Politics and Religion

[edao]

I thought to be in a member of the EU you had to clearly seperate religion from the state, but I keep seeing political parties called:

- Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams - Belgium
- Christian Democratic Union of Germany (Angela Merkel)
- Christian Democratic Party - Norway
- The Christian Democratic Appeal - Holland
(Currently the biggest coalition partner in the fourth Balkenende cabinet.)

How is it that these parties are allowed? One key point thrown in Turkeys face is the issue of the relationship between religion and the state.

How can this be crediable when your religious allegiance is in the party title? Am I missing something here?

[Maciamo]

I also object to this hypocrisy. Parties will say in their defence that they do not have direct religious affiliation with the/a Church, and that the name only means to convey a set of values inherited from Christianity. I wonder what "special Christian values" they are defending that are not shared by other parties.

The Belgian constitution also states that no one can be taught religion against their will in state-funded schools. But in practice almost all schools, even those that are not Catholic-affiliated but purely public, teach Catholic catechism, and children aren't asked whether they want a dispense or not.

I sometimes feel that the whole system is highly hypocritical and that laws (even the constitution, which should primes over everything else) are just there as "decoration".

[Michael Folkesson]

We have a christian democratic party in Sweden as well, and they are in the coalition in power the last four years. I agree with your sentiments on this, but then again I believe that in a democracy such parties must be allowed to exist, rather it would be quite undemocratic to ban them. It is a dilemma by itself, but if such a party keep from making purely religiously based decision, but secular, I think the problem is slight. Clearly there is a support for these parties.

The swedish party never let the word god or jesus enter their speeches, and there might be a riot if they ever do. The christian community in Sweden is very small, but the party has some support for it's politics non the less.

It's a little problematic from a democratic aspect, but it is a good argument. But as long as they are not criminal organisations, I think banning such parties would put us in dangerous territory democratically.

[Gwyllgi]

It’s rather simple really.

Although individuals may be members of a Christian church and so may have decisions they make influenced by their beliefs the church per se has no direct influence in the state.

[Maciamo]

We have a christian democratic party in Sweden as well, and they are in the coalition in power the last four years. I agree with your sentiments on this, but then again I believe that in a democracy such parties must be allowed to exist, rather it would be quite undemocratic to ban them.

I am not asking to ban them. If the constitution and/or EU membership conditions stipulates that the state is secular and that state and religion should be separate, then they should drop the "Christian" from the party denomination.

The issue was felt more strongly among more secular-minded French-speakers in Belgium, and the former Parti Social Chrétien (PSC) was disbanded and recreated in 2002 under the name of Centre Démocrate Humaniste (CDh). Strangely it's in Germanic-speaking countries or states (Flanders, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden...) that parties are still called "Christian Democrats".

The swedish party never let the word god or jesus enter their speeches, and there might be a riot if they ever do.

I have never heard a Belgian politician mention Jesus or the Bible. It would be political suicide to do so.

[Michael Folkesson]

Hmm, Yes. That's interesting that Germanic speaking countries keep that donomination. You have them in all of Scandinavia. Several slavic countries have them too. But doesn't a couple of latin countries have them as well? France has Parti chrétien-démocrate I believe but it seems to have been founded only last year.

In any case, I would be in favor of such a change as you two speak of. I remember when the communist party dropped the communist part of the name, to only the Left Party. This wouldn't be much different.

[RaHoWa]

Most of the Founding Fathers of America were in fact ardent Deists,the age of the enlightenment had strong Deism and deists philosophies.Thomas Jefferson wrote the Jefferson Bible,it's really titled the moral teaching of Jesus of Nazareth but today it s called the Jefferson Bible and it is where Jefferson takes out all of the superstitious and supernatural aspects from the bible and just has the basic moral teachings,There is no Virgin Birth,no Walking on water no turning water into wine no resurrection,just the basic moral lesson s Jesus taught to be applied in a practical way in every day life but nothing supernatural or god-like about it.Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense about the good moral lessons of religion and also the stupid things that organized religion makes people closed-minded about and divided about,lie the book Natural religion."A Lighthouse has better use than a Church"-Benjamin Franklin. "This nation/world would be the best if it weren't for so many churches everywhere"-John Adams.

[edao]

"If you look at the studies conducted over the past century, you will find that those with religious beliefs will, on the whole, score lower on tests of intelligence. That is the conclusion of psychologists Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman of the University of Rochester and Judith Hall of Northeastern University, who have published a meta-analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Review."

Read the article

The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity

[Riccardo]

I thought to be in a member of the EU you had to clearly seperate religion from the state, but I keep seeing political parties called:

- Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams - Belgium
- Christian Democratic Union of Germany (Angela Merkel)
- Christian Democratic Party - Norway
- The Christian Democratic Appeal - Holland
(Currently the biggest coalition partner in the fourth Balkenende cabinet.)

How is it that these parties are allowed? One key point thrown in Turkeys face is the issue of the relationship between religion and the state.

