There is one argument that has existed for hundreds of years; whether or not God has a place in politics. Many politicians would argue that there is no room for God to enter in to the temporal world of state decision making and would prefer to have legislation decided not upon God, but upon choice and freedom for human beings. However, many countries were founded upon God and thus, he cannot be removed from politics. When so many people identify themselves in this country and others as Christians or Muslims or Jews, then how can decisions be made without His name? If someone truly identifies as being a “man of God” then he will not disregard him in any area of his life, be it personal life, religious life, or political life. So long as there are believers elected in to office, there will be decisions made on some sort of religious ground. In this essay, I will argue that God does have a place in politics and I will use the examples of the United States’ Declaration of Independence and the politics of the Middle East.
America was built on those people who wanted religious freedom from England. These Seperatists were not atheists, but rather, they wished to express their devotion to God in a different way than the Anglican Church; a more puritanical way. Eventually, in 1776 the Declaration of Independence was written and signed by our founding fathers including many references to God; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable.” Though many who argue against the idea of having religion or specifically God in politics would say that the country is bound to the Constitution rather than the Declaration of Independence, I would remind them that many of the men who signed the Constitution are the same men who signed the Declaration. This means that not only were they men who agreed with the notion of God, but also that he should be present in our country’s politics. During political events, God is still named consistently such as during the presidential inaugurations and in court “…so help me God”. Regardless, America is a democracy and the politics in this country are supposed to represent the people and the majority, which is a majority who believes in God, so He will continue to have a place in politics.
Besides America, many Middle Eastern countries continue to have God represented in policies. For countries such as Iran, the Jafari school of Sharia law governs the land which believes that laws should be built upon the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and life of the prophet Muhammad). Other countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan follow the Hanafi school which is known as the more liberal interpretation, based mainly on reason rather than literal interpretation. Both schools of thought are two amongst many, however they serve the example that these countries are governed by God, in two different ways. Although many would argue that there is much conflict in these parts of the world which stem from these different interpretations, I would argue that these countries identify themselves overwhelmingly as Islamic and though may not be democracies; they represent the religion of the people of the area. To say that they need to have religious freedom in order to live better lives is not for anyone other than those peoples to say. Coming from the West, many here have no concept of life as a Muslim, so it would be unfair to argue that God has no place in their politics. He is very much present in their religious, personal, political, and social lives so he must have a place.
Though the separation of church and state is constantly questioned, more frequently in Western nations, we have come to accept the fact that God should not be in politics. This is simply untrue because as a country who represents its people through the elected, we must allow God to be present in decision making, because he was, so to speak, elected in through others. We continue to elect Christians to office and as such, they will be influenced by their private lives much the same as our personal lives influence our work, our social lives, and our beliefs. The Declaration specifically gives God’s name and other political activities do too. In other areas of the world, God continues to be present in every moment of life including those labeled as political. As I stated before, as long as a population continues to identify with God and his laws, they will be influenced in the rest of their lives by this belief. Therefore, God does have and will continue to have a place in politics until those who govern completely disassociate themselves with Him.
Everyone has their own personal religious beliefs. Some believe in God and some do not think that he exists. But because of these different ideas about the presence of a higher power the question then becomes should aspects of public life include God despite various beliefs about his existence. No one should force their beliefs on another person but the first amendment in the constitution gives all Americans the right to freedom of religion. We live in a world of diverse individuals which includes gender, race, ethnicities, sexual orientation, family history, skill sets, and of course religion. It is important to embrace all types of individuals because if we do not the world will never have the opportunity to reach a more cohesive nation. To rectify this issue God must be allowed in all places including politics so that no one’s first amendment right is violated. It is evident that no one will completely agree on the same religion. We are all brought up in different lifestyle’s that teach us different ways of doing things and countless beliefs. Yet religion is not the only differences that we share. We do not all have the same sexual orientation but does that mean that sexual orientation should not be in politics? Absolutely not. If God has a place in an individual’s life they should be free to share or relate with others even if it is through politics. Many are against abortion practices due to the reason that taking a human life is against God’s will. How can politicians convey this idea of they are not free to discuss God? Not all political ideas reflect God. But political ideas are also not homogeneous. Where we must draw the line in incorporating God in politics is not forcing our beliefs on others. Even if we believe that abortion is not right in the eyes of God the government cannot make it illegal but can as a compromise give individuals the choice of whether or not to get an abortion. This allows people to keep God in their everyday life but does not force others who do who do not believe to embrace an ideal that they are against. Asking people to leave God out of politics is asking them to ignore what can possibly be a major part of their life. The first amendment affords all of Americans the right to freedom of religion and society must acknowledge that even in politics. In closing, you cannot take God and or religious beliefs from individuals. The constitution has further established and made implicit this right. What we can do is compromise through legislation by creating laws that neither force nor inhibit individuals from keeping God in their lives.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom to practice any religion, if any at all, and that no law is to be created to the benefit of one over others. Derived from the First Amendment, the concept of separating church and state is a fundamental principle of the American political and legal systems. As such, there is no question that our system of government does not permit explicit use of religion in politics. However, religious affiliation can be a strong determinant of a person’s behavior. Which can hold especially true in high-pressure, government positions.
In spite of the norm of separating church and state, many political leaders are very open about their religious affiliation. Seemingly so, to not be a religious person is seen as a deficit of character, but the same can be said for what religion the political figure aspires to. This was seen in the importance placed on John F. Kennedy for being the first, and last, Catholic president, as well as the extra critical eye placed on Mitt Romney for his Mormon affiliation. More recently, there was the controversy with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama. Here, religious connections held serious implications on what people not only perceived to be his character, but also his ability to lead the nation. Religion has also had policy implication throughout United States history.
The Eighteenth Amendment established prohibition in the United States. Due to the efforts of religious peoples through the temperance movement, who advocated for observance of the Sabbath and whose cause was taken up in Protestant churches, the consumption and sale of alcohol was illegal in the United States with the exception of use in religious services. During the 1970s, abortion became a hot button issue throughout the United States. With the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, religious leaders have since been advocating for its repeal. Due to the “death” of what would at some point be a human life, anti abortion support is largely due to religious practice or moral opposition. Even more recently is the gay rights movement, where a group of people is fighting for basic rights are being denied to them based on why they are different. This is also a debate considered to be associated with the religious community as the majority of opposition comes from a certain interpretation of the Bible.
In short, while it may be debatable whether or not religion should play a part in politics, it is without question that it does. Since the start of this nation, religious practice has served as an impetus for a number of policies and laws that have had far reaching impact. Moreover, religion has served as a guiding light for movements against secular policies and laws, proving that religion does have a place in politics, regardless of if it should.
@Brenna: I liked your use of government documents and and American practice to support your argument. I also like how you brought the discussion outside of America. One thing however, is the amount of emphasis placed on routine practice, which can be said to just be a custom without any real meaning behind them - such as swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God, in court.
@ James - I like how you replied to the prompt honestly and literally with regardless of whether it should or not, it does. But, your argument may have been made stronger had you taken a stance. Either way, you brought in some great example with social issues being decided through religious beliefs. It was also a good point that you made in saying that if a politician has no religious affiliation it can somehow be seen as a deficit of character. Nice essay, but make it a little longer, I wanted to read moreee!
In the 1600’s when European individuals came to the New World, they we not only looking for a new life but also a religious safe haven. Religion is not just a thought but a way of life. Some of the most important documents including the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by men with religious principles in mind. Although it has been more than 400 years since the first settlers came to the United States and we know about the “separation of church and state”, there is not a complete separation. As much as we would like to think otherwise, religion has and shall remain intertwined with politics. In this paper I will discuss the importance of religion for a presidential candidate and the pledge of allegiance. The President is one of the most influential people of our nation. During the elections people crowd around a television screen just to see him. A topic of interest is religion. The majority of the people in this country are looking for an individual with whom they can relate. It is a way of gauging the candidate’s moral compass and assuring one’s self that the person in charge of this country will do their very best. President Obama’s views were questioned on numerous occasions. The most controversial was that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright had his own agenda and in the end Obama had to denounce him. This event could have had a negative impact in Obama’s campaign had he chosen to stick by Wright. Many people may say that politics is independent of religion but based on the coverage of this event, that cannot be possible. While this situation impacts adults, there is another that impacts school-aged children. The Pledge of Allegiance is important to learn to show your patriotism to this country. Recently schools have been trying to ban “under God” from the pledge. This eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping the pledge exactly the way it is. America was founded on Christian values. To erase “under God” is to erase this nation’s history. Reciting the pledge was only meant to build a love for our home country not to force Christianity on others. If nothing else individuals should at least stand quietly with respect, like they would do in any other nation during their national anthem. In closing, God will always have a place in politics. We say we want separation of church and state but then we also want to know the religious views of our religious leaders and whether we can ban “under God” from the pledge. By having these interests we involve our government. Our founding fathers had a strong connection to their religious beliefs and it is only natural that they would be reflected in the documents that govern our nation. Word Count:474
God used to have a place in politics, however throughout time the idea of God has change due to several historical movements and the introduction of new standards. For most part of humans’ existence, it was believed that God was the creator of humans and the one who dictated what was good and bad doing. Personally the idea of having a superior being who created everything does not make sense. God is just a construction created by a dominant class to control other people and the only explanation humans came to after not been able to find the answers to humans’ existence. The government or dominant group gained control by using God as an excuse to introduce morals and the ideals of “good” vs. “evil” and “right” vs. “wrong”. I will argue how God used to have a place in politics because the government’s central idea was to maintain its people under, nevertheless over the years new ideals have been introduce and now the separation of God from politics allows more freedom for humans beings which is today’s society is the best way to maintain humans under control.
God has been in and out of politics depending on the philosophy of the majority of the human population. At first the incorporation of God in politics was the best idea at that time, since most humans believed in the existence of God. The presence of God brought harmony among humans, since they shared similar ideals. But as the years went by people started to question the existence of God, these gave rise to new ideas about human existence and the creation of other religious views. The creation of new religious views and the questioning of the existence of God is still presence this leaded the government to separate God from politics since instead of helping to maintain control among humans God was creating arguments among humans.
The creation and presence of multiple cultures in America and around the world has reshaped human lives. We are at a point in live where respecting other people’s opinions, ideas and ideals is catholic rather than the idea of God which was previously catholic. In today’s world even for the government it is essential to provide a degree of freedom of expression to human beings to maintain control. To have the liberty to express your opinions, thoughts, ideas, to be yourself freely without judgment and to respect other peoples’ views in the same way, is the main component of our society to maintain harmony among humans. Years before, when God had a place in politics and was the center of humans’ lives, there was not such thing as freedom, rather everyone was restricted to obey certain standards even if they oppose to them. The place of God in politics has changed overtime due to the constantly introduction of new religious views and the creation of a multicultural world, where God is not anymore the central character in humans’ lives.
It has been argued whether or not God should have a place in politics. Ideas of religion remain a powerful part of culture. Despite the diverse range of religions, it is evident that the belief of God has helped shape the human spirit as well as the identity of many nations. In many ways individuals represent their culture and, often times, culture is reinforced by areas of religion. The existence and influence of religion within all countries and their leaders is inevitable, therefore religion is inevitable within politics. Most importantly, all religions and cultures must be embraced in order to achieve a unified nation. God should be allowed in all areas including politics.
From the day the United States Constitution was created, religion has been linked to government and politics. The First Amendment grants all citizens of the United States, various freedoms including the “free exercise of religion. “ Some may have various definitions of the First Amendment, however, it is clear that religious expression remains rooted to the United States background and cannot be avoided. In other words, religion is rooted to legislation. Recognizing the fact that there are differences in religion, is the most important aspect of religion within politics. Stating that God should have a place in politics should address issues of religious acceptance. By recognizing the diversity of religions, one may not agree, but they can respect the values of an amalgamation of cultures. If this is done, differences in religion can be embraced without interfering with politics.
Religion represents more than just culture; it becomes a subjective personal experience in the objective world of politics. Some do not acknowledge the role of religion and the belief of God in politics, however as stated earlier, each individual brings a different part of their culture into the realm of politics. In other words, religion is tied to the individual. Consisting of many individuals, the political systems often remain accented by personal and religious beliefs. For example, a Muslim congressman may have different beliefs than a Christian congressman; certain policies may provoke each individual on a different level, however one needs to be able to recognize these levels. In terms of religion and politics knowledge of cultures becomes essential to prevent ignorance. There will remain religious controversy in politics if a common ground between religions cannot be respected on a personal basis.
Therefore, religion and the belief of God remains embedded within all cultures, including the United States, and consequently religion becomes implanted within the world of politics. The existence of religion should be acknowledged as well as respected in order to achieve a cohesive nation in all areas including politics.
@ Jazzy- You do a good job of using examples basing them back to your main point: The First Amendment. I appreciate your various examples that address issues of diversity.
Many believe that God has a place in politics. However, not everyone shares the same God, and many people hold different views about God. As a result, there will be provoked tensions and hostilities when citing God because of these different religious beliefs. There is no single dominating religion in the world, so there is no consistency when comparing a wide range of nations. Therefore, anything pertaining to politics should be void of religious input. One classic argument is that religion dictates that one do what is right. Therefore, it should be instilled in politics to assure that happens. However, there is something else that commands an individual to do what is right – morality. Morality can be the guiding principle in politics without religious involvement, and it can still be counted on to carry out policies for the good of human kind. Morality is also beneficial because it is much more consistent through cultures then religion, thus can be referenced internationally. To counter those who think because of terrorism religion should not be political, some argue that terrorism is only a vehicle for radicals. When religion is placed in the hand of more civilized people, it will be used for good rather than violence. However, the Holy Wars instilled a period of brutality and cruelty in the name of religion. In fact, one may even consider the Holy Wars an act of terrorism by the majority as opposed to the vast minority that it is today. Many people are blinded by the fact that they have some divine right, and thus they act upon it to do as they wish. Such was the basis for the Holy Wars. This sort of false pretense cannot be allowed to surface in politics as it will certainly create problems and conflicts of interests in the name of religion. It can be argued that religion is straight forward since all the guiding principles can be traced straight back to the holy texts. However, again this falls into the trap of ignoring that there are multiple religions which carry different religious texts which say different things. One text cannot possibly be expected to govern a person who does not share the religious beliefs in which that text conveys. This will further instigate conflict. Furthermore, even if there was some sort of text that could govern a large body of people, religion has on numerous occasions demonstrated to be up to interpretation. And as a result, people have interpreted it differently. These interpretations can even be skewed to support personal motives. Which lends support to the idea that politics can be influenced by those who think they have a sort of divine right. Although religion in itself is generally a peaceful practice, it has sparked numerous conflicts, both on a small and large scale. As a practice it is fine, but when it enters politics tensions arise. As a result, religion should not be considered when making political decisions.
I thought it was good that you cited the the amendments, giving an example how religion is in politics. And I liked how you emphasized that religion should not be forced upon another person and how you acknowledged there are many different religious beliefs.
An individual’s moral compass is often informed by one’s experiences. Personal upbringing and family values define a person’s sense of self, and identity in the world. The moral compass and the experiences that inform an individual’s moral outlook are no different; for many people, God and religion are central to their perception and interpretation of world events. Although some have argued that political discourse should be value neutral, the fundamental reality that lawmaking is never value neutral must be preeminent in our recognition that God has a place in the social and political discourse of policy making. Recognition of the plurality of values in a democratic political system ensures that all voices and moral compasses are heard, so long as equal opportunity to participate is provided.
Individuals make policy reflective of values, informed by the general consensus of a constituency, and personified through a Congressman voting in a representative democracy. Where many children grow up in highly religious families, increasingly American parents choose to raise their children in completely secular households. The American culture’s divorce from monotone Christian religious preferences is increasingly making democracy more pluralistic, with more actors participating and value structures emerging. The emergence of secular values, coupled with the multiplicity of religions and creeds in American society, does not serve to hinder neutral political discourse, but to inform it. Policy and laws are reflections of compromise over values; as more individuals participate, the voting representatives in Congress will create laws that not only reflect the Christian God in politics, but agnostics and atheists as well.
It has been argued that there is a “separation of church and state” in the United States, but few have recognized an equally requisite ‘separation of church from self.’ The American system is founded on the idea that although fundamental rights exist to protect minority rights, the prevailing values of the majority frequently emerges in the laws Congress creates. Although religion has been removed from the state, the right of a Congressman to craft laws based on the values of constituency does not and cannot ever completely guarantee neutrality in law making. The state cannot impose laws that force individuals to believe in God, but those who believe in God can inform the states laws.
Inevitably, in a democratic society the laws that are passed by Congress represent the many values of the constituencies elected representatives serve. Movements at the state level to pursue domestic partner benefits and enforce anti-discrimination against gay Americans has gained traction through a process of appealing to individual values of fairness and equity. As of 2008, three Congressmen served in Congress as openly gay Americans where just ten years ago it would have been unacceptable to envision the new political reality.
Today, fewer Americans rely strictly on Biblical interpretation and religiosity. Such is the democratic process, where slow change that appeals to peoples’ changing values reflects policy. As long as individual rights are protected, Congressmen are allowed to make laws that are informed by their personal ideology and the opinions of their district constituents. Policymaking is never neutral, but the plurality of ideas and interests give a voice to everyone, and protects minority rights against intrusion. Progress may be slow, but the democratic system ensures that everyone has a voice in politics, including those informed by strictly moralistic values on God. God has a place in political discourse, albeit indirectly, and as long as that place does not abridge fundamental rights.
People argue that God and religion have a place in politics. However this statement is extremely close-minded and intolerant. It also fails to include deities of polytheistic religions and other monotheistic deities that do no go by "God". By supporting one religious view in politics, a religious hierarchy will emerge, and specifically causing the subjugation of non-western religions. If we continue to push for an integration of church and state, there will be a resurgence of legislation that promotes select religious views while inhibiting and alienating others. This will ultimately lead to laws that discriminate against certain creeds, and target individuals that participate in these practices as well as those that have no religious affiliation. To rectify our thinking about God’s purported existence in politics, I am arguing that God does not have a place in politics. I will use the example of laws prohibiting the adornment with the Muslim women's hijab, or headscarf, to illustrate how God’s presence in politics is discriminatory and alienating. In various countries, predominately located in Europe; there has been a plethora of laws emerging, which prohibit females to adorn themselves in public with the Muslim hijab, or headscarf. Consequently it is being discussed in the United States as to whether laws should prohibit Muslim females from wearing the headscarf in academic institutions. This is being argued as a means for the women to better integrate within the Western culture. However this is a blatant example where religious biased-ness is being used to instill legislation, which infringes on the first amendment right for individuals to freely practice their own religion. Not only does this discriminate against eastern culture and religions, but also it fails to uphold the constitutional rights of individuals. By allowing God a place in politics, may cause there to be an ultimate revision of long standing government documents of the United States, calling for the integration of church and state. More specifically however, there would be a distinction in defining church specifically as the western religious deity “God”. This further alienates other religions, especially eastern religions, on the basis that their religious viewpoints and beliefs do not include “God”, making their religious and political relationship incongruent with the west. In conclusion, it is important for our country to continue to delineate and distinguish church from state in the implementation of legislation. This will allow for a more tolerant culture to emerge with out the threat of discriminating against individuals and their religious practices. The United States can then stay true their founding documents and continue to allow for individuals to have the right to freely practice any religion.
When determining whether God has a place in politics, one must first consider individual views and religious practices. Surely, an American is granted the right to freedom of religion. Some people may believe in separation of church and state. However, for individuals who practice religious or spiritual practices, God does have a place in politics.
Individual freedom in America is a difficult subject. Politically speaking, we as Americans are granted numerous rights and opportunities, we are often still confined by rules and regulations that limit our freedoms. Take for example, the freedom of religion. While Christians are generally unrestrained from publically practicing their faith, some legislatures have restricted when some Muslim women can wear head coverings in the workplace. A prime example would be restricting head coverings while taking pictures for photo id badges. The technical reasons for this restriction are beyond the scope of this paper, but one thing is evident. Although God may have been placed second to politics in this situation, individual actions (her choosing to wear the head covering to work in the first place) cannot be denied. In this example, this Muslim woman was not only choosing to practice her religious beliefs but she was also exercising her political right of religious freedom. Therefore, if a person truly practices religion and believes in God then God will have a place in politics.
Interpretation of politics will also determine how or if God is placed into the situation. There are many denominations within Christianity alone. In Christianity, there is often a lot of variation between individual worship of the Lord. Some Christians may strictly follow the Bible, while other Christians may chose to follow less restrictive interpretations. For individuals who choose to put God first in all their actions then, God will have a place in politics. The decisions a person chooses to make politically such as supporting gay marriage, may be influenced by the person’s relationship with God. How God is placed in these political decisions, even among professed Christians, is determined by their denomination and relationship with God.
On a larger scale, for some nations, politics without God is simply unfathomable. Take for example, governments ran by Prime Ministers or countries like Iran, whose national religion often takes precedence over individual freedom. In locations like Iran, individuals are often punished for flouting political choices that are contrary to the nation’s overall morals or principles. These political choices are usually evident when women chose to dress in ways that may be considered immodest within that country. Consequently, these women can be fined for indecent exposure, regardless of their religious affiliation. It is evident from Iran’s stringent Islamic practices and dress code restriction that God has a place in politics.
In conclusion, there are many factors that determine whether God has a place in politics. One must first consider individual religiosity. Next, if someone does claim to practice religion and the belief of God, consideration must be placed on how strictly an individual practices religion and reverberates godly morality into their political decisions. Lastly, to determine whether God has a place in politics, one must consider the type of government because a government headed by a president may have less of a religious basis than of a nation that is ran by a prime minister.
Word Count: 549 @Jazzy
I liked how you used to amendment to support your example of how religion is in politics. I also think it was good how you emphasized the limits of religion and how religion/religious views should not be forced upon other individuals since there are a variety of beliefs. All in all, with your essay had clear examples that addressed diversity and stayed on your main point- the First Amendment.
Throughout our country’s history, those who hold fast to their collective religious beliefs have carried their religiously-minded opinions to the political field. Those who do so state that to refrain from utilizing religious beliefs to influence political motivations and decisions would be nothing less than hypocritical. The opposition, however, notes that our country allows and even requires the separation of church and state. Although it is a foundational principle of our great history that religious freedom be upheld, the consequences of requiring others to abide by our individual belief structure via the political system are dire. If we continue to allow religion to guide our laws, we will find ourselves to be struggling to sustain our republic. There is currently an inordinate amount of force on both sides of the spectrum compelling those of differing views to act upon belief structures not held by the entirety of our nation. In 2005, President George W. Bush appealed a decision by the Florida Supreme Court regarding the case of Terri Schiavo. The woman had been, for a period of seven years, sustained by a feeding tube and was brain dead. There were complications as to her husband’s motivation behind wanting the tube pulled and the Florida legislature passed “Terri’s Law” which gave the Governor of Florida the authority to intervene. The law clearly allowed the governor to base his decision primarily on personal belief and, furthermore, led to future decisions and arguments purely based upon personal belief structure. Although those in favor of the law argue that removing the tube must be constituted as murder, they openly demonstrated a collective belief that their moral structure must be upheld by all; even those who do not adhere to the same moral code. Similarly, our country has dealt with Islamic terrorists for the past decade. Although some would argue that we must understand and accept their reasoning behind attacking our fellow citizens, the fact that the terrorists allow their religious zeal to influence their actions towards people of dissimilar beliefs is apprehensible. While, as was previously stated, religious freedom is a paramount value in this country, a certain boundary of tolerability is crossed upon violation of the safety of the masses. Fundamentally, the reasoning behind attacks such as those perpetrated on September 11 lies within the fallacy of the belief that individuals must abide by identical belief and moral structures. In conclusion, there is, indeed, precedence of religious belief structure affecting political decisions and, incidentally, the political landscape. This is a fact that will not change quickly—if at all—but we must seek to find a common ground. Such a common ground would include an acceptance of differing beliefs and of their implications. If we allow our own, personal belief structure affect only those who claim to abide by identical beliefs—namely ourselves—then we will be given the opportunity to focus upon the issues that truly matter to our country’s future prosperity and well-being.
I enjoyed how much of your argument was rooted in constitutional and U.S. history. It provided a strong foundation for your argument. Nevertheless, I would have liked for you to provide a definitive answer about your opinion on the prompt.
@ Paul You writing is amazing! I agree with your comments. You can really tell through your writing that this is a strong suite for you. It was easy to follow and very relatable.
What is the role of God in politics? This is a question that has plagued politicians for centuries, where does one draw the line between the secular and the religious? Many people would argue that God should have no place in politics, suggesting that the decisions of a government should be based solely for the good of the people without the input of any higher being. These individuals argue that not all citizens of a society believe in the same higher being and thus should not have any of their representatives argue politics on behalf of a higher being they do not believe in. With so many different beliefs in the world, which if any should be allowed into politics? In this essay I will argue that while religious figures such as God, Allah, etc. should not be allowed into the realm of politics religion can play and should play an indirect role in governments. With that being said, the values that these figures represent such as courage, honesty, and righteousness should in fact be brought into the world of politics because they highlight the best characteristics of human beings. History has proven that all the people on Earth will never believe in the same religion. Different groups will continue to worship in their own ways and they have the right to continue to do so. What is interesting to note; however, is that while religions may preach in different ways or use different rhetoric, they all share common messages. For example, Christians and Muslims both believe in the virtue of courage in the face of evil as they encounter it in the world. Christians and Buddhists both preach the power of compassion and its importance to each one of us as individuals. So why, if so many religions teach their followers such similar lessons, do people need to focus on the fact that they do or do not believe in God? History has shown that it only leads to conflict and misery. The First Amendment constitutes the freedom to religion and the expression of those beliefs in any way the individual sees fit. While we do enjoy this right in our country, one can interpret a second meaning to this portion of the Constitution- mutual respect. Perhaps this line from one of the United States’ most important documents is telling us that while we all have the right to practice which ever religion we wish, we must respect the beliefs of others and thus not “push” religion into situations where does not belong. The truth is that while religious beliefs may shape individuals and the choices that they make, it does not belong in politics. The expression of values and beliefs that are preached in any religion have great merit and should be incorporated into the passing of laws, there is a great deal of good that these concepts can bring out in individuals. But to associate those values, that all religions treasure, with a specific entity is frankly a disrespect to the people listening who do not believe in that same religious figure.
@ Paul Awesome job Paul! Your essay was extremely clear and easy to follow. I thought you had a very interesting position on the issue of the separation of Church and State and would have to agree with you 100%. Good Job
When it comes down to politics there has always been the question of whether or not there is a connection between the laws of men and the laws of God. Therefore, the question is whether or not God or more specific religious believes have influenced in the way the laws are implemented in society. It is believe that religion has influence the way the government has created laws and how they are implemented. However, others believe that God and religion do not have any place in politics or that it shouldn’t be considered to be part of the political system. At one point in history church and state were together, and the now the government in most countries is divided between conservatives and liberals, in which religion beliefs are the base of the decisions some of the politicians make in order to govern a country. I do agree that God has influenced in politics in the form of religion and that it affects the way some laws are interpreted. .
Some people argue that the base of the laws in a political system at one point have been connected to God and the religion. However, others may argue that those laws are not in place anymore and that they have been erased from the political laws and that God does not have a place in politics. If we look back into history, there was one point in some countries where Church and State work together to rule their people. This in a way is an example of how God has a place in politics, since the laws of God were fundamental in order to create the laws to rule the country. As the division of Church and State began, it appeared that there was not going to be an influence of God in the new political system that was been created.
Moreover, if we come to present political system of the United States, it appears that there has been recent controversy of the use of the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance because it is suppose to be a country with freedom of religion and by placing the word God it is limiting and forcing people to salute the flag with the involvement of a specific form of a religion. However, if we observe more of the Pledge of Allegiance, to the phrase where it says, “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” it is possible to see the place of God in politics. It is seems that when the founding fathers of the constitution and of this nation, they were using their beliefs of religion when thinking of the laws of this country.
Furthermore, when thinking about laws that make up this country and how the politicians rule and implement the laws, one can see how God and religion can influence the way the rules are implemented in society. When looking at the US political system, there are the conservative and the liberals in where God and religion are a central part of the conservative party and how they view and interpret the laws. For example, when it comes to abortion laws and the conservative party, it seems that they are going to be against abortion because it goes again with the laws of God and their values. Values that seem to be attached to their religious beliefs and as they interpret the abortion laws and laws of same sex marriages, religious beliefs affect their opposition to these laws. They don’t want to violate the laws that God has placed to men through religion and these influences when they look at the laws men have created. In conclusion, it seems that values and religion affect the way people interpret the laws in a political system depending on how God has a part in their lives. At the end, even if there has been an effort to separate God and politics, it seems that the presence of God is present in the political system. The essence of a higher power and the rules of life according to the religious belief seem to apply when a government thinks about how to implement laws like abortion and same sex marriage. Therefore, it seems that it all depends who is making the laws in the political system and how strong the belief in God is that it affects the interpretation and implementation of laws in society.
Many may believe that God and politics do not go together. However, if people look at the agenda different politicians have they could see that there is a relation between their values and God. This is one of the reasons why there are conservatives and liberals in the political system. The conservatives are more traditional and old fashion. While liberals are more open minded and more likely to support issues that are controversial. God has a place in politics because it is reflected in the agenda politicians have, it is behind the issues politicians support and it helps audience to pick conservative or liberal depending on their values.
Even if politics is about getting your point across and make people vote for you, God is involved in a very important way. The agenda that politicians have include issues that are important to them. God is involved in their agenda because it includes what politicians think is right and wrong. What the politicians think is right and wrong is shape by their religion. Whether they support abortion or not is shape by their religious belief. God makes individuals pick what they believe is right or wrong and this is reflected in the issues they decided to fight for in elections.
Politicians used religion in their issues without making it explicit that religion is behind the issues they pick to be in their agenda. For example, Presidents who are catholic or Christian are less likely to support abortion and gay marriage. These presidents are more likely to be conservative and they win votes in states where people are not willing to accept change. In this way people can see how God is related to politics because it affects what politics believe in and it affects how people vote for one person instead of the other. Politicians have values that are affected by their religion.
In the political world there are two options for the people of a democratic country to pick. They can either go to the conservative side or the liberal side. The conservative side is more attach to religion and are more likely to go with tradition. It is hard for them to accept abortion and gay marriage because they are controversial matters. The liberal side is more open and is willing to vote in favor of abortion or the legalization of marijuana. God still has a place in politics because it holds a place in the policy issues that a politician favors. At the same time religion makes people pick a side in the political world.
God still has a place in religion because it plays a role in what politicians decide to put in their agenda. The values that each politician has in a sense represent what their religion is. Religion can be seen as what is right and wrong. There are politicians who are conservative or liberal and they have different issues in their agenda. Politicians decide to support other politicians because they agree or think it is good for society what their plans are. God is still present in our political government even if is not explicitly mentioned.
You have a strong argument and you support it with good examples. Overall I think you have a good structure and it was easy to read. I like your thesis and how you make your point throughout the essay.
@Alejand... er, Ricardo... I think you did an awesome job contrasting the many religious perspectives and finding the common ground between them. You're right, there are certain common values between religions, and amidst controversial policies, we seem to forget that the different religions are more similar than we realize.
I liked how you used the example of the Republican party to prove your point. But even though they do use religion in their political decisions, should the be allowed to? is that right?
Your essay has a great idea of how God has had a place in politics and how it has changed through time and political systems. The use of the idea between good vs. evil and wrong vs. right, gives your essay a great strength that brings across your points about this issue.
Humans have always believed there was some type of higher power(s) that influenced the actions of people. Thus they use these higher beings in the daily actions and political affiliations. God has been used in countless legislative documents throughout American history. However, the constitution and declaration of independence allow for freedom of expression of religious beliefs while also declaring the absolute separation of church from religion. Thus God should not be in the political arena or in the legislation.
Some people argue that the declaration of independence and constitution both mention God and play a major role on the development of America. Both of these documents do use God however they also both allow an ethnic group to be enslaved for 400 years which is now deemed inappropriate by the majority. Thus we should use these documents but understand that they were created during a different time with different views. The view in the past was that religious affiliation defined the character of the political candidate. John F. Kennedy was the 35th president but the first Catholic one because in the past presidents were more open-minded in their religious beliefs. Views change overtime and thus the use of God in politics is not needed as it was in the past.
Thomas Jefferson was the fore founder regarding separation of church and state. He wanted the government to have no control of the religious beliefs of its members and thus created a wall of separation between the church and the state. Religion was removed from state funded schools because it did not separate church from state and thus went against the constitution. Thus God should have no place in politics because politicians represent the US government and should not impose their religious beliefs on the American people based on Thomas Jefferson’s belief.
Citizens and politicians alike may hold strong beliefs in God and thus believe that God does have a place in politics. However, whether or not politicians or citizens believe in God, the thought of including an infinite being in the finite discourse of politics is inherently incorrect. Belief in God can lead one to assert that God is involved in everything and it is clear throughout ancient scriptures that God is sovereign and has destined leaders of nations. However, as far as politics is concerned, it is detrimental to consider God to have a place in the human affairs of politics. Although decision-making can hypothetically come from the wisdom of God, politics itself are a result of abandonment of God’s reign over people. Therefore, God does not have a place in politics because of the original concept of politics as an abandonment from God’s law and sovereignty, the flaws of politics, and the finite nature of politics. The original concept of politics clearly denotes the absence of God from decision-making and political actions. Although one might argue that good moral decisions resulting from politics are “of God” simply because they are “good”, the fact that these decisions resulted from a desire for humans to create their own law and governance outside of God’s control cannot be ignored. Looking back to ancient Judeo-Christian scriptures, politics is first demonstrated when the Israelites decide to “supersede” God’s sovereignty by creating their own government and politics, similar to the surrounding nations that were considered “Gentiles” and not with God. It is therefore difficult to perceive God’s place in politics since the very nature of politics denotes a break from God’s law in order to take control and create one’s own law. If God did indeed have a place in politics, the flaws of political actions would not exist. For instance, the corrupt behavior that resulted from Nazi political control is an obvious example of flaws that occur in politics. One might convolute an interpretation of this corrupt political action and claim that there is evidence of God killing masses of people in the Old Testament according to Judeo-Christian faith. However, this interpretation is artless and hasty because it disregards the intentions of Hitler as compared with God’s, an impossible comparison in itself since God is hypothetically infinite and Hitler is finite. Therefore, because many flaws exist in the systems of politics, it is clear that God has no place in politics. Because politics is not only flawed, but finite in its thoughts and actions, an infinite God has no place in the discourse of politics. The concept of God as omniscient is beyond the bounds of politics. Although one might claim that this all-knowing nature plays directly into the decisions of government, this does not mean that God has complete control over government thoughts, like a mind-reader who can not only determine what will happen, but control it. Instead, because government practices decision-making with the absence of God, He is not necessarily in politics, but can be considered an all-knowing onlooker who has knowledge of what is, what has been, and what will be. From this standpoint, an infinite God can have no place in politics because of the finite thoughts and actions of politics. Viewing politics as a direct abandonment of God and finite in nature clearly exposes the reality that God has no place in politics. Though one can hypothetically argue that God’s sovereignty and omniscient nature places Him in a political seat, it is evident that because politics is extremely flawed, there can be no logical place for God in government and politics.
Restrictions are placed on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion through the establishment and free exercise clause. These clauses were created because the fore founder’s religious rights were being impeded on by the British government. This same thing is happening today with politicians creating laws based on their religious beliefs that harm a portion if not all of Americans. Political leaders are trying to pass a law banning abortions because of various reasons but the major on is that it is against most religions. While this might be true, the government has no right to stop a woman from getting an abortion if she feels the need. The government’s only right is to give her the option to choose what is in her best interest instead of imposing religious views on her. Another issue where religious beliefs play a role is gay marriage. As with abortion, most religions do not look kindly on homosexuality, it is not the government’s job to enforce religious beliefs on its people. Thus God should not be a part of politics because it adversely harms the American people.
God or religious beliefs should not play a role in politics or in government as defined by the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Politicians have the right to express their religious views and practice them but they should not make any legislation that will disrespect or hinder the views and rights of any other group.
Since the beginning of civilization, man has wrestled with determining the role of religion in government. Some people argue that religion and politics are completely separate entities that should not be intermingled. However, I would argue that religion and politics are inextricably linked because of the inherent spirituality of man and the inherent spirituality of laws.
Human beings are spiritual creatures in most cases. Opponents may argue that some people are atheists, which means they may not have a spiritual element. However, even atheism is a belief system, and many atheists still have a moral code and a deep respect for the human condition. That being said, as humans our actions and decisions are influenced, sometimes inadvertently, by our beliefs: a fact that permeates even through politics. For example, a Congressman voting on a bill to legalize abortion will vote not only based on his political experience and the will of his constituency, but also based on his personal moral and religious beliefs. In that way politics have a inherent religious element.
Laws as well as human beings are inherently spiritual. Some might argue that laws are meant to be devoid of religion and instead use reason. Although this may be the aim of legislation, the religious beliefs of a nation noticeably influence laws. For example, in the United States Constitution, the recognition of God is mentioned multiple times, and the document still governs the country to this day. We must remember that the men who wrote laws saw it as acceptable and even necessary to include religious elements into them as in the case of our nation’s Four Fathers. In addition, many of the laws we have today are based off of laws rooted deeply in religion. For example, in some Islamic countries it is law that women have to wear head-coverings, which is based on Islamic religious beliefs.
Despite current efforts to separate religion and politics, the two areas are forever connected. Although some may argue that God has no place in politics, he already does have a place in legislation. Religion and politics cannot be completely separated due to the inherent spirituality of human beings and the inherent spirituality of laws, both of which assure that God will always have a place in government.
I like your use of government policies because they give you document legal supporting argument. The point about the Middle east was also good because it gave a non-American view. I disagree with your point on "Creator" because that can be left to interpretation. They might or might not of mean God specifically or multiple Gods as in most Native American beliefs. Overall the essay was very sound but could have used some GRE words to make it better. Great Job!!
