Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Keep your religion out of my politics…
Alex Kane is a unionist, and a committed atheist. In his column this week he makes it clear that he doesn’t think politics and religion mix. There’s a lot of it about. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Billwas the partial subject of a sermon in the local parish church this Sunday. Northern Ireland’s science education policy has a strange abivalence within it, presumably because of some internal lobbying in the Executive. Yet is it always true that the kind of moral rigour that church influence can bring to the secular democratic feast is always negative? For instance, what of Denis Faul’s famous line there is either law, or no law?
Mick Fealty @ 10:35 AM
And can the secularists, moral relativists and atheists keep their politics out of other people’s religion?
So, you know if a person doesn’t wish to get involved in something which he finds morally repugnant and contrary to his sincere religious faith he shouldn’t be punished by the state for refusing to doing so?
Like endorsing gay marriage and adoption, that sort of thing?
Because I don’t actually see religion being forced on anyone in the UK but I do see a lot of religious people being forced by the state to adopt positions they fundamentally disagree with.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:43 AMThat great institution, the Roman Catholic church. They’re very concerned about the beginning of life but don’t seem to have a problem with some Priests who supported the murder of human beings as long as they were Protestants.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:47 AM<Because I don’t actually see religion being forced on anyone in the UK but I do see a lot of religious people being forced by the state to adopt positions they fundamentally disagree with.
Actually Harry the cCommon law system practised in Britain and Ireland were developed in the context of ‘Christian values’. That’s why women didn’t have equal rights, homosexuality was illegal, feral urchins went up chimneys (hmm, now there’s a thought). Thankfully, the days of the minority imposing their version of a moral compass on everyone else are, mostly, behind us.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:58 AM“So, you know if a person doesn’t wish to get involved in something which he finds morally repugnant and contrary to his sincere religious faith he shouldn’t be punished by the state for refusing to doing so? ”
As a unionist, and a committed agnostic (if that’s not an oxymoron) I totally agree with you actually.
“I don’t actually see religion being forced on anyone in the UK ”
Really? Sunday trading hours? Not being able to buy a 6-pack in a corner shop? The IFA’s recently rescinded ban on competitive matches on a Sunday? Prayers in school? That’s just from Northern Ireland. Slightly further afield we have a religious leader saying that it would be “immoral” for Wales not to have full law-making powers.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:02 PMNot just prayers in school, but having to take religion as a GCSE. Then there is the fact that the UK has an established church, with certain bishops ex officio legislators etc etc.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:10 PMAs a Protestant I agree wholeheartedly with Kane that politics and religion don’t mix. The Christian Religion (in it’s purest form) can never be political. When it mixes with politics to gain an earthly advantage, it starts to corrupt it’s true spiritual message.
Romans 13v1 was written by Apostile Paul, when Christians were being tortured under a non-Christian government, and he stated, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
The message is simple, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t resist the power of your government.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:12 PMI don’t actually see religion being forced on anyone in the UK
Actually, thants to the Act of Settlement, it is pretty much forced on everyone in the UK!
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:13 PMWhat concerns me are the world leaders who talk to gods of various hues, that I don’t believe exist, and then use them to justify their actions.
Either I’m mad or they are...........maybe even both?
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:31 PMActually, thants to the Act of Settlement, it is pretty much forced on everyone in the UK!
Not quite true Horseman. The Act of Settlement gave anyone the right to thier own religion. Unfortunately many innocent people perished when the Act of Settlement came into action as the situation in Britian was extremely hostile, between those working for the Vatican (who wanted a Roman Catholic Religion installed) and Protestants (many of whom would also be willing to carry out murder against those who supported the Pope)
The Act of Settlement did not force religion onto anyone, it gave people their freedom.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:32 PMOh dear, I think Alex is about to be deluged by gospel tracts.
As to his substantive point, although he doesn’t think that politics and religion should mix, it’s inevitable that they will, given that Christians are obliged to be salt and light in the world, which means upholding Biblical beliefs in the public sphere. I believe that, on balance, this is good for society. Others do not and, as Harry Flashman states, try to curtail the free expression of Christian opinions and lifestyle choices that conflict with the secularist agenda.
