politics and religion

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:38 am

gnr2 wrote: I my self am not a christian, this is not to say that i do not believe in a creative force or perhaps even a god of some kind. However, when i study the history of the christian faith all i see is it being used by powerful men for their own purposes. The pope supported hitler and accepted Mussolini, the French nobles used the protestant reformation to justify rising against a weak king in order to win back their feudal rights in the sixteenth century, King Henryviii used the church to increase his power, used christian faith to strengthen his control over his subjects and become rich beyond his wildest dreams. I understand that their is a distinction between faith and the church but the two clealry impinge upon one another, or perhpas more accurately the church impinges upon faith. I am curious as to know how people accept the christian faith as true when it has been abused, reshaped, used and generally moulded to fit the puropese of politicians, in whatever guise, over the centuries??Another question is; how do people believe in the bible as the true word of god, it has been translated so many times by so many different poeple that it seems improbable it remains unchanged from its original??

I do not mean to offend and i appologise if i have, but this is how i see the chrisitan faith and i was hoping someone could perhaps educate me.

I will like to join the thread if the topic is discussed in the background of all religions and not restricted to Christianity only.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:01 am

There has been a lot of murder in the name of religion. The combination of religion and politics is a dangerous one. I wonder if Bush was reminded that "Thou shalt not kill" is kind of a biggie on the commandment list if that would affect his foreign policies? Religion is used in making marriage law decisions but not in starting wars. Now it seems less like religion than a tool to win votes.

So, is religion and politics really mixed or is religion abused by potiticians to advance their careers?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:48 am

koan wrote: There has been a lot of murder in the name of religion. The combination of religion and politics is a dangerous one. I wonder if Bush was reminded that "Thou shalt not kill" is kind of a biggie on the commandment list if that would affect his foreign policies? Religion is used in making marriage law decisions but not in starting wars. Now it seems less like religion than a tool to win votes.

So, is religion and politics really mixed or is religion abused by potiticians to advance their careers?

Religion is abused by politicians to advance their careers, and they make the combination of religion and politics is a dangerous one. Actually politics should be guided by religion.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:50 am

gnr2 wrote: Absoloutely, lets open it up to all religions, i probably dont know enough about the histories of other religions to comment, but please educate me.

Thanks.

I am a Hindu. I have posted many messages about Hinduism under various topics on this forum.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:38 am

Suresh :-6

BTW I have known another male by this name and had your gender figured out.

Although I am sure there is influence, I am unsure as to how the government is influenced by Hinduism. What policies/laws are formed in India or elsewhere that reflect the Hindu belief system?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:09 pm

koan wrote: .........Although I am sure there is influence, I am unsure as to how the government is influenced by Hinduism. What policies/laws are formed in India or elsewhere that reflect the Hindu belief system?

You have asked a very good question. In india governments are influnced by Hinduism or any other religion to the extent it serves their narrow interests. The influence here is more like exploitation of religious feelings of the people. Amd it is not limited to governments only but all, politicians, social activists, religious leaders and non-government organizations exploit religion to their advantage. Even communists are seen exploiting religion as and when it is convenient to them.

India is a secular country. But the word 'secular' is interpreted by everybody according to their requirements. In Hinduism it is defined as 'sarva dharma sadbhava', means that one should have respect for all religions. This concept is built into the Constitution of India but is hardly practiced in its right spirit.

Most of the laws have been made to control/prevent wrong social practices generated by wilfull wrong interpretation of teachings of Hinduism. Untouchability is one such example.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:31 pm

Untouchability? What does this mean and how does the government "legislate" it?

BTW a friend of mine recently returned from a trip to India and he is very sad to have left. A compliment to your country.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:12 pm

koan wrote: Untouchability? What does this mean and how does the government "legislate" it?

BTW a friend of mine recently returned from a trip to India and he is very sad to have left. A compliment to your country.

First, please convey my thanks to your friend.

Untouchability means that there are some people who should not be physically touched as it will make one impure. Now this wrong interpretation of Indian social system has made the life of these people miserable. They were treated in most in-human way. The government has made any practice of the concept of untouchability a crime with stringent punishment. Now with this law, spread of education and empowerment of such people, the problem has been contained to a large extent.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:23 pm

Very interesting. I'm glad it is being recognized and dealt with.

