re how to pray, etc.

[thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet]

On 02/04/03 17:08, "David Morris" <fqmorris at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- thomas kyhn rovsing hjoernet <tkrh at worldonline.dk> wrote:
>> 
>> No, 'no religion is supposed to have an inherent political advantage', but
> your 'supposed to', as far as I've understood, hasn't secured this ideal.
> 
> This is too vague a complaint.  Can you give me an example?

I think this is an indication:

'It was in the period of the cold war with what President Truman always
called ''godless Communism'' that ''under God'' was added to the Pledge of
Allegiance. It was in World War II that ''God Bless America'' became the
country's unofficial anthem. Of World War I, President Wilson said that it
showed America marching to heights ''upon which there rests nothing but the
pure light of the justice of God,'' reflecting the ''glimmer of light which
came at Calvary, that first dawn which came with the Christian era.'''
(Garry Wills: 'With God on His Side', New York Times, March 30, 2003)

Bringing 'God' into the reasoning and the texts of the state gives a
privilege to those who believe in this God. It must be assumed that a
president when he addresses 'the people' addresses the whole people and not
only those who share his religious views. In this perspective it is
problematic to make use of religious referents that have no legitimacy
outside of this religious view.

Also, the problem some schools have with teaching Darwin because the theory
of evolution is in conflict with the Bible, that is a political advantage.

>> It comes across as decidedly unhealthy when references to otherworldly
>> authorities are accepted in political discourse, and even more so when such
>> references are used to back up political decisions.
> 
> Again, other than saying "God Bless America," or equivalent words, where are
> we
> subject to "references to otherworldly authorities used to back up political
> decisions?"  A politician may be religious, and he is entitled to be so.  His
> agenda may spring from his own personal beliefs, and that is also legitimate.
> If his agenda is out of sinc with the active majority then he will be out of a
> job very soon.

That's it, as long as a majority of voters is behind a politician he can
introduce the religious (that of the majority) into the political. This way,
the religion of the majority is privileged.
This is not to say that a politician isn't entitled to being religious.

>> That 'no one is preventing the average guy from being more active' than
>> relious zealots does not legitimize bringing religion into politics.
> 
> Yes it does.  Read the paragraph above again.  Just because you are passionate
> does not mean you are logical.  More likely the opposite.

One of the problems with religion in politics is that it is beyond
discussion and critique, and, accordingly, beyond reasoning. If the realm of
politics is to be kept democratic, open to discussion, it is a bad move to
introduce the religious into it.