I also believe that religious belief, regardless of theological truthfulness, has been a restraining force for social good in the UK. Sadly it is now a diminishing force, as we can see through family breakdown or even on the streets on weekend evenings.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:43 PMUlsters my homeland,
... The Act of Settlement did not force religion onto anyone
It forced everyone in the UK to accept a head of state whose religion was defined and restricted. It that sense, it removed freedom of religion from the most important position in the land, one that has a hugely symbolic importance, not least to unionists. The Act of Settlement thus forced a particular religion on a whole country, and provided the framework for a system of discrimination and unequal treatment, that still exists. Anyone who claims to truly believe in religious freedom should be outraged by the Act of Settlement.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 12:51 PMGuys guys guys....
Eh, Mick? - ‘the kind of moral rigour that church influence can bring to the secular democratic feast’? Not much in display either here or in human history.
And as for ‘secularists, moral relativists and atheists keep[ing] their politics out of other people’s religion’, this atheist certainly doesn’t seek to interfere in anyone’s superstitious practices, or lifestyle choices, or sincerely-held beliefs. But I’d prefer the state (and the society) I lived in to be neutral on metaphysical questions.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 01:12 PMAs a southerner I would be extremely embarrassed to say the least if the Constitution dictated that the Head of State had to of one particular religion or if unelected Catholic bishops were granted seats in the Seanad. In fact there would be outrage here. Doesn’t seem to be the same outrage in the UK for some reason. Maybe Mr Kane and his secularist pals will begin a crusade (sorry for the religious pun!) on the matter.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 01:27 PM“It forced everyone in the UK to accept a head of state whose religion was defined and restricted. It that sense, it removed freedom of religion from the most important position in the land, one that has a hugely symbolic importance, not least to unionists. The Act of Settlement thus forced a particular religion on a whole country, and provided the framework for a system of discrimination and unequal treatment, that still exists. Anyone who claims to truly believe in religious freedom should be outraged by the Act of Settlement.”
You’ve gone from saying the Act of Settlement forced a certain religion onto everyone to saying the head of state was forced upon everyone. Which issue is it, religion or the head of state? Just because the head of state in the UK is a Protestant does not mean the head has to force the protestant religion onto his/her citizens, in the same way the Pope expects his citizens to be Roman Catholic. That’s where the Act of Settlement comes into it’s own, it doesn’t link the monarchs religion with his/her citizens, even although she is head of the church of England. If that were the case there would not be any other religions or churches in the land.
When you mentioned about the most important position in the land having influence over citizens you may have hit upon a grander issue, in that all heads of states (everywhere across the world) should not be required to be of a particular religion and should not have influence over their citizens’ religion.
Surely if you’re after ‘religious freedom’ as you claim, you should support some type of international law (not subject to the UK alone), where heads of states aren’t required to be a certain religion?
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 01:48 PMUlsters my homeland
The head of state is forced on everyone, particularly in the semi-democratic United Kingdom. When is the next election for Queen?
The issue of requiring the head of state to be protestant is largely symbolic, but important nonetheless. It demonstrates the existence of a state religion, which has repercussions all the way down the line.
I’m not really ‘after religious freedom’ - I would prefer that religion was simply absent from all political discourse and appointment. On a personal level, I am also a militant atheist.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 01:54 PMI am sympathetic to Kane’s premise. But as far as religion’s pernicious influence per se goes, it is harder to disentangle secular and religious influences in the development of western society (and indeed the development of the UK) than he allows. If we condone extensive elements of the constitutional, political and cultural ethos of a society, is it fair to unequivocally dismiss something as elemental as the religion of that society as a positive shaper of the same values? I can’t see that it is, although I agree that in modern politics religion should not be a privileged factor.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:16 PM“The head of state is forced on everyone, particularly in the semi-democratic United Kingdom. When is the next election for Queen?”