What other religious beliefs have manifested in India's government?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:01 am

koan wrote: Very interesting. I'm glad it is being recognized and dealt with.

What other religious beliefs have manifested in India's government?

Another example - In Hinduism marriage is the union of not only two people but of their souls. Whenever a partner dies the other partner feels that the life has become meaningless. This feeling of love was misinterpreted and some people started that in case of the death of a husband wife should also be cremeted alongwith his dead body (practice of 'Sati'). This will prove that her love for him was of highest order. This was only in case of women as the societry is male dominated.

It was in-human no doubt. The government made a law against it. Punishment is very stringent. Everybody directly or indirectly connected with sati is charged of murder. Such cases are no more. The last such incident happened long back.

I will like to make one thing very clear. No bad or in-human practice is sanctioned by Hinduism. It is the wrong interpretation of religious teachings. Some perverted people are always present in any society who will exploit religion by giving wrong interpretation. This interpretation will make them strong and able to rule over other people. Weak people will start thinking that it is the will of God as taught by the religion. But Hindu society will soon identify this and start taking corrective actions. The government then makes a law to discourage wrong people.

persephone · Post by **persephone** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:59 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Another example - In Hinduism marriage is the union of not only two people but of their souls. Whenever a partner dies the other partner feels that the life has become meaningless. This feeling of love was misinterpreted and some people started that in case of the death of a husband wife should also be cremeted alongwith his dead body (practice of 'Sati'). This will prove that her love for him was of highest order. This was only in case of women as the societry is male dominated.

It was in-human no doubt. The government made a law against it. Punishment is very stringent. Everybody directly or indirectly connected with sati is charged of murder. Such cases are no more. The last such incident happened long back.

I will like to make one thing very clear. No bad or in-human practice is sanctioned by Hinduism. It is the wrong interpretation of religious teachings. Some perverted people are always present in any society who will exploit religion by giving wrong interpretation. This interpretation will make them strong and able to rule over other people. Weak people will start thinking that it is the will of God as taught by the religion. But Hindu society will soon identify this and start taking corrective actions. The government then makes a law to discourage wrong people.
I have to ask, was the wife cremated alive and if she didn't want to go with her husband was she made to?

Also misinterpretation of religious teachings has happened with all of them since they first began. Everyone will interpret their religion in their own way.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:38 am

letha wrote: I have to ask, was the wife cremated alive and if she didn't want to go with her husband was she made to?

Yes, and it was the most in-human aspect of practice of Sati.

Also misinterpretation of religious teachings has happened with all of them since they first began. Everyone will interpret their religion in their own way.

You are right. If a misinterpretation does not cause injury to others then perhaps it will not need a law. But if it is injuring others then it should be curbed through law and any person practicing it should be punished. I am proud that indian society has all strengths to tackle such problems.

persephone · Post by **persephone** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 8:03 am

You are right. If a misinterpretation does not cause injury to others then perhaps it will not need a law. But if it is injuring others then it should be curbed through law and any person practicing it should be punished. I am proud that indian society has all strengths to tackle such problems.You are so right.

When I was looking to see which countries still had stoning as death penilties I found myself on a website that showed a video that I watched out of curiosity.

I can not understand how anyone can take part in this sort of thing and it be justified by law. The injustice does not even fit the punishment.

Also how can the people who were there sleep at night knowing they just killed someone in such a way. It is even more amazing that cultures who still do this live by their religion.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:19 am

letha wrote: You are so right.

When I was looking to see which countries still had stoning as death penilties I found myself on a website that showed a video that I watched out of curiosity.

I can not understand how anyone can take part in this sort of thing and it be justified by law. The injustice does not even fit the punishment.

Also how can the people who were there sleep at night knowing they just killed someone in such a way. It is even more amazing that cultures who still do this live by their religion.

I am always surprised to see people getting pleasure out of violent contests or rituals. This is not normal. A normal human being can never get pleasure out of other's pain. When people develop abnormal tendencies they start getting pleasure out of these things. And when they feel happy then question of not getting sleep does not arise. Such people will not get sleep if they have not participated in such programmes. See how many people watch WWF.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 10:39 am

I used to do special effects makeup and a lot of people thought it was really "cool" that I could recreate bullet wounds and make people look dead. (I "killed" at least 200 people in my career). I have no interest in gore at all. I think because I explored the morbid it lost any hold on me. I think the strangest "demons" are the ones we keep locked up inside us. Like people who shun sex and think it is dirty may be more prone to deviant sexual behaviour, perhaps people who are afraid of their morbid thoughts are more prone to act them out or be fascinated by them.

We all turn to look at car accidents when we drive past. The morbid exists in all of us. It is nothing to be disgusted by. If we allow ourselves to look, the morbidness does not usually grow beyond the mildly curious. But there is also a difference between looking at death and acting to cause death. To cause death intentionally, the person must have some need for power. Again powerlessness becomes a factor in a world problem.

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:26 am

"However, when i study the history of the christian faith all i see is it being used by powerful men for their own purposes. "

Are you really studying Christian faith?

Christ was not a fan of the pharasies.

Your post is politics and religion and not faith and religion. With out faith religion is just a set of rules.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:15 am

gnr2 wrote: I my self am not a christian, this is not to say that i do not believe in a creative force or perhaps even a god of some kind. However, when i study the history of the christian faith all i see is it being used by powerful men for their own purposes. The pope supported hitler and accepted Mussolini, the French nobles used the protestant reformation to justify rising against a weak king in order to win back their feudal rights in the sixteenth century, King Henryviii used the church to increase his power, used christian faith to strengthen his control over his subjects and become rich beyond his wildest dreams. I understand that their is a distinction between faith and the church but the two clealry impinge upon one another, or perhpas more accurately the church impinges upon faith. I am curious as to know how people accept the christian faith as true when it has been abused, reshaped, used and generally moulded to fit the puropese of politicians, in whatever guise, over the centuries??Another question is; how do people believe in the bible as the true word of god, it has been translated so many times by so many different poeple that it seems improbable it remains unchanged from its original??

I do not mean to offend and i appologise if i have, but this is how i see the chrisitan faith and i was hoping someone could perhaps educate me. And how right you are. In my part of the world Ireland, its full of Religion & politics.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:16 am

LottomagicZ4941 wrote: "However, when i study the history of the christian faith all i see is it being used by powerful men for their own purposes. "

Are you really studying Christian faith?

Christ was not a fan of the pharasies.

Your post is politics and religion and not faith and religion. With out faith religion is just a set of rules.

The way political leaders may have used the Christian religion does not say anything about the faith. It shows how politics manipulated faith. That Christ was not a "fan" of the pharisees shows how odd it is that they found a way to use his teachings for their benefit. Historically it can not be denied that the use of Christianity in politics has caused a lot of death. Also other religions result in "Holy Crusades". But does the religion cause the crusade of did the leaders just use it as an excuse to kill people that they wanted to kill for other reasons?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:47 pm

It is not the religious faith that causes the problems noted above. It is extremism. We have it today in Christianity: those who shoot abortion doctors, the likes of Phelps who creates a site "God hates fags', those who picket at the funerals of young gay men. An American president that uses his faith as a reason to invade other countries. We have the ultra right wing in the states that promotes the death penalty.

Extremists exist in all faiths around the world. They are problem not their faith.

Shalom

Ted :-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:23 pm

It is true that the extremist attitude is the problem not the faith but it is also true that the extremists use faith to gain support from the masses and then abuse the trust given to them. It gives religion a "bad name" undeservedly but the problem still exists. Politicians continue to us religion to gain votes and support.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:27 pm

koan :-6

I can't help but think of the commandment that we are not to take the name of God in vain. Seems to fit.

Shalom

Ted :-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:48 pm

So while they are busy breaking the commandment do we sit by and wait for them to find out God's not happy about it? I don't believe that I can decide better than God what is just but I don't think I need to sit back and be blind. If the politicians and their deceit did not affect anyone then let it be but, as it is, the deceit continues to result in death.

It is not a question of whether the politicians should have a faith, it is a question whether or not that faith should enter into their laws and policies. Freedom of religion seems to dictate that religion can not be considered in deciding what is moral or not. Common sense would do just fine.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:29 pm

koan :-6

We can have very religious politicians but they ought not to allow their faith to dictate how they run or rule the country expecially if, like Canada, it is a multicultural country. There has to be a balance that takes all faiths into consideration.

