Political Leaders vs Religious Leaders
-
Our political leaders should not ignore the views of our religious leaders.
Otherwise, the religious leaders would see the political leaders as "the enemy", since their own authority is questioned.
Soon, political leaders would be denounced as "Sinners", "godless", "haram" from the pulpits and masjids, and then both would go on a collision course.
It is therefore better that both work together towards a common goal. To this end, the political leaders should not pursue policies that conflict with religious ideals........you know what issue I'm referring to, I hope.. -
No wonder they cancel gay party.
-
politis and religion should never ever mix. Fullstop.
-
It is never mixed. That is why Political and Religious Leaders are separate groups of pplOriginally posted by CenturionMBT:politis and religion should never ever mix. Fullstop.
And the political leaders need to listen to the voices of the ppl, including the religious leaders. -
Politics and religion only mix in our neighbouring countries
-
To say that politics and religion should not mix is like saying gravity should not cause things to drop down or that the sun should not rise in the east. Both are social forces that seek to influence the masses.
-
IMPO, all leaders, political or religeous work only for their own benefit and manipulate policies and laws to suit their own agendas. political leaders control by military force, religeous leaders control through religeous laws and doctrines, all the same. in the end its innocent people that suffer because of their selfish intentions.
-
so political leaders have to follow the orders of religious leaders ? If the muslim religious leaders wanted all women, regardless of religion to wear tudungs we have to follow ? If Catholic says abortion and contraceptives r banned, we banned them in the whole nation ? If christian want u to donate 10% of their money to tilth and force u to go to church on sunday u have to go even if u r nto a believer ? If the taoist want the idol of their deities be placed at every building, then we place them in our house regardless of religions ? If hindu want the people to walk through burning charcoal on thaipusam, all the people have to do tat ? Sorry man, political leaders consult the religion leaders on religious sensitive issues. The final decision lies on them. If u r religious, then u can individually follow the advice of your own religious leaders. As long as it is not some crazy acts they r not gonna stop u. Why ? Because there r people who do not believe in your religion and they should be free to do watever they want. Things make sense if u believe in your religion. It is plain nonsense if u don't believe in it.
-
If I say that children should listen to their parents, does that mean the children hv to commit robbery if their parents asked them to do so?
Moreover, all the religous leaders share the same views about casino. -
If I say that children should listen to their parents, does that mean the children hv to commit robbery if their parents asked them to do so?
and wat is your point ?Moreover, all the religous leaders share the same views about casino.
so tis is link with casino ? -
History have proven.. religious leaders can b|tch n attempt to clinch power.. but in the end.. pple will go thru hardship n realise these pple no nuts abt running a country n its economy.. juz like how the Vatican has lost power since centuries ago.. it's juz a matter of time only..
-
Says you.Originally posted by patriot:To say that politics and religion should not mix is like saying gravity should not cause things to drop down or that the sun should not rise in the east. Both are social forces that seek to influence the masses. -
I tend to agree with the above.Originally posted by patriot:To say that politics and religion should not mix is like saying gravity should not cause things to drop down or that the sun should not rise in the east. Both are social forces that seek to influence the masses.
Just look at the Roman Catholic church. From the times of medival Europe, the Church participated extensively in politics - from the frequent decrees of excommunication, to the Crusades - the Church and the politics of the land mixed frequently, often to the suffering of the common men.
Medival China was no different, emperors were seen as given divine mandate - they were seen as sons of heaven.
Whether it is right or not is a different matter, but in reality religion still plays a constant and powerful role in politics - just check out Malaysian politics, American politics or politics in the Phillipines for example. -
No. The Catholic Church and other conservative churches have interfered enuff in politics in other countries- we don't need religious fundmentalists telling the govt what to do and what not to.Originally posted by Dr Who:Our political leaders should not ignore the views of our religious leaders.
Otherwise, the religious leaders would see the political leaders as "the enemy", since their own authority is questioned.
Soon, political leaders would be denounced as "Sinners", "godless", "haram" from the pulpits and masjids, and then both would go on a collision course.
It is therefore better that both work together towards a common goal. To this end, the political leaders should not pursue policies that conflict with religious ideals........you know what issue I'm referring to, I hope..
When comes to politics, common sense shd come into the picture first, not religious beliefs. Religious beliefs shd be 2nd or 3rd on the list- or even the 4th.
The point is- we are not America! -
any man-in-the-street, declaring:
1. the world is the product of super being.
2. it is created in a couple of days.
3. all who believe will be save.
4. those who donÂ’t will be mighty sorry.
conclusion: lunatic, cult leader.
any (main stream) religious leaders declaring the same,
with some ‘genuine’ text to back up his/her claim.
conclusion: itÂ’s must be true.
It’s an over simplified example, but I would prefer to ‘trust’ a politicians. At least I know he have his own/party agenda and will play dirty.
any religious leaders will also play dirty and have their own agenda, but tend to cloak them in religious respectability.
better the devil I know, I say. religious leaders should stand in the corner and suck thumbs and let some one else, even the opposition, run the state. -
And if we need more examples on why we shdn't let religious fundmentalists influence govt policy..here's one on Terri Schiavo- which the religious right Republican govt has overstepped their powers...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050330/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_37
And PAS(Islamic Party in malaysia)
http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2003/6m.html -
great. sorry.
