☆ENGLISH ONLY☆コミュのShould we mix Politics and religion ?

In Japan, religion and poliltics must be separated as the Constitution specified.

In detail,
Article 20-1: Politics should not give a privilage to any religious groups. Religious groups should not use political power.
Article 20-3: Govermental organizations should not act religious purpose.
Article 89: Official budget should not be used for religious groups.

But actually, a religious-related political party has a very influencial power.
I think religion has a thoughtful meaning for human lives. But also, we have to remember the tragic history directed by using Shintoism.

理絵 You should be a lawyer. Thats interesting information. Did you translate the constitution? Yes.. I agree that we have to learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes. This is why there are no direct links. But it`s a known fact that large groups have voting power. They can make or brake a political party. That is how things should be decided without war.

Religion is a foundation of common sense of the society???
eh?? that's sick! (yeah sorry if i'm rude) au contraire, mon ami...
division between religion and politics is a basis for democracy and common sense

We have very few Catholic presidents in the US - they're mostly Protestant. We've NEVER had an atheist or Buddhist or Muslim or anything else for that matter.

we may only pray for an antheist or buddhist American president... think that country needs it.
but do not see it happen in the next decades unfortunately

I firmly believe in the seperation of religion and politics. While I do accept and believe everyone should have the right to practice whatever religion they choose I think mixing the two is negative.

Looking at history most hatred and wars have been caused over religion.

I believe politics and religion must be completely separated, too. Sadly, most of the people/groups that have power in the U.S. are protestant, and therefore, most of the political decisions are made based on and/or in favour of Christianity.

But what is to keep a President/Politicians in check if he or she has no moral ethical codes to live by ? Call it what you want, a sense of right and wrong, or the fear of god, but there must be something in a persons character that keeps them honest. I think they just recently stopped people from swearing on the bible before testemoney in US courts. I mean, it really didnt make much sense to believe that a non Christain person would be abliged not to lie because of fear of punishment from God. But that practice was followed for a very long time. Dont they still swear in government officials in the US ?

You bring up an interesting point or perspective TokyoOG, however I think that athiests along with anyone else are fully capable of having some positive ethics or morals.

I do not believe in a "god" myself however I try to live a positive life and understand that I and everyone else is responsible for their own actions, while I have no fear of god or punishment, that does not stop me or others from trying to lead a life that is positive for ourselves and other people.

Religion does not stop people from acting in unethical ways, sure some people may fear what religion they believe in for "sins" but this does not stop murder, rape and other terrible things in this world, anyone can do that.

I highly doubt someone like George Bush is a "good ethical person" with condeming so many lives to death in the name of his god or religion, I highly doubt his religion supports killing innocent people either, yet he uses religion and morals that suit himself to do just that.

Look at how many lives have been lost in iraq on all sides and will continue to be lost and for what exactly ? that is not peace..that is war and war is negative for humanity no matter what side you are on, I really doubt he cares. But then I think the majority of politicians are corrupt anyway.

As long as human beings have the kind of power that world leaders have with a military backing them, they will play "god" as long as they have that power as power corrupts over time.

A key issue here is how one thinks of the two terms 'politics' and 'religion'. Both terms are actually very difficult to define, or even pick out as an action or thing even without a definition. And the pop usages of the term are known to be failures, so if anyone here actually cares about having a discussion (which is doubtful), the terms need be attended to.

Some related things:
1. different ideologies, belief systems, and religions inevitably comment upon on and make metaphysical claims and have essential narratives. These lead to some sort of 'Weltanshuang'(or, if you must the english 'Woldview') being developed that is also therefore inevitable, at least as a human phenomena. Consequently, it is hard to see what is 'religious' and what is not.
2. (a) Politics are pervasive, or at least power-relations are...but i suspect you (the one asking the question) are are trying to say: "How does the state (and political discourse) relate to particular religions?
(b)I put it this way because this is actually the argument that has taken place, at least historically--but i do not suspect you have much of an idea of what that history has been like, or even where the terms are drawn from, and you would do well to study such a thing before speaking as most of you have: in a manner which displays (at most!) a laughable and culpable ignorance of the complexities of the issue, that even a thought use of the terms would provide. And i say this knowing that dilettantism such as has been on display here is, sadly, a widespread cultural phenomena.


So, again: If anyone here wants to do more than spout amateurish and half baked ideas about this topic, let us first attend to the terms we seek to use.

I vote for separation of church and state. It
even bugs me when politicians invite the cameras
along when they go to church.
I don't care if they're christian...it's as
good a crutch as any, but keep it private.

Ian

Here in Indonesia, religion is a powerful tools in politics, the use religion to create regulation, to direct the mass etc.

i think it's better if we separated it

雷男 You seem to be very intelligent but a bit antagonistic. I am sure you could have expressed yourself in a better manner without coming off as a jerk if you wanted to.
Ok, you are more informed than everyone else but a truly wise person would have just used this opportunity to set the record straight and express their views or just ignored the topic completely. Your assumptions are typical of a person that is full of himself. We are all here to discuss not to instigate.
I am sure you are a good guy that just has a problem communicating for some reason. The following comments from you I felt were uncalled for.

"so if anyone here actually cares about having a discussion (which is doubtful)"

"--but i do not suspect you have much of an idea of what that history has been like, or even where the terms are drawn from, and you would do well to study such a thing before speaking as most of you have: in a manner which displays (at most!) a laughable and culpable ignorance of the complexities of the issue"

"So, again: If anyone here wants to do more than spout amateurish and half baked ideas about this topic"

I hope you can see that it was not necessary to insult me or the participants of this thread like that. If you don`t like the quality of the Topics posted you are free to start your own threads. I am sure we would all benefit from your superior insight.

TWENTY TWO true the Sokka Gakkai does activity support Komeito and encourages their members to get out and vote. They do this because they believe that positive change can only be achieved via the political process. One can not just pray for change and expect it to happen. The elected Komeito officials that were supported by the Sokka Gakkai are obliged to push for positive reforms that are in the best interest of humanity in general. Thats more than we can say for other groups including Christians. The whole point is to have a positive influence. What`s wrong with that?

>Should we mix Politics and religion ?

shouldn't we separate men from religion? Religion is a ready-made concept ouside of men, which means we have to comply ourselves with them. Then it becomes just an unconcious obedience. So unconcious that we even go to wars and kill people who are also under some kind of religion (patriotism included).

Why don't we just break free from all concepts and just be ourselves for a change?

16: TokyoOG

Actually, i had no particular problem with what *you* said, and it seemed to me that you were the only one here actually speaking to the matter at hand and interested in a real dialog, so i really should have made criticisms less general, at least excepting you from them (especially since you were the one who asked the initial question!). It doesn't seem to me that you have done much research in the topic(but i could very well be wrong on that point), but you are approaching the topic honestly and fairly, and that counts for a lot. So i am sorry for not being clear about who i was speaking to. My rather acidic rhetoric was mostly a result of being frustrated with how this very hot and important topic (at least in the US, but europe too) gains much attention and words, but usually little honest and careful thought, and it needs it: so when those on whatever side just repeat their aphorisms uncritically but with much confidence, the rhetoric is meant to undercut the false confidence (especially of those who think themselves of the 'enlightened' but are only pretentious).

Now you may well think such a rhetorical approach mistaken, and it may be, but the propriety of such an approach depends on its context--and i might of have misjudged this context. At the very least, I certainly should have been more careful about who my target was, as again, you were not.


But to the topic:

Would you mind giving some provisional definitions of 'politics' ( by which i suspect you mean something like 'participation and representation in the governing body of a polity (a state)) and 'religion'?

Or perhaps better: How about we frame the discussion as one of *jurisdiction*: What is the realm of the 'saeculum' (from which the word secular derives) and what is the realm of the 'sacred': where (and when) do they inhabit the same space, and what is it each is has ultimate authority over.

