Religion and Politics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2017, 04:07 AM
Religion and Politics
I think that one of the main evils in the modern day committed by religions all around the world is it trying to take rights away from people as those people don't fit with the said religions criteria.

The Mormons were up until the 70's a largely anti black organisation, the Catholics are anti-gay rights, and there are many other examples I do not care to list. What authority do they hold that allows them to dictate the way people can and can't live? They have no authority but the authority they have given themselves.

That authority has been reinforced by the centuries of them ruling society, persecuting those who defy them. Who are they to dictate what people can and cant do when those people are doing nothing wrong morally. Because their holy book says homosexuals are wrong doesn't allow them to impose that on society, they should have no say in the legalisation of gay marriage. They are people and have all the rights as humans to marry who they want, regardless of gender.

For a religion that supposedly teaches acceptance and respect, they are surprisingly oppressive. Politics and religion are separate matters, and should be kept separate. Politics and laws should be in place to protect people and better society, and banning gay marriage, whatever country it is in, does not better society, it simply bows to the demands of a church or religious authority that has held a monopoly on society and politics for centuries.

Interested to hear views on the topic.

Don't kid yourself that you're going to live again after you're dead; you're not. Make the most of the one life you've got. Live it to the full.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like psiclark's post
08-03-2017, 05:48 AM
RE: Religion and Politics
I doubt you'll get many negative replies on this topic. Most all religions carry along their own prejudices and yes... they should all remain separate. We all know that's not the case at the moment. But, as more and more people gain knowledge and turn away from religion (look how many Atheists there are now as opposed to 20 years ago) we should, as a society become more tolerant. One can only hope.

The "my god is better than your god" has never held any hold over me. "no god is better than any god in my opinion".

I get to decide what my life looks like, not the other way around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RearViewMirror's post
08-03-2017, 06:03 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2017 06:17 AM by Banjo.)
RE: Religion and Politics
(08-03-2017 04:07 AM)psiclark Wrote:  Interested to hear views on the topic.

[Image: 4181139f0606fc745f10391fc59b6967.gif]

[Image: ec4d247d480154e5ddca128b2d5787b9.jpg]

Blink

Angel

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2017, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2017 08:25 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Religion and Politics
(08-03-2017 04:07 AM)psiclark Wrote:  I think that one of the main evils in the modern day committed by religions all around the world is it trying to take rights away from people as those people don't fit with the said religions criteria.

Interested to hear views on the topic.

In a democracy, people effectively create the laws by voting certain leaders into office. Religious people will often vote for those who support their interpretations of right and wrong. But such traditional communities around the world are struggling to adapt to a barrage of new information which often challenges long-held beliefs. They are therefore lagging behind others who don't carry the same baggage from the past. Hopefully all this will sort itself out over time, since people always need time to adapt. Meanwhile we and other more progressive people try to keep up the pressure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
08-03-2017, 08:28 AM
RE: Religion and Politics
(08-03-2017 04:07 AM)psiclark Wrote:  I think that one of the main evils in the modern day committed by religions all around the world is it trying to take rights away from people as those people don't fit with the said religions criteria.

The Mormons were up until the 70's a largely anti black organisation, the Catholics are anti-gay rights, and there are many other examples I do not care to list. What authority do they hold that allows them to dictate the way people can and can't live? They have no authority but the authority they have given themselves.

That authority has been reinforced by the centuries of them ruling society, persecuting those who defy them. Who are they to dictate what people can and cant do when those people are doing nothing wrong morally. Because their holy book says homosexuals are wrong doesn't allow them to impose that on society, they should have no say in the legalisation of gay marriage. They are people and have all the rights as humans to marry who they want, regardless of gender.

For a religion that supposedly teaches acceptance and respect, they are surprisingly oppressive. Politics and religion are separate matters, and should be kept separate. Politics and laws should be in place to protect people and better society, and banning gay marriage, whatever country it is in, does not better society, it simply bows to the demands of a church or religious authority that has held a monopoly on society and politics for centuries.

Interested to hear views on the topic.