Shalom

Ted :-6

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:22 pm

I believe in GOD. And that's about it. :-2

LoveMama · Post by **LoveMama** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:28 am

Ted wrote: It is not the religious faith that causes the problems noted above. It is extremism. We have it today in Christianity: those who shoot abortion doctors, the likes of Phelps who creates a site "God hates fags', those who picket at the funerals of young gay men. An American president that uses his faith as a reason to invade other countries. We have the ultra right wing in the states that promotes the death penalty.

Extremists exist in all faiths around the world. They are problem not their faith.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Ted, extemist's and 'money changers' exist all over the world and and in every faith. You are absolutely right. The problem is NOT their faith.

My youngest son was a Christian recording artist for for Myrrh and WORD labels. They are the two biggest Christian Music labels in the U.S. His band later moved to a non-secular label and mainly because he found so many Chistian hypocrites among them. One concert in the deep South he was asked why he didn't have prayers before his band began to play. His answer was that he was there to play music and not there to sell Jesus........then said 'Jesus is not for sale, He's free. If you don't like the music then leave"!

It was all about money! Other Christian band that were there had girl's in the back's of their busses! It was nuts!

We are Chrstian's and I am sad to say there are many hypocrites among those who call themselves Christians and also sure this is true of any religion.

Suresh Gupta

I just wanted to say that I have alway's wanted to see and know India.

I have alway's loved the Indian people and for year's have cooked Indian foods.

My father in the early thirties in Los Angeles, California was very involved with the Hindu movement there during that time period. He met both Yogi Paramahansa Yogananda and Mazumdar and through these contacts learned to cook Indian foods.

Having had a very early intested in cooking, my father taught me how to make those wonderful Indian curries and breads. I learned about spices......how they differered from the North of India to the South of India. I treasure so much what my father passed on to me and today I make many Indian dishes.

So nice to meet you Suresh Gupta.I'm new here but have many friends that have joined this forum. If you would be so kind.......would you post you FAVORITE Indian dish in the recipe thread that GABS has started. Everone there would be thrilled!

xxxxxxxxxxxooo

mama

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:13 am

Ted wrote: koan :-6 We can have very religious politicians but they ought not to allow their faith to dictate how they run or rule the country expecially if, like Canada, it is a multicultural country. There has to be a balance that takes all faiths into consideration.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Politicians also come from the same society we have come from. They use politics to gain the right of governance. After they are given this right by the people they should keep politics aside and only govern with all their sincerity and honesty.

Religion should never be exploited for governance. Religious teachings should however be used as guiding principles for a better governance.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:16 am

LoveMama wrote: Suresh Gupta

.......would you post you FAVORITE Indian dish in the recipe thread that GABS has started. Everone there would be thrilled!

mama

Thanks for your message. You see I specialize in eating not cooking. I will find out few good Indian dishes and post their details in the forum you have pointed out.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:33 am

An interesting thread and discussion.. I totally agree with you Suresh, religion shouldn't be exploited by politicians, but, if you use religion to guide political decisions, isn't that leaning toward a theocratic form of government, thus opening itself to extremism or fundamentalism interpretation, a scary aspect no matter the religion..?? BTW.. when I was tending bar, these were two topics I forbid discussion on... add alcoholic beverages to the mix and the results could be explosive to say the least.....

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:51 am

greydeadhead wrote: An interesting thread and discussion.. I totally agree with you Suresh, religion shouldn't be exploited by politicians, but, if you use religion to guide political decisions, isn't that leaning toward a theocratic form of government, thus opening itself to extremism or fundamentalism interpretation, a scary aspect no matter the religion..?? BTW.. when I was tending bar, these were two topics I forbid discussion on... add alcoholic beverages to the mix and the results could be explosive to say the least.....

No religion teaches extremism and fundamentalism. In Hinduism there are many guiding principles for governance. If politicians use them then it will become a much better world to live in.

BTW.. you did right or else there would have been riot at the bar.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:59 am

But don't all religions have guiding principals that can be applied to governing..?? And aren't some of those principals outdated for today's society..?? I agree that these principals can be applied to government, but whose interpretation of these principals would be applied..??

Oh yeah.. I learned when I first started tending bar the hard way to ban discussion on these topics.. was an interesting experience for an 18 year old.. :wah:

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:19 am

Ted wrote: It is not the religious faith that causes the problems noted above. It is extremism. We have it today in Christianity: those who shoot abortion doctors, the likes of Phelps who creates a site "God hates fags', those who picket at the funerals of young gay men. An American president that uses his faith as a reason to invade other countries. We have the ultra right wing in the states that promotes the death penalty.