I frame it like this, because this was, generally speaking, the historical question in the west. The question as often heard today in america and europe owes to another formulation: the idea now championed by Rawls, but given vital shape to by Locke is, crassly put, something like 'religious' beliefs are of a secondary (often very secondary) epistemic order, and that the common good is of the first order, so religion is adiaphora. The problem with this view is that it depends upon 'classical' (or hard) foundationalism, which is an epistemic theory which has (for many good reasons) fallen into considerable disrepute. The dilemma is that the so called secondary order beliefs actually are a part of how the 'common good' is formulated, thus negating the supposed distinction. (for those interested, Alasdair MacIntyre is helpful here).

but again: how do you think we should frame the question?

Ah, 雷男... tackling the topic from the scholarly tip. ;)

Forgive me as I try to slow it up a bit... heh.

If I may be so bold, let me suggest some broad definitions for the terms at hand:

"politics" - government offices (president, senator, representative, etc.); the participation and support in the running of government (voting, taxes).

"religion" - personal metaphysical / spiritual beliefs; systems of thoughts of those beliefs; organizations which espouse / promote those beliefs.

Working with those terms as I've defined them, let me express my opinion about the topic's question ("Should we mix Politics and religion ?") by simply agreeing with TokyoOG:

It's already a part of the system, and it's pretty much impossible to remove it since people are a part of politics, and religion is a part of people.

True representative democracy is built on people making decisions. And a part of what makes people who they are is their beliefs / values ("religion"). People make decisions all the time according to those values, so why should we expect government ("politics") to function differently?

For example, say I believe that all human life is sacred (and therefore important) no matter what because it's a part of my religion. Assuming I'm consistent with that belief, as a voter, I will most likely support politicians and laws that are in line with that belief...

-For example: I might oppose wars of aggression because quite simply when there's a war, people die... therefore, if a law comes up expanding the size of the country's military, I might oppose it.

-Another example: I'm a politician planning a foreign aid budget to region XYZ. I hear that there's a severe famine in country ABC in region XYZ, so because I believe in the importance of human life, I decide to set aside more money for food aid to country ABC.

-Or another example: Maybe I find out a politician supports the death penalty and I decide to not vote for him, because again, that politician is in favor of something that violates my belief.

These 3 scenarios might seem a bit simplistic and even mundane by modern standards, but given the plain fact that government is often the institution charged with the management of limited resources, hard decisions have to be made - often with compelling arguments for each possible choices. People need a criteria to sort through the best possible choice; religion is something that just happens to be a part of the criteria.

Nice post Prodigalson. I was just about to
go out and buy a fatter dictionary but your
message seems to have cleared everything up
for me.
As far as separation of church and state goes,
in Australia there is a very big church about
10km from where I live. Conservative / right
wing politicians go there all the time and the
preacher encourages the people at his church
to vote for that particular conservative party.
They are so powerful that through their voting
block they were able to get 3 members elected
to the parliament (all right wing / conservative).
Last year they received $5,000,000 in federal
money to fund a vocational program for local
indigenous people. Two interesting things.

1. The area where I live is not cheap, and
aboriginal people tend to be in low socio-
economic group. That is, they might have been
the original owners but they haven't been able
to afford to live here for quite a while.

2. The program they set up was a joke. It
cost them practically nothing and all the
money disappeared. I note with interest that
the preacher drives a very nice $100,000
motor car and lives in a very nice $6,000,000
house.

Anyway I guess that's my issue. The government
want the votes that the church can deliver and
the church makes them pay for every one.

雷男 Thank you for that english lesson and taking the time to explain. Your post are good examples of someone that commands this language at a level few of us can achieve without a PHD :)

I think 20: Pr0digalS0n put it quite nicely. The relationship between religion and politics seems to be an unavoidable phenomena. If we share a common code of ethics with a certain group or politician we feel that we can trust them to do the right thing. "The right thing" is the issue. Without a gauge how are we to know who we can trust to do the right thing. An affiliation with a known belief system (attempts) to inform others of a persons world view. Of course we have no way of really knowing if a person is sincere or not. And we never will. So in actuality what we think we know about a person or their group is almost irrelevant. It`s what people "do" that is important.

21: rajio That`s a sad story. Corruption is not a new concept but it still amazes me when I hear of things like that happening. Baptist ministers in the USA are famous for similar behavior. But I do still believe that not all people are corruptible. The Australian aboriginal issues still have a long way to go. Welfare systems have almost always failed in other places. They don`t really seem to want to be integrated into the main Australian society and at the same time their world has been changed to the point that they can barely survive in their own land. Well I did my part. I purchased an aboriginal made Didgeridoo :) ( At least it was suppose to be authentic). It came with a serial number etc..

Politics, like science, should be about putting control in the hands of humans.
Taking it away from religion.
Religion's control means persecution and unfair laws.
Think of the Catholic Church's history, have they been fair? How about Islam, does that seem to be an open, kind system of governing?

"Should we mix Politics and religion ?"

No.

"Can we separate Politics and Religion?"

No.

That seems to be the analysis here....

Since there are no Aetheist Nation States (that I know of anyway) we don't really have an example of how to do it, and what it would look like if we did. Although, we do have many Secular Democracies in the World.
From what I read here, it seems that the function of a Secular Democracy is to marginalize the Church from the legislative and Policy forming process. However since most people have a faith of some description, that isolation of theism from the decision making machine that is Government is, impossible.

I don't know how to approach this problem, and I'm certain there isn't any actual answer to it...(in a metric sense)

So I'd like to look at it the other way around (We can't think about all countries so lets take the U.S as an example) ;

What are the current shortcomings of the U.S Political system and how many are due to the influence of the Church?

First you have to define a "shortcoming" - lets say that is something that reduces personal freedom/rights/or well-being....
We can also extend that to things that reduce incomes, increase taxes, weaken the economy etc...
Finally a shortcoming could also be something like the damage to the U.S's reputation, World Standing, or ethical credentials...

That's a lot of data considering how many Governments the U.S has had, and how many variables we have to look at.
I doubt anyone on mixi, all the Wikipedia contributors, or all the economists in the World could answer the question still - even when we simplify it like this...

But

Personally I'll take "the loss of freedom" as my crux shortcoming from that shopping list.
It doesn't take a genius to know that Religion is basically anti-freedom. Thus, if a Government is bound to protect freedoms and promote them (as the U.S is), the Church should be kept the fuck away from that Governmental process.
I think Thomas Jefferson agrees with me on that one.

The picture in <24> is correct...

I have the answer. We could let super computers run the worlds governments with pure logic. Take the human element out of the loop completely and abide by the computers decissions. Each country could have a Super computer contacted via fiber optics and the internet that would be a part of the network for making world decissions. The UN will allow all countries to be members,not just the large and powerful. The computers decissions could be broadcast simultaneously to all the world leaders and to the public so no one could doubt the authenticity of the data. Totally unbaised, logical decissons. How could that go wrong. All of the current worlds problems, etc.. could be input to come up with a choice of logically calculated solutions. If we could only have the computer program itself without human intervention this might work :)

interesting idea. The problem is who feeds and reads the data. Of course, it's the same men, and men has huge ego and freedom to disobey. So most probably things will stay the same, unless men changes drastically, at least to be as sane as computers.

wow! that's what HAL tried to do, isn't it?

26> Good one...

But the computer program and supercomputers are man-made, thus they inherit our flaws (in logic, programming, and decision making)....
If we could design a computer to design a computer and continually refine itself then we could have a 99.9999999[...]% perfect machine...

Better than what we have now, but....

Would it be down with Democracy?

NO, they should not be mixed..

26>heh heh... sounds just like the opening to a favorite SciFi short story of mine:

"I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth_And_I_Must_Scream

...