-
*double post*
-
Ignore this.
-
and what if the opposition is incompetent? it is inevitable that ruthless leaders emerge for it is the ruthless but wise leader that propels a country to greatness. you show me a leader in history that has not eliminated his opponents or contenders to his throne. a weak leader will not gain the fear and therefore respect of his people. go read michiavelli's the price and the servant. history has proven that religeon is the most effective medium to control people, from chinese emperors to muslim sultans to catholic popes, all employed ruthless, selfish, radical forms of religeon to effectively control the masses.Originally posted by fett:any man-in-the-street, declaring:
1. the world is the product of super being.
2. it is created in a couple of days.
3. all who believe will be save.
4. those who donÂ’t will be mighty sorry.
conclusion: lunatic, cult leader.
any (main stream) religious leaders declaring the same,
with some ‘genuine’ text to back up his/her claim.
conclusion: itÂ’s must be true.
It’s an over simplified example, but I would prefer to ‘trust’ a politicians. At least I know he have his own/party agenda and will play dirty.
any religious leaders will also play dirty and have their own agenda, but tend to cloak them in religious respectability.
better the devil I know, I say. religious leaders should stand in the corner and suck thumbs and let some one else, even the opposition, run the state. -
Politics n religious shouldnt mix,both are 2 different categories.Religious leaders should not interfere political decision,they should only manage their own religious matter.
-
What are u talking about?I dont think Americans rules their own country based on religious belief.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:No. The Catholic Church and other conservative churches have interfered enuff in politics in other countries- we don't need religious fundmentalists telling the govt what to do and what not to.
When comes to politics, common sense shd come into the picture first, not religious beliefs. Religious beliefs shd be 2nd or 3rd on the list- or even the 4th.
The point is- we are not America! -
agreed x2Originally posted by bumbleb:I tend to agree with the above.
they are the some kind of ppl actually.... ppl that like others to listen to them....it's all about power.... especially in modern world now...
-
I don't know abt PAS, but I don't think that the action on Terri Schiavo is really anything wrong, apart from the demand to sieze her from hospital. And anyway, the action is only done by Governor Jeb Bush, not yet by the White House.I believe someone further down talked about how religious leaders "cloak their poor intentions in religious respectablity". Well, the same applies for secular leaders , or other secular "experts"., who cloak their poor intentions in moral and humanitarian and democratic respectability.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:And if we need more examples on why we shdn't let religious fundmentalists influence govt policy..here's one on Terri Schiavo- which the religious right Republican govt has overstepped their powers...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050330/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman_37
And PAS(Islamic Party in malaysia)
http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2003/6m.html
So euthanasia = "mercy killing"; we are killing someone to prevent that person from suffering agony. Remember the guy who jumped floors with his kids after he llost all his money at the casino? Presumably that guy was killing his kids to spare them future agony at their father's demise. So Common Sense tells you that this should be considered euthanasia as well, shouldn't it? But no, somehow we ahve nobody arguing for that. Instead what we ahve are many people calling that man sadistic and insane and etcetc. But when the doctors perform the act of authanasia, suddenly they are considered heroes, and defenders of Right of Choice.
It shocks me to see how Americans, a people that prides itself on promoting Human Rights around the world, can in the same breath condemn the Death Penalty and praise euthanasia. Euthanasia violates the most sacrosanct of all the Human Rights - the Right to Life. SO far there is no international HR organization that has thrown any backing behind Mr Schiavo, despite the fact that the Schiavo Case has stirred up even more media attention than Darfur and the Indonesian Quake combined, or the Abu Ghraib Massacres. Amnesty International, for example, has not written a single report or news-flash or urgent action request for people to support Mr Schiavo and have the feeding tube of Terri removed, the same way the organization does for people on the death row, or gays who are arrested for being who they are. AI still focuses on Sudan and the Death Penalty, and that is right. Essentially, there is no mercy involved in euthanasia; that is bland rhetoric, the same kind government leaders use when they talk about national catastrophes: hmmm... wonder why Microsoft donated so much more tsunami aid relief money than the British and American and Australian governments combined. It's simply a way for doctors to slack; it is medical negligence if the patient suffers while being kept alive, not the fault of God or those who want to keep the patients alive. besides, the key flaw in the argument for euthanasia is this: how can people in a state of extreme pain and suffering, or in a vegetative state like Terri Schiavo, be able to make a rational decision about their own lives? Their desire for death may be merely a suicidal impulse; in other words, euthanasia is essentially assisted suicide. ( no law court would accept the testimony of such a person) And what is assisted suicide? Isn't it murder?
Thus, for once, and once alone, the Republican Government may be right in their intervention.
And anyway, Mr Schiavo has vested interest in hospital money of his wife, so his defence of euthanasia is not merely out of altruistic concern for Terri.
Go read the New York Times, and you'll find out more.
the pikamaster (who opposes the Casino, the Death Penalty, Homosexual Discrimination, Abortion and Euthanasia) -
Religious leaders have the responsibility to check immorality of the government, especially in places where there are no secular checks. It is the responsibility of religious leaders to protect the rights of workers, freedom of worship and Right to Life of all people.Originally posted by drawer:Politics n religious shouldnt mix,both are 2 different categories.Religious leaders should not interfere political decision,they should only manage their own religious matter.