Extremists exist in all faiths around the world. They are problem not their faith.

Shalom

Ted :-6

Shalom again :-6

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:53 am

some politics, no religion here, how much time can one have, i need the gym more than church right now...previous ancestors very religious, we need to excersie to live longer, what should be 1st?? help, my arteries are clogging? :-6

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:05 am

Paula wrote: some politics, no religion here, how much time can one have, i need the gym more than church right now...previous ancestors very religious, we need to excersie to live longer, what should be 1st?? help, my arteries are clogging? :-6

Go to gym. If you find peace there it is your church.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:09 am

greydeadhead wrote: But don't all religions have guiding principals that can be applied to governing..?? And aren't some of those principals outdated for today's society..?? I agree that these principals can be applied to government, but whose interpretation of these principals would be applied..??..........

Yes, all religions have guiding principals that can be applied to governing. I named Hinduism as I am a Hindu.

These guiding principles should be used for one purpose only, to provide sincere and honest governance. If politicians have honest intentions then their interpretation will be people oriented.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:12 am

Suresh, i like your comment, yes, the gym it is -- soon.

you are from India and say it's okay, i like that... :-6

LoveMama · Post by **LoveMama** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:01 am

capt_buzzard wrote: I believe in GOD. And that's about it. :-2

capt buzzard. That works!

By the way, my grandpa was from Ballywalter, County Down! AIKEN was the name. I''m proud to be part Irish!

xxxxxxxxooooooo

mama

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:07 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Yes, all religions have guiding principals that can be applied to governing. I named Hinduism as I am a Hindu.

These guiding principles should be used for one purpose only, to provide sincere and honest governance. If politicians have honest intentions then their interpretation will be people oriented.

Ahh.. if only it were that simple. By bring human nature into the equation you are assuming that the politicians interpreting the principals are honest, or unswayed by outside influences.. a risky guess at best.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:47 pm

Religion really does go beyond dogma for those who truly practice what they preach. A truly religious person brings his/her religion into everything they do. So when we elect someone we also elect their morals, in a way. You can't keep religion from affecting the way individuals will vote but blatant laws that prioritize values from one set of beliefs should be rejected...especially in foreign policies.

On the other hand, religion is the reason that people have morals so we should be glad that there is some spiritual guidance in the formation of our society. How do we draw the line? I think this is why democracy is so important. (This is why I think democracy is so important.) True democracy.

The combined morals of all societies is the best advantage we could have towards ending war and hate crime.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:10 pm

greydeadhead wrote: Ahh.. if only it were that simple. By bring human nature into the equation you are assuming that the politicians interpreting the principals are honest, or unswayed by outside influences.. a risky guess at best.

I know it is not that simple. I am not assuming anything. I am saying what politicians should do. People put their faith in politicians and give them the right to govern. Politicians should reciprocate that faith. And there is no question of any risk. It is aleady there and increasing everyday.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:24 pm

Paula wrote: Suresh, i like your comment, yes, the gym it is -- soon.

you are from India and say it's okay, i like that... :-6

Let me share with you a story which I read in my childhood. It is a part of Hindu mythology.

A shoemaker will not go to any temple. Yet he believed in God. He will make and repair shoes. When anybody asked him he will say that by doing his job honestly, sincerely and to the satisfaction of his customers he is praying to God. It is his prayer and God accepts it. There is no need for him to go to a temple and pray.

The king was told about it. He said that he will personnaly investigate it. He went to the shoemaker's shop and asked him if he can prove what he says that God accepts his prayer. Shoemaker asked him to peep in to the water-pot in which he was dipping the leather. King peeped in and was amazed to see the image of God which he used to worship in the temple. King told his subjects that when God himself has come to him there is no need for him to go to the temple. He paid his respects to the shoemaker and returned to his palace.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:31 pm

koan wrote: Religion really does go beyond dogma for those who truly practice what they preach. A truly religious person brings his/her religion into everything they do. So when we elect someone we also elect their morals, in a way. You can't keep religion from affecting the way individuals will vote but blatant laws that prioritize values from one set of beliefs should be rejected...especially in foreign policies.

On the other hand, religion is the reason that people have morals so we should be glad that there is some spiritual guidance in the formation of our society. How do we draw the line? I think this is why democracy is so important. (This is why I think democracy is so important.) True democracy.

