Religion and Politics

posts >> publuis > william > nikolai  > bradley

_________________________________________________________

Publuis

Former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney is Mormon. He was also running for the Republican Party Nomination to be the next President. Romney has already given a landmark speech similar to that of John F. Kennedy, declaring himself fit to govern without religious strings attached to his potential presidency.
Religious faith is an intensely personal matter. Mr. Romney has the freedom to believe what he wants. Moreover, it is not the place of American voters to judge his religious views. Be he Buddhist or Muslim or any other faith, it should not be criteria for which to gauge the potential of his presidency. People of all faiths would be convicted by the choices American presidents are forced to make. So to would people of no religious faith feel deeply conflicted by the myriad difficult choices presented to a president.
In addition, to assume that because Mr. Romney would alienate the rights and views of other religious people as president is both uninformed and ill conceived. Kennedy did not take orders from the Vatican or marginalize Protestants. Neither would Romney legislate the Book of Mormon or be beholden to Salt Lake City.
Instead, judge him on the merits of his candidacy; on his record as a governor, in the private sector, his stance on the issues and his ability to lead the nation. It would seem to me we should be beyond the point of scrutinizing candidates religious beliefs as measurement for the type of president he or she would be.

_________________________________________________________

William

Voters beware. I think that all political candidates aught to come with this warning as long as they are packaging themselves. And packaging themselves is just what candidates are doing. John McCain seeks the conservative wrapper complete with a Jesus shaped stamp of fiscal responsibility, all while Hilary Clinton runs from the woman wrapper just as Obama refuses packaging as the black candidate. But what about religious labels?

Religious labeling is a powerful packaging when it comes to candidacy and voting. While candidates like Mitt Romney can not escape their religious affiliations (perhaps to their downfall), people like George Bush run to theirs as a badge of honor, representative of a large majority of voters who see him as one of their own.

Often religion is an easy way to think, “This candidate believes like me and thus will make choices like me”. Though in the case of this race, stereotypical republicans who are evangelical Christians may sit this one out unless McCain can package himself accordingly. But while we are given the right to vote based on whatever criteria we so choose, I will issue this warning; religious packaging rarely comes with a warranty. Voters beware.

_________________________________________________________

Nikolai

What are the qualities you look for in a person running for political office? Competence, education, truthfulness, and even looks might be some of the qualities you hold important. But does religion and spirituality play a roll? Some voters believe that a candidate’s choice of faith is the most important quality when deciding who to choose for an election.

We get the false sense of security that we should cast our vote for whoever shares the same spiritual beliefs we have. It’s no secret that a candidate’s religious convictions help shape how they agree or disagree on an issue but should that be enough to swing a vote? For example: the likelihood of a Christian conservative candidate actually changing the laws of abortion once in office is very slim. There are many things that have to happen in order for federal laws to be changed. Fortunately the President can’t rub a magic lamp and get any law passed.

It’s safe to say that given two identical candidates who agree in detail about the issues but differ in their choice of religion, the voter is more likely to cast their ballot for the candidate who shares the same faith as they do. There is nothing wrong with that choice but what if a third candidate is in the running that is more educated, more honest, more competent but less religious than their counterpart? Can a candidate have all those qualities and share the same faith as you? Absolutely. But sometimes we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Remember this is politics and religion doesn’t always define character.

_________________________________________________________

Bradley

E pluribus unum. I think there is a common misconception with the meaning of this Latin phrase. (And by common misconception, I mean I was wrong) Most people think it means, “In God We Trust”, but it actually means “Out of Many, One”. Seriously though check Wikipedia, I’m right. It wasn’t until 1956 that an act was passed that made “In God We Trust” our official motto. So… “In God We Trust” eh? Really? Do we? Should we? Historically speaking, it doesn’t look like we do. But this is politics. This is a public government “by the people”. Should religion of any form be involved in government? Just a guess, but I think a large number of the self-proclaimed conservative Evangelicals vote for a candidate based on that candidates overall image and religious views. (Let’s face it, most people don’t look closely at the issues concerning each politician) I spoke with some people recently that said they would not vote for Mitt Romney simply because he is a Mormon. (Obviously, he’s not in the running anymore, but stay with me) There are two sides to this. One can say, “Well, that’s narrow minded. They aren’t even looking at the issues!” But another may say, “I can understand their concern. We need to have someone one in the Whitehouse that is consulting The Lord.”

To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about this. It may be comforting to some to have a Christian President, but if we had a Mormon President, some Christians would be up in arms not understanding that because we live in the U.S. we have “Religious Freedom”. Even if we somehow “took religion out of government” there would still be moral decisions to be made. Where do morals come from? God.

‘Round and ‘round we go.

First Thoughts…

posts >> publuis > william

_________________________________________________________

Publuis
The most basic unit in society is the family. Traditional families are defined as two parents, one male and one female and their children. This form while not the only form of family structure is the foundation on which all other societal units are built; this includes but is not limited to, religions, ethnicities, cultures and governments.

It is through the education and indoctrination of the familial unit that individuals develop over time personal affinity for given societal customs and precedents while at the same time developing distastes for others. This, I argue, is the intended order of society. Meaning, the family structure has paramount influence over the individual. Or, put another way the family is the most basic educational institution in society. Therefore, the task of the familial unit in a society is to shape the subsequent broader institutions, not the converse.

Based on this, political education and civic participation begins in the home. In American society table discussions serve as the modus operandi to communicate ideology, philosophy and religion—the determining factors of one’s political perspective. It is often over a meal or gathering that an individual is taught the ideas of his or her family.

Therefore, our political structure must support the family structure. Government needs strong families, and families need sound government. Meaning, public policies such the tax code, healthcare, infrastructure and social programs must uphold the fundamental role of the family. They should do this by creating policies that incentivize strong families. This can be done through such things as tax rebates for healthy, educated children or public planning that facilitates community such as multiuse properties and effective, affordable mass transit.

Employers must recognize the responsibility of the family as well. Government needs to create a business climate that respects the role of a parent, mother or father. In addition, provide vacation time for all workers to ensure healthy families. By doing so, not only are employees prone to be more productive, we can create families that educate their children to participate in the civic process. I am not advocating a cap on the work-week or other rigid mandates per se. What I am advocating is a shift in the climate created by political leaders to maintain families. If that results in a reduced work-week or some employee bill of rights, so be it.

Most importantly, families themselves need to retake the mantel of educators. It is not acceptable to rely on government through the public education system to parent children. While public education plays a vital role in the development of young people in society, if left alone to fill the role of parent it will surely fail. Rather, mothers and fathers must put in the time and effort to educate their children outside of public education. Where this is not possible, surrogates need to take up this responsibility; otherwise we have little hope for future generations to participate in the civic process in any meaningful fashion.

_________________________________________________________

William
So I am in my car, ‘bumpin’ to some Kanye when he drops the line “some people graduate but be still stupid”. My first thought was, “yea, l suppose so; that sounds about right.” But who am I kidding, I know it’s right. While being “a few fries short of a happy meal” was never directly applied to me, I am not exactly what you would call a renaissance man, especially when it comes to issues like politics.

Although I have my BA, I can easily feel my embarrassment rising when I watch Jay Leno do his bit “Jaywalking” and I too cannot answer rudimentary political questions. I sweat at the thought I’d be on the street and here comes that hair and it would ask me, “well, how many states are in the United States?”; then he’d laugh with that chuckle and that chin as he strokes his 20 Porche’ convertibles. I’d be the guy who kind of thinks he knows but is so petrified that he ends up in the show because he said 40 and then tried to cover it up with some mumbling about the Missouri Compromise and the Union in 1852 that I just totally come off like an idiot.

When it comes to the quality of our education, our chances to learn in life abound. There are economics lessons in loan signings and in budgeting personal finances, poly-sci in voting and rotary club bi-laws, psychology in friendships and interfamily dynamics, and the list goes on. With so many areas of life directly affecting our wellbeing, the impetus is on us to become educated well. However, I do not think the problem with me is necessarily bad education. I think the reason some people graduate and “be still stupid”, or feel stupid as I sometimes do, is because of our inability to engage in meaningful and coherent dialogue about what we think and the information we do know. It is the lack of mastery, command, and confidence that aught to come with empowering knowledge.

“It’s the cell phones! The Myspace!” The shorthand txting and funny sayings like “lol” and cyber lingo like “pwnd” that my dad commonly refers to as the break down in our generation’s communication skills. And he’s right. More and more we are learning to communicate from behind a screen and the level of conversation among peers is regressing. So let’s stretch ourselves, dust off our brains and learn to discuss some hard questions that have overwhelming impact on our present and our future.

In the forthcoming posts we will be taking on an issue, or an aspect of culture, politics, art and religion and I invite you to become engaged. Whether you do it online, or in person at an informal get-together to discuss and debate, share your opinion, agree with one or disagree with all. Become informed, and hopefully, let that be empowering enough for you to act! Sure, some people graduate and be still stupid, but I hope to not be one of them. Here I come Jay!