Many people believe in some sort of God. However, the meaning and value of God for one person is usually something completely different for another person. It can be argued that religion and God is too opinionated and thus too controversial for legislation. It is therefore suggested, that due to the often controversial and opinionated nature of God and religion, politics should be rid of it. However, if we ignore God in politics we ignore a significant influence in the lives of people. The fact that religion is so powerful and complicated is the very reason why we should openly discuss it in politics.
Many people think that although religion is important, the political platform is not the venue for discussions about it. However, politics is the fruit of a democracy and the purpose of a democracy in any nation is to look after and cater for the beliefs and well-being of its citizen. Seeing that God and religion is influential in the lives of almost every person (including atheists, who often conspicuously, go out of their way to claim that they have no affiliation with a higher power) we should discuss it on an open political platform. Seeing that the purpose of politics is to look for the interests and believes of its people and that religion is important to citizens, politics God should have a place in politics.
Some may argue though that purpose of politics is to deal with tangible problems society, such as healthcare, employment opportunities and public system. They believe that the topic of God is not as important of a topic as topics that actually help people such as health care, employment opportunities, and education. However, the only reason health care, employment rates etc are discussed is to enrich the lives of citizens. Enriching the lives of citizens is the ultimate and core purpose of politics. Seeing that we hold religion is so influential in our lives politics should be a regular platform for discussion about it.
Finally many people are afraid of the negative consequences that come along with talk about God and religion. Over human history, religion, difference in religious belief and lack of religion as a whole has been the cause of many wars, genocides, alienation oppression and division among people. It is argued that politics should stand clear of talk about God and all the negative baggage that comes with it. However lack of open and fair discussion about God and religion is the cause of the negative consequences of religion. If we ignore religion the open controlled environment of politics then we will increase then mistrust and animosity between people who are passionate about religion.
Josh, you are an awesome write, and you are very good at tying things together. I think, however, you could create stronger points by tying your last sentence of each paragraph back to your topic sentence. You don't necessarily have to restate the entire sentence, but indicate how the evidence that followed your topic sentence is valid and relates back to the topic sentence. Great argument!
I like how you bring in the first amendment in your essay. However I think you based a lot of your argument on what people should do. Like how they should respect other people's religion. However I think because they don't, and probably never will, we have problems with discussions about God and religion in politics.
Religion’s role in the lives of world citizens is evident. The belief system chosen by any one person can be seen in all his actions, no matter which philosophy he elects. Removing God, or his equivalent, from politics, which encroaches upon 1st amendment rights, will leave many politicians in search of a new moral code. It may lead to erosion of accountability with more alacrity than at present and remove the example of altruistic behavior that should be emulated by public servants. As a result, the answer to the question “Does God have a place in politics?” is yes.
Many politicians hold themselves and their decisions accountable to God. Making sure politicians have acted in accordance with their religion is often what’s best for their constituents; knowing that politicians are accountable to a higher authority is often reason to elect them to office. They may make alliances based upon what will help their careers which may affect their vote, but on important issues religion probably takes precedence. Trying to ignore this natural sense of accountability, may leave some politicians in a position where they feel it’s necessary to go against their own beliefs.
The separation of church and state is intended to ensure that preference to one religion or God is not given in this country. By making sure that God’s place in politics doesn’t extend to the actual laws themselves, this doctrine can be upheld while also maintaining the moral code that God and religion establish. While the Founders cited “the laws of Nature’s God” in the Declaration, they saw fit to leave all mention of God out of the Constitution. The moral code of religion played a hug e role in the decision to separate and likely continues to play a role in the decisions of today’s politicians. As long as they continue to follow the example set at this nation’s birth and omit religion in actual policy, God’s inclusion in politics benefits our citizens.
When people feel free to include their belief systems in their decisions, their actions are more likely to be consistent. In politics, this consistency means that constituents will likely be able to count on their elected official to make the decisions they elected him to make. This consistency also means that the politician likely maintains the same goals and concerns- those of his constituents- when voting on bills. Including individual beliefs often means setting priorities which will ensure that policies are in the best interest of the people.
While interpretation of the 2nd amendment may cause some to believe that God should be kept out of politics, it is law- the product of politics- where religion should be barred. Inclusion of God in the laws that govern our country creates the appearance of, if not practice of, preference toward those belief systems in which God appears. This would certainly be the opposite of freedom of religion. However, excluding God from politics and the individual decision making process would violate the freedom of politicians; leaving them, and us, without the moral code, accountability and basis for sound decisions that is needed.
As a nation, the United States prides itself on its deeply rooted tradition of a separation of church and state. However, some argue that there truly is no way to separate religion or a belief in God from politics. The idea here is that although they are elected to represent and make decision for the people, politicians are individuals guided by their morals, which are, in essence, a reflection of their religious beliefs. I will argue that religion and politics have been related in this country since the beginning of its existence and will remain so as is evident in our nations history. Some argue that in order to ensure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, the separation of God and politics is required. What many may not realize or choose to forget is that according to our Constitution, these rights were afforded to all citizens by a higher being or their “Creator”. As the wording of our nation’s Constitution was debated over for many weeks before being agreed upon and signed by representatives of all of the states that existed at this time, the mention of a higher being or power as the reason for our rights can not be a mistake. This demonstrates that the foundation of this country had a strong connection to religious beliefs. Thus, religious beliefs have always impacted politics and our governing systems. Religion is also a large part of modern politics. Politicians’ lives are frequently scrutinized in order to judge their character, and this does not exclude their religion or beliefs. In fact, a lack of religious affiliation is sometimes seen as a negative. Religious beliefs affect the morals and actions of a politician, and consequently determine the amount and type of people that vote for them. Many attribute this to the fact that thus far, we have only had one openly Catholic president, John F. Kennedy. As was made evident above, there is no doubt that religion or a belief in God and politics are related. In order to maintain a nation that promotes equal rights for all of its citizens, we must understand that as citizens of this country, our right to freedom of religion is true even in an area such as politics. Instead of a complete separation between church and state, a balance must be established.
@Deon While i definitely agree with your position, I think your argument would be helped by clarifying what you mean by open discussion- in Congress or just allowing politicians to speak as they wish.
@ msleahp I enjoyed reading your essay. However, I disagree with the idea that religion must be separate from laws because although this would be ideal, I do not think it is possible. As individuals create and legalize laws based on their own morals, and consequently their religious beliefs, laws and religion can not be separated just as politics and religion are directly connected. Also, nice use of GRE words.
Gabe Mendez Does God have a place in politics? The answer to this question may be one of extremely varied response. Perhaps it is because to answer it, one must take into consideration both their religion and political ideology. The issue of whether or not God has a place in politics bears a strong connotation in American culture. Many Americans would argue that God and religion should indeed have a role in political decisions. However, in a country such as the United States that is inhabited by diverse cultures from all over the world; we must then ask ourselves what God or religion should have an existence in our political realm? If God existed in politics there would gradually arise a conflict of interest and even bias in America. The conflict would arise from the diverse religious orders and political views that exist in the country today. In order to evade bias and conflict, God should have no place in politics.
In its existence, the world has seen numerous religious wars. These religious wars have stemmed from ambivalent emotions towards whose race was supreme, and in essence whose God would have a place in the rule of the land. One can examine perhaps one of the more prominent religious wars, the Crusades. During the Crusades European Christians waged war against several religious groups such as Muslims and Jews, in effort to regain control of the holy land they believed belonged to them. In the 1930’s we witnessed the horror of the Holocaust, as Hitler sought to eliminate groups of people, such as Jews, homosexuals, and anyone else who was not of German ethnicity. In examining the Holocaust, it is not out of context to say that religion also played a role. Germans tend to be predominantly Catholic, a religion that can be viewed as very different from Judaism. The concept of homosexuality is also something that is widely criticized in the Catholic order. Although separated by centuries these events share the significance of being wars against others, based on religious difference and a desire to be dominant in their country. It is arguable that nothing of this nature could exist today even if religion was involved, but I beg to differ. If religion and ultimately God had a greater existence in politics there would be a bias of religious ideas and eventually conflict between people in America.
In the United States Government we acknowledge a God but not a specific religion. Even doing that can cause concern. It is imperative to remember how diverse the U.S is and that religion very different from one another, have different ideas about who God is or what he represents. Nor religion or God have a place in politics. To do so would be igniting conflict that may be irreconcilable. Rather politics requires informed decision making, men and women of strong character and those who live under the light of a God, but are able to think freely from him.
The separation of church and state is an age old debate that persists even today. While many hold that our nation and its politics firmly separates the two, the foundation and principals of our laws very much involve religion and God. While politics should stray away from religion and stand neutral in order to not give preference to any faith, our political system and some decisions made by many politicians are highly influenced by faith and God. If we look at some of the more “controversial” issues of our time such as abortion, gay marriage, and sex education, there is a correlation between God and politics in the debate surrounding these issues.
When it comes to women’s issues, particularly in the case of abortion, there are two sides to choose from. In this debate one is either “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” The former of the two typically involves a more tradition and faith based connotation, while the latter is a more modern view. Many who believe in pro-life would associate religion and God as their reason for believing this way. As such politicians and politics have carried this debate on the same basis. The moral view for the “pro-life” argument cannot separate God from the equation; therefore this political issue involves God and faith.
Secondly, gay marriage rights is also another issue that involves faith based beliefs. Many who side against gay marriage believe that “marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.” This is often what many politicians, who side with this notion, say is their reasoning for voting against such legislation that would allow gays and lesbians to wed. The bible is often referred as determining this traditional practice. While politicians may not openly say that this is the case, we can clearly see religious belief and “God” influencing politics and politicians in this decision. As traditional beliefs and practices influence policy makers such legislation will have a difficult time getting approval from those individuals.
Lastly, the topic of sex education is another area where faith and “God” have an influence in politics. Abstinence based curriculum, while the only secure form of birth control and sexually transmitted disease prevention, involves a traditionally a faith practice and belief. While schools do offer what is considered “sex education,” many times the focus is on abstinence-only programs. Many schools receive funding to teach abstinence only curriculums and many politicians support this effort. In this way politics support such traditionally based ideals that involve faith based beliefs.
While God many not be considered or involved in all decisions that politicians make, there are certain issues in which faith based beliefs and considerations influence the decision of policy makers. Given the topics and debates surrounding abortion, gay marriage, and sex education, we can see that God and faith does have a place in politics and political decisions. It is important to recognize that our beliefs influence us all and that politicians are not exempt from this either. While many push for the separation of church and state, there are some areas where the two blend.
An insular interpretation of the ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine might lean towards the exclusion of God in politics, but that is an impossible task to take on in its totality. While it is true that no specific religion may be the prerequisite to hold any public office; however, those who do have a belief in some religion will inherently be influenced by those values, in office. Religious affiliation as well as any other life experiences will have an inherent effect on how any politician interprets policies or chooses which types of legislation to support. Therefore, God will have as influential a stake in politics as individuals allow.
All United States citizens have the constitutional right to freely practice and believe whatever religion they choose. Faith or lack thereof is also not a constitutionally sound reason for inhibiting any citizen’s access to a position of public office. According to the Article Six of the Constitution, “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The founders of the constitution wanted to create an aegis against the formation of a theocracy, by making it unlawfully to require a position of public office to be held by any specific religious denomination. This does not mean that faith was restricted from the political conversation, because concessions were also made to reconcile the diverse prohibitions of variant faiths. For example, the Presidential Oath of Office which reads “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” accommodates those whose faith do not permitted them to swear.
While a faith in one religion over another may dictate how a particular politician will react to the proposal of new policies or legislation, that reaction is a personal as any other of their life experience. A female politician who was impregnated by an act of sexual assault may inadvertently react differently to the proposal of abortion legislation, than someone who does not have that kind of incident in their background. Likewise, someone who is a member of the church of scientology may use his or her experiences in that faith to support stem-cell research. Religious affiliation as well as any other unique life experiences influence politicians, as well as lay people, in their decisions and views on governmental policy and legislation.
Just like you cannot separate yourself from your past experiences, God cannot be removed from the decision-making process of believers. This is not necessarily a negative or positive aspect, but an enriching factor of our political system. Our government was created in such a way that the interplay of different beliefs and opinions was a valued component that the founders hoped would ensure the best outcome for its citizens.
There is one argument that has existed for hundreds of years; whether or not God has a place in politics. Many politicians would argue that there is no room for God to enter in to the temporal world of state decision making and would prefer to have legislation decided not upon God, but upon choice and freedom for human beings. However, many countries were founded upon God and thus, he cannot be removed from politics. When so many people identify themselves in this country and others as Christians or Muslims or Jews, then how can decisions be made without His name? If someone truly identifies as being a “man of God” then he will not disregard him in any area of his life, be it personal life, religious life, or political life. So long as there are believers elected in to office, there will be decisions made on some sort of religious ground. In this essay, I will argue that God does have a place in politics and I will use the examples of the United States’ Declaration of Independence and the politics of the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteAmerica was built on those people who wanted religious freedom from England. These Seperatists were not atheists, but rather, they wished to express their devotion to God in a different way than the Anglican Church; a more puritanical way. Eventually, in 1776 the Declaration of Independence was written and signed by our founding fathers including many references to God; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable.” Though many who argue against the idea of having religion or specifically God in politics would say that the country is bound to the Constitution rather than the Declaration of Independence, I would remind them that many of the men who signed the Constitution are the same men who signed the Declaration. This means that not only were they men who agreed with the notion of God, but also that he should be present in our country’s politics. During political events, God is still named consistently such as during the presidential inaugurations and in court “…so help me God”. Regardless, America is a democracy and the politics in this country are supposed to represent the people and the majority, which is a majority who believes in God, so He will continue to have a place in politics.
Besides America, many Middle Eastern countries continue to have God represented in policies. For countries such as Iran, the Jafari school of Sharia law governs the land which believes that laws should be built upon the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and life of the prophet Muhammad). Other countries like Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan follow the Hanafi school which is known as the more liberal interpretation, based mainly on reason rather than literal interpretation. Both schools of thought are two amongst many, however they serve the example that these countries are governed by God, in two different ways. Although many would argue that there is much conflict in these parts of the world which stem from these different interpretations, I would argue that these countries identify themselves overwhelmingly as Islamic and though may not be democracies; they represent the religion of the people of the area. To say that they need to have religious freedom in order to live better lives is not for anyone other than those peoples to say. Coming from the West, many here have no concept of life as a Muslim, so it would be unfair to argue that God has no place in their politics. He is very much present in their religious, personal, political, and social lives so he must have a place.
ReplyDeleteThough the separation of church and state is constantly questioned, more frequently in Western nations, we have come to accept the fact that God should not be in politics. This is simply untrue because as a country who represents its people through the elected, we must allow God to be present in decision making, because he was, so to speak, elected in through others. We continue to elect Christians to office and as such, they will be influenced by their private lives much the same as our personal lives influence our work, our social lives, and our beliefs. The Declaration specifically gives God’s name and other political activities do too. In other areas of the world, God continues to be present in every moment of life including those labeled as political. As I stated before, as long as a population continues to identify with God and his laws, they will be influenced in the rest of their lives by this belief. Therefore, God does have and will continue to have a place in politics until those who govern completely disassociate themselves with Him.
Everyone has their own personal religious beliefs. Some believe in God and some do not think that he exists. But because of these different ideas about the presence of a higher power the question then becomes should aspects of public life include God despite various beliefs about his existence. No one should force their beliefs on another person but the first amendment in the constitution gives all Americans the right to freedom of religion. We live in a world of diverse individuals which includes gender, race, ethnicities, sexual orientation, family history, skill sets, and of course religion. It is important to embrace all types of individuals because if we do not the world will never have the opportunity to reach a more cohesive nation. To rectify this issue God must be allowed in all places including politics so that no one’s first amendment right is violated.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that no one will completely agree on the same religion. We are all brought up in different lifestyle’s that teach us different ways of doing things and countless beliefs. Yet religion is not the only differences that we share. We do not all have the same sexual orientation but does that mean that sexual orientation should not be in politics? Absolutely not. If God has a place in an individual’s life they should be free to share or relate with others even if it is through politics. Many are against abortion practices due to the reason that taking a human life is against God’s will. How can politicians convey this idea of they are not free to discuss God?
Not all political ideas reflect God. But political ideas are also not homogeneous. Where we must draw the line in incorporating God in politics is not forcing our beliefs on others. Even if we believe that abortion is not right in the eyes of God the government cannot make it illegal but can as a compromise give individuals the choice of whether or not to get an abortion. This allows people to keep God in their everyday life but does not force others who do who do not believe to embrace an ideal that they are against. Asking people to leave God out of politics is asking them to ignore what can possibly be a major part of their life. The first amendment affords all of Americans the right to freedom of religion and society must acknowledge that even in politics.
In closing, you cannot take God and or religious beliefs from individuals. The constitution has further established and made implicit this right. What we can do is compromise through legislation by creating laws that neither force nor inhibit individuals from keeping God in their lives.
word count - 454
The First Amendment guarantees freedom to practice any religion, if any at all, and that no law is to be created to the benefit of one over others. Derived from the First Amendment, the concept of separating church and state is a fundamental principle of the American political and legal systems. As such, there is no question that our system of government does not permit explicit use of religion in politics. However, religious affiliation can be a strong determinant of a person’s behavior. Which can hold especially true in high-pressure, government positions.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of the norm of separating church and state, many political leaders are very open about their religious affiliation. Seemingly so, to not be a religious person is seen as a deficit of character, but the same can be said for what religion the political figure aspires to. This was seen in the importance placed on John F. Kennedy for being the first, and last, Catholic president, as well as the extra critical eye placed on Mitt Romney for his Mormon affiliation. More recently, there was the controversy with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama. Here, religious connections held serious implications on what people not only perceived to be his character, but also his ability to lead the nation. Religion has also had policy implication throughout United States history.
The Eighteenth Amendment established prohibition in the United States. Due to the efforts of religious peoples through the temperance movement, who advocated for observance of the Sabbath and whose cause was taken up in Protestant churches, the consumption and sale of alcohol was illegal in the United States with the exception of use in religious services. During the 1970s, abortion became a hot button issue throughout the United States. With the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, religious leaders have since been advocating for its repeal. Due to the “death” of what would at some point be a human life, anti abortion support is largely due to religious practice or moral opposition. Even more recently is the gay rights movement, where a group of people is fighting for basic rights are being denied to them based on why they are different. This is also a debate considered to be associated with the religious community as the majority of opposition comes from a certain interpretation of the Bible.
In short, while it may be debatable whether or not religion should play a part in politics, it is without question that it does. Since the start of this nation, religious practice has served as an impetus for a number of policies and laws that have had far reaching impact. Moreover, religion has served as a guiding light for movements against secular policies and laws, proving that religion does have a place in politics, regardless of if it should.
Word Count - 469
@Brenna:
ReplyDeleteI liked your use of government documents and and American practice to support your argument. I also like how you brought the discussion outside of America. One thing however, is the amount of emphasis placed on routine practice, which can be said to just be a custom without any real meaning behind them - such as swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God, in court.
@ James - I like how you replied to the prompt honestly and literally with regardless of whether it should or not, it does. But, your argument may have been made stronger had you taken a stance. Either way, you brought in some great example with social issues being decided through religious beliefs. It was also a good point that you made in saying that if a politician has no religious affiliation it can somehow be seen as a deficit of character. Nice essay, but make it a little longer, I wanted to read moreee!
ReplyDeleteIn the 1600’s when European individuals came to the New World, they we not only looking for a new life but also a religious safe haven. Religion is not just a thought but a way of life. Some of the most important documents including the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by men with religious principles in mind. Although it has been more than 400 years since the first settlers came to the United States and we know about the “separation of church and state”, there is not a complete separation. As much as we would like to think otherwise, religion has and shall remain intertwined with politics. In this paper I will discuss the importance of religion for a presidential candidate and the pledge of allegiance.
ReplyDeleteThe President is one of the most influential people of our nation. During the elections people crowd around a television screen just to see him. A topic of interest is religion. The majority of the people in this country are looking for an individual with whom they can relate. It is a way of gauging the candidate’s moral compass and assuring one’s self that the person in charge of this country will do their very best. President Obama’s views were questioned on numerous occasions. The most controversial was that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright had his own agenda and in the end Obama had to denounce him. This event could have had a negative impact in Obama’s campaign had he chosen to stick by Wright. Many people may say that politics is independent of religion but based on the coverage of this event, that cannot be possible. While this situation impacts adults, there is another that impacts school-aged children.
The Pledge of Allegiance is important to learn to show your patriotism to this country. Recently schools have been trying to ban “under God” from the pledge. This eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of keeping the pledge exactly the way it is. America was founded on Christian values. To erase “under God” is to erase this nation’s history. Reciting the pledge was only meant to build a love for our home country not to force Christianity on others. If nothing else individuals should at least stand quietly with respect, like they would do in any other nation during their national anthem.
In closing, God will always have a place in politics. We say we want separation of church and state but then we also want to know the religious views of our religious leaders and whether we can ban “under God” from the pledge. By having these interests we involve our government. Our founding fathers had a strong connection to their religious beliefs and it is only natural that they would be reflected in the documents that govern our nation.
Word Count:474
God used to have a place in politics, however throughout time the idea of God has change due to several historical movements and the introduction of new standards. For most part of humans’ existence, it was believed that God was the creator of humans and the one who dictated what was good and bad doing. Personally the idea of having a superior being who created everything does not make sense. God is just a construction created by a dominant class to control other people and the only explanation humans came to after not been able to find the answers to humans’ existence. The government or dominant group gained control by using God as an excuse to introduce morals and the ideals of “good” vs. “evil” and “right” vs. “wrong”. I will argue how God used to have a place in politics because the government’s central idea was to maintain its people under, nevertheless over the years new ideals have been introduce and now the separation of God from politics allows more freedom for humans beings which is today’s society is the best way to maintain humans under control.
ReplyDeleteGod has been in and out of politics depending on the philosophy of the majority of the human population. At first the incorporation of God in politics was the best idea at that time, since most humans believed in the existence of God. The presence of God brought harmony among humans, since they shared similar ideals. But as the years went by people started to question the existence of God, these gave rise to new ideas about human existence and the creation of other religious views. The creation of new religious views and the questioning of the existence of God is still presence this leaded the government to separate God from politics since instead of helping to maintain control among humans God was creating arguments among humans.
The creation and presence of multiple cultures in America and around the world has reshaped human lives. We are at a point in live where respecting other people’s opinions, ideas and ideals is catholic rather than the idea of God which was previously catholic. In today’s world even for the government it is essential to provide a degree of freedom of expression to human beings to maintain control. To have the liberty to express your opinions, thoughts, ideas, to be yourself freely without judgment and to respect other peoples’ views in the same way, is the main component of our society to maintain harmony among humans. Years before, when God had a place in politics and was the center of humans’ lives, there was not such thing as freedom, rather everyone was restricted to obey certain standards even if they oppose to them. The place of God in politics has changed overtime due to the constantly introduction of new religious views and the creation of a multicultural world, where God is not anymore the central character in humans’ lives.
It has been argued whether or not God should have a place in politics. Ideas of religion remain a powerful part of culture. Despite the diverse range of religions, it is evident that the belief of God has helped shape the human spirit as well as the identity of many nations. In many ways individuals represent their culture and, often times, culture is reinforced by areas of religion. The existence and influence of religion within all countries and their leaders is inevitable, therefore religion is inevitable within politics. Most importantly, all religions and cultures must be embraced in order to achieve a unified nation. God should be allowed in all areas including politics.
ReplyDeleteFrom the day the United States Constitution was created, religion has been linked to government and politics. The First Amendment grants all citizens of the United States, various freedoms including the “free exercise of religion. “ Some may have various definitions of the First Amendment, however, it is clear that religious expression remains rooted to the United States background and cannot be avoided. In other words, religion is rooted to legislation. Recognizing the fact that there are differences in religion, is the most important aspect of religion within politics. Stating that God should have a place in politics should address issues of religious acceptance. By recognizing the diversity of religions, one may not agree, but they can respect the values of an amalgamation of cultures. If this is done, differences in religion can be embraced without interfering with politics.
Religion represents more than just culture; it becomes a subjective personal experience in the objective world of politics. Some do not acknowledge the role of religion and the belief of God in politics, however as stated earlier, each individual brings a different part of their culture into the realm of politics. In other words, religion is tied to the individual. Consisting of many individuals, the political systems often remain accented by personal and religious beliefs. For example, a Muslim congressman may have different beliefs than a Christian congressman; certain policies may provoke each individual on a different level, however one needs to be able to recognize these levels. In terms of religion and politics knowledge of cultures becomes essential to prevent ignorance. There will remain religious controversy in politics if a common ground between religions cannot be respected on a personal basis.
Therefore, religion and the belief of God remains embedded within all cultures, including the United States, and consequently religion becomes implanted within the world of politics. The existence of religion should be acknowledged as well as respected in order to achieve a cohesive nation in all areas including politics.
Word Count: 458
@ Jazzy- You do a good job of using examples basing them back to your main point: The First Amendment. I appreciate your various examples that address issues of diversity.
ReplyDeleteMany believe that God has a place in politics. However, not everyone shares the same God, and many people hold different views about God. As a result, there will be provoked tensions and hostilities when citing God because of these different religious beliefs. There is no single dominating religion in the world, so there is no consistency when comparing a wide range of nations. Therefore, anything pertaining to politics should be void of religious input.
ReplyDeleteOne classic argument is that religion dictates that one do what is right. Therefore, it should be instilled in politics to assure that happens. However, there is something else that commands an individual to do what is right – morality. Morality can be the guiding principle in politics without religious involvement, and it can still be counted on to carry out policies for the good of human kind. Morality is also beneficial because it is much more consistent through cultures then religion, thus can be referenced internationally.
To counter those who think because of terrorism religion should not be political, some argue that terrorism is only a vehicle for radicals. When religion is placed in the hand of more civilized people, it will be used for good rather than violence. However, the Holy Wars instilled a period of brutality and cruelty in the name of religion. In fact, one may even consider the Holy Wars an act of terrorism by the majority as opposed to the vast minority that it is today. Many people are blinded by the fact that they have some divine right, and thus they act upon it to do as they wish. Such was the basis for the Holy Wars. This sort of false pretense cannot be allowed to surface in politics as it will certainly create problems and conflicts of interests in the name of religion.
It can be argued that religion is straight forward since all the guiding principles can be traced straight back to the holy texts. However, again this falls into the trap of ignoring that there are multiple religions which carry different religious texts which say different things. One text cannot possibly be expected to govern a person who does not share the religious beliefs in which that text conveys. This will further instigate conflict. Furthermore, even if there was some sort of text that could govern a large body of people, religion has on numerous occasions demonstrated to be up to interpretation. And as a result, people have interpreted it differently. These interpretations can even be skewed to support personal motives. Which lends support to the idea that politics can be influenced by those who think they have a sort of divine right.
Although religion in itself is generally a peaceful practice, it has sparked numerous conflicts, both on a small and large scale. As a practice it is fine, but when it enters politics tensions arise. As a result, religion should not be considered when making political decisions.
WC:493
@ Jazzy
ReplyDeleteI thought it was good that you cited the the amendments, giving an example how religion is in politics. And I liked how you emphasized that religion should not be forced upon another person and how you acknowledged there are many different religious beliefs.
An individual’s moral compass is often informed by one’s experiences. Personal upbringing and family values define a person’s sense of self, and identity in the world. The moral compass and the experiences that inform an individual’s moral outlook are no different; for many people, God and religion are central to their perception and interpretation of world events. Although some have argued that political discourse should be value neutral, the fundamental reality that lawmaking is never value neutral must be preeminent in our recognition that God has a place in the social and political discourse of policy making. Recognition of the plurality of values in a democratic political system ensures that all voices and moral compasses are heard, so long as equal opportunity to participate is provided.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals make policy reflective of values, informed by the general consensus of a constituency, and personified through a Congressman voting in a representative democracy. Where many children grow up in highly religious families, increasingly American parents choose to raise their children in completely secular households. The American culture’s divorce from monotone Christian religious preferences is increasingly making democracy more pluralistic, with more actors participating and value structures emerging. The emergence of secular values, coupled with the multiplicity of religions and creeds in American society, does not serve to hinder neutral political discourse, but to inform it. Policy and laws are reflections of compromise over values; as more individuals participate, the voting representatives in Congress will create laws that not only reflect the Christian God in politics, but agnostics and atheists as well.
It has been argued that there is a “separation of church and state” in the United States, but few have recognized an equally requisite ‘separation of church from self.’ The American system is founded on the idea that although fundamental rights exist to protect minority rights, the prevailing values of the majority frequently emerges in the laws Congress creates. Although religion has been removed from the state, the right of a Congressman to craft laws based on the values of constituency does not and cannot ever completely guarantee neutrality in law making. The state cannot impose laws that force individuals to believe in God, but those who believe in God can inform the states laws.
Inevitably, in a democratic society the laws that are passed by Congress represent the many values of the constituencies elected representatives serve. Movements at the state level to pursue domestic partner benefits and enforce anti-discrimination against gay Americans has gained traction through a process of appealing to individual values of fairness and equity. As of 2008, three Congressmen served in Congress as openly gay Americans where just ten years ago it would have been unacceptable to envision the new political reality.
Today, fewer Americans rely strictly on Biblical interpretation and religiosity. Such is the democratic process, where slow change that appeals to peoples’ changing values reflects policy. As long as individual rights are protected, Congressmen are allowed to make laws that are informed by their personal ideology and the opinions of their district constituents. Policymaking is never neutral, but the plurality of ideas and interests give a voice to everyone, and protects minority rights against intrusion. Progress may be slow, but the democratic system ensures that everyone has a voice in politics, including those informed by strictly moralistic values on God. God has a place in political discourse, albeit indirectly, and as long as that place does not abridge fundamental rights.
People argue that God and religion have a place in politics. However this statement is extremely close-minded and intolerant. It also fails to include deities of polytheistic religions and other monotheistic deities that do no go by "God". By supporting one religious view in politics, a religious hierarchy will emerge, and specifically causing the subjugation of non-western religions. If we continue to push for an integration of church and state, there will be a resurgence of legislation that promotes select religious views while inhibiting and alienating others. This will ultimately lead to laws that discriminate against certain creeds, and target individuals that participate in these practices as well as those that have no religious affiliation. To rectify our thinking about God’s purported existence in politics, I am arguing that God does not have a place in politics. I will use the example of laws prohibiting the adornment with the Muslim women's hijab, or headscarf, to illustrate how God’s presence in politics is discriminatory and alienating.
ReplyDeleteIn various countries, predominately located in Europe; there has been a plethora of laws emerging, which prohibit females to adorn themselves in public with the Muslim hijab, or headscarf. Consequently it is being discussed in the United States as to whether laws should prohibit Muslim females from wearing the headscarf in academic institutions. This is being argued as a means for the women to better integrate within the Western culture. However this is a blatant example where religious biased-ness is being used to instill legislation, which infringes on the first amendment right for individuals to freely practice their own religion. Not only does this discriminate against eastern culture and religions, but also it fails to uphold the constitutional rights of individuals. By allowing God a place in politics, may cause there to be an ultimate revision of long standing government documents of the United States, calling for the integration of church and state. More specifically however, there would be a distinction in defining church specifically as the western religious deity “God”. This further alienates other religions, especially eastern religions, on the basis that their religious viewpoints and beliefs do not include “God”, making their religious and political relationship incongruent with the west.
In conclusion, it is important for our country to continue to delineate and distinguish church from state in the implementation of legislation. This will allow for a more tolerant culture to emerge with out the threat of discriminating against individuals and their religious practices. The United States can then stay true their founding documents and continue to allow for individuals to have the right to freely practice any religion.
WC: 436
When determining whether God has a place in politics, one must first consider individual views and religious practices. Surely, an American is granted the right to freedom of religion. Some people may believe in separation of church and state. However, for individuals who practice religious or spiritual practices, God does have a place in politics.
ReplyDeleteIndividual freedom in America is a difficult subject. Politically speaking, we as Americans are granted numerous rights and opportunities, we are often still confined by rules and regulations that limit our freedoms. Take for example, the freedom of religion. While Christians are generally unrestrained from publically practicing their faith, some legislatures have restricted when some Muslim women can wear head coverings in the workplace. A prime example would be restricting head coverings while taking pictures for photo id badges. The technical reasons for this restriction are beyond the scope of this paper, but one thing is evident. Although God may have been placed second to politics in this situation, individual actions (her choosing to wear the head covering to work in the first place) cannot be denied. In this example, this Muslim woman was not only choosing to practice her religious beliefs but she was also exercising her political right of religious freedom. Therefore, if a person truly practices religion and believes in God then God will have a place in politics.
Interpretation of politics will also determine how or if God is placed into the situation. There are many denominations within Christianity alone. In Christianity, there is often a lot of variation between individual worship of the Lord. Some Christians may strictly follow the Bible, while other Christians may chose to follow less restrictive interpretations. For individuals who choose to put God first in all their actions then, God will have a place in politics. The decisions a person chooses to make politically such as supporting gay marriage, may be influenced by the person’s relationship with God. How God is placed in these political decisions, even among professed Christians, is determined by their denomination and relationship with God.
On a larger scale, for some nations, politics without God is simply unfathomable. Take for example, governments ran by Prime Ministers or countries like Iran, whose national religion often takes precedence over individual freedom. In locations like Iran, individuals are often punished for flouting political choices that are contrary to the nation’s overall morals or principles. These political choices are usually evident when women chose to dress in ways that may be considered immodest within that country. Consequently, these women can be fined for indecent exposure, regardless of their religious affiliation. It is evident from Iran’s stringent Islamic practices and dress code restriction that God has a place in politics.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, there are many factors that determine whether God has a place in politics. One must first consider individual religiosity. Next, if someone does claim to practice religion and the belief of God, consideration must be placed on how strictly an individual practices religion and reverberates godly morality into their political decisions. Lastly, to determine whether God has a place in politics, one must consider the type of government because a government headed by a president may have less of a religious basis than of a nation that is ran by a prime minister.
Word Count: 549
@Jazzy
I liked how you used to amendment to support your example of how religion is in politics. I also think it was good how you emphasized the limits of religion and how religion/religious views should not be forced upon other individuals since there are a variety of beliefs. All in all, with your essay had clear examples that addressed diversity and stayed on your main point- the First Amendment.
Throughout our country’s history, those who hold fast to their collective religious beliefs have carried their religiously-minded opinions to the political field. Those who do so state that to refrain from utilizing religious beliefs to influence political motivations and decisions would be nothing less than hypocritical. The opposition, however, notes that our country allows and even requires the separation of church and state. Although it is a foundational principle of our great history that religious freedom be upheld, the consequences of requiring others to abide by our individual belief structure via the political system are dire. If we continue to allow religion to guide our laws, we will find ourselves to be struggling to sustain our republic. There is currently an inordinate amount of force on both sides of the spectrum compelling those of differing views to act upon belief structures not held by the entirety of our nation.
ReplyDeleteIn 2005, President George W. Bush appealed a decision by the Florida Supreme Court regarding the case of Terri Schiavo. The woman had been, for a period of seven years, sustained by a feeding tube and was brain dead. There were complications as to her husband’s motivation behind wanting the tube pulled and the Florida legislature passed “Terri’s Law” which gave the Governor of Florida the authority to intervene. The law clearly allowed the governor to base his decision primarily on personal belief and, furthermore, led to future decisions and arguments purely based upon personal belief structure. Although those in favor of the law argue that removing the tube must be constituted as murder, they openly demonstrated a collective belief that their moral structure must be upheld by all; even those who do not adhere to the same moral code.
Similarly, our country has dealt with Islamic terrorists for the past decade. Although some would argue that we must understand and accept their reasoning behind attacking our fellow citizens, the fact that the terrorists allow their religious zeal to influence their actions towards people of dissimilar beliefs is apprehensible. While, as was previously stated, religious freedom is a paramount value in this country, a certain boundary of tolerability is crossed upon violation of the safety of the masses. Fundamentally, the reasoning behind attacks such as those perpetrated on September 11 lies within the fallacy of the belief that individuals must abide by identical belief and moral structures.
In conclusion, there is, indeed, precedence of religious belief structure affecting political decisions and, incidentally, the political landscape. This is a fact that will not change quickly—if at all—but we must seek to find a common ground. Such a common ground would include an acceptance of differing beliefs and of their implications. If we allow our own, personal belief structure affect only those who claim to abide by identical beliefs—namely ourselves—then we will be given the opportunity to focus upon the issues that truly matter to our country’s future prosperity and well-being.
Word Count: 492
James,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how much of your argument was rooted in constitutional and U.S. history. It provided a strong foundation for your argument. Nevertheless, I would have liked for you to provide a definitive answer about your opinion on the prompt.
@ Paul
ReplyDeleteYou writing is amazing! I agree with your comments. You can really tell through your writing that this is a strong suite for you. It was easy to follow and very relatable.
What is the role of God in politics? This is a question that has plagued politicians for centuries, where does one draw the line between the secular and the religious? Many people would argue that God should have no place in politics, suggesting that the decisions of a government should be based solely for the good of the people without the input of any higher being. These individuals argue that not all citizens of a society believe in the same higher being and thus should not have any of their representatives argue politics on behalf of a higher being they do not believe in. With so many different beliefs in the world, which if any should be allowed into politics? In this essay I will argue that while religious figures such as God, Allah, etc. should not be allowed into the realm of politics religion can play and should play an indirect role in governments. With that being said, the values that these figures represent such as courage, honesty, and righteousness should in fact be brought into the world of politics because they highlight the best characteristics of human beings.
ReplyDeleteHistory has proven that all the people on Earth will never believe in the same religion. Different groups will continue to worship in their own ways and they have the right to continue to do so. What is interesting to note; however, is that while religions may preach in different ways or use different rhetoric, they all share common messages. For example, Christians and Muslims both believe in the virtue of courage in the face of evil as they encounter it in the world. Christians and Buddhists both preach the power of compassion and its importance to each one of us as individuals. So why, if so many religions teach their followers such similar lessons, do people need to focus on the fact that they do or do not believe in God? History has shown that it only leads to conflict and misery.