The head of state isn’t forced on everyone, only in your head it is. Under the 1998 human rights act UK citizens can be British Republicans, without becoming guilty of treason. When Republicans outnumber monarchists, they can demand removal of the Monarchy. That’s democracy!
“The issue of requiring the head of state to be protestant is largely symbolic, but important nonetheless. It demonstrates the existence of a state religion, which has repercussions all the way down the line.”
If there’s ‘repercussions down the line’ about the head of state being Protestant, why am I not Church of Ireland (the Queens’ Anglican sister church)? Why is Alex Kane atheist? why is there more religions in the UK that any other country in the world?
“I’m not really ‘after religious freedom’ - I would prefer that religion was simply absent from all political discourse and appointment. On a personal level, I am also a militant atheist.
I would also like religion to be absent from politics and government, but unless it happens as international law, I will never support it being forced on the UK only.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:30 PMumh
you really need to sit down and have a think about what you said.
1 The Christian Religion (in it’s purest form) can never be political.
I believe you need to sit down and really read you New Testament2 The message is simple, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t resist the power of your government.
And if your government voted to (say here in England) ethnically cleanse England, invade France or forceible steralise all those on social security you would sit there and say nothing. Who was the German pastor during the war who said
They came for the jews and I said nothing,
then came for the gypsies and I said nothing,
They came for the Christians and there was no one to speak for me(I know I have paraphrased that a lot, but you get me message)
So thought I do not agree with religion having an undue influence, unless I am some sort of robot where I can seperate how I feel about Moral values and not in a tory party sound bite way I cannot seperate my religion from how I see the world not how I would like to see the world and will vote for the party that most closely is on the same wave length as myself.
Having been a labour supporter and voter since coming of age, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is the one thing that has helped me finally decide not to vote Labour next time round.
What with Gordon floundering round like a fish on Kilkeel harbour wall, going from one disaster to the next looks like that will not be to long in coming.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:31 PM”I believe you need to sit down and really read you New Testament ”
and do what? read it like a humanist?
”And if your government voted to (say here in England) ethnically cleanse England, invade France or forceible steralise all those on social security you would sit there and say nothing.”
“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God:.....For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
How can any Christian misunderstand that verse? If you choose to ignore it, I dare say you ain’t Christian.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 02:58 PM*this atheist certainly doesn’t seek to interfere in anyone’s superstitious practices, or lifestyle choices, or sincerely-held beliefs.*
That’s excellent, that’s my libertarian viewpoint also.
So you would have no objection to Catholic adoption agencies declining to give babies for adoption by gay couples or Muslim business owners not wishing to allow their premises to be used to celebrate gay weddings for example.
You don’t believe the state should use the full rigours of the law to force these groups to do things against their religious beliefs.
Me too, I’m glad we’re in agreement.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:02 PMWas about to launch into a rant, but rather will simply correct Garibaldi’s assertion that one must do Religion Education/Studies to GCSE level. Yes, it is on the curriculum, but under the Education Order 2003 any parent can ask for their child to be withdrawn from RE at any stage in their school career (also not to attend religious assemblies). Naturally schools don’t tend to promote this out of fear of soaring unemployment among RE teachers.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:05 PMCan whoever left the lid off the italic jar put it back on please.
Ulsters my homeland you appear to be the guilty culprit.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:05 PMOk, fixed it now.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:06 PMI find myself in agreement with Kane, politics and religion should not mix. But in my opinion it goes deeper than politics. I would like to see religion removed from the school. I’m an athiest, a choice I made from a young age because my parents chose not to send me to sunday school and that it had to be my own choice, perhaps this choice came from them being more agnostic than anything even if they don’t realise what an agnostic is. Anyway I digress. The point is I had to fight long and hard just to be excluded from RE classes which in my opinion should be at very least opt in rather than opt out. I also believe that clergy of any kind have no place on the board of governors on any school. Don’t get me started on CCMS.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:10 PMBelfast Metal,
I left school before 2003 so hadn’t realised that. Although I wonder what would happen if someone at a religious school did that. Could they be legitimately expelled?
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 03:17 PM