I recognize the problem, but don't see a solution. We can't very well say religious people can't vote and no one can control the reasons they vote. As long as the lost ones are a large part of the constituancy, politicians will pander to them. The fault lies with the intellectuals who have been promoting anti-reason philosophies for hundreds of years. There's been no pro reason challenge to religion since the age of reason and the enlightenment. Kant ended that and it has been a kantian world ever since. What's needed to fight religion and lessen it's influence is a rebirth of reason, but as far as I know there is only one philosopher in the last 250 years to advocate for reason vs. almost numberless derivatives of Kant.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
08-03-2017, 09:57 AM
RE: Religion and Politics
In the US, the unholy love child of fundamentalist Christianity and the Republican Party is Donald Trump. If that isn't proof of the harm of mixing religion with politics, I don't know what is.

Even the parts of this national clusterfuck that aren't overtly and obviously religious, are religious dog-whistles. The asshole who said in the last couple of days people can afford health insurance if they just "invest in their healthcare" instead of spending hundreds of dollars on some hot new iPhone they just gotta have ... is lapped up primarily by the religious right who were gestated on the Bible's "if a man shall not work, he shall not eat" ethos. This ethos says that people . Sure, some more liberal Christians emphasize the positive aspects such as Jesus' statement that what you do to the least of society you do to him. But that's not what's got our body politic by the throat right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
08-03-2017, 10:05 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2017 10:12 AM by Alla.)
RE: Religion and Politics
psiclark Wrote:The Mormons were up until the 70's a largely anti black organisation, the Catholics are anti-gay rights,
How was LDS Church anti black?
Any black person could join Church before 70's. LDS Church was never anti-black rights. If I am wrong you can correct me.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Religion and Politics
(08-03-2017 10:05 AM)Alla Wrote:  How was LDS Church anti black?
Any black person could join Church before 70's. LDS Church was never anti-black rights. If I am wrong you can correct me.

"Mormonism wasn’t always troubled by anti-black racism. In a country deeply stained by slavery and anti-black racism, the church, founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, was noteworthy for its relative racial egalitarianism. Smith episodically opposed slavery and tolerated the priesthood ordination of black men, at least one of whom, Elijah Abel, occupied a position of minor authority.

It was Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, who adopted the policies that now haunt the church. He described black people as cursed with dark skin as punishment for Cain’s murder of his brother. “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him cannot hold the priesthood,” he declared in 1852. Young deemed black-white intermarriage so sinful that he suggested that a man could atone for it only by having “his head cut off” and spilling “his blood upon the ground.” Other Mormon leaders convinced themselves that the pre-existent spirits of black people had sinned in heaven by supporting Lucifer in his rebellion against God.

The priesthood ban had sweeping ecclesiastical consequences for black Mormons. They could not participate in the sacred ordinances, like the endowment ceremony (which prepares one for the afterlife) and sealings (which formally bind a family together), rites that Smith and Young taught were necessary to obtain celestial glory.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinio...hurch.html

Quickie search...tons of info...Google is your friend. Drinking Beverage

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
08-03-2017, 10:26 AM
RE: Religion and Politics
error...

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2017, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2017 10:42 AM by Alla.)
RE: Religion and Politics
Full Circle Wrote:The priesthood ban had sweeping ecclesiastical consequences for black Mormons. They could not participate in the sacred ordinances, like the endowment ceremony (which prepares one for the afterlife) and sealings (which formally bind a family together), rites that Smith and Young taught were necessary to obtain celestial glory.”

Since when to have priesthood and to participate in temple ordinances is a right?

I don't have priesthood now. But one day I will. Is LDS Church anti-women rights?
If I die without having priesthood I will not be denied celestial glory.

Right now my daughter and my youngest son can not enter Temple and participate in Temple ordinances. Is LDS Church anti children rights?
If a child dies before he or she ever entered Temple in this life, he or she won't be denied to obtain celestial glory.

If a black man didn't have priesthood because he could NOT make this choice - to have or not to have priesthood in this life he still may obtain celestial glory.
If any man or any woman didn't have an opportunity to be member of LDS Church in this life he or she still may obtain celestial glory.

LDS Doctrine was always very, very clear on this. This is what Brigham Young also taught.

How was LDS Church anti-black rights? What rights was LDS Church proposing to take away from black people?

Full Circle Wrote:successor, Brigham Young, who adopted the policies that now haunt the church. He described black people as cursed with dark skin as punishment for Cain’s murder of his brother.
He didn't teach that black people were cursed with dark skin.

Full Circle Wrote:“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him cannot hold the priesthood
Oh, SEED OF CAIN. What if black person didn't have seed of Cain in him? Could this black person have priesthood before 70s?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: