Thinking about politicians who say they don't let their personal beliefs interfere with their decisions

Because politics is about a set of morals we as a society agree on and that are then applied to the whole district/country/*insert political entity here* - at least in a democracy - and a religion is a fixed set of morals you can choose to follow or not.

Where do the morals come from?

They've been proven to work and be beneficial. They're largely rational, reasonable, and sometimes self-evident.

It just takes a glance at the declaration of independence to realize politics is at the root an effort of government to realize and regulate a certain moral code on its citizens through laws. History proves America was founded on Christian principles at the very least in the belief in a Judeo/Christian God. Now how are we to determine what truth is, equality, rights, the meaning of life, liberty and what brings true happiness to the human race without some reference to religion which by definition is supposed to explain these ideas? These are what laws claim to protect so you must have a certain moral code you personally believe in in order to guide the decisions you make, decisions which affect an entire population. Why then does American government now look down on Christian principles, try to eliminate God from the discussion , banning Him from schools, wanting to erase the 10 commandments from the public eye and mock those who actually try to live by the principles they believe in, all in the name of separation of church and state. (Which by the way is not even in the constitution, it only says government is not allowed to interfere in the free practice of religion, correct me if I'm wrong Octavia, I know you will;)

I am tired and frankly dissappointed in politician after politician renouncing their core beliefs for the sake of votes or to get approval in the political arena. Which if they attend or claim to follow a certain church (i'm thinking specifically Catholic, you'd be surprised to know how many "Catholics" there really are in powerful positions of government) they are in fact traitors to their faith and creed, if they cannot be faithful to their God and how can we trust them to respect humans? Just wondering what y'all think. The same goes for say a muslim who would go and make laws forcing their mosques to serve pork or something, claiming their religion has no basis on their decision making It just doesn't seem right.

Morals and values don't come from religion or politics.

Religion and politics are sources of power, by which those at the top can force their morals and values on those below in the hierarchy.

Morals and values come from within, and from interaction.

The crusades were not morally ok, they were repugnant. Religion does not bring good moral guidance. Examples below.

Numbers 5:11-31

Deuteronomy 22:23-25

Matthew 15:22-26

You're probably right. I've heard good arguments that religion comes from morality, not vice versa.

The founders were more Deist than orthodox.

Because it's ultimately about good versus evil.

There are those who wield influence and power who try and brainwash people into believing the two should be separated, and some people are just too stupid to realize it.
The brutal genocide of tens of millions of unborn human lives is a result of abandoning morals in government. If we're not created in God's image, what makes us more valuable than an animal?

Now that's not to say that the government should mandate a religion; that's what the pilgrims were fleeing from and that's what we have the 1st amendment to protect us from. However, if religion/morals are not allowed into the government, how are we to determine what is right and what is wrong?

That's exactly what I was thinking. Like politicians who claim to be Catholic yet make policies like abortion that clearly go against what Catholics believe.

Agreed. I don't agree with some of the Catholic beliefs/traditions, but people like that certainly don't strike me as truly Catholic.

Are you Catholic by the way?

Worse yet the number of Catholic leaders who see nothing wrong with it.

This too is true

Yes I am.

Curious which Catholic beliefs you disagree with.

Praying for Mary and other saints to intercede for them. Infallibility of the pope. How they say gaining and losing salvation works. Their belief that you must confess your sins to a priest to be forgiven (although I do believe that confessing sins to another person can be very useful, but it is not how we are forgiven). And the very ritualistic approach to it as a whole.

Who says animal lives aren't valuable?

They're valuable in a sense, but not in any way that human lives are valuable.

Do we eat animals?

I don't. But I try to value and respect what I eat.

*shrug* suit yourself, but there's a reason we eat animals but not humans

Well, cannibalism is a terrible long term survival strategy. Very few species practice it routinely. It's not going to help you get along with other humans, which a social species with a long developing intelligence depends on!

Surely it takes more than social stigma

But I've said my piece

My last sentence was supposed to be a humorous understatement to make a point.

My mistake

Because people want to protect their religions from the government. Because many of us want to stave off a religious war.

