Religion and Politics

[Lightkeeper]

Public Support Falls for Religion’s Role in Politics
Some Social Conservative Disillusionment
August 21, 2008

Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.

As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared.


There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

Second, while the Republican Party is most often seen as the party friendly toward religion, the Democratic Party has made gains in this area. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago. Nevertheless, considerably more people (52%) continue to view the GOP as friendly toward religion.


The poll by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds increasing numbers of Americans believing that religiously-defined ideological groups have too much control over the parties themselves. Nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007. At the same time, more people say that liberals who are not religious have too much sway over the Democrats than did so last year (43% today vs. 37% then).

Pew Research Center: Public Support Falls for Religion’s Role in Politics

Do religious groups have too much control of political parties in the U.S.? What is the solution?

[Schizophretard]

Yes, my solution would be to abolish political parties.

[Chaitanyananda]

All "groups" have too much control of political parties. Voting was designed to be a human individual thing, not a "group" thing. Politics in this era is about who can get what for free off the backs of other people. Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The modern voter says, "Just give me."

Religious institutions have no business playing political games unless to defend their right to exist. Nothing beyond that, in my opinion.

[Amergin]

Sarah Palin is clearly a woman with admirable character. She has been a fisherwoman, fighter against Republican corruption in Alaska, unquestionably an attractive woman, who has a deceptively warm and friendly manner. She has little political experience but many think political experience from long-term political service is equivalent to corruption. Now for the bad news.

Palin is a Dominionist. Dominionism is a part of the larger movement called Christian Reconstruction. The basic goal is to dismantle democracy (Secular Humanism Government) and replace it with Theonomy (rule by God). They would replace all existing laws with Biblical Law. They admit that they would make homosexuality and blasphemy (atheism, and non-Christian religion) crimes punished by death. Adultery would be punished by stoning of a woman and harsh words for the man adulterer. They believe that only Christians (and I think they mean Dominionists) in all positions of political power. The Constitution and Bill of Rights would be abolished and rewritten based on the Bible. One says democracy or rule by you would be changed to theocracy or rule by God (not you.)

Dominionism and Dominion Theology

Palin has proposed the teaching of Creation Science (not Intelligent Design) along with the "theory" in public schools. Many different websites I googled talk about Palin being the real stealth candidate promoted so often by Ralph Reed of Christian Coalition.

Dominionism or Christian Reconstruction is clearly a Christian Taliban. We know what that means. I am not attacking Palin for being a Christian but being a Dominionist. All Christians are not Dominionists (possibly a minority). Moreover, all Muslims are not Talibani or Al Qaeda Jihadists.

Now for the scary thought. John McCain is a true hero. He survived 5 years in a Vietnamese prison. He survived (so far) from Malignant Melanoma with four recurrences. Let us face the facts, unfortunately, Mr. McCain could be the only obstacle for the Dominionist Movement to get its "stealth candidate" into the oval office (i.e. Vice President Palin). Mr. McCain faces dreadful odds of more recurrences of cancer. I sincerely hope that does not occur but my medical experience on recurrent melanoma is of bad outcome. Secondly, while the talk of some white supremacist extremist assassinating Obama was raised last month, the possibility of a Dominionist of Joel's Army going after President McCain cannot be taken lightly.

While most of the organised White Supremacists are already on a Homeland Security Terrorist list, Christian Reconstructionists are not. They could get inner access to the Oval Office with the help of Vice President Palin.

I HOPE NONE OF THIS HAPPENS.

Go n-éirí do bhóthar leat (Good luck)

Amergin

[shaw-n]

Dominionism is a part of the larger movement called Christian Reconstruction. The basic goal is to dismantle democracy (Secular Humanism Government) and replace it with Theonomy (rule by God).

Well they better hope they have a God to run such a program otherwise we will just end up with another pope.
God help us if that happens.

my solution would be to abolish political parties.

Politics is merely the science and art of getting things done in a material world populated by people.
Just because the political process has been subverted does not mean that it cannot be made to work.
It would just be very messy trying to clean it of all the parasites that infest it currently.

[arthra]

Baha'is are officially non-partisan, that is, we register Non-partisan or independent and cannot belong to any political party or support a partisan political party. Baha'is have served though in non-partisan positions suchas on advisory panels or in some cases judgeships where there is no partisanship involved.

We do exercise our voting rights on election day and vote for whom we please but always as independent or non-partisan voters.

- Art

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by Amergin

Palin is a Dominionist. Dominionism is a part of the larger movement called Christian Reconstruction. The basic goal is to dismantle democracy (Secular Humanism Government) and replace it with Theonomy (rule by God). They would replace all existing laws with Biblical Law. They admit that they would make homosexuality and blasphemy (atheism, and non-Christian religion) crimes punished by death. Adultery would be punished by stoning of a woman and harsh words for the man adulterer. They believe that only Christians (and I think they mean Dominionists) in all positions of political power. The Constitution and Bill of Rights would be abolished and rewritten based on the Bible. One says democracy or rule by you would be changed to theocracy or rule by God (not you.)

do you have a credible source for this accusation ?

[Wendy Tall One]

If one were to do even just a basic google search for "palin dominionism" such as I did,

palin dominionism - Google Search

one would find several newspaper articles discussing the links between her and this branch of religion. True there are also several conspiracy theory type forum threads listed as well but there are 'credible sources'.

Also I am wondering if you followed the link provided, this gievs all the same information Amergin summarized in his post.

[Eolas Pellor]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Do religious groups have too much control of political parties in the U.S.? What is the solution?

"Religious groups", per se, have the influence which is attributed to them. I think that some people are willing to be influenced in making political choices; as a result we have the endless, and tiresome, stories detailing which celebrity is favouring which candidate. Does anyone, really, care what candidate Heidi Montag supports? Should it influence your decision on voting day by a jot or a tittle? The media report it as if it, was, really of significance and one must assume that people are, in fact, interested. But it seems a poor way to make a decision.

I would say that, as influences on the vote go, religious organizations may not be that bad. No worse, say, than any other ideological organization. I may not like the candidates they favour, but that is not a very good reason from silencing them....

[metis]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Do religious groups have too much control of political parties in the U.S.?

Generally speaking, yes.

What is the solution?

I don't think we can completely separate politics and religion, and I certainly feel that religious groups should have some imput when it comes to many issues that have moral implications, but I think some have gone a bit overboard on this.

What's "the solution"? I don't think there really is one unless we're willing to accept sharp limitations on free speach, which I certainly would be opposed to.