The Religious Vote (1 Viewer)

[nwatts]

Religion is propagnda and only serves as a means of controlling people, as previously shown in societies of the past. (take the French before the Revolution). If political figures are using religion to gain votes, like Bush trying to up his popularity with the Intelligent Design issue.

You're posting in a thread alongside a number of Christians. Coming in with "religion is propaganda" will ensure that few will read and consider what you're saying properly. Pick a time and a place for your religion bashing.

Secondly, this relates to what Kevin Rudd was saying quite some time ago -- the Liberal Party thinks it has and appears to have a "dominance on morals" because of a Christian influence. But there's no reason why Labor can't have that same religious moral base. In fact the Labor Party originally had a very strong Irish-Catholic influence. In fact, I would further point out that the Liberal Party does not actually follow Christian morals very well. (Labor has been in accord with the ethics of Christianity to a much greater degree, in my opinion.)

Argh, i'm glad someone said this.

They're intertwined... people's social values often come from religious values, and for alot of people these values determine their votes.

But religion =/= the Church. You're totally correct that values/morals are heavily based on a person's religion, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the separation of the Church and the state.

The Church is just as much a political machine as the government. The way I see it, it's the measure of responsiblity and the intentions of the two that mark separation.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

arent they all christian anyway? so it all cancels out.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But religion =/= the Church. You're totally correct that values/morals are heavily based on a person's religion, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the separation of the Church and the state.

The Church is just as much a political machine as the government. The way I see it, it's the measure of responsiblity and the intentions of the two that mark separation.

Yes personally I would take separation of church and state to mean there is not a sanctioning religious body embedded as a part of the government. However, I feel alot of people arguing that the separation of church and state is under attack because religious groups (like any other lobbying group) have political power.

 

[Iron]

The Bomber's always said he was Anglican. He's actually a total rebel for not being the traditional labor/dominant Christian group - Catholic. So I dont agree that his beliefs are based on political reasons.
Probably a bit of an outcast for the remarriage thing.
He's breaking the rules... Now picture him in tight black leather on a motorbike with no helmet. Untamed hair in the wind, token shades. More appealing?...needs work.

 

[spell check]

i'd try appeal to religious if i was a politician too

you could just say stuff and not have to prove it, they'll believe anything!

anyone who thinks christians or any other religious group are somehow more moral than atheists is stupid. that's like admitting that fear of hell is the reason you are a good person

 

[nwatts]

anyone who thinks christians or any other religious group are somehow more moral than atheists is stupid. that's like admitting that fear of hell is the reason you are a good person

Christians have a moral code that they should live by. Atheists are wandering spirits.

 

[Generator]

Christians have a moral code that they should live by. Atheists are wandering spirits.

Wandering spirits?

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

Christians have a moral code that they should live by. Atheists are wandering spirits.

the christian code isn't moral.

i hate the suggestion that christianity MUST be moral.

therefore, athiests are potentially far more moral than christians, as christianity is immoral (in my view).

 

[nwatts]

Wandering spirits?

There was a little irony there...

Atheists have no moral boundaries to live by, they have to create them for themselves, which (often/could) lead to a corrupt sense of morality. Which is essentially why Christians would appear "somehow more moral than atheists".

 

[Generator]

There was a little irony there...

Atheists have no moral boundaries to live by, they have to create them for themselves, which (often/could) lead to a corrupt sense of morality. Which is essentially why Christians would appear "somehow more moral than atheists".

That's assuming that the christian sense of morality itself offers moralistic 'boundaries' and is not corrupt.

 

[nwatts]

the christian code isn't moral.

i hate the suggestion that christianity MUST be moral.

therefore, athiests are potentially far more moral than christians, as christianity is immoral (in my view).

Your view is, essentially, deluded. How can you conclude the Christian code of morality is "immoral"? And make sure you know what you're talking about.

 

[nwatts]

That's assuming that the christian sense of morality itself offers moralistic 'boundaries' and is not corrupt.

It does offer boundaries. Read the New Testament.

Whether or not they are corrupt is entirely your view. Considering what is socially acceptable and lawful today (which is really the only guide one can go by), the Christian inspired morality is very high and for use of a better word, moral. It can be easily equated as being a solid and upstanding set of morals to live by. Hence by issue of delusion at Kissinger above, whose claims of Christian "immorality" are unfounded, even considering the term has no essential definition.

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

Your view is, essentially, deluded. How can you conclude the Christian code of morality is "immoral"? And make sure you know what you're talking about.

from the actions of the people who preach it.

A religion is only as good as it's followers.

I find the views on abortion, and homosexuality, to be immoral.

You can't tell me to "know what I'm talking about" since morality doesn't exist except in an individualistic sense.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

With or without some transcending moral guideline, people would still think / behave the same way. Most ethical theories do not claim that there are transcending facts (Aristotelianism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, contractarianism, and ideal observer theory).

First, you have to prove that there are transcendental moral facts.
If you claim that they came from god, you have to first prove that god exists, and how he has the power to create these transcendental moral facts. If you merely say "he can do it because he is god" it is a worthless argument, because I can just say "I can do it because I am me".

 

[nwatts]

from the actions of the people who preach it.

A religion is only as good as it's followers.

I find the views on abortion, and homosexuality, to be immoral.

You can't tell me to "know what I'm talking about" since morality doesn't exist except in an individualistic sense.

You cannot judge the morality of Christianity by the actions of Christians. If it's not a logical fallacy, it should be.

You find the view that life begins at conception, immoral?

 

[spell check]

There was a little irony there...

Atheists have no moral boundaries to live by, they have to create them for themselves, which (often/could) lead to a corrupt sense of morality. Which is essentially why Christians would appear "somehow more moral than atheists".

so you think christian morals are greater because they can be found in an old book, and grounded in belief in the supernatural?

whereas atheists, who have no one book to dictate their lives, are lacking in moral boundaries?

 

[Henry_Kissinger]

I define morality as not limiting liberty, since that is the value most important to me.

I'm a social contract theorist, so really I don't believe that "morality", or at least how it is commonly conceived, exists.

We are all equally immoral, given the opportunity

 

[nwatts]

so you think christian morals are greater because they can be found in an old book, and grounded in belief in the supernatural?

whereas atheists, who have no one book to dictate their lives, are lacking in moral boundaries?

Considering what is socially acceptable and lawful today (which is really the only guide one can go by), the Christian inspired morality is very high and for use of a better word, moral. It can be easily equated as being a solid and upstanding set of morals to live by. Hence by issue of delusion at Kissinger above, whose claims of Christian "immorality" are unfounded, even considering the term has no essential definition.

What is 'right' and 'wrong' cannot be defined. Hence the concept of morality. According to social values, Christian-inspired morality is "greater" (than others) because of their relationship with the common consciousness of society.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

According to social values, Christian-inspired morality is "greater" (than others) because of their relationship with the common consciousness of society.

So Atheists have different morals?

 

[spell check]

What is 'right' and 'wrong' cannot be defined. Hence the concept of morality. According to social values, Christian-inspired morality is "greater" (than others) because of their relationship with the common consciousness of society.

that makes no sense