This is a really great question, lola14.
I personally believe religion and government are discussed and intertwined because in a way government is used in order to control the masses. Religion is one part of everyones’ lives that the government can not control. I think these subjects are grouped together because you cannot have order without some form of “chaos”. In this equation, religion would be our “chaos”.
The government likes control. This is what ultimately “keeps the peace”. When religion comes into the discussion everyone tip toes around it because you cannot truly tell anyone what they can and cannot believe.
It’s a tricky situation but I believe religion is everyones’ only true freedom.
religion is not freedom, because religion is just as controlling as politics if not more so.
My inclination would be to say that since religion shapes – often to a very significant degree – beliefs and values, it’s a natural connection to political stances. Even if the laws dictate a separation of church and state, it does not eliminate the tacit, underlying foundation of religion in an individual. If you then examine many of the most salient issues in modern society – abortion, gay marriage, and all of the typical answers – there’s a clear religious message on either side. For a lot of people, religion is one of the primary social environments they’re exposed to, along with family and school; what they learn in that context is applied to everything else in their lives, whether they’re aware of it or not.
Because people are passionate about religion, and they see politics as a way of advancing their religious agendas.
I think it’s because old habits die hard. Religion and politics to me are like matter blown out from the Big Bang – they originated as one and of the same, as if from a single point in space, then as time progressed, they stretched further and further from each other, like the universe expanding. People had religious beliefs before they had governments, and back then, the concentration of people with beliefs was much higher, so it would make sense to incorporate a basis of morality or ritual of high importance with government. It is only in relatively more recent times that religion ceases to be a prevailing factor in society; therefore only relatively recently has even questioning the separation of the two come into the picture. That’s my opinion…
I’m not sure I can believe elifitz when she says that people had religious beliefs before they had governments. These terms are both very subjective and I’d wager it’s almost impossible to determine which came first. It’s sort of a “chicken or the egg?” question. I’d have to agree with rigibson. There are other reasons, of course. People truly believe their particular religious doctrine and therefore it is prevelant if they are the ones in power. Representives have to respect the views of their constituents and therefore religion is often a pervasive topic. Also, religious doctrines somewhat dictate social beliefs. Social views is often the most important issue on which constituents base their votes. These are just a few reasons.
It takes a certain kind of individual to govern, and, although it’s acceptable for celebrities to be agnostic or atheist, our society hasn’t gotten to the point where we’re able to accept a leader that isn’t Christian — just about every president has been.
The foundation of the constitution is based on the natural rights of humans, thus giving them a freedom to pursue what they would like to at the expense of no one else. This is something that affects everyone at a national level. Religion is a concept that is adopted in varying ways according to the person. Though religion is in and of itself set in certain ways for the followers to carry out, each religious individual carries it out differently. Due to this, a person may pick up a certain religion because a single idea stuck out so they decided to label themselves with a certain religion, so they do nothing else about being in the religion than take on that one idea. In this case, they are not entirely religious, so they may inadvertently do some things that do not tie in with that religion, this in turn causes conflict which, if enough people happen to take on this mindset and create certain actions, an inquiry of religion may arise thus it becomes discussed. Take examples from history, Hitler was a Christian, and he ended up carrying out a series of steps that didn’t necessarily demonstrate what a good Christian is. Due to people like him, Christianity has been slandered because of what malice it can provoke, however it is important to discern where religion is tied to this example, he was a Christian, but it was not due to the Christian faith itself that he did what he did, it was his own perception of it (and of what the perfect race was.) The political office he was in gave him the power to carry out his religious faith, much like Rigibson mentioned. However, when people don’t see the difference in a religious faith and people’s own intentions, they may bunch up together the religion and the followers to be causing catastrophe with politics, which may be the case in some occasions, but not in all.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC