ball, I read the bubbles in beer, but it only works w/ Sierra Nevada Pale Ale for some reason. I have witnesses who can verify that I once predicted a 98 yard Brett Favre touchdown pass on 3rd and 10 against my beloved Bears, I'll bet I can win the million $ if Randi tests me during a Bears-Packers game.:D
Obviously, I was speculating about Al Gore and the rest, not predicting.
As Dr. Benway said, the NFZ's were part of the treaty ending GW I.
But back to the topic of this thread, I don't think most Americans really care to mix religion and politics. But they don't speak out against it much because it's not nice to criticize someone's religion here, so you just roll your eyes and bite your tongue. And most Americans think they're more religious than they really are, IMO.

I have found that last quote to be true very much. Most people that may say they are religious really do not let the whole thing affect their life in anyway. They also don't seem to know the first thing about their religion really. It is just something they say.

As far as George Bush and religion... He did go out of his way, to a silly extreme, after Sept. 11 to praise Islam effusively. He visited Mosques and kept saying how wonderful and "peaceful" the Islamic religion is. He invited Iman after Iman to the White House. I don't think one can fairly say he is an Xian zelot that is seeking to eradicate Islam in a crusade.

I think maybe there is a perception in Europe that the average American is devoutly religious. I think it might have to dowith the first paragraph I wrote. I see so called "religious" people screw, drink, gamble, etc. all the time...:D

[Mike B.]

As for American politics, one very important difference between American and European politics is party discipline. I think that is what Peter may be referring to when he talks about people being manipulated by a personality.

In parliments in Europe the Whips have much more power than they do in Congress in Washington, so I guess if you vote for the Xian Democrats in Germany you know what you are getting.

In the USA the Repubs. and Democrats are much looser. You have Democrats in Congress like Maxine Waters who wants reparations for all black citizens in the USA and wants to put Bush on trial for war crimes. You also have a Democrat like Zell Miller who votes with the Republicans a lot.

So most Americans say, "I vote for the person not the party." which leads to I suppose more personality issues. Stricter party loyalty like they have in Europe would cut down on this. It has really been this way in America since the beginning.

I suppose there are drawbacks in too much Party loyalty because it might stifle mavericks like John McCain who stays in the Republican Party but often butts heads with George W. Bush.

I have read British commentators complain about American style politics creeping into the UK: peronality, spin-doctors, photo-ops. I suppose a media age, that is the way it goes.

I would bet that 99% of the American population couldn't tell you what George Bush's religious affiliation is, except to say he is a "Christian." Come to think of it, I don't even know myself.

I have no idea what Gore's is either.

I know his Vice Presidential candidate, Lieberman, is Jewish, but I am even more clueless as to which sect of Judaism he belongs.

I would say that what political party a candidate belongs to is more important to the American voter.

There are some voters who are "single issue voters." That means they only care how the candidate stands on one issue. That issue might be abortion, or gun control, or what-have-you.

DanishDynamite, it is funny to see that you have gotten your opinion on American high schools from a single TV show. Saying the military runs several high schools because they have a JROTC program is like saying the National Football League runs several high schools because they have a football team. :D

[Mike B.]

I wonder if another reason for the more positive view America has of religion is that America has never had a state religion. In the beginning the Constitution stopped a state church from ever coming into being.

If politics which is dirty got mixed up with religion it might have turned more people off. Plus if taxes went to fund churches I think people in the US would be less fond of them.

DD or Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the state church in Denmark paid for by voluntary taxes now? It might have been you DD, but I recall someone saying that they paid the church tax not because of faith, but because they thought it was important to save the churches as historical and cultural landmarks.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Mike B.
As for American politics, one very important difference between American and European politics is party discipline. I think that is what Peter may be referring to when he talks about people being manipulated by a personality.

In parliments in Europe the Whips have much more power than they do in Congress in Washington, so I guess if you vote for the Xian Democrats in Germany you know what you are getting.

In the USA the Repubs. and Democrats are much looser. You have Democrats in Congress like Maxine Waters who wants reparations for all black citizens in the USA and wants to put Bush on trial for war crimes. You also have a Democrat like Zell Miller who votes with the Republicans a lot.

So most Americans say, "I vote for the person not the party." which leads to I suppose more personality issues. Stricter party loyalty like they have in Europe would cut down on this. It has really been this way in America since the beginning


Hi Mike, you make several good points, but with this one I wasn't talking about the different political views of the individual politician, but about how the person himself is focused upon, more than his individual political standing; if he is down to Earth and is "one of us"(like Bush, as opposed to Gore), he must be openly Christian, and must be married as well, one or two children is a plus too. His moral and family values is also very important. Being a veteran is a great plus too, and the ability to play sax ;). I'm sure I could think of many more if I had the time.

Maybe a reason could be; since America haven't got any royalty, they need someone to idolize in their life. Movie stars are some, but I think people look for the same in a president. I think this is dangerous considering the immense political power that this individual receives.


Originally posted by LukeT
I would bet that 99% of the American population couldn't tell you what George Bush's religious affiliation is, except to say he is a "Christian." Come to think of it, I don't even know myself.

I have no idea what Gore's is either.

I know his Vice Presidential candidate, Lieberman, is Jewish, but I am even more clueless as to which sect of Judaism he belongs.

Hi Luke, it is indeed important to convince people that you are religious but not to tell which exact affiliation you belong to, as it would result in a sure voter loss, or as smalso says "How many times have you heard someone say that he or she does not practice any particular religion but claims to believe in God none the less?". This perfectly shows how manipulative it all is in my opinion.


Originally posted by Mike B.
I wonder if another reason for the more positive view America has of religion is that America has never had a state religion. In the beginning the Constitution stopped a state church from ever coming into being.

If politics which is dirty got mixed up with religion it might have turned more people off. Plus if taxes went to fund churches I think people in the US would be less fond of them.

DD or Peter,
Correct me if I am wrong, but is not the state church in Denmark paid for by voluntary taxes now? It might have been you DD, but I recall someone saying that they paid the church tax not because of faith, but because they thought it was important to save the churches as historical and cultural landmarks.

This is right. In average 0.85%, I believe, of the taxes is church tax. It is possible to resign membership for the church, so you won't have to pay, but by this you also lose the right for a priest at funerals, weddings and for personal guidance, but I believe about 97% of danes still pay church tax.

I don't believe that Europeans have a less positive view on religion than Americans. We(danes) are proud of the part Christianity has in our cultural heritage, atheists too. The fear lies in when religion is mixed with politics.

Peter ;)

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by LukeT
I would bet that 99% of the American population couldn't tell you what George Bush's religious affiliation is, except to say he is a "Christian." Come to think of it, I don't even know myself.You may have noted that when Washington pols need to make a public show of religiosity, they usually are filmed at the door to the Washington National Cathedral. Events having various religious tinges take place there, but exactly what religion the church espouses isn't too clear. Its official web site makes little or no mention of sect or persuasion, although the church seems to have sprung from protestant-episcopalian or anglican auspices. At any rate, it's the ideal place for our leaders to display religiosity without revealing exactly what variety of it they may favor.

[Denise]

test

[Shane Costello]

What about the fact that most of Europe is run by Christian Democrats, and that this group is the largest in the European parliament?

I think it was Voltaire that said "Where you have on religion you have oppression, where you have two religions you have strife, and where you have a multitude of religions you have freedom". During my recent stay in Michigan I lived across the street from where a Mosque, a Baptist church and a Methodist church lay not more thatna hundred yards from one another. A Catholic church and a umber of other Protestant churches were within walking distance (including of all things a Korean Presbyterian Church).

IMO theological differances mean that America will never become a theocracy.

Originally posted by plindboe:
They probably would. Fortunately it doesn't play a role at all, in European countries, since religion is not an issue in politics here.

As I said, most European right of centre parties style themselves as Christian Democrats. Denominational education recieves money in most, if not every, European country. Wasn't there a hell of a furore in Bavaria a while back when someone challenged the custom of hanging crucifixes in classrooms?

[plindboe]

What about the fact that most of Europe is run by Christian Democrats, and that this group is the largest in the European parliament?

Shane Costello, good points you make. European politics aren't completely void of religion, but it has far from the importance that it has in American politics. I find when looking at European politics, that the Christian political parties are more so MUCH more in name than in the politics themselves. Here in DK for instance we have one Christian party called Kirsteligt folkeparty(Christian people's party). The front figure of that party is Jann Sjursen, a quite reasonable man. In the countless of political debates in which he has participated and remarks I have heard him say, I have honestly not once heard the man mention anything about God, Jesus or anything else about the Christian faith.

Peter ;)