Political Leaders vs Religious Leaders
-
Stupid...,Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.
Muslim religious leaders have no right to force shariah law and islamic culture on everybody else, they should respect freedom of religious worship.
But the Catholic stance isn't merely doing Catholic Culture; it is basic morality. Okay, I admit that the stance against contraception is somewhat flawed, but abortion is tantamount to murder, just like euthanasia, and should be banned. it is the denial to Right to Life, which is a basic Human Right; u support Human Rights, don't you? But I agree, forcing pple to pay tithes (which is not present anymore) and forcing people to go to church on Sunday is forcing CHristian CUlture on everyone else, and is wrong.
Ditto for your points on Hinduism and Taoism.
But subjecting the final decision to the government on all matters may not be most prudent. What if the Government decides to oppress workers and persecute people who follow a particular faith? Are those final decisions really desirable?
People should always follow a moral compass. For all the weaknesses of Religious Institutions (even the Catholic Church), their doctrines still have a firm moral basis, which prevents all hell from breaking loose (no pun intended).
If anybody can do anything they want, you would ahve anarchy, and many would be harmed. That is common sense.
the pikamaster (who hates the Curia but loves God and the Church)
P.S.: The Curia is the administrative body (aka govt) of the Vatican. The "Church" refers to teh community of worshippers. -
Oh fuck! Then who the hell is George W. Bush and Karl Rove? How abt Tom Delay of the Senate Majority leader?Originally posted by drawer:What are u talking about?I dont think Americans rules their own country based on religious belief.
Let me ask you: Aren't those Republicans using religion to justify their actions in the Florida-Schiavo case in the Congress-Senate special session on the 19th Mar in re-inserting the feeding tube?
Islamic or Christian, religious conservatives and fundmentalists cannot have power in politics and politics cannot succumb to religious extremism, no matter what religion it is.
The moment the fundmentalists get a bit of the power that they want, it will be the end of any personal freedom that any individual Singaporean still has. I simply cannot allow it. -
Muslim religious leaders have no right to force shariah law and islamic culture on everybody else, they should respect freedom of religious worship.
Tat is your perception. If u ask a muslim, they feel tat a woman wearing tudung can be deemed as morality since it prevents the guys from seeing her directly and have lusts. If u ask a more pius catholic, he will say tat contraceptives should be banned as well since it is also denyign the rights of living. Talking about morality, the politician had implement it well enough as well. Tat is why there r laws prohibiting people from running about naked. if u talk about abortion, frankly speaking there r really people tat support tis law to be in place as well. Personally I have little problems with euthanasia and abortion but tis is a topic which i do not wish to dwell on.
But the Catholic stance isn't merely doing Catholic Culture; it is basic morality. Okay, I admit that the stance against contraception is somewhat flawed, but abortion is tantamount to murder, just like euthanasia, and should be banned. it is the denial to Right to Life, which is a basic Human Right; u support Human Rights, don't you? But I agree, forcing pple to pay tithes (which is not present anymore) and forcing people to go to church on Sunday is forcing CHristian CUlture on everyone else, and is wrong.But subjecting the final decision to the government on all matters may not be most prudent. What if the Government decides to oppress workers and persecute people who follow a particular faith? Are those final decisions really desirable?
politicians most likely make decisions tat will be good for the masses, not just one particular group. As said before, some of the rules from the other religion r rubbish if u r not a believer. Weshould not talk about an extreme case where the politician go about hunting christians or muslims. Why do think a religious gov will not oppress and persecute people who follow a different faith as well ?People should always follow a moral compass. For all the weaknesses of Religious Institutions (even the Catholic Church), their doctrines still have a firm moral basis, which prevents all hell from breaking loose (no pun intended).
All people have a moral compass, even free thinkers. If u talk about firm moral basis, muslim and confucianism or buddist have tat as well. But on certain issues they have a different opinions. Isn't it wiser to let politician who should be neutral to all of them be the judge ? -
I think it becomes really sad when we say that religion shd play a part in politics. The reasons on why I oppose it are pretty simple really. I'll list it out. Some have already been mentioned while some are new. Nonetheless I ask for ur patience.
1. We are no longer living in the Middle Ages where Kings have to ask their Catholic Priests whether should we have war or should we have peace. The Middle Ages were a period of conflict because both Muslims and Christians in Europe and Middle East paid too much to religious extremists and therefore they plunge into hundreds of years of intense bloodshed.
2. See for yourselves what has happened in India, Muslim and Arab countries, the Phillippines and in the States where religious fundmentalists have made the respective govts a puppet for the priests and ulumas. Do we need to follow down that road of doom- where the religious freedom and the personal freedom of each and every individual is thrown out of the window for the sake of God or Gods?
3. Religion has been corrupted by man himself to suit his only selfish purposes. They use religion as a shield and as an excuse for their selfish wars and conflict. They themselves don't care abt religion unless it suits their own double standards.
Look at Osama Bin Laden. Look at the militant Christian groups who sent death threat letters to the Judges who ruled out re-inserting the feeding tube to the late Terri Schavio. Are they really being religious? Or are they using it as an excuse to murder people and furthering their selfish, dangerous mentality of eroding a case that should have remained personal? -
Can Democracy really defeat Islamic State without resorting to War, like in Iraq?
How can you really change to nature of an Islamic State when there are no free and fair elections.....as in Iran?
You may not like it, but Religion as a political tool is here to stay....... -
Can Democracy really defeat Islamic State without resorting to War, like in Iraq?
actually u just shown us tat religious leaders should not mix with politics. When they mixed, u got results like iraq and iran. I am just glad tat religion as a political tool remains in the hands of only a few countries
How can you really change to nature of an Islamic State when there are no free and fair elections.....as in Iran?
You may not like it, but Religion as a political tool is here to stay....... -
I am a politician which means im a cheat and a liar , when im not kissing babies im stealing their lolipop
-
And the more we shouldn't follow their example. It doesn't mean that since there's an increase of governments mixing politics with religion means we need to join into their party.Originally posted by Dr Who:Can Democracy really defeat Islamic State without resorting to War, like in Iraq?
How can you really change to nature of an Islamic State when there are no free and fair elections.....as in Iran?
You may not like it, but Religion as a political tool is here to stay.......
The more I see countries like the Phillippines(where the Church is more powerful than the Manila central government) and PAS' conflict with UNMO, the more I insist that religion shouldn't be mixed together with politics.
Religion should be an individual thing and at most a internal group kinda thing. When it starts to be used for whatever human problems, conflicts and other negative issues, that's when religion becomes very dangerous. -
You know,Originally posted by timothytsgsg:And the more we shouldn't follow their example. It doesn't mean that since there's an increase of governments mixing politics with religion means we need to join into their party.
The more I see countries like the Phillippines(where the Church is more powerful than the Manila central government) and PAS' conflict with UNMO, the more I insist that religion shouldn't be mixed together with politics.
Religion should be an individual thing and at most a internal group kinda thing. When it starts to be used for whatever human problems, conflicts and other negative issues, that's when religion becomes very dangerous.
the precise same thing could be said for secular politics. Politics can also be used assiduously for forwarding personal ends; look at President Mugabe. Look at Hitler or Stalin.
Religion shouldn't becoem equal to politics, but on the other hand, isolating religion from politics is not desirable, as it will result in more Stalins and Hitlers who have absolutely no moral compasses at all. -
Atheists do not.Originally posted by stupidissmart:All people have a moral compass, even free thinkers. If u talk about firm moral basis, muslim and confucianism or buddist have tat as well. But on certain issues they have a different opinions. Isn't it wiser to let politician who should be neutral to all of them be the judge ? -
there are many cases where religious leaders fight for freedom too, like John paul II in terms of Poland.Originally posted by timothytsgsg:Oh fuck! Then who the hell is George W. Bush and Karl Rove? How abt Tom Delay of the Senate Majority leader?
Let me ask you: Aren't those Republicans using religion to justify their actions in the Florida-Schiavo case in the Congress-Senate special session on the 19th Mar in re-inserting the feeding tube?
Islamic or Christian, religious conservatives and fundmentalists cannot have power in politics and politics cannot succumb to religious extremism, no matter what religion it is.
