You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
It depends. Politicians are also supposed to represent the people that elected them. So if a representative from an area that has a fairly favorable view of abortion (meaning they don't think it should be illegal) personally feels it should be illegal due to their personal religious convictions, which should win out?
in an ideal world, the voters would know his personal religious convictions and would vote accordingly, thus accepting his views, or at least tolerating it.
And what if the elected official changes their world view/religion mid-term? Finds Jesus, realizes Islam is the one true religion, etc?
Wouldn't it be easier to say that religion is something that is personal and that anyone that is running to be a public servant would only take the views of the people who elected them and put their religious convictions aside? Said representative could still go back to the public if their views on a matter changed, have a townhall about it and, if they can convince their public to change their views, great, and if the public says no to the new view, then the representative follows their collective will.
Sure, they can be religious. But they can't pass any laws that respect the establishment of a religion. Thus, regardless of what their ideology might be, the moment that your justification for a piece of legislation is religious, that law is illegal because it would be respecting the establishment of a religion. So when a politician justifies LEGISLATION on a religious basis, there's a problem. That's illegal, and should be illegal. They're allowed to hold the OPINION that something should be a certain way because of their religion, but they needs to have other, separate justifications as to why something should be a certain way beyond just religious ones if any legislation is going to be passed therein. The problem the people that you're pointing at have is the fact that many politicians cite religious pretexts, and then have EXTREMELY weak reasoning beyond that as to why they want certain pieces of legislation in effect. Think about it like this: How would you feel about a majority of the elected politicians suddenly becoming devoutly Buddhist, and passed a law that prohibited the entire country from eating meat, and they started citing Vegan literature for it, but clearly the reason is because of their Buddhist beliefs. Would that sit well with you?
[–]noblefool0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
My point being, you only agree with the idea that "People are just whining about separation of church and state" because it's on legislation that you find agreeable. If it were things passing that you found disagreeable, you would be upset if they were passing laws with religious justification.
Sort: Top
[–] iamjanesleftnipple 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It depends. Politicians are also supposed to represent the people that elected them. So if a representative from an area that has a fairly favorable view of abortion (meaning they don't think it should be illegal) personally feels it should be illegal due to their personal religious convictions, which should win out?
[–] Aged [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Well, if he promised that he would follow the opinion of his voters, then he is a liar. If he never said that, then the voters are idiots.
[–] Mr_Teatime ago
in an ideal world, the voters would know his personal religious convictions and would vote accordingly, thus accepting his views, or at least tolerating it.
[–] iamjanesleftnipple ago
And what if the elected official changes their world view/religion mid-term? Finds Jesus, realizes Islam is the one true religion, etc?
Wouldn't it be easier to say that religion is something that is personal and that anyone that is running to be a public servant would only take the views of the people who elected them and put their religious convictions aside? Said representative could still go back to the public if their views on a matter changed, have a townhall about it and, if they can convince their public to change their views, great, and if the public says no to the new view, then the representative follows their collective will.
[–] noblefool 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Sure, they can be religious. But they can't pass any laws that respect the establishment of a religion. Thus, regardless of what their ideology might be, the moment that your justification for a piece of legislation is religious, that law is illegal because it would be respecting the establishment of a religion. So when a politician justifies LEGISLATION on a religious basis, there's a problem. That's illegal, and should be illegal. They're allowed to hold the OPINION that something should be a certain way because of their religion, but they needs to have other, separate justifications as to why something should be a certain way beyond just religious ones if any legislation is going to be passed therein. The problem the people that you're pointing at have is the fact that many politicians cite religious pretexts, and then have EXTREMELY weak reasoning beyond that as to why they want certain pieces of legislation in effect. Think about it like this: How would you feel about a majority of the elected politicians suddenly becoming devoutly Buddhist, and passed a law that prohibited the entire country from eating meat, and they started citing Vegan literature for it, but clearly the reason is because of their Buddhist beliefs. Would that sit well with you?
[–] Aged [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Their reasoning can be so much worse than this. Like banning bladed weapons out of a paranoid fear of stabbings.
Politicians can be unreasonable. The reasons behind that matter to me, but they're equal in being crazy when they are.
[–] noblefool ago
My point being, you only agree with the idea that "People are just whining about separation of church and state" because it's on legislation that you find agreeable. If it were things passing that you found disagreeable, you would be upset if they were passing laws with religious justification.
[–] stretched_girl ago
But trying to force others to follow your religious ideology through government mandate is wrong.
[–] theoldguy ago
As long as a religion doesn't get a leg up on everybody else (including the thousands of competing religions), OK then.