The First Amendment constitutes the freedom to religion and the expression of those beliefs in any way the individual sees fit. While we do enjoy this right in our country, one can interpret a second meaning to this portion of the Constitution- mutual respect. Perhaps this line from one of the United States’ most important documents is telling us that while we all have the right to practice which ever religion we wish, we must respect the beliefs of others and thus not “push” religion into situations where does not belong. The truth is that while religious beliefs may shape individuals and the choices that they make, it does not belong in politics. The expression of values and beliefs that are preached in any religion have great merit and should be incorporated into the passing of laws, there is a great deal of good that these concepts can bring out in individuals. But to associate those values, that all religions treasure, with a specific entity is frankly a disrespect to the people listening who do not believe in that same religious figure.
@ Paul
ReplyDeleteAwesome job Paul! Your essay was extremely clear and easy to follow. I thought you had a very interesting position on the issue of the separation of Church and State and would have to agree with you 100%. Good Job
When it comes down to politics there has always been the question of whether or not there is a connection between the laws of men and the laws of God. Therefore, the question is whether or not God or more specific religious believes have influenced in the way the laws are implemented in society. It is believe that religion has influence the way the government has created laws and how they are implemented. However, others believe that God and religion do not have any place in politics or that it shouldn’t be considered to be part of the political system. At one point in history church and state were together, and the now the government in most countries is divided between conservatives and liberals, in which religion beliefs are the base of the decisions some of the politicians make in order to govern a country. I do agree that God has influenced in politics in the form of religion and that it affects the way some laws are interpreted. .
ReplyDeleteSome people argue that the base of the laws in a political system at one point have been connected to God and the religion. However, others may argue that those laws are not in place anymore and that they have been erased from the political laws and that God does not have a place in politics. If we look back into history, there was one point in some countries where Church and State work together to rule their people. This in a way is an example of how God has a place in politics, since the laws of God were fundamental in order to create the laws to rule the country. As the division of Church and State began, it appeared that there was not going to be an influence of God in the new political system that was been created.
Moreover, if we come to present political system of the United States, it appears that there has been recent controversy of the use of the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance because it is suppose to be a country with freedom of religion and by placing the word God it is limiting and forcing people to salute the flag with the involvement of a specific form of a religion. However, if we observe more of the Pledge of Allegiance, to the phrase where it says, “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” it is possible to see the place of God in politics. It is seems that when the founding fathers of the constitution and of this nation, they were using their beliefs of religion when thinking of the laws of this country.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, when thinking about laws that make up this country and how the politicians rule and implement the laws, one can see how God and religion can influence the way the rules are implemented in society. When looking at the US political system, there are the conservative and the liberals in where God and religion are a central part of the conservative party and how they view and interpret the laws. For example, when it comes to abortion laws and the conservative party, it seems that they are going to be against abortion because it goes again with the laws of God and their values. Values that seem to be attached to their religious beliefs and as they interpret the abortion laws and laws of same sex marriages, religious beliefs affect their opposition to these laws. They don’t want to violate the laws that God has placed to men through religion and these influences when they look at the laws men have created.
In conclusion, it seems that values and religion affect the way people interpret the laws in a political system depending on how God has a part in their lives. At the end, even if there has been an effort to separate God and politics, it seems that the presence of God is present in the political system. The essence of a higher power and the rules of life according to the religious belief seem to apply when a government thinks about how to implement laws like abortion and same sex marriage. Therefore, it seems that it all depends who is making the laws in the political system and how strong the belief in God is that it affects the interpretation and implementation of laws in society.
Word: 738
Many may believe that God and politics do not go together. However, if people look at the agenda different politicians have they could see that there is a relation between their values and God. This is one of the reasons why there are conservatives and liberals in the political system. The conservatives are more traditional and old fashion. While liberals are more open minded and more likely to support issues that are controversial. God has a place in politics because it is reflected in the agenda politicians have, it is behind the issues politicians support and it helps audience to pick conservative or liberal depending on their values.
ReplyDeleteEven if politics is about getting your point across and make people vote for you, God is involved in a very important way. The agenda that politicians have include issues that are important to them. God is involved in their agenda because it includes what politicians think is right and wrong. What the politicians think is right and wrong is shape by their religion. Whether they support abortion or not is shape by their religious belief. God makes individuals pick what they believe is right or wrong and this is reflected in the issues they decided to fight for in elections.
Politicians used religion in their issues without making it explicit that religion is behind the issues they pick to be in their agenda. For example, Presidents who are catholic or Christian are less likely to support abortion and gay marriage. These presidents are more likely to be conservative and they win votes in states where people are not willing to accept change. In this way people can see how God is related to politics because it affects what politics believe in and it affects how people vote for one person instead of the other. Politicians have values that are affected by their religion.
In the political world there are two options for the people of a democratic country to pick. They can either go to the conservative side or the liberal side. The conservative side is more attach to religion and are more likely to go with tradition. It is hard for them to accept abortion and gay marriage because they are controversial matters. The liberal side is more open and is willing to vote in favor of abortion or the legalization of marijuana. God still has a place in politics because it holds a place in the policy issues that a politician favors. At the same time religion makes people pick a side in the political world.
God still has a place in religion because it plays a role in what politicians decide to put in their agenda. The values that each politician has in a sense represent what their religion is. Religion can be seen as what is right and wrong. There are politicians who are conservative or liberal and they have different issues in their agenda. Politicians decide to support other politicians because they agree or think it is good for society what their plans are. God is still present in our political government even if is not explicitly mentioned.
At Paul:
ReplyDeleteYou have a strong argument and you support it with good examples. Overall I think you have a good structure and it was easy to read. I like your thesis and how you make your point throughout the essay.
@Alejand... er, Ricardo... I think you did an awesome job contrasting the many religious perspectives and finding the common ground between them. You're right, there are certain common values between religions, and amidst controversial policies, we seem to forget that the different religions are more similar than we realize.
ReplyDelete@ Josefina:
ReplyDeleteI liked how you used the example of the Republican party to prove your point. But even though they do use religion in their political decisions, should the be allowed to? is that right?
@Kyle:
ReplyDeleteGood essay. I liked how you utilized the First Amendment to definitively prove your point.
@Susana,
ReplyDeleteYour essay has a great idea of how God has had a place in politics and how it has changed through time and political systems. The use of the idea between good vs. evil and wrong vs. right, gives your essay a great strength that brings across your points about this issue.
Humans have always believed there was some type of higher power(s) that influenced the actions of people. Thus they use these higher beings in the daily actions and political affiliations. God has been used in countless legislative documents throughout American history. However, the constitution and declaration of independence allow for freedom of expression of religious beliefs while also declaring the absolute separation of church from religion. Thus God should not be in the political arena or in the legislation.
ReplyDeleteSome people argue that the declaration of independence and constitution both mention God and play a major role on the development of America. Both of these documents do use God however they also both allow an ethnic group to be enslaved for 400 years which is now deemed inappropriate by the majority. Thus we should use these documents but understand that they were created during a different time with different views. The view in the past was that religious affiliation defined the character of the political candidate. John F. Kennedy was the 35th president but the first Catholic one because in the past presidents were more open-minded in their religious beliefs. Views change overtime and thus the use of God in politics is not needed as it was in the past.
Thomas Jefferson was the fore founder regarding separation of church and state. He wanted the government to have no control of the religious beliefs of its members and thus created a wall of separation between the church and the state. Religion was removed from state funded schools because it did not separate church from state and thus went against the constitution. Thus God should have no place in politics because politicians represent the US government and should not impose their religious beliefs on the American people based on Thomas Jefferson’s belief.
Citizens and politicians alike may hold strong beliefs in God and thus believe that God does have a place in politics. However, whether or not politicians or citizens believe in God, the thought of including an infinite being in the finite discourse of politics is inherently incorrect. Belief in God can lead one to assert that God is involved in everything and it is clear throughout ancient scriptures that God is sovereign and has destined leaders of nations. However, as far as politics is concerned, it is detrimental to consider God to have a place in the human affairs of politics. Although decision-making can hypothetically come from the wisdom of God, politics itself are a result of abandonment of God’s reign over people. Therefore, God does not have a place in politics because of the original concept of politics as an abandonment from God’s law and sovereignty, the flaws of politics, and the finite nature of politics.
ReplyDeleteThe original concept of politics clearly denotes the absence of God from decision-making and political actions. Although one might argue that good moral decisions resulting from politics are “of God” simply because they are “good”, the fact that these decisions resulted from a desire for humans to create their own law and governance outside of God’s control cannot be ignored. Looking back to ancient Judeo-Christian scriptures, politics is first demonstrated when the Israelites decide to “supersede” God’s sovereignty by creating their own government and politics, similar to the surrounding nations that were considered “Gentiles” and not with God. It is therefore difficult to perceive God’s place in politics since the very nature of politics denotes a break from God’s law in order to take control and create one’s own law.
If God did indeed have a place in politics, the flaws of political actions would not exist. For instance, the corrupt behavior that resulted from Nazi political control is an obvious example of flaws that occur in politics. One might convolute an interpretation of this corrupt political action and claim that there is evidence of God killing masses of people in the Old Testament according to Judeo-Christian faith. However, this interpretation is artless and hasty because it disregards the intentions of Hitler as compared with God’s, an impossible comparison in itself since God is hypothetically infinite and Hitler is finite. Therefore, because many flaws exist in the systems of politics, it is clear that God has no place in politics.
Because politics is not only flawed, but finite in its thoughts and actions, an infinite God has no place in the discourse of politics. The concept of God as omniscient is beyond the bounds of politics. Although one might claim that this all-knowing nature plays directly into the decisions of government, this does not mean that God has complete control over government thoughts, like a mind-reader who can not only determine what will happen, but control it. Instead, because government practices decision-making with the absence of God, He is not necessarily in politics, but can be considered an all-knowing onlooker who has knowledge of what is, what has been, and what will be. From this standpoint, an infinite God can have no place in politics because of the finite thoughts and actions of politics.
Viewing politics as a direct abandonment of God and finite in nature clearly exposes the reality that God has no place in politics. Though one can hypothetically argue that God’s sovereignty and omniscient nature places Him in a political seat, it is evident that because politics is extremely flawed, there can be no logical place for God in government and politics.
Restrictions are placed on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion through the establishment and free exercise clause. These clauses were created because the fore founder’s religious rights were being impeded on by the British government. This same thing is happening today with politicians creating laws based on their religious beliefs that harm a portion if not all of Americans. Political leaders are trying to pass a law banning abortions because of various reasons but the major on is that it is against most religions. While this might be true, the government has no right to stop a woman from getting an abortion if she feels the need. The government’s only right is to give her the option to choose what is in her best interest instead of imposing religious views on her. Another issue where religious beliefs play a role is gay marriage. As with abortion, most religions do not look kindly on homosexuality, it is not the government’s job to enforce religious beliefs on its people. Thus God should not be a part of politics because it adversely harms the American people.
ReplyDeleteGod or religious beliefs should not play a role in politics or in government as defined by the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Politicians have the right to express their religious views and practice them but they should not make any legislation that will disrespect or hinder the views and rights of any other group.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
Word Count: 565
Since the beginning of civilization, man has wrestled with determining the role of religion in government. Some people argue that religion and politics are completely separate entities that should not be intermingled. However, I would argue that religion and politics are inextricably linked because of the inherent spirituality of man and the inherent spirituality of laws.
ReplyDeleteHuman beings are spiritual creatures in most cases. Opponents may argue that some people are atheists, which means they may not have a spiritual element. However, even atheism is a belief system, and many atheists still have a moral code and a deep respect for the human condition. That being said, as humans our actions and decisions are influenced, sometimes inadvertently, by our beliefs: a fact that permeates even through politics. For example, a Congressman voting on a bill to legalize abortion will vote not only based on his political experience and the will of his constituency, but also based on his personal moral and religious beliefs. In that way politics have a inherent religious element.
Laws as well as human beings are inherently spiritual. Some might argue that laws are meant to be devoid of religion and instead use reason. Although this may be the aim of legislation, the religious beliefs of a nation noticeably influence laws. For example, in the United States Constitution, the recognition of God is mentioned multiple times, and the document still governs the country to this day. We must remember that the men who wrote laws saw it as acceptable and even necessary to include religious elements into them as in the case of our nation’s Four Fathers. In addition, many of the laws we have today are based off of laws rooted deeply in religion. For example, in some Islamic countries it is law that women have to wear head-coverings, which is based on Islamic religious beliefs.
Despite current efforts to separate religion and politics, the two areas are forever connected. Although some may argue that God has no place in politics, he already does have a place in legislation. Religion and politics cannot be completely separated due to the inherent spirituality of human beings and the inherent spirituality of laws, both of which assure that God will always have a place in government.
