Religion and politics

[Bikewer]

Listening to NPR yesterday, they ran two back-to-back segments I found depressing. The first dealt with the upcoming Republican debate in Virginia. They interviewed a number of Republican voters about Romney's Mormon faith.
All those interviewed said they could not support Romney, they found his Mormonism to be a deal-breaker. "A cult", said one. "Doesn't have the right idea about Jesus" said another.
Similar comments.....
Gee....I thought that we might be electing a president on the grounds that he had good ideas on foreign and domestic policy. That he appeared to be competent leader with a good grasp of the issues confronting the country....That sort of thing.
Nope....He's A Mormon. End of story.

Then, a segment about the Catholic Bishops and their joint statement that Catholic voters must not vote for candidates with inappropriate views on abortion, gay rights, and the like. The good bishops gave the voters a potential "out", in that they might vote in contrary ways if there were some sort of compelling ethical reason....
Likely to avoid charges of politicking from the pulpit...

Depressing.

[NobbyNobbs]

I'm upset for a somewhat similar reason. I work in a federal government office. Yesterday, in the main hall, they put up a 30 foot Christmas tree.

I'm desparately trying to figure out how this doesn't violate the Constitution.

[NobbyNobbs]

double post

[Jimbo07]

... because it's called a Seasonal Festival Bush.

Oh sure, it may be 30' tall and shaped like a tree, but it's a bush. It's a bush...

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

I'm upset for a somewhat similar reason. I work in a federal government office. Yesterday, in the main hall, they put up a 30 foot Christmas tree.

I'm desparately trying to figure out how this doesn't violate the Constitution.

Would that be due to it's being a pagan ritual?

(No, I am not a JW, but my next door neighbor is.)

DR

[DouglasL]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Gee....I thought that we might be electing a president on the grounds that he had good ideas on foreign and domestic policy. That he appeared to be competent leader with a good grasp of the issues confronting the country....That sort of thing.


Depressing.

Unfortunately the qualifications needed to be elected president, are not even close to the qualifications needed to be the president.

[Jimbo07]

*Double Post*

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

I'm upset for a somewhat similar reason. I work in a federal government office. Yesterday, in the main hall, they put up a 30 foot Christmas tree.

I'm desparately trying to figure out how this doesn't violate the Constitution.

A "Christmas" tree would likely be a violation.

A "Holiday" tree would likely NOT be a violation, especially if none of the decorations could be identified with only one religion.

Some municipalities get around this by having only bulbs and garlands on the Holiday tree, while others feature a Santa Claus figure on the top.

Sorta like when they put Santa and his reindeer on top of a Nativity creche -- "it can't be religious if it contains secular imagery" is the rationalisation.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Sorta like when they put Santa and his reindeer on top of a Nativity creche -- "it can't be religious if it contains secular imagery" is the rationalisation.

What precisely is secular about a magical de-canonized saint?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

What precisely is secular about a magical de-canonized saint?

The reindeer dropping, for starters.

DR

[Fnord]

The current popular image of that "Jolly Olde Elf" is more a product of the White Rock Beverages and Coca-Cola companies than any religious order. True, the myth may have been inspired by Saint Nicholas of Myra back in 4th-century Turkey. But in the current incarnation, he is the secular symbol of conspicuous consumption during the winter holiday season, especially in America.

Stick a Santa Claus statue over the Christ child, put the Wise Men in Zarathustrian robes (carrying a gold watch, aftershave, and a bottle of Manischewitz), and have Snoopy selling insurance to Joseph as Mary talks on her cell phone, and all religiosity is lost - the scene becomes one of secular commercialism.

It's more the intent behind the image than anything else.

As for the holiday tree in a federal building ... is the intent to force everyone to believe the Christian nativity story, to get them into a spending mood, or to show that the people in that building have enough money to waste on needless decorations?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Then, a segment about the Catholic Bishops and their joint statement that Catholic voters must not vote for candidates with inappropriate views on abortion, gay rights, and the like. The good bishops gave the voters a potential "out", in that they might vote in contrary ways if there were some sort of compelling ethical reason....
Likely to avoid charges of politicking from the pulpit...

I find it interesting Politics has so completely yanked power away from Religion that Politics is now trying to determine what a free, religious person may say with respect to whom the religious people want to elect to bind them with laws.

"You don't have my permission to tell those people they shouldn't vote for me."

Ummm, no.

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by Fnord

A "Christmas" tree would likely be a violation.

A "Holiday" tree would likely NOT be a violation, especially if none of the decorations could be identified with only one religion.

Some municipalities get around this by having only bulbs and garlands on the Holiday tree, while others feature a Santa Claus figure on the top.

Sorta like when they put Santa and his reindeer on top of a Nativity creche -- "it can't be religious if it contains secular imagery" is the rationalisation.

My co-worker mentioned that. She said, "It's a holiday tree," and was even kind enough to point out that the decorations were all blue and white. As if using the colors of the Israeli flag makes a difference.

I answered her with, "A holiday tree, huh? And could you please list for me which holidays around this time of year feature trees?"

She could only name one.

[Puppycow]

Should any religion be a disqualifier? What about Scientology? Imagine a Scientologist candidate whose positions on the issues are closer to yours than the other candidates? Would you vote for him/her?

(Of course even that would probably be better than an atheist for most Americans. Although, does Scientology actually have a God? Maybe Christians would consider Scientologists to be atheists? I don't know exactly what category to put them in. Is it monotheism, polytheism, or something else?)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I find it interesting Politics has so completely yanked power away from Religion that Politics is now trying to determine what a free, religious person may say with respect to whom the religious people want to elect to bind them with laws.

"You don't have my permission to tell those people they shouldn't vote for me."

Ummm, no.

Not at all. Religion can say what it wants. As long as it accepts that this comes with consequences, like loss of tax exempt status for example. Fair deal?

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

I answered her with, "A holiday tree, huh? And could you please list for me which holidays around this time of year feature trees?"

It's a tree ... with decorations ... it does nothing but sit there and look pretty.

Christmas Trees, Hannukah Bushes, Kwanzaa trees, Solstice Trees, Holiday Trees, Pastafarian Picnic Trees ... what the fornicative difference does it make?

By His Noodly Appendage, if you don't like it, don't look at it! It isn't as if the tree or any of its ornaments are beaming the words "You will love Jesus" into your head over some telepathic epsilon wave.

Or maybe those blue and white ornaments are actually a subliminal enticement to get you to donate money to the University of Alabama in Huntsville? Everyone knows that the jooz own that place, right?

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Fnord

It's a tree ... with decorations ... it does nothing but sit there and look pretty.

Christmas Trees, Hannukah Bushes, Kwanzaa trees, Solstice Trees, Holiday Trees, Pastafarian Picnic Trees ... what the fornicative difference does it make?

By His Noodly Appendage, if you don't like it, don't look at it! It isn't as if the tree or any of its ornaments are beaming the words "You will love Jesus" into your head over some telepathic epsilon wave.

Or maybe those blue and white ornaments are actually a subliminal enticement to get you to donate money to the University of Alabama in Huntsville? Everyone knows that the jooz own that place, right?

Don't be disingenous. The tree is there to celebrate Christmas. It's unequivicably a religious item.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Not at all. Religion can say what it wants. As long as it accepts that this comes with consequences, like loss of tax exempt status for example. Fair deal?

Religion is not a person. It is the politics of faith.

Religious leaders who use their pulpit to endorse one candidate over another risk losing their licences. But if those same leaders preach the same principles espoused by any one particular candidate without mentioned that candidate's name or party, then there is no problem.

But the other edge of the sword is that no candidate can appropriate a religious service and use it for a campaign stump.

Case in point: Last Veteran's Day, five local candidates visited our church and asked to address the congregation. Our pastor told them that they were welcome to attend services, that he would announce their presence, and that he would inform the congregation that the candidates would be available after the service.

The candidates weren't happy about that, but they could do nothing about it. They hung around for a few minutes after the service, making the usual "glad-to-be-here" chatter with some of the folks. But as soon as they started "speachifying" the people went on about their business.

Yep, separation of Church and State is a Good Thing!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Yep, separation of Church and State is a Good Thing!

Or at least it would be, if it were to happen.

While the Church still gets tax breaks, it is not separated from the State.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

All those interviewed said they could not support Romney, they found his Mormonism to be a deal-breaker. "A cult", said one. "Doesn't have the right idea about Jesus" said another.

For different reasons, I also consider Romney's Mormonism to be a dealbreaker. If you take its tenets seriously, you don't deserve to be in charge.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

While the Church still gets tax breaks, it is not separated from the State.

Are you saying that the Church is a sock-puppet of the State, or vice-versa?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Fnord

Are you saying that the Church is a sock-puppet of the State, or vice-versa?

I'm saying that giving tax breaks to some religions means effective state endorsement of those religions as in some way valid.

[Radrook]

A presiden't religion has always been a major concern in the USA.
Most presidents, with the exclusion of Kennedy have been white, male, Anglo Saxon Protestant. That seems to be the only acceptable mix. Kennedy's charisma overcame that preference since he was Catholic. Yet his suspected allegiance with the Pope was of great concern and he had to go out of his way to assure the nation that his primary allegiance was to his country and not the his religion or the Pope.

[snagswolf]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

I'm upset for a somewhat similar reason. I work in a federal government office. Yesterday, in the main hall, they put up a 30 foot Christmas tree.

I'm desparately trying to figure out how this doesn't violate the Constitution.

