Quote by EternalParadoxThe intent of the Founding Father, if not set forth
explicitly, will not have nearly as much weight as the presence of the word God in the Declaration itself. That is how
the Christian right have been able to push for great religious presence in politics. They see that this nation is
founded by a document that recognizes God and can claim, with legitimate documentary support, that this nation was never
intended to separate God from government.
Yes the Declaration is a founding document of the US
however it does not define the governance of our nation. It is a declaration to Britain that we refuse to treated
unjustly and we are going to start our of independant nation. The inclusion of God in the text is more a reflection of
the fact that it was sent from one predominantly Christian nation to another predominantly Christian nation. The real
meat of how our nations government is supposed to work is spelled out in the Constitution of the US where it mentions
several times that relgion is not the purview of the state and that religious affiliations shall not be held against
anyone applying to hold positions in the governement, as well as the Freedom of religion spelled out explicitly in the
text.
Quote by EternalParadox
I know this argument first hand. I attended a lecture by Justice Scalia and a devout Catholic friend passionately agreed
with his argument that faith ought to play a large role in governance.
Faith in politics is not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on how it is "spun," as the political world
goes.
I consider faith to be different from religion as it can exist independantly from religious
organizations. I agree that faith in a higher power is not necessarily a bad thing for politicians (in fact quite a few
of them would do a whole lot better if they would practice what they preach), however it is not a requirement, which in
my opinion is a good thing given the idea of free will.
Quote by nainex52There are
limits to how much religion can interfere with politics though. Politics are more practical than religion but people
believe in religions more than their govt (generally).
The problem arises when you have people that
think the relgious beliefs can replace the practicality and impartiality required of the government.
Quote by EspadaMy own country,
Singapore, is secular. My government's stand is that country comes first, and your religion or race be damned.
Disrupt the peace in any way, whether it be refusing to sing the national anthem or inciting of protests/riots, and we
will destroy your life in a slew of jailings (we can jail u for no reason for indefinite periods), defamation suits, tax
fraud investigations, and quietly denying your kids entry to any good schools. If yours is a small religion of little
influence, such as that imbecilic Jehovah's Witness group, we place so many restrictions on your faith (i.e. no
convening or preachings, no tax exemptions) that it becomes crippled.
Interesting and very much like
China like you described earlier. I applud the secularism of the govenrments but deplore the governments acting like
dictators and restricting the rights of freedom of speech, religion, and others. Of course mine is a biased view based
on where I was born and raised.