@Brenna,
ReplyDeleteI like your use of government policies because they give you document legal supporting argument. The point about the Middle east was also good because it gave a non-American view. I disagree with your point on "Creator" because that can be left to interpretation. They might or might not of mean God specifically or multiple Gods as in most Native American beliefs. Overall the essay was very sound but could have used some GRE words to make it better. Great Job!!
Many people believe in some sort of God. However, the meaning and value of God for one person is usually something completely different for another person. It can be argued that religion and God is too opinionated and thus too controversial for legislation. It is therefore suggested, that due to the often controversial and opinionated nature of God and religion, politics should be rid of it. However, if we ignore God in politics we ignore a significant influence in the lives of people. The fact that religion is so powerful and complicated is the very reason why we should openly discuss it in politics.
ReplyDeleteMany people think that although religion is important, the political platform is not the venue for discussions about it. However, politics is the fruit of a democracy and the purpose of a democracy in any nation is to look after and cater for the beliefs and well-being of its citizen. Seeing that God and religion is influential in the lives of almost every person (including atheists, who often conspicuously, go out of their way to claim that they have no affiliation with a higher power) we should discuss it on an open political platform. Seeing that the purpose of politics is to look for the interests and believes of its people and that religion is important to citizens, politics God should have a place in politics.
Some may argue though that purpose of politics is to deal with tangible problems society, such as healthcare, employment opportunities and public system. They believe that the topic of God is not as important of a topic as topics that actually help people such as health care, employment opportunities, and education. However, the only reason health care, employment rates etc are discussed is to enrich the lives of citizens. Enriching the lives of citizens is the ultimate and core purpose of politics. Seeing that we hold religion is so influential in our lives politics should be a regular platform for discussion about it.
Finally many people are afraid of the negative consequences that come along with talk about God and religion. Over human history, religion, difference in religious belief and lack of religion as a whole has been the cause of many wars, genocides, alienation oppression and division among people. It is argued that politics should stand clear of talk about God and all the negative baggage that comes with it. However lack of open and fair discussion about God and religion is the cause of the negative consequences of religion. If we ignore religion the open controlled environment of politics then we will increase then mistrust and animosity between people who are passionate about religion.
@ Josh
ReplyDeleteJosh, you are an awesome write, and you are very good at tying things together. I think, however, you could create stronger points by tying your last sentence of each paragraph back to your topic sentence. You don't necessarily have to restate the entire sentence, but indicate how the evidence that followed your topic sentence is valid and relates back to the topic sentence. Great argument!
@ricardo
ReplyDeleteI like how you bring in the first amendment in your essay. However I think you based a lot of your argument on what people should do. Like how they should respect other people's religion. However I think because they don't, and probably never will, we have problems with discussions about God and religion in politics.
Religion’s role in the lives of world citizens is evident. The belief system chosen by any one person can be seen in all his actions, no matter which philosophy he elects. Removing God, or his equivalent, from politics, which encroaches upon 1st amendment rights, will leave many politicians in search of a new moral code. It may lead to erosion of accountability with more alacrity than at present and remove the example of altruistic behavior that should be emulated by public servants. As a result, the answer to the question “Does God have a place in politics?” is yes.
ReplyDeleteMany politicians hold themselves and their decisions accountable to God. Making sure politicians have acted in accordance with their religion is often what’s best for their constituents; knowing that politicians are accountable to a higher authority is often reason to elect them to office. They may make alliances based upon what will help their careers which may affect their vote, but on important issues religion probably takes precedence. Trying to ignore this natural sense of accountability, may leave some politicians in a position where they feel it’s necessary to go against their own beliefs.
The separation of church and state is intended to ensure that preference to one religion or God is not given in this country. By making sure that God’s place in politics doesn’t extend to the actual laws themselves, this doctrine can be upheld while also maintaining the moral code that God and religion establish. While the Founders cited “the laws of Nature’s God” in the Declaration, they saw fit to leave all mention of God out of the Constitution. The moral code of religion played a hug e role in the decision to separate and likely continues to play a role in the decisions of today’s politicians. As long as they continue to follow the example set at this nation’s birth and omit religion in actual policy, God’s inclusion in politics benefits our citizens.
When people feel free to include their belief systems in their decisions, their actions are more likely to be consistent. In politics, this consistency means that constituents will likely be able to count on their elected official to make the decisions they elected him to make. This consistency also means that the politician likely maintains the same goals and concerns- those of his constituents- when voting on bills. Including individual beliefs often means setting priorities which will ensure that policies are in the best interest of the people.
While interpretation of the 2nd amendment may cause some to believe that God should be kept out of politics, it is law- the product of politics- where religion should be barred. Inclusion of God in the laws that govern our country creates the appearance of, if not practice of, preference toward those belief systems in which God appears. This would certainly be the opposite of freedom of religion. However, excluding God from politics and the individual decision making process would violate the freedom of politicians; leaving them, and us, without the moral code, accountability and basis for sound decisions that is needed.
517
As a nation, the United States prides itself on its deeply rooted tradition of a separation of church and state. However, some argue that there truly is no way to separate religion or a belief in God from politics. The idea here is that although they are elected to represent and make decision for the people, politicians are individuals guided by their morals, which are, in essence, a reflection of their religious beliefs. I will argue that religion and politics have been related in this country since the beginning of its existence and will remain so as is evident in our nations history.
ReplyDeleteSome argue that in order to ensure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, the separation of God and politics is required. What many may not realize or choose to forget is that according to our Constitution, these rights were afforded to all citizens by a higher being or their “Creator”. As the wording of our nation’s Constitution was debated over for many weeks before being agreed upon and signed by representatives of all of the states that existed at this time, the mention of a higher being or power as the reason for our rights can not be a mistake. This demonstrates that the foundation of this country had a strong connection to religious beliefs. Thus, religious beliefs have always impacted politics and our governing systems.
Religion is also a large part of modern politics. Politicians’ lives are frequently scrutinized in order to judge their character, and this does not exclude their religion or beliefs. In fact, a lack of religious affiliation is sometimes seen as a negative. Religious beliefs affect the morals and actions of a politician, and consequently determine the amount and type of people that vote for them. Many attribute this to the fact that thus far, we have only had one openly Catholic president, John F. Kennedy.
As was made evident above, there is no doubt that religion or a belief in God and politics are related. In order to maintain a nation that promotes equal rights for all of its citizens, we must understand that as citizens of this country, our right to freedom of religion is true even in an area such as politics. Instead of a complete separation between church and state, a balance must be established.
@Deon
ReplyDeleteWhile i definitely agree with your position, I think your argument would be helped by clarifying what you mean by open discussion- in Congress or just allowing politicians to speak as they wish.
@ msleahp
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your essay. However, I disagree with the idea that religion must be separate from laws because although this would be ideal, I do not think it is possible. As individuals create and legalize laws based on their own morals, and consequently their religious beliefs, laws and religion can not be separated just as politics and religion are directly connected. Also, nice use of GRE words.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGabe Mendez
ReplyDeleteDoes God have a place in politics? The answer to this question may be one of extremely varied response. Perhaps it is because to answer it, one must take into consideration both their religion and political ideology. The issue of whether or not God has a place in politics bears a strong connotation in American culture. Many Americans would argue that God and religion should indeed have a role in political decisions. However, in a country such as the United States that is inhabited by diverse cultures from all over the world; we must then ask ourselves what God or religion should have an existence in our political realm? If God existed in politics there would gradually arise a conflict of interest and even bias in America. The conflict would arise from the diverse religious orders and political views that exist in the country today. In order to evade bias and conflict, God should have no place in politics.
In its existence, the world has seen numerous religious wars. These religious wars have stemmed from ambivalent emotions towards whose race was supreme, and in essence whose God would have a place in the rule of the land. One can examine perhaps one of the more prominent religious wars, the Crusades. During the Crusades European Christians waged war against several religious groups such as Muslims and Jews, in effort to regain control of the holy land they believed belonged to them. In the 1930’s we witnessed the horror of the Holocaust, as Hitler sought to eliminate groups of people, such as Jews, homosexuals, and anyone else who was not of German ethnicity. In examining the Holocaust, it is not out of context to say that religion also played a role. Germans tend to be predominantly Catholic, a religion that can be viewed as very different from Judaism. The concept of homosexuality is also something that is widely criticized in the Catholic order. Although separated by centuries these events share the significance of being wars against others, based on religious difference and a desire to be dominant in their country. It is arguable that nothing of this nature could exist today even if religion was involved, but I beg to differ. If religion and ultimately God had a greater existence in politics there would be a bias of religious ideas and eventually conflict between people in America.
In the United States Government we acknowledge a God but not a specific religion. Even doing that can cause concern. It is imperative to remember how diverse the U.S is and that religion very different from one another, have different ideas about who God is or what he represents. Nor religion or God have a place in politics. To do so would be igniting conflict that may be irreconcilable. Rather politics requires informed decision making, men and women of strong character and those who live under the light of a God, but are able to think freely from him.
The separation of church and state is an age old debate that persists even today. While many hold that our nation and its politics firmly separates the two, the foundation and principals of our laws very much involve religion and God. While politics should stray away from religion and stand neutral in order to not give preference to any faith, our political system and some decisions made by many politicians are highly influenced by faith and God. If we look at some of the more “controversial” issues of our time such as abortion, gay marriage, and sex education, there is a correlation between God and politics in the debate surrounding these issues.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to women’s issues, particularly in the case of abortion, there are two sides to choose from. In this debate one is either “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” The former of the two typically involves a more tradition and faith based connotation, while the latter is a more modern view. Many who believe in pro-life would associate religion and God as their reason for believing this way. As such politicians and politics have carried this debate on the same basis. The moral view for the “pro-life” argument cannot separate God from the equation; therefore this political issue involves God and faith.
Secondly, gay marriage rights is also another issue that involves faith based beliefs. Many who side against gay marriage believe that “marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.” This is often what many politicians, who side with this notion, say is their reasoning for voting against such legislation that would allow gays and lesbians to wed. The bible is often referred as determining this traditional practice. While politicians may not openly say that this is the case, we can clearly see religious belief and “God” influencing politics and politicians in this decision. As traditional beliefs and practices influence policy makers such legislation will have a difficult time getting approval from those individuals.
Lastly, the topic of sex education is another area where faith and “God” have an influence in politics. Abstinence based curriculum, while the only secure form of birth control and sexually transmitted disease prevention, involves a traditionally a faith practice and belief. While schools do offer what is considered “sex education,” many times the focus is on abstinence-only programs. Many schools receive funding to teach abstinence only curriculums and many politicians support this effort. In this way politics support such traditionally based ideals that involve faith based beliefs.
While God many not be considered or involved in all decisions that politicians make, there are certain issues in which faith based beliefs and considerations influence the decision of policy makers. Given the topics and debates surrounding abortion, gay marriage, and sex education, we can see that God and faith does have a place in politics and political decisions. It is important to recognize that our beliefs influence us all and that politicians are not exempt from this either. While many push for the separation of church and state, there are some areas where the two blend.
word count
An insular interpretation of the ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine might lean towards the exclusion of God in politics, but that is an impossible task to take on in its totality. While it is true that no specific religion may be the prerequisite to hold any public office; however, those who do have a belief in some religion will inherently be influenced by those values, in office. Religious affiliation as well as any other life experiences will have an inherent effect on how any politician interprets policies or chooses which types of legislation to support. Therefore, God will have as influential a stake in politics as individuals allow.
ReplyDeleteAll United States citizens have the constitutional right to freely practice and believe whatever religion they choose. Faith or lack thereof is also not a constitutionally sound reason for inhibiting any citizen’s access to a position of public office. According to the Article Six of the Constitution, “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The founders of the constitution wanted to create an aegis against the formation of a theocracy, by making it unlawfully to require a position of public office to be held by any specific religious denomination. This does not mean that faith was restricted from the political conversation, because concessions were also made to reconcile the diverse prohibitions of variant faiths. For example, the Presidential Oath of Office which reads “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” accommodates those whose faith do not permitted them to swear.
While a faith in one religion over another may dictate how a particular politician will react to the proposal of new policies or legislation, that reaction is a personal as any other of their life experience. A female politician who was impregnated by an act of sexual assault may inadvertently react differently to the proposal of abortion legislation, than someone who does not have that kind of incident in their background. Likewise, someone who is a member of the church of scientology may use his or her experiences in that faith to support stem-cell research. Religious affiliation as well as any other unique life experiences influence politicians, as well as lay people, in their decisions and views on governmental policy and legislation.
Just like you cannot separate yourself from your past experiences, God cannot be removed from the decision-making process of believers. This is not necessarily a negative or positive aspect, but an enriching factor of our political system. Our government was created in such a way that the interplay of different beliefs and opinions was a valued component that the founders hoped would ensure the best outcome for its citizens.
WC: 465
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
ReplyDelete