- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
"The role of religion in government?"
Well, the way it's written, there shouldn't be much of one in our government-can't say that that's the way it works in practice, but there it is. At it's best, people oftne make decisions independent of their religious values, like John Ashcroft on abortion:
I usually thought the guy was a tool, but this impressed me.....stating and demonstrating that he was committed to making decisions in office that might go against his fervently held religious principles, because his job was to enforce the law.
On the other hand, people will make decisions on religious grounds that will inevitably be viewed as right or wrong depending upon which side of the issue one stands on. Thusly, if congressman X decides to vote no on gay marriage, because he believes it to be against "God's plan," he's hailed by those that support him and think as he does, and villified as irrational by those that don't. Oh, if only he were making decisions from a rational, scientific viewpoint-when, in fact, he may be doing that very thing as well,for this example, since the science on homeosexuality isn't completely in as yet.
It's foolish to expect others to make decisions solely on the basis of the hyper rational and scientfic-we are, as humans, quite irrational beings. If I flip a coin, is it really any dfferent than consulting tarot cards, or "praying over" a decision? If I say that I did pray over a decision, and that "God led me to do X," can anyone prove otherwise?
If I did hear a voice that no one else could hear, and I believed it to be God, barring the obviously questionable, crazy and evil-mass murder and the like0wouldn't it be irrational not to listen to it? Of course, this opens up the question of sanity-anyone who listens to the "voice of God" is thought to some to be clearly irrational, and very often the go out and prove it, but what about those who don't advertise it, don't commit mass murder, or even smear lime jello all over their naked bodies and go running through the Capitol building? If an apparently rational choice is made due to religious convictions, how can we question that, save that we disagree with it on the basis of the issue itself? How one arrived at the decision is largely irrelevant. In the case of government, one would like to think that representatives do just that: represent the will of their constituency, but this is also often not the case, independent of religious convictions, or, often, scientific basis.
Well, the way it's written, there shouldn't be much of one in our government-can't say that that's the way it works in practice, but there it is. At it's best, people oftne make decisions independent of their religious values, like John Ashcroft on abortion:
I usually thought the guy was a tool, but this impressed me.....stating and demonstrating that he was committed to making decisions in office that might go against his fervently held religious principles, because his job was to enforce the law.
On the other hand, people will make decisions on religious grounds that will inevitably be viewed as right or wrong depending upon which side of the issue one stands on. Thusly, if congressman X decides to vote no on gay marriage, because he believes it to be against "God's plan," he's hailed by those that support him and think as he does, and villified as irrational by those that don't. Oh, if only he were making decisions from a rational, scientific viewpoint-when, in fact, he may be doing that very thing as well,for this example, since the science on homeosexuality isn't completely in as yet.
It's foolish to expect others to make decisions solely on the basis of the hyper rational and scientfic-we are, as humans, quite irrational beings. If I flip a coin, is it really any dfferent than consulting tarot cards, or "praying over" a decision? If I say that I did pray over a decision, and that "God led me to do X," can anyone prove otherwise?
If I did hear a voice that no one else could hear, and I believed it to be God, barring the obviously questionable, crazy and evil-mass murder and the like0wouldn't it be irrational not to listen to it? Of course, this opens up the question of sanity-anyone who listens to the "voice of God" is thought to some to be clearly irrational, and very often the go out and prove it, but what about those who don't advertise it, don't commit mass murder, or even smear lime jello all over their naked bodies and go running through the Capitol building? If an apparently rational choice is made due to religious convictions, how can we question that, save that we disagree with it on the basis of the issue itself? How one arrived at the decision is largely irrelevant. In the case of government, one would like to think that representatives do just that: represent the will of their constituency, but this is also often not the case, independent of religious convictions, or, often, scientific basis.