Well, let's take a look at the Religion Clause of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Did Congress make a law that forced this tree to be there, or forced anyone to worship it?

Doesn't look that way to me. How do you think it violates the Constitution?

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by snagswolf

Well, let's take a look at the Religion Clause of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Did Congress make a law that forced this tree to be there, or forced anyone to worship it?

Doesn't look that way to me. How do you think it violates the Constitution?

The bill of rights has long since been applied to state and local governments and the executive and judicial branches of all levels as well (else why would a monument depicting the ten commandments be forbidden in a court house?) It is not merely a restriction on the Congress alone.

[snagswolf]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

The bill of rights has long since been applied to state and local governments and the executive and judicial branches of all levels as well (else why would a monument depicting the ten commandments be forbidden in a court house?) It is not merely a restriction on the Congress alone.

I agree that it's been twisted from its original intent.

But the Constitution itself is quite clear in what it says. And the actions of those who wrote it clearly show that we're misinterpreting it.

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I'm saying that giving tax breaks to some religions means effective state endorsement of those religions as in some way valid.

Ah! Agreed. I've often wondered about that, as well.

Then again, why give tax breaks to any other "Not-For-Profit" or "Charitable" organization?

Let's wipe out all tax breaks in favor of a flat rate or calculated continuum rate on all individual and corporate income!

And deep-six the deductions!

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by snagswolf

I agree that it's been twisted from its original intent.

But the Constitution itself is quite clear in what it says. And the actions of those who wrote it clearly show that we're misinterpreting it.

I see. So, let's look at an imaginary world where the bill of rights restrict only Congress.

In this world the post office can, purely as a matter of internal policy, refuse to deliver mail to Jews.

[snagswolf]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I see. So, let's look at an imaginary world where the bill of rights restrict only Congress.

In this world, the post office can, purely as a matter of internal policy, refuse to deliver mail to Jews.

No, because in the world of reality, the Post Office has to follow laws enacted by Congress that would not permit such discrimination against Jews.

The case you describe is not a First Amendment issue. It's not a case of the government passing laws that have to do with establishing religion, or with preventing someone from practicing their religion.

[fredcarr]

Quote:

Should any religion be a disqualifier? What about Scientology? Imagine a Scientologist candidate whose positions on the issues are closer to yours than the other candidates? Would you vote for him/her?

(Of course even that would probably be better than an atheist for most Americans. Although, does Scientology actually have a God? Maybe Christians would consider Scientologists to be atheists? I don't know exactly what category to put them in. Is it monotheism, polytheism, or something else?)

As many Scientologists hold to other faiths as well as some that don't have a belief in a 'God' your questions as to which category to put them in is mighty tough to answer. I recently listened to a lecture in which Mr. Hubbard described Scientology as being agnostic. I'm not sure I agree with that but it may be more to the mark.

I've never fully understood this the "religion can't tell you what person to vote for" issue. Is this basically saying the powers that be in a church can't tell their parishoners which way to vote publicly? If a fellow Scientologist tells me what he thinks I should vote for is he breaking the law somehow? Can this be discussed at all among members of a religion?

Ron does say that a religion should not tamper with one's political allegiances. On the other hand he does discuss the activities of various political parties here and there in his works. However, The only real 'rule' that I know of on this subject which he espouses and which is not considered to be a prat of his religious works is " Support a Government Designed and Run for All the People.." This come from the booklet "The Way to Happiness."

Personally I don't care what religion my political leaders belong to. I do care about what decisions they make and policies they enforce pursuant to this chapter from the Way to Happiness:

" 10. Support a government designed and run for all the people


Unscrupulous and evil men and groups can usurp the power of government and use it to their own ends.


Government organized and conducted solely for self-interested individuals and groups gives the society a short life span. This imperils the survival of everyone in the land; it even imperils those who attempt it. History is full of such governmental deaths.
Opposition to such governments usually just brings on more violence.


But one can raise his voice in caution when such abuses are abroad. And one need not actively support such a government; doing nothing illegal, it is yet possible, by simply withdrawing one’s cooperation, to bring about an eventual reform. Even as this is being written there are several governments in the world that are failing only because their people express their silent disagreement by simply not cooperating. These governments are at risk: any untimely wind of mischance could blow them over.
On the other hand, where a government is obviously working hard for all its people, rather than for some special interest group or insane dictator, one should support it to the limit.


There is a subject called “government.” In schools they mainly teach “civics” which is merely how the current organization is put together. The real subject, “government,” goes under various headings: political economy, political philosophy, political power, etc. The whole subject of “government” and how to govern can be quite precise, almost a technical science. If one is interested in having a better government, one that does not cause trouble, one should suggest it be taught at earlier ages in schools; one can also read up on it: it is not a very difficult subject if you look up the big words.


It is, after all, the people and their own opinion leaders who sweat and fight and bleed for their country—a government cannot bleed, it cannot even smile: it is just an idea men have. It is the ndividual person who is alive—you.


