Politics and Religion Intertwined

[Dissipate]

Putting aside one's political beliefs for a moment, if one were an agnostic, atheist or even a deist, wouldn't one be quite disturbed by the pervasive religiousness of politicians on both sides of the aisle? Wouldn't the fact that the great bulk of politicians claim to have a personal relationship with a fictional being they call 'god' and that a fantastic narrative about heaven, a messiah and this fictional being is true and explains the origin of the universe and earth itself, be cause for alarm? These people go to a church on a regular basis and claim to be able to speak to god through prayer. And of course they claim that their legislative policies are inspired by this god.

Without a doubt, the probability that their prayer is actually being received and interpreted by some divine being is just about 0. So any personal relationship with some deity is undoubtedly made up in their head. The same goes for their religious narrative, and all the fables thereof. The probability of it being true is very nearly 0, if not actually 0. How do we know? Because reality doesn't work the way these narratives have described it. Science has clearly shown this, and there isn't a single shred of evidence that it ever did work in the way the narratives describe.

So those who are supposed to be the most level headed and rational people around, are head over heels into supernatural belief systems. A couple questions come to my mind. Is the strong correlation between those who hold political office and these supernatural belief systems evidence that policymaking is in large part a faith based action in itself? And my other question is, isn't it about time that the large numbers of non-religious people start questioning the religiosity of politicians?

 

[cubeless]

before the interweb people could only talk their drunken selves to sleep on saturday nights after a hearty round of inebriated philosophizing with like minded (and bac'd) souls... ahhh, the good old days...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are right. Look how it worked in China and the USSR.

If you haven't noticed, it isn't allegiance to a deity which has caused the crap in DC, but partisan politics. There are two "gods" there. One has the likeness of an elephant and the other an ass.

 

[mk]

You are right. Look how it worked in China and the USSR.

Are you suggesting that the only alternative to superstitious stupidity and/or cynical manipulation of ignorant and gullible religious populace is a totalitarian system with centrally planned economy ruled by a ruthless sociopath like Stalin or Mao?

 

[boomerang]

As an atheist who bears no ill tidings against those of faith, I've nonetheless always felt that organized religion was based in fear.

Therefore, those that fear religion are expressing a religion of their own.

So OP, why do you fear policymakers? Why do your religious beliefs have you in fear of those with differing religious beliefs?

 

[Tristicus]

I've always thought adding religion to politics was stupid. Sure, the founding fathers based the country on Christianity (loosely more or less), but justifying things because your god says it is bad is stupid and holds no weight.

 

[XZeroII]

Did you wake up this morning and think to yourself,

"There aren't enough pointless ramblings about religion on the internet. I think I'll start a new thread on the topic."

?


Either that or you're a troll. Or both.

 

[totalnoob]

Every time I hear a politician say God, I replace it in my head with "Zeus" and it makes just as much sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you suggesting that the only alternative to superstitious stupidity and/or cynical manipulation of ignorant and gullible religious populace is a totalitarian system with centrally planned economy ruled by a ruthless sociopath like Stalin or Mao?

Well if you put it that way, why not? I mean if the religious are automatically stupid then the alternatives must be ruthless sociopaths.

Demonizing is a fun and easy game that all can play.

You completely passed on the real problem, which isn't religion in politics, but politics in politics, AKA "party uber alles" or "How can we look good and make the other side look bad at all costs"

It's interesting that one can be anally raped and ignore it completely while complaining about acne.

In other words, people who are atheist or agnostic are just as likely to make a fool out of you as anyone else, and in extreme cases have resulted to the USSR and China purges. Does that have to be the case? No, but then I don't get off on bashing people for their religion or lack of it. It's what they actually do that's the issue.

I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. You are easily used, just as much as the religious.

 

[nageov3t]

85% of Americans describe themselves as religious and 95% believe in god. if those numbers were reversed, you'd see fewer politicians playing up their religion in front of the cameras.

the vast majority of the greatest minds throughout the history of human existence have all believed in god, so I wouldn't knock it just because you somehow think you're more enlightened than all of them.

