RateItAll: The Opinion Network

If used for exploitation purposes, it is a problem. . .if you can check in your superstition at the door and do your job- then it's not a problem. Other people have a right to not live under your dogma- sorry that scares a few kids. . .

People usually vote based on their core principles. Elected officials vote or govern based on their core principles. In the vast majority of cases, these principles have at least some basis in religious teachings. What is it exactly that needs to be "reconciled"?

Does this mean that the Christian/ Jew/ Muslim...whatever...is supposed to magically drop their beliefs at the front door of the White House, the governor's mansion, the Senate chamber, etc.?

No need for reconciliation that I can think of. Like Irishgit said they should be mutually exclusive. People should not be discouraged from letting their faith be their guide politically, but they should not be allowed to have their faith entrenched in public institutions.

I'm generally wary of mixing organized religion with politics. Religion deals with affairs of the holy, and politics tends to deal with the affairs of the worldly. These two concepts basically mix like oil and water, only just a bit more combustible! History is strewn with examples of "holy warriors" who use "God's mandate" as a means to conquer, pillage, and otherwise suppress captive populations, all in the name to save souls. I don't know about you, but the church, when it was a political force in the West, did a lot of things that went against the teaching of Christ! A brief study of Western history, especially the Roman Catholic Church, can confirm this.

I believe in governing by Christian principles, but not in terms of establishing a centralized religious state, nor of using Faith as a means to justify wars and oppression.

I don't see this as a political issue at all.

Mutually exclusive concepts in my opinion.

This is not a critical political issue. I'm not sure it is a political issue at all, worded as it is. Did you just stick this in here to rile up the lefties?

This is one issue that really sticks in my craw, and I, quite frankly, get tired of the same ol' hoary arguments repeated on and on ad nauseum: namely- "What did our forefathers really mean 200-plus years ago?" You know something? The world was a whole different place, 200-plus years ago. I in no way mean to demean or defame the founders of this country-- they were, for the most part, brilliant men of vision, but they were men, and flawed men at that. They were slave holders. They were aristocrats. America in 1776 was not the same place it is in 2007. We're currently a nation of Protestants, and Catholics, and Jews, and Buddhists, and Hindus, and Muslims, and Atheists, and Agnostics, and Pagans, and (fill in the blank). You want to pray? There's a church (as well as a liquor store) on nearly every street corner in every city and town across the country. Pray in the library, or at home, or on the street corner, or in the toilet. Pray in school, if you want to, but don't subject me or my children to such nonsense. Christians are not an oppressed minority, and its disingenuousness of the more pernicious sort when they portray themselves as such. We live in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society. I don't give a damn how "religious" my political leaders are, or aren't. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists, and I'd put them up against Dubya Bush, who prays 22 hours out of every 24, any day of the week. I, as an adopted person, personally am ambivalent when it comes to abortion, but, God forbid, if I ever get diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease, or Parkinson's-- don't dare tell me that stem cell research was held up or stalled because of the religious convictions of an adamant few zealots. The bottom line when it comes to abortion, or stem cell research, for me, is that I'm more concerned with living human beings than I am with some cells in a woman's vagina. I truly don't care if my President goes to church every Sunday, or ever. In fact, I would have far more respect for a political leader who openly says, "I'm an atheist, but I'm as moral and scrupulous a man (or woman) as you'll ever elect."

Frankly, I don't care whether faith and politics can be "reconciled." There's a huge part of Christianity -- and I could name some other religions here -- that will never be compatible with any form of democratic pluralism whatsoever. Faith just needs to step aside when it comes to politics, which should never be conducted in a way that participants can appeal to beliefs that are beyond contestation. In politics, you need to be able to convey your principles in a way that can be understood and contested by anyone, rather than by recourse to dogma.