should Religious leaders have political power?

[Phazon goron]

Urgh, I'm not sure what to put. Just discuss.

[GDwarf]

Mind fleshing out you question more?

Say what you think and why.

[Hombre de Mundo]

In theory, yes. The religious leaders are representative for a group of people. As such, they should be able to engage in politics. If the members want that person as a leader and representative, which I just assume they do.

But democracy fails anyway so... *shrugs*

[Phazon goron]

But not everybody in that group is neccacerily religous, at least, not today. This is the problem, as too many people (Like the Dalai Lama) tend to try and extend there power.

[Lantean]

Ever read His Dark Materials?

Yeah, that might not be the best idea...

[Chencheya]

I immediately thought no at first, but then thinking again on a deeper note, I don't see many reasons on why they shouldn't. I wouldn't be opposed to people of faith going into politics, a person's belief shouldn't matter when it comes to politics. What I would oppose is if they used that political power as a means to futher their own religious agendas and deliberately push through religious laws onto the population (if they were religious or not). That's the kind of thing I wouldn't like, but as representatives of the state, yeah I can't see why not.

[GentleArtillery]

Religious leaders should be allowed to have political power as much as any other guy. But, they shouldn't have any power because they are religious leaders. And theocracy might be the worst kind of dictatorship there is.

Originally Posted by Svensk person

But democracy fails anyway so... *shrugs*

Restricted democracy wins, however

[Flames of Valor]

Depending on what country you live in it will differ but I will state what I think about my country.

No one should be denied political power depending on their race sex or religious choice. it is not right to discriminate in that way. As long as they win fair and square it is completely legal.

[The Great Panda]

I would prefer it if they didn't. There's a reason that the U.S. Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Eventually, the religious leaders would bicker and fight, lines would be drawn, etc. It wouldn't be pretty. So no, I do not want them to have political power.

[Erimgard]

In terms of, say a pastor taking a mayor office or something, I have no problem.
But your question is pretty ambiguous. It could be something as simple as the example I just gave, or something moreso, such as how some of the popes had incredible political sway over multiple nations.

[Flames of Valor]

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

I would prefer it if they didn't. There's a reason that the U.S. Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Eventually, the religious leaders would bicker and fight, lines would be drawn, etc. It wouldn't be pretty. So no, I do not want them to have political power.

There is no separation between church and Federal government. besides that not what that was intended for anyway.

[Chencheya]

But isn't the seperation of church and state included or remarked in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and a part of the United States Bill of Rights? You know, the bit which gives the right of freedom of religion to citizens, but also the right to freedom FROM religion as well?

[Duo]

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

There is no separation between church and Federal government.

Funny, last time I checked the United States Government was not run by the same people who run the Churches. I thought the Pope was just visiting Washington, not assuming command.



In seriousness though, the Pope is a good example. The only developed country I can think of that is run by the Church is Vatican City. All other countries know it would be ludicrous to try and marry the Church (or any religion really) and the State, for obvious reasons.

[Flames of Valor]

Originally Posted by Duo

Funny, last time I checked the United States Government was not run by the same people who run the Churches. I thought the Pope was just visiting Washington, not assuming command.

Funny, last time I checked the United States government recognizes christmas as a federal holiday.

[Luke Groundwalker]

NO

They shouldn't. Religion is a personal thing and only deserves to make decisions on a personal level rather than a mass-scale level where it's pretty much forced.

I'm not religious but even if I was, and when I was, I would/did agree with this.

[ChrisHoulihan]

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

I would prefer it if they didn't. There's a reason that the U.S. Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Eventually, the religious leaders would bicker and fight, lines would be drawn, etc. It wouldn't be pretty. So no, I do not want them to have political power.

You sir, do not understand the constitution.

You know it is possible to be a member of a church and a member of government and still have church and govenrment seperate.

Just like its possible to be a member of a golf and country club and also a knitting club. If you have knitting club members in your golf and country club, it doesn't mean they are going to replace all the golf balls with balls of yarn.

[Holic]

As long as they would be representing their religion, and not trying to force it onto the rest of the country/whatever, then yeah, go ahead.

[GDwarf]

Religious leaders should, of course, be allowed to run for president (or whatever)...as citizens.


However, they should not be able to run as religious leaders, nor should they rule as them.



FoV, separation of church and state means exactly what it sounds like, religion should have no impact on what a government does.

Marking Christmas as a special holiday does violate that, which is why governments do not, in fact, call the holiday Christmas.

[The Great Panda]

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

You sir, do not understand the constitution.

You know it is possible to be a member of a church and a member of government and still have church and govenrment seperate.

Just like its possible to be a member of a golf and country club and also a knitting club. If you have knitting club members in your golf and country club, it doesn't mean they are going to replace all the golf balls with balls of yarn.

Sadly, politics and religion aren't as...sweet-natured, I guess you could say, as country and knitting clubs. What I was getting at is that, should they be given political power, it'll only be a matter of time before there's a "my religion is the right one, everyone else fails" occurance and rising enmity between the faiths.

[GentleArtillery]

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

Sadly, politics and religion aren't as...sweet-natured, I guess you could say, as country and knitting clubs. What I was getting at is that, should they be given political power, it'll only be a matter of time before there's a "my religion is the right one, everyone else fails" occurance and rising enmity between the faiths.

One name: Gandhi.

Why just a religious leader, though? Wouldn't this be the case with any religious person? And, also, atheists and possibly agnostics?

[Flames of Valor]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Religious leaders should, of course, be allowed to run for president (or whatever)...as citizens.


However, they should not be able to run as religious leaders, nor should they rule as them.



FoV, separation of church and state means exactly what it sounds like, religion should have no impact on what a government does.

Marking Christmas as a special holiday does violate that, which is why governments do not, in fact, call the holiday Christmas.

Separation of church and state was meant to keep the the government from choosing religions for people. To keep the religious dictatorship away. Not to take completely legal things away. Besides, they don't have to pay state taxes but they still have to pay federal taxes, why? Because its church and state not church and country.

Besides, whether we like it or not religion is now integrated on every level. SO it is going to affect the government's decisions no matter what now : / .

[Sage of Earth]

No. Religious people will make decisions based on their religion. Even today there are laws clearly influenced by religious impulse in many countries, and even in western, advanced civilization.

I do not wish to live in a society where a woman will be stoned for showing her ankles in public, or one where discovering something new without the approval of certain officials will have you burned at the stake, nor one where even QUESTIONING the existence of God will have you executed.

Extreme example? Certainly. Exaggeration? I don't think so. Power corrupts, and makes you want more power. If we give religious officials power, then they will simply want more, and more, until they're in a position to enforce their beliefs by law.

[ChrisHoulihan]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

FoV, separation of church and state means exactly what it sounds like, religion should have no impact on what a government does.

YOu have to get your defintions right GD. "The Church" is not the same as "religion". The Church is an institution, and seperation of churhc and state means that the Government can not run the church and the church can not run the government. They are seperate institutions.

"Religion" on the other hand is a worldveiw. If you eleceted a humanitarian into govenrment you'd expect that person's world veiw to effect choices. Your worldveiw effects how you live and what choices you make. And so religion ha s a HUGE impact on what the government does. This is called DEMOCRACY.

Originally Posted by The Great Panda

Sadly, politics and religion aren't as...sweet-natured, I guess you could say, as country and knitting clubs. What I was getting at is that, should they be given political power, it'll only be a matter of time before there's a "my religion is the right one, everyone else fails" occurance and rising enmity between the faiths.

That shouldn't and rarely happens. Government has a diffent task than a church. A religious person will most likely defend tolleraton for his religion, not force it on others.