The moment the fundmentalists get a bit of the power that they want, it will be the end of any personal freedom that any individual Singaporean still has. I simply cannot allow it. -
Yeah, a failed soviet system in return for a rigid system of Catholic christianity. Sounds utterly fine with me.. not.Originally posted by pikamaster:there are many cases where religious leaders fight for freedom too, like John paul II in terms of Poland.
But if the Polish wants it that way, well, they had made their choice and I respect that. -
I have never said that politicians shdn't have religion or have no moral code of conduct in the way they do things. What I meant is that politicians shd know when not to use religion as an excuse for some of the actions they are doing.Originally posted by pikamaster:You know,
the precise same thing could be said for secular politics. Politics can also be used assiduously for forwarding personal ends; look at President Mugabe. Look at Hitler or Stalin.
Religion shouldn't becoem equal to politics, but on the other hand, isolating religion from politics is not desirable, as it will result in more Stalins and Hitlers who have absolutely no moral compasses at all.
Often religious fundmentalists overstep the boundaries and impose rules on people of different races and religion. Such as PAS of Malaysia- who has tried to impose a ban on alcohol on not just muslims but also chinese. Same goes for gambling and the dress code(which they want chinese to wear the muslim head dress).
Terri Schiavo is already an obvious, famous case where right wing christian conservatives have tried to assert their close minded views and militancy to ensure people to follow their rules w/o question. Same goes for Hindu extremists in India.
Religion and religious rules shd only be imposed within the group of followers and not over religious boundaries. Every S'porean shd have the right to choose whatever religion they want and even if they remain free thinkers, I would definately want them to have a self internal moral code of conduct, so as not to create havoc.
Obviously, no-one wants an idiot like Mugabe, Hitler or Stalin. I never said I'd endorse such bloodthirstly animals as political leaders. -
Yoz,Originally posted by timothytsgsg:I have never said that politicians shdn't have religion or have no moral code of conduct in the way they do things. What I meant is that politicians shd know when not to use religion as an excuse for some of the actions they are doing.
Often religious fundmentalists overstep the boundaries and impose rules on people of different races and religion. Such as PAS of Malaysia- who has tried to impose a ban on alcohol on not just muslims but also chinese. Same goes for gambling and the dress code(which they want chinese to wear the muslim head dress).
Terri Schiavo is already an obvious, famous case where right wing christian conservatives have tried to assert their close minded views and militancy to ensure people to follow their rules w/o question. Same goes for Hindu extremists in India.
Religion and religious rules shd only be imposed within the group of followers and not over religious boundaries. Every S'porean shd have the right to choose whatever religion they want and even if they remain free thinkers, I would definately want them to have a self internal moral code of conduct, so as not to create havoc.
Obviously, no-one wants an idiot like Mugabe, Hitler or Stalin. I never said I'd endorse such bloodthirstly animals as political leaders.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, I agree with NYT columnist David Brook's argument that strong proponents of both sides of the issues, that is the right-wing conservative Christians and Left-wing Liberal progressives such as yourself, have a serious flaw in each of the argument. Being a Christian myself, I still think that Governor Jeb Bush's idea of using govt militia to sieze Schiavo by force is incorrect. So yes, youa re right to say these people are close-minded; Brooks tells us why: in the mordern world, we know of so many life experiences which are worse than dessath by far. However, people like you are also close-minded: You people fail to see that a victory by you people in the Schiavo case (as has been obtained) would pave the way for erosion of social mores by doctors. It seems simple: We'll give patients the right of choice to die, since society should not impose whatever religious codes and blablabla, but let me (and Brooks) ask you: when do we determine that patients should start having the choice to die? When do we decide that they are beyond cure? you left-wingers argue for your case on the grounds that The government and religious groups shouldn't play God and force a person who has the right to die to live on. In a similar vein however, should we allow Doctors to play God and advise patients on when to choose to die? What is the line between mercy and assisted suicide? Advance Medical Directive seems bliss, a perfect democratic change in rigid Singapore. But it invests too much power in doctors. We must recognize that no doctor has completely perfect expertise, and a misjudgement on the part of a doctor could result in a patient who might have still had the chance to live ending up choosing death, or as we call it in softer-terms, mercy-killing.