This is a complex question and deserves a longer answer

But for now I only have time to say that this has been tried before and it seldom ends well

There’s a saying that if fascism ever comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross

If Trump wins (or steals) a second term, that definition may be due for an update as he is not the world’s greatest Christian and his appeal to social conservatives is curiously non-religious. There are much harder bible-thumpers in the Republican Party but they all lost in ‘16.

But the logic still holds. You don’t want either a Trump or a Biden claiming religious as well as civil authority over you. That’s a recipe for dictatorship.

Does this change your mind?

Law Scholar wrote a whole piece devoted to this.

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-ten-commandments-and-american-law.html

No. Because 4 of the Ten Commandments are still used today. The first five have to do with the relationship between man and God. So they of course don't apply in our law system today. (But they still do spiritually, if you are a believer). In Commandment number 6, it is still illegal to murder. In 7, it is still legal grounds for divorce. In 8, it is still illegal to steal. And in 9, it is still illegal to lie in court.

I see you didn't read the article.

I think you meant

I did

She admits the same things I mentioned, and then back-pedals to say they aren't revelant. Yet they are. I seriously doubt she's a Christian.

Politics is basically only about controlling a country, and sticking to (100% provable) facts as much as possible in order to get a country running. Religion should be only about what you believe about God, or similar entity and the teachings brought forth in them.

Now this sounds a bit abstract. Now all countries in the world have more than 1 religion. Would it then be fair to make the political decision to ban something, other religions do actually obligate or at least encourage. One clear example about this is about a country where the government banned any form of exposure of the female body due to it being sexually offensive, however another religion also being big in the same country wants women to show their bodies and their boobs in particular due to them symbolizing fertility. Both religions are old and recognized as religions. Is it fair that the followers of the latter religion cannot follow their religion simply because their politicians follow a different religion?

Also, then politics and religion are one, it's not easy to ban certain practices and stating that religion may not be an excuse. For example, murder. Some religions require human sacrifices. When religion and state are separated you can just deem these sacrifices as "murder" and state that religion is not a valid excuse to perform these murders.

Now the term "religion" on its own already seems abstract. When is a way of life a religion and when is it not? Some people believe in a spaghetti monster and wear a colander on their head. In the Netherlands this was a discussion as the law forbids anything on your head when taking a photo for an ID unless you wear it for your religion, and this way Muslim women can still wear their headscarf on such a photo, but the colander was not allowed, and that has actually led to cases in court. Politics on the other hand or rather controlling a country should not have any doubt on them if it's based on philosophies that are actually religious or just plain nonsense. However where some people deem religion as truth others deem it as bullshit, and there's no way to prove who is right. However whether a politician accepted bribes is something you can prove.

And there is also Buddhism, which is officially not a religion since Buddhism has no god (since Buddha was a mortal human being and not a god), however it has aside from that all traits often seen in religion. And so we can basically put any religion into debate if it's a religion --> TBC

--> a way of life or even a cult. And when it comes to cults discussions are also very widely spread. Some people even see some religions based on the teachings of Jesus Christ as a "cult" because they have some differences between what the Vatican states about sometimes very trivial things such as the position of women and homosexuals. But then again, some people even deem the pope as a cult leader. This led experts on the field to the question when you can speak of a religion and when you can speak of a cult. Most people (even atheists) appear in agreement that Roman Christianity is not a cult but a religion, but how about the Jehova's witnesses or Scientology? The latter in particular I've heard a lot of discussion about whether to take it as a religion or as a cult. I know too little about Scientology to make my own judgment, all I said is that their are people who deem it a cult and people who deem it a religion. And there's a group in China of which I don't know how to spell the name, but about whom there has also been a lot of discussion if they are a religious group or a cult. According to loads of experts the borderline between the two is thin.

And that also brings us to the question: Should something like that be a decisive factor in our political system?

It's always a hard thing, isn't it?

Wouldn't say the position of women or homosexuality is trivial. But I see your other points. Thanks for your input :)

Sorry couldn't help myself. I searched for colander and imgflip did not disappoint ;)

Yeah, that colander thing was hard to believe, eh?
When I heard this being discussed in the news I checked my calendar to be sure it wasn't an April Fools joke... But it turned out this is actually real.