The way to happiness is hard to travel when shadowed with the oppression of tyranny. A benign government, designed and run for all the people, has been known to smooth the way: when such occurs, it deserves support."

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by snagswolf;

No, because in the world of reality, the Post Office has to follow laws enacted by Congress that would not permit such discrimination against Jews.

The case you describe is not a First Amendment issue. It's not a case of the government passing laws that have to do with establishing religion, or with preventing someone from practicing their religion.

Excuse me, but the standard in cases brought under the establishment clause is that you must show that the action either was intended to promote a religion, or harm a religion, or that it has that effect.

Secondly, you cannot simultaneously argue that the Bill of Rights restricts Congress only, and then argue that it restricts the Post Office.

[Andronicus]

Originally Posted by fredcarr

I've never fully understood this the "religion can't tell you what person to vote for" issue. Is this basically saying the powers that be in a church can't tell their parishoners which way to vote publicly? If a fellow Scientologist tells me what he thinks I should vote for is he breaking the law somehow? Can this be discussed at all among members of a religion?

In the United States most church's are listed as non-profit organizations under the tax laws. Telling people WHAT issues to vote on is legitimate. Telling people WHO they can vote for is not and can risk the church's status as a non-profit.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Listening to NPR yesterday, they ran two back-to-back segments I found depressing. The first dealt with the upcoming Republican debate in Virginia. They interviewed a number of Republican voters about Romney's Mormon faith.
All those interviewed said they could not support Romney, they found his Mormonism to be a deal-breaker.

Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they were cherry-picking which interviews to showcase?

[fredcarr]

Quote:

Telling people WHO they can vote for is not and can risk the church's status as a non-profit.

thx - that makes more sense.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Did it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, they were cherry-picking which interviews to showcase?

Probably, but if you'd like a "less biased" representation of the vox populi, you should listen to some Conservative talk radio when the subject of Romney comes up. I seem to recall even some callers to Hugh Hewitt's show saying they woudln't vote for him because of his Mormonism.

I think your attempt to suggest those interviewees were fringe fundy bigots is off base.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Probably, but if you'd like a "less biased" representation of the vox populi, you should listen to some Conservative talk radio when the subject of Romney comes up. I seem to recall even some callers to Hugh Hewitt's show saying they woudln't vote for him because of his Mormonism.

Callers to talk shows are a self-selected group. Regardless of any absence of "bias", why should we consider them a representative sample of anything?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Callers to talk shows are a self-selected group. Regardless of any absence of "bias", why should we consider them a representative sample of anything?

So you're saying self-selection invalidates a person's representativeness? You'd better convey this news to Harris and Zogby so they can throw out their "likely voter" and party affiliated polling data. And yeah, I know what your objection will be - callers vs. being called, but if someone does not wish to participate in a poll all they have to do it hang up so they are self-selecting to participate, even if it's passive and not active.

My broader response is that I consider callers to talk shows to be representative because I delve into a variety of media - radio, television (C-SPAN's Washington Journal), letters to the editor and posts to message boards and the "won't vote for a Mormon" concept seems to more than just a phenomena localized to kooks who call radio shows. It's not pervasive, but it's definately an extant segment of the electorate.

[shecky]

This article by Richard John Neuhaus quotes a WaPo/ABC poll saying "15 percent of Republican voters say there is “no chance” they would back a Mormon for president". It's not clear if this would hold when it comes down to the wire. But that strikes me as indicative of the wacko xtian vote for whom religion is irreversibly woven with politics.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by fredcarr

I've never fully understood this the "religion can't tell you what person to vote for" issue. Is this basically saying the powers that be in a church can't tell their parishoners which way to vote publicly?

Seperation of church and state is more complicated than a line of legalise. Its purpose is to both prevent the government from interfering with people's religious beliefs, and to protect the government from religious moralistic influences. Historical examples of the first include the infamous inqusition, the second the divine right of kings and various pieces of legislation that are/were morally justified by scripture.

But in practice the two are inseperable. A country with a 90% bible-thumping population will oppose gay marriage, unless it is a dictatorship. Because it is only natural for people to mix their religious convictions with their voting preference. If in a country a single religion is dominant, and that religion is organized to a sufficient extent, then this religion can basically make policy, regardless of whether church and state are legally seperated. Because it can influence, or even control, election outcomes through the votes of its parishioners.

I'm not advocating limiting the free speech rights of churches. It would fail, because their influence can be too subtle. But it is important that people realise the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" does nothing to seperate church and state, unless people seperate their voting behaviour from their religious organizations.

[The Painter]

Quote:

WaPo/ABC poll saying "15 percent of Republican voters say there is “no chance” they would back a Mormon for president"

Well, that means 85% would back a Mormon. A very large majority. This is clearly a non-issue.