Seneca21

+1.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

That's fair enough. I get the impression that people think politicians would somehow be 'better' if they didn't follow a religion and I can't see why that would be.

For myself religion plays no part in my life, to the point where I wouldn't even say I was atheist, more of a N/A.

JoeBloggs80

Because religion by its very nature results in narrow thinking.

Politicians with religious beliefs can, and do, persue actions and pass bills which forsake the good of their country in favour of following their own religious doctrine.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Really? In a Western democracy?

Seneca21

Some might argue G W Bush did this in Iraq, although it was probably a mix of idealism, revenge. The idealism part certainly influenced by his religion, I would argue.

JoeBloggs80

Of course. Perhaps not here so much but certainly in many parts of the US for sure. Intelligent design and gay marriage are the first two issues that spring to mind but I'm sure there are more.

moneypenny20

I think it must be very difficult to be a politician if you hold strong religious beliefs. Everyday you have to make decisions that will affect the country whilst possibly being totally against whatever your god tells you is wrong or right. You know what you have to do but if it's 'wrong' you'll go to hell or wherever. For example how can you be a strict catholic whilst in charge of a country that allows abortion?

It's got to be easier to be a non believer I would have thought.

Seneca21

I think that one of the reasons why so many go to church, etc., is because having literally no authority above you is quite stressful. Imagine making serious decisions all day long, decisions that will affect the lives of millions in some cases - but there is no one to pass it up to, ever. So believing in a god allows them to have a boss again, some constant they can draw on in the difficult times.

Swerv-o

Yup. I think you only have to look at Stephen Conroy and the proposed internet filter to see that. This has become his own personal christian based anti pornography, anti Google crusade, driven by a very small Christian minority that he happens to support.


S

Seneca21

Should no religious views be accommodated?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Well I can see where you are coming from, but doesn't the nature of democracy mean that, for that sort of religious interference to take hold, that, if not a majority of the people, then a sizable minority have to support those views and its not just the views of a few politicians?

Democracy in action, even if you don't like the results.

Swerv-o

No - I don't think they should be. We live in a so called secular society where religion and the state are supposedly kept separate. Though laws are often derived from religious teachings - theft, murder etc, these are also things that carry a particular benefit for society as a whole.

However, when we start to see religious dogma creep into politics, it invariably leaves one group or another at a disadvantage, and is invariably restrictive in some way.

A good example of this is gay marriage/civil unions. Both KRudd and Abbot said that the union of marriage is sacred and must only be between a man and a woman (because it says so in the bible). So this religious dogma leaves many gay and lesbian couples disadvantaged when compared to straight couples. Yet, the anti-discrimination legislation clearly state that nothing available to one citizen should be denied another. Unless they happen to be gay and want to have their partnership formally and legally recognised obviously.

Gillard represents the best possibility for recognition of gay partnerships that has come along in a very long time. I'm not gay myself, but I respect people who are, and believe that they should have the same opportunities available to them as I do. Sadly religious dogma doesn't feel the same way.


S

JoeBloggs80

Fair point.

I just think I'm more comfortable knowing that the people making the decisions that affect me and the society I live in are making them based on logic and reason rather than fairytales

iamthecreaturefromuranus

OK. It's interesting for somebody like myself to wonder if the religious really do sit down and think "what would God do here" and if they really do make decisions based on that.
I would like to think politicians wouldn't base policy on that, but who's to know.

Seneca21

I don't object to gay marriage, and this is something I say out of genuine belief and certainly not simply to be part of the herd. I would play devil's advocate for a moment and ask you why gay and lesbian people would want to be part of an institution that has been for heterosexual couples for centuries? If they live together and are not in open relationships then they are married, for all intents and purposes. Why must their union be called "marriage" for them to be happy? Etc.