On the topic of "The Church" / organized religious groups... the interesting parallel is they often suffer from the same problems as governments (corruption, nepotism, inefficient bureaucracies, etc.). Of course, the common denominator in both is that HUMANS run them.

In some countires religion is politics.

well it looks like this talk is winding down before it even started....
(I kind of understand 雷男's frustration - another case in point is people who know nothing about Islam doing a thread *judging* Shia vs Sunni, and getting comments in that thread like "well the sunnis allow music so they are OK" etc, that's the level we are at here. No I'm not sniping, there's nothing wrong with it...but it is frustrating. Especially when you see how absurd these people are being...still...this isn't the University Debate team, we're all just fucking about)

Anyway...

31> hello

Yeah some parallels in operational terms, but I wouldn't liken The Church to Government (democratic).

Biggest difference is that Government's morality is ever changing/evolving whereas theism is at a moral standstill, even moral paralysis.
Religion spoke it's last intelligible words on morality hundreds of years ago and it's insights today have mutated into *at best* a cloudy kind of humanism...
That we don't need.
Serious ethical/moral problems are handled much better by Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Kafka, Schiller, Eliot, Dostoyevsky etc...they have a hundred fold more relevance to you and me than the writings of St.Thomas of Acq@%& whatever the fuck it was...(a great Scholar though he was)
Art cannot thrive or diversify under the moral dictatorship of Religion. It needs Democracy and freedom of speech...

So real moral progress as a society is only made when we have a State run without The Church having a say, and we have free speech to air...whatever we want to.

The Church doesn't offer anykind of chance for the human race to grow intellectually (that means knowledge and ethics).

Government does. However badly...

"This is the funniest shit I heard all day."

Was it. Happy to please.

"Do you mean a change of the democracy and freedom of today, or were you refering to something else?"

Well I think if you carefully apply your knowledge of the English language to the words written in the post I made you might find out what I meant there. Or don't. Whatever the fuck you want man....

"Some people still live in the stone age and don't know shit outside of their little caves"

The irony is killing me.

"I'm sure if it wasn't for a few moral teachings, possibly from certain religions, this place would be in worse shape"

Prove it.

"Freedom of speech you say? Hmm, thats like telling my kids to have freedom to say the alphabet, when there's only one way to say it"

I have no idea what you are talking about there, I don't get what point you are trying to make....
In the words of Stone Cold...
"What?"

"I guess justice isn't absolute after all."

You've completely lost me now.

Do you want me to take you through it step by step?

1) This thread is about "Should we mix Religion & Politics?"
2) People give their opinions
3) We all digress...
4) Pr0digal S0n made an observation that Religion and Government are very similar in some ways
5) I said perhaps, but point out there's a big difference between Religion and Government - freedom of speech and the fact that that enables us to modify our morality...
6) Made a supplemental point that actually any decent artist has a lot more meaningful things to say to you about morality than The Church has....and that's been true for a long long time.
7) Anyway, the point is Democracy facilitates us to have our morality evolve
7) The Chruch doesn't afford that - how many ammendments to the 10 commandments have you seen coming from the Chruch lately????
8) You step in with the incisive observation "I'm sure if it wasn't for a few moral teachings, possibly from certain religions, this place would be in worse shape."
9) We all step back in awe of your cutting insight

10) (pause to step back and be in awe)

11) I kill time in the office by replying to you

12) -end

Pr0digalS0n "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream"

I have never heard of this before. That is one sick story. I like it :)

So are we suppose to accept the notion that humanity will never be able to get its act together ? The original frame work was constructed with too many flaws. And now nothing better can be supported by it. The parties in charge now with questionable moral, ethical fiber will never give up their postions of power. Democracy does not work because of human nature. All these hopes of a better world and peace are just pipe dreams that we all know are impossible to attain. So we should just give up on all of the current attempts to save us from ourselves because they cant possibly work as long as long as we as a spieces remain the same. Is this what CHo at Virgina tech came to believe? Pretty depressing.