Would Our Politics Improve if Religion Weren't Part of It?

Post Reply New Topic

Sanctimoniousness is a major part of a politician's electability in the United States, especially among Republicans but to a lesser extent also among Democrats. An atheist is highly unlikely to be elected to the U.S. Senate, for example, and many policy positions are pursued based solely on religious doctrine. Would our political discourse be improved if political campaigns were run and policy pursued in a secular fashion with religion remaining a private matter?

we'd have to be a totally different nation of people for that to be- something more akin to the commonwealth countries or northern europe.

The answer is yes!
Because of religious intolerance many great politicians are ignored.
It was a big controversy in the 1960s just because Kennedy was a catholic.
Many republicans are very paranoid because they think Obama could be a Muslim.

I don't think being a Muslim or a catholic would make you any worse of leader than a protostant.

A leader in the U.S should be a loyal Christian according to American society.
If religion were a private matter than the possibility of having a decent leader would increase. An athiest could make just as good of a leader than a Christian.
Maybe even better because they would not be focused on Christian morals.

Religion and politics are two completely different topics and should be seperate.
With a non- religious president we could lessen our chances of a holy war.

i'm not sure that politics would improve. im sure politicians would be able to find other things to validate the crap they do but i still think it should be kept far away from politics. it would make arguing with the right so much easier since all the arguments they use are religiously based even the ones that dont look religious. for instance the supporting of the "concience" vote for same sex marriage or "tradition". everyone knows it means the pollies are going to ask "is it ok with the church?" though i have to say it makes taking the right wingers down so much fun when you can use their beliefs against them. we have an athiest as a prime minister now and there was a huge fuss about that, especially from the religious right. i dont see what they were so worried about. the woman still uses christianity as an argument against things like same sex marriage. of course now that she has had the concience vote passed they feel like their fears about this amoral athiest have been confirmed. we already have a separation of church and state here but it is never followed and when it isnt it is always christian groups that violate it and are tolerated. i want to know how reverend fred nile is able to participate in politics and how the christian democratic party can exist. the rambling point i was making is that separation of church and state is nice on paper and it should absolutely be the goal but, here at least, it is not working the way it should.

I am atheist, but I must admit that the leftist/communist experience proves that the absence of religion in politics isn't a guarantee for better politics.

The current rulers of Turkey are doing far better than their extremely-secular predecessors.

When secularism is *imposed* on people like the Soviets and many Arab leaders did (and some still do), it wouldn't end well.

As long religion is not being used as ruling law or limitation for science and such, it wouldn't be problem. Unfortunately, it is often the case.

any literary reading of religion is assured to impose on all others and the non litterary has very little "authority", in that anyone can interpret it as they please.

in the end i say religion is a guilty pleasure that should be kept seperated from how one rules a country.

The right certainly wouldn't have the pretext for associating the left with "Godless communism."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

not necessary. religion is the root of human stupidity.

if we didn't have religion, we'd just invent something equally as stupid.

which is what happened with communism.

More than likely yes, just look at the Scandinavian countries.

If religions disappeared or were practiced very quietly and privately, our politics would be much cleaner and saner. Look at our history. It was religious enthusiasm that inflicted Prohibition on the U.S. It was religious enthusiasm that sent the U.S. into the Great Anti-Communist Crusade. Religion seeping into the public and political domain has caused a kind of insanity in our nation.

ruveyn

Unfortunately, political hucksters and manipulators realize they can inflame people's passions by invoking religion, in order to gain political advantage.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Everything improves when you remove religion. People become more tolerant to other people and ideas, people become more responsible (you can't excuse your behaviour by saying God or Allah or whoever told you to do it), and people become more intelligent when they are forced to think for themselves instead of being little sheep.

Sounds like exactly what the world needs.

People are marginalized just as well by a secular society as they are by a religious one. I have given up hearing of people sidelined for opposing 'progress' or 'it's the 21st century now'. Religon in practice is teleology and values, atheists are capable of generating a sense of both without religion. States that are undeveloped are more violent, developed states just push you to the margin by other means. What radical atheists don't seem to process is at even if they are right and every religion is the product of man, removing religion will not remove one inch of underlying problem, man. As Ruveyn says, there are always new bad ideas.