America needs religious politicians. With a few notable exceptions, it doesn't have any.
Our country is not lacking in political opportunists who exploit religion for their own purposes. On both the right and left, candidates and elected officials see religion as a tool intended to attract voter support or as a prop intended to add weight to a campaign brochure. The result is that references to religion in a political campaign are more likely to generate contempt than respect.
Think, for example, of Republicans who throughout their careers have been supportive of a woman's right to choose. Then, when contemplating a run for President, they reconsider, assuring us that their change of position is sincere and flows from heartfelt prayer and religious contemplation. The decision, of course, almost always has little to do with internal religious struggle and much to do with winning the support of "values voters" who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage. But the presidential wannabes insist on maintaining the charade, thereby casting religion and sincere believers of every stripe in a negative light.
Think too of the Democrats who care little about religion and have no discernible religious beliefs or practices. Nonetheless, they know that more Americans attend religious services in a single week than attend football games in an entire year; therefore, they rush to identify themselves (usually in a fuzzy, platitudinous way) with religious values, a belief in God and perhaps a house of worship. If they are elected, these matters are promptly put aside, at least until the next campaign.
When pushed on vague or inconsistent religious beliefs, our politicians often evade the question or take refuge in the claim that "religion is a private matter." This is the great irony of our political culture: We want political leaders who care about religion, but, drawing on our traditions of church-state separation, we allow them to escape the implication of their own religious declarations.
When I say that I would like to see some religious politicians, what I have in mind are politicians who do the following:
I would not expect -- or even want -- a large number of our leaders to fall into the category of "religious politician." I cherish the diversity that has served American society so well, and, in any case, I am realistic. In-depth religious thinking is a rare commodity in the political world. Nonetheless, we see it from time to time, and Governor Mario Cuomo, Governor Sam Brownback, Senator John Danforth, Representative Frank Wolf and the late Senator Mark Hatfield all exemplify, in my view, the characteristics mentioned above. I suspect that America would be stronger, more just and more caring if we had a few dozen more like them.
Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Religious Identity and the Public Square
Religion and Politics : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News
Politics as religion in America - Los Angeles Times
BBC NEWS | Americas | Religion and politics in America
Billy Graham, Pope and Politicians Among America's Most Admired ...
With Texas Prayer Rally, American Family Association Mixes ...
This is an interesting point. A religious person should be able to defend their position without resorting to theological arguments or religious texts. A truly worthy position should be one that is recognizable by all and can be understood and supported without resorting to the impetus of the argument itself.
What about a politician that understands reality?
Of course, not that we would have them, even without religion.
And, by the way, which religion should they have? which imaginary friend should tell us what policy to implement?
What a silly proposition!
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness...Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
George Washington was a moral man as are -most- Freemasons. We believe that a man must be moral and ethical to lead, but no amount of worldly, scholarly intelligence can create moral authority. Without some universal morality, each is left to his own to devise his own morality.
This author didn't say we need more religion in politics. He said we need more religion in politicians. I think morally, ethically sound people would be good for this country. Not to say that they need to proselyte from the White house, but that they need to be honest, kind, and ethical.
Please, understand this is simply my opinion, and no more valid than anyone else's. It is simply how I feel, not an invitation for anger or bickering.
The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of God – as manifested through justice for all and the legitimate application of one’s omnipotence/freedom of choice – from the affairs of humanity.
In every society, the highest responsibility of every religious institution is to make certain that governments at all levels are the governments of all the people and for all the people without exception and that those at any and all levels of the public sector are dedicated to these propositions.
Just imagine that at tens of thousands of religious institutions in our country voices would be raised in criticism against governmental actions that are detrimental to the long term interest of our nation and the world such as unjustified wars, public policies that benefit one segment of the society at the expense of other, world-wide influence but through militarism and self-serving policies unjustly affecting other nations and so on.
In this respect one of the mind boggling aspects of our religious institutions is self-censorship in the guise of being "non-profit" organizations. And who is fundamentally responsible for revealing the hypocrisy of those who use God and religion for their own purpose? The Media!
1- Separating children from parents who want to keep them is undesirable.
2- When parents are violating their children's rights confiscating the children is an option.
3- The state may not do to children it seizes anything that would trigger seizure if a parent did it.
4 - The state may not deny to children it seizes anything that would trigger seizure if a parent denied it.
5- The state may not seize at all if it can't comply with 3 and 4.
6- The bar for seizure is set by what society actually provides, not by what an individual asserts the parent should do in a perfect world.
7- The state may not criminalize parental neglect in and of itself. What it may criminalize is the decision to *neither* care for the child properly *nor* surrender the child to someone who will.
7a- This requires the existence of someone who is *willing and able* to do better than the parent. So not paying for an expensive operation to save my child's life cannot be criminalized but not paying AND turning down your offer to pay *could* be.
7b- "Could" is not the same as "Must".
When politicians spit out arbitrary lists of laws and claim that they are merely following a divine ethical framework imparted to them by God ... **I Don't Believe Them**.
They never articulate their frameworks outright, they just champion or oppose sets of laws. This forces me to infer the framework they are using. But when I look at the laws they champion ... Well sometimes I can't figure out a framework that would support all their policies at all. And sometimes I can but there are elements to those frameworks that are clearly not Divine. Some are outright Infernal.
That doesn't mean they are using demonic frameworks. They may simply not be using one at all. Merely knee jerking around and declaring Divine backing for each jerk of the knee.
I would dearly love it if Politicians WERE using moral/ethical frameworks. and I'd love it even more if they would share them.
But I strongly suspect this isn't the case for most of them. And I personally find elaborate public protestations of faith to correlate with the more illogical policy positions that are harder to even theorize a framework for. While folks whose faith is humble, quiet, and private tend to have positions that are more logically consistent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTD0p-nhQHk
Putins Easter VS Obamas Easter
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=646
We need politicians who are, above all, honest.
It would also help if they were gentle, kind, ethical, moral, humble, compassionate, charitable, and peaceful.
I would also help if they approached problems in the full light of truth, acknowledging that to achieve solutions we must adamantly insist that ensure justic and fairness, for the benefit of all.
http://messenger.cjcmp.org
We have to deal with real people which means we need clearly-stated and honestly-held views on issues. It is said that such a stance will ruin your chances on being elected. So far as I know that is not supported by any evidence since it has been a lifetime since it was tried.
And, of course, there is no evidence at all that verbal adherence to a religion - any religion - makes you one bit more clear-headed or nonset.