 

[Danube]

Millions of people take meds for a "chemical imbalance" that's never been proven (indeed no patient is tested for such imbalance). Millions of people believed in anthro global warming when no evidence ever proved it (quite the contrary). People voted for Obama because they thought he could cool the planet and calm the seas (he said so lol). People want the "right" to use opposite sex bathrooms to escape "gender expression". People bought overpriced houses they thought would go up in value for ever despite an obvious bubble. People believe in all kinds of nonsense and consider themselves more scientific than religious. Religion can be used wrong as well but used properly it keeps people focuses on what meaningful and true and makes them more resilient and happy. That's a reason other people can hate them for it.

 

[Danube]

85% of Americans describe themselves as religious and 95% believe in god. if those numbers were reversed, you'd see fewer politicians playing up their religion in front of the cameras.

the vast majority of the greatest minds throughout the history of human existence have all believed in god, so I wouldn't knock it just because you somehow think you're more enlightened than all of them.

There is a foundation for a religious revival in the US once the hardship escalates (as Obama works to increase them)


"79% Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead"

Eighty-two percent (82%) also believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. Another 10% think otherwise and 8% aren’t sure.

Nearly as many, 79% believe the central claim of the Christian faith--that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Only 10% say they do not believe the first Easter resurrection really happened, while 11% are not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...09/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

79% Believe Jesus Christ Rose from the Dead

Eighty-two percent (82%) also believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who came to Earth and died for our sins. Another 10% think otherwise and 8% aren’t sure.

Nearly as many, 79% believe the central claim of the Christian faith--that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Only 10% say they do not believe the first Easter resurrection really happened, while 11% are not sure

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...09/79_believe_jesus_christ_rose_from_the_dead

100% of atheists don't believe it.

100% of tigers are carnivores.

100% of the solar system is in the Milky Way!

Where will it end!


None of the above mean jack.

 

[bamacre]

Well if you put it that way, why not? I mean if the religious are automatically stupid then the alternatives must be ruthless sociopaths.

Demonizing is a fun and easy game that all can play.

You completely passed on the real problem, which isn't religion in politics, but politics in politics, AKA "party uber alles" or "How can we look good and make the other side look bad at all costs"

It's interesting that one can be anally raped and ignore it completely while complaining about acne.

In other words, people who are atheist or agnostic are just as likely to make a fool out of you as anyone else, and in extreme cases have resulted to the USSR and China purges. Does that have to be the case? No, but then I don't get off on bashing people for their religion or lack of it. It's what they actually do that's the issue.

I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. You are easily used, just as much as the religious.

Careful. The truth can be painful.

 

[Dissipate]

As an atheist who bears no ill tidings against those of faith, I've nonetheless always felt that organized religion was based in fear.

Therefore, those that fear religion are expressing a religion of their own.

I think this is a non-sequitur. Religion creates fear, therefore fear is a religion? That does not seem to follow to me.

So OP, why do you fear policymakers? Why do your religious beliefs have you in fear of those with differing religious beliefs?

I don't fear policymakers, and that is mainly because their policymaking is fairly predictable. I have no religious beliefs, my beliefs are the opposite of religion, which are non-belief in deities or any other institutionalized (and non-institutionalized) supernatural belief.

What I will say is that any collective institution that manipulates people using irrational premises is dangerous. That goes for religion or even any sort of cult, period.

 

[mk]

Careful. The truth can be painful.

I agree with most of the post so it doesn't really hurt that much.


Why should one whine about being ass raped when the house we are all in is burning? Should the acne be off limits if something worse has happened or is happening? Who gets to decide what can be talked about?

The comment was directed at a single line. "Look at USSR and China" is a bs argument. The alternative to religion in politics isn't Soviet Union and no one here is proposing that people should be sent to the gulag based on their beliefs.
Besides, there is very little difference between Soviet and Chinese rulers and elite using communism and various despots throughout history using religions to maintain and increase their personal power and control over the population. In the former case communism and “progress” just mostly replaced religion.

My problem with superstitious talk in general is that it almost always gets a free pass. You can say that you were visited by Jesus or the Holy Spirit, an angel of the Lord, Poseidon or The Hungry Hungry Hippo. You can believe that your holy book is dictated or directly inspired by the Creator of the Universe or that the position of Venus and Jupiter, witchcraft, magic crystals or some spirit energy affect events in our daily lives. No evidence is ever asked to back these claims. Everything goes just as long as you say that it is your personal belief.

 

[nageov3t]

My problem with superstitious talk in general is that it almost always gets a free pass. You can say that you were visited by Jesus or the Holy Spirit, an angel of the Lord, Poseidon or The Hungry Hungry Hippo. You can believe that your holy book is dictated or directly inspired by the Creator of the Universe or that the position of Venus and Jupiter, witchcraft, magic crystals or some spirit energy affect events in our daily lives. No evidence is ever asked to back these claims. Everything goes just as long as you say that it is your personal belief.

what's wrong with that?

 

[Dissipate]

85% of Americans describe themselves as religious and 95% believe in god. if those numbers were reversed, you'd see fewer politicians playing up their religion in front of the cameras.

the vast majority of the greatest minds throughout the history of human existence have all believed in god, so I wouldn't knock it just because you somehow think you're more enlightened than all of them.

Over 90% of today's top scientists do not believe in god. So if I were to believe in god, would I not think that I am more enlightened than today's greatest minds?

 

[nageov3t]

Over 90% of today's top scientists do not believe in god. So if I were to believe in god, would I not think that I am more enlightened than today's greatest minds?

not religious != atheist

 

[Tristicus]

Over 90% of today's top scientists do not believe in god. So if I were to believe in god, would I not think that I am more enlightened than today's greatest minds?

Einstein wasn't even prideful enough to say there was no God.

 

[Moonbeam]

As an atheist who bears no ill tidings against those of faith, I've nonetheless always felt that organized religion was based in fear.

Therefore, those that fear religion are expressing a religion of their own.

So OP, why do you fear policymakers? Why do your religious beliefs have you in fear of those with differing religious beliefs?

The fear of tigers while walking in an Indian jungle is not irrational, is it? To fear the actions of the irrationally terrified, is that irrational? I would say there is sensible and irrational fear, no? We use that word fear, too loosely, perhaps.

 

[boomerang]

I think this is a non-sequitur. Religion creates fear, therefore fear is a religion? That does not seem to follow to me.



I don't fear policymakers, and that is mainly because their policymaking is fairly predictable. I have no religious beliefs, my beliefs are the opposite of religion, which are non-belief in deities or any other institutionalized (and non-institutionalized) supernatural belief.

What I will say is that any collective institution that manipulates people using irrational premises is dangerous. That goes for religion or even any sort of cult, period.

No, the fear of religion is itself a religion. It has the same potential for manipulating people as any organized religion. Like seeks like. Those that are under its spell can exhibit cult like tendencies.

Dangerous in what way? Do you feel personal danger? Or are your concerns altruistic?

 

[mk]

what's wrong with that?

Aside from the fact that those beliefs generally have no basis in reality outside your own head but they inform your decisions and have an effect on the world.

Is there anything wrong with denying your child a life saving blood transfusion because you believe that the Bible forbids it? How about believing that God hates infidels (He does) and that blowing yourself up in a crowded cafe will get you some extra perks in Heaven? Those actions are perfectly logical, even preferred because it says so in the book that the Boss has given us.

 

[Moonbeam]

Religion exists because man can exist in two different states, the state of dualism to which almost all of humanity belongs, and the state of unity to which some folk have returned to as we all were as children. Except as you are a little child you will not enter the Kingdom of Unity and little children do not make dangerous leaders. Well, while they are a tremendous threat to the ego and we put them on the cross as fast as we can, they aren't any danger to the soul or real freedom.

There is only one real danger and you are it. You do not know you hate yourself and are out to kill you. Being dead is the prison of duality. If you have knowledge you are a caged being. Children don't know anything.

 

[mk]

Einstein wasn't even prideful enough to say there was no God.

Einstein also didn't believe in God. A person who doesn't believe in god(s) is an atheist. Denying any possibility that god(s) might exist isn't required to be an atheist.