Ya, I don't agree with religious fundamentalists either, certainly not with PAS. But not all people who are religious are religious fundamentalists. And there are very fine lines between religious rules and moral codes. In fact, many religious doctrines have moral codes instilled in them, because protecting morals is often the cause of starting a new religion. However, generally, these codes are generic and allow for many forms of implementation. For example, it is wrong for a Muslim Man, Christian Man, or Hindu Man to look lustfully at a girl, and obviously a Buddhist, but the manner of prevention can be implemented differently. Fundamentalists are those who assert that there is only one way of following this code, that is their way, and that all other ways are sinful, and people, even if they are WITHIN the same religious grouping, who follow other ways are sinful. Fundamentalists do not distinguish between inside and outside of religions as you claim they do. PAS punnishes Muslims who do not follow the dress-code or rules about holding hands in pulbic with jail in teh same way it punnishes Chinese.
Right of Religious worship is indeed important, and I never once disputed that. In fact, the core of most religions, which theocrats have distorted for years, is tolerance, except perhaps for buddhism, which emphasizes total detachment from the world. Free thinkers should be allowed too, but their freedom should not be entirely secular, and certainly atheists should not be allowed to exist in practice, though agnostics can and should be accepted. Secularism is an ill, though secularization is not. In secularism, there is the total absence of any moral order, and teh chaos espoused is as seen in ther regimes of hitler and Stalin, two rulers that fully resisted religion in their countries. Communist Russia and Nazi Germany were both police states, where the authorities were fully secular i.e. they did not belong to any religious group independent of the government (Nazi Churches are not considered religion) and did policy at their own discretion, often under the guise of "national interest".
You mentioned expressly that you do not want such insane leaders. So I'm telling you, if we want totally no religion in government, it means totally no moral code, and hence the generation of such insane leaders. OF course, the gvoernment should not be entirely one religion either. Politics should never fuse with religion, but neither should it isolate itself from religion.
the (still moral Christian) pikamaster -
I trust that most leaders whom are of free thinkers are also principled people with their own moral code of conduct- which they have had applied through out their lives.
Which means I disagree with ur view that secular leaders are less principled than those who are religious. The only difference between principled secular leaders and more religious ones is that their moral code don't attribute everything to God, Allah or Buddha or the Way(Taoism) or Krishna etc. But that doesn't mean secular leaders are inferior just because they aren't religious.
Only a slim majority will be Stalin, Hitler and Mugabe- and these are the ones who shouldn't be in charge of any country. We will need to do everything possible to prevent that from happening.
And I repeat this again: religion should remain a personal thing and an individual thing. The Pope attributes everything that exist to God. I attribute everything not just to God but the people themselves as well. Religious freedom means the individual freedom to select your own religion- it doesn't mean only one religion is supreme and the rest are inferior.
Or in any case that the choice to become a free thinker doesn't not meant you are inferior to those who practise religion very closely. It's never should be that way. -
Religious leaders represent the beliefs (and hence opinions) of their religious groups (followers).
As citizens, they are entitled to their opinion, just like you and I.
In Singapore, when they state their beliefs and views, they are not saying that the Govt must follow their religious beliefs. They are stating their and the followers of that religion's beliefs (or opinions).
As such, I don't see why we should exclude their opinion from consideration when they are also fellow citizens like us.
This doesn't mean we are mixing politics with religion. -
<<>>>
Interesting idea! Basic morality? That is where you are flawed. Basic morality does not exist. Each religion has it's brand of morality, but there is never a common morality to speak of. Have you even studied morality? If you have, you will notice how the lines of morality changed with time. Catholic's morality is NOT a basic morality. It has it's own unreasonable extremes that caused suffering to countless woman.
And last time the religious ppl of the west ruled, they had witch hunts which killed and murdered countless people. Do not tell me it is BETTER for the religious people to rule. The truth is, they are the same if not worse. Their minds are closed, their views are narrow, and that made them poor and dangerous leaders. -
i agree with u totally[/b]Originally posted by donttrustu:And last time the religious ppl of the west ruled, they had witch hunts which killed and murdered countless people. Do not tell me it is BETTER for the religious people to rule. The truth is, they are the same if not worse. Their minds are closed, their views are narrow, and that made them poor and dangerous leaders.