The combined morals of all societies is the best advantage we could have towards ending war and hate crime.

Yes Koan. When we elect someone and give him the responsibility of governance what actually we elect in him? It is his moral, his ethical behaviour, his love and concern for the people and the nation, his ability to govern, his sincerity and honesty. Which religion he belongs to, what language he speaks, what clothes he wears, what food he eats are his personal traits. You expect that his personal traits will help him in better governance and not come in its way.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:48 am

Good morning Suresh..well evening there..

I agree that religious beliefs are key to establishing our moral values. And yes politicians that we elect should follow these in deciding what is best for the people. But how do you handle an instance where there are mulitple religions to be represented by one person..?? That is a common occurance. You cannot make everyone happy with your decision, especially people whose intrepretation is different than the politicians. Honest debate and concession is necessary on all sides to establish a truely peaceful society.

Koan,

Quick question for you.. In a true democracy as foreseen by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't there a separation of church and state..?? Perhaps I am wrong but I was just wondering..

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:41 am

greydeadhead wrote: Good morning Suresh..well evening there..

I agree that religious beliefs are key to establishing our moral values. And yes politicians that we elect should follow these in deciding what is best for the people. But how do you handle an instance where there are mulitple religions to be represented by one person..?? That is a common occurance. You cannot make everyone happy with your decision, especially people whose intrepretation is different than the politicians. Honest debate and concession is necessary on all sides to establish a truely peaceful society. .....

The end result is important. It should be in the interest of the people, society and nation. Believe me if a politician has honest intentions to serve the people he will not find any problem with different interpretations. Honest debate is essential to honest governance. Any concession needed should be seen and given in the form of empowerment. It should not be given for covering an handicap, but should be given to convert the handicap in to strength.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:11 am

originally posted by Koan

On the other hand, religion is the reason that people have morals so we should be glad that there is some spiritual guidance in the formation of our society. How do we draw the line? I think this is why democracy is so important. (This is why I think democracy is so important.) True democracy.

So you are saying someone who is not religious does not know right from wrong? If that is the case i disagree with with you vehemently. Some of the most vile crimes in history have been committed by religious fanatics.

It does not take religon to know wrong from right, many religious people use their faith to justify their actions or to justify their abuse of those not like them in some way, be it race, creed or sexual predilictions. Religon doesn't make them better people.

posted by greydeadhead

Koan,

Quick question for you.. In a true democracy as foreseen by the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights isn't there a separation of church and state..?? Perhaps I am wrong but I was just wondering..

If you look at the history of the american constitution one of the reasons for the separation of church and state was they did not want to import the religious tensions that they had left behind in europe. It is no accident that most european ststes are relatively secular in their governments given half a chance religon and politics breed conflict as one side or the other decide they have the moral superiority.

posted by greydeadhead

Good morning Suresh..well evening there..

I agree that religious beliefs are key to establishing our moral values. And yes politicians that we elect should follow these in deciding what is best for the people.

politicians should never be left with the idea they know what is best for the people especially those who wear their faith on their sleeves. They are elected to govern the country and yes to some extenet that entails deciding what is best for the people, but what would you say to a leader (to pick an extreme example) that believes in creationism and believes teaching the theory of evolution is morally wrong and wants to ban it's teaching. That women should only be homemakers and should leave work as soon as they are married-bear in mind it was not so long ago that that was the case-ask your grandmother.

How about religious societies like Iran? A fine example of a country governed by men of moral character who hated the secular state of the shah. It's a moot point whether you can keep religon and politics apart.

I feel the same way about religon as I do about political creeds. Use carefully but watch the practitioners as both given half a chance will take over the planet to remake it the way they want.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 6:44 pm

Let me clarify how I use "religion". One of the dictionary definitions is simply:

a specific set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of people or sects

also

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

also

something a person believes in and follows devotedly.

addendum

often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.

Religion is actually much broader a concept than it's popular usage.

Morals may be acquired in a number of ways but they must be taught. Bad things happen to good people and good people may want to strike out. We must learn how to deal with emotions to exhibit good morals in action. Most people acquire these through religion and/or the caring and devotion of family and friends who were probably brought up with moral codes acquired through religion.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 5:28 pm

It certainly is not in the Greek NT.

As for God is One: All Christians believe that. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of Christianity.

Shalom

Ted :-6