BF2S Forums Church + State...

CameronPoe wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Me too.

I can imagine there being protests in the UK if the government took an outwardly Christian stance - which is something I would probably join in with.

The government is there to represent the people, not just people of one religion.

It's interesting actually - I read an article at the weekend where Tony Blair's aides had to dissuade him from saying 'God bless you' in his address sending the troops to Iraq. As Alastair Campbell put it: 'We don't do God'.

It's good, that's what it is.

As it happens that was the first thing I thought of when I read the OP:

Bertster7 wrote:

Tony Blair has received criticism for being too religious and is not allowed to say the sorts of things Bush says in national addresses. For example Blair wanted to say "God Bless" something or other in his speech when the invasion of Iraq began, he was not allowed to. He has also gotten in trouble for mentioning God in interviews.

God Bless secular politics

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

ATG wrote:

Hmmn... seems like we already have that in Bush.
And he sucks btw.

I disagree i dont see how you see that. He is a religious man, but so was Clinton, and a lot of other presidents.

yeah damn Clinton ruined everything with his scandal lol

deeznutz1245 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

@OP seriously.

It would make me livid if a person who was religiously driven was elected as my representative. I'd consider leaving the county/country. As soon as someone elses personal/spiritual beliefs start impinging on your life it's time to say 'enough is enough'.

There used to be a place for people to go who didnt want religious jurisdiction. It was called America. Everyone used to keep their faith to themselves and respect everyone else's that may have differed. But then, somewhere along the way, some fuck fucking fuckity fuck got offended and sued. Now we have to be sensitive and tolerant of everything, even the shit heads who bomb us.  Now we are all fuct. Everyone should just mind their own business and worry about themselves.

It didn't start out that way though did it. Although I appreciate there was a time in a golden age for the US when religion didn't feature in politics, back before the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, which I find abhorrent.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-06 13:22:30)

Bertster7 wrote:

the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, which I find abhorrent.

Why?

UGADawgs wrote:

Lol at all the British out there calling us a theocracy when your monarch is titled "Defender of the Faith," the Anglican church is officially established as the church of England, its head is selected by the government, the monarch swears to defend the state of the Anglican church as the state religion, and the monarch can't be a Catholic.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/oa048.jpg

Except for that the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with British politics.

ghettoperson wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

Lol at all the British out there calling us a theocracy when your monarch is titled "Defender of the Faith," the Anglican church is officially established as the church of England, its head is selected by the government, the monarch swears to defend the state of the Anglican church as the state religion, and the monarch can't be a Catholic.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/oa048.jpg

Except for that the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with British politics.

The Prime Minister still helps select the Archbishop, and besides, why aren't all the secularist crusaders who are trying to liberate us from the theocratic tyranny of God on money trying to strip the monarchy of its fairly involved role in religion. Besides, at least we don't have a state religion.

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Why?

Because church and state should not be tied. There is a sizeable chunk of the population that does not believe it is one nation under god.

It is also to specific...

At first you think "O' that's sort of generic, it's just an abstract conception. God in this abstract context could mean anything, or be applied to any faith." But, it was conceived of in non-specific terms, it is a Christain insertion, it referes to the Christain Trinity Concept of God.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus

Francis Bellamys' Pledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy

I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

And its other proposed alternative

I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

That's much better.

Bertster7 wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Except for that the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with British politics.

The Prime Minister still helps select the Archbishop, and besides, why aren't all the secularist crusaders who are trying to liberate us from the theocratic tyranny of God on money trying to strip the monarchy of its fairly involved role in religion. Besides, at least we don't have a state religion.

Because the monarchy is not a part of government, it is not a tool to work for the citizens of the country, it is simply a figurehead and a good way to generate tourism revenue.

I have no problem with unelected high profile individuals being involved in religion, there is no harm in that. Elected officials are representatives for the electorate and for them to side with one faith is not right.

What exactly do you mean by "siding"? If you're saying that elected officials shouldn't use legislation to actively promote one religion at the detriment to another, of course. Even with "crusader" Bush it's not like we've established a certain denomination of a church (unlike another country I can think of...) . At the least, I hope you don't mean that elected officials must abandon all references to their religion.

Dezerteagal5 wrote:

How would you feel if a religious extremest got elected into a powerfull seat in the government, and made serious decisions based on there belief in god??

For me, being an athiest, that would piss me off beyong belief!.
How would you feel (whether your an athiest or a believer)?

edit:
For example, a politician bans condoms in your state because he feels that god doesn't want people to have sex unless its to make kids.

well, you could look at it this way, God could be a very powerful lobby group. Really, what would be the difference?

Bertster7 wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

At the least, I hope you don't mean that elected officials must abandon all references to their religion.

That's exactly what I mean, while they are performing their official duties. In their own time they can do what they want.

That's a bit extreme. I don't care if a politician says that they're part of a religion or acknowledge that their beliefs come from a certain view. Hopefully the person can keep belief and legislation separate, but I don't mind a person declaring that they're a religious person.

Screw the church. Religions have been messing up people's heads ever since they were made up.

Bertster7 wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's exactly what I mean, while they are performing their official duties. In their own time they can do what they want.

That's a bit extreme. I don't care if a politician says that they're part of a religion or acknowledge that their beliefs come from a certain view. Hopefully the person can keep belief and legislation separate, but I don't mind a person declaring that they're a religious person.

They can say they are, but they should not be allowed to ram it down your throat. For example Blair can say he is Christian, but not say things like "God bless....". They've got to leave all that at home when they're working.

How does "God bless" hurt you in any way?  It's an expression of good will toward one's fellow man.

Bertster7 wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's exactly what I mean, while they are performing their official duties. In their own time they can do what they want.

That's a bit extreme. I don't care if a politician says that they're part of a religion or acknowledge that their beliefs come from a certain view. Hopefully the person can keep belief and legislation separate, but I don't mind a person declaring that they're a religious person.

They can say they are, but they should not be allowed to ram it down your throat. For example Blair can say he is Christian, but not say things like "God bless....". They've got to leave all that at home when they're working.

Why not? It's not like a politician saying "God bless so-and-so" is going to actively oppress someone who's an atheist. If they don't believe in God, then they won't feel anything will come of the phrase and therefore don't need to be bothered by it.

It means they speak for the people that have elected them. Including those of different religions. By being vocal about their own religion they are misrepresenting many of those that have voted for them.

No matter who the representative is, there's always going to be a minority. If I have a black representative who is proud about being black, does that mean he's misrepresenting me? If he promotes eggs and I'm allergic to them, is he misrepresenting me?  Come on, do you honestly want politicians to be as generic as possible just to fit with everyone? You're basically saying that politicians shouldn't be part of any group because he represents people who aren't part of his group.

Last edited by UGADawgs (2007-03-06 15:40:47)