How can this be crediable when your religious allegiance is in the party title? Am I missing something here?

I agree, but in politics sometimes it's needed a bit of elasticity and the effect of this kind of "ban" would be by the far worse in terms of political effects. I think that all the institutions, not only the governments or political parties, must be more active in spreading laity. Not easy when you've the Vatican here though. :P

[Gea]

Religious leaders have an obligation to represent their people. That means they can't turn a blind eye completely on politics.

[LeBrok]

Religious leaders have an obligation to represent their people. That means they can't turn a blind eye completely on politics.

In pragmatic leadership way they should. In dogmatic way though, they have obligation to only represent god on earth.

[FBS]

The Belgian constitution also states that no one can be taught religion against their will in state-funded schools. But in practice almost all schools, even those that are not Catholic-affiliated but purely public, teach Catholic catechism, and children aren't asked whether they want a dispense or not.

This is giving us headaches in Kosovo now. Our schools have been, for a long time now, completely laic and we learned only the scientific aspects of life and especially the Darwins theory based teachings. Of course we have been learning a lot about the philosophy and religions but only on educational aspect. But, now the religious groups are putting pressure saying that our government is not democratic since in Europe there is a freedom to have religious education, that is, to learn about creationism and allow religious insignia. There are heated debates going on, but the majority and the government are quite reluctant to give in. The only argument against it, that we have, is that Kosovars have never been religious so why start imposing now.

As for political parties we have Christian Democrats, among the older, but dropped in their influence and activity. We recently have Muslim parties but they do not dare to put "muslim" on their name. Good news is that their influence is not significant and they got only 1 percent overall in last elections. And they have made some political mistakes so it will drop further. In Kosovo we are wary of mixing religion with politics, a bit scary...

[Nobody1]

The Separation of Church and State is necessary and important;
But also important is the Religious freedom guaranteed by the State - no persecutions
(unless illegal practises than legal persecution)

[Gea]

In pragmatic leadership way they should. In dogmatic way though, they have obligation to only represent god on earth.

What if their affiliation with public affairs is representation of God on earth, huh?

[LeBrok]

Theoretically, they lead people according to god's teachings and god never changes. They shouldn't change "the true god" just because times changed and people prefer different god. Only the part that is not set with dogma/holly books can change and adapt to society.

[Angela]

Theoretically, they lead people according to god's teachings and god never changes. They shouldn't change "the true god" just because times changed and people prefer different god. Only the part that is not set with dogma/holly books can change and adapt to society.

I think we can often see the opposite in U.S. history, by which I mean that religious dogma interpreted in a certain way, changed society. The anti-slavery movement and the civil rights movement of the sixties both drew much of their rationale from religious principles, and many of their leaders as well. The society adapted.

I agree that while religions do adapt to societal change in certain ways, as with the change to the use of local languages instead of Latin in the Catholic Mass, changing fundamental dogma runs the risk of destroying the religion. The only instance I can think of where that didn't happen is with the Norman renunciation of polygamy.

[LeBrok]

I think we can often see the opposite in U.S. history, by which I mean that religious dogma interpreted in a certain way, changed society. The anti-slavery movement and the civil rights movement of the sixties both drew much of their rationale from religious principles, and many of their leaders as well. The society adapted.

I might be mistaken, but I don't remember any anti slavery verses in Bible, or equality of people on earth. Actually there are many references to orderly serve the masters. I would claim that end to slavery came from ideas of social justice of egalitarian and industrious Northern States than more religious South.

[Angela]

I might be mistaken, but I don't remember any anti slavery verses in Bible, or equality of people on earth. Actually there are many references to orderly serve the masters. I would claim that end to slavery came from ideas of social justice of egalitarian and industrious Northern States than more religious South.

The Bible, like the U.S. Constitution, is subject to continuous interpretation, although it could be argued, I suppose, that the Constitution is seen as having less elasticity than the Bible in a way, and in order to prohibit or allow certain activities, it provides for an amendment process which has indeed been used. No matter how repugnant it may be morally, the Dred Scott decision was correct in terms of constitutional law, in my opinion, and the Nebraska Act and all the other laws which attempted to limit slavery in the territories likewise, because the Constitution as originally drafted, obviously permitted slavery. That's why, in the end, emancipation required a constitutional amendment.

Christians admit of no such restraints. Both Catholics and "fundamentalist" Protestant Christians claim the Bible as their holy book, and yet one group allows for the theory of evolution and one does not.

Sorry, a little off topic there. :)

Anyway, Protestant evangelism is one of the main factors in the development of the Abolition movement, and, in fact, of many of the social reform movements of the nineteenth century. It began with what is called "The Great Awakening", a mass revival movement of the late 1790's. People who were part of this movement became adherents of Abolitionist groups.

Oh, and this revitalist evangelical movement was in many ways a creature of New England. Mid nineteenth century New England and the Midwest for that matter were very different from the way they are today. Then, there's the pivotal role played by the Society of Friends.

Sorry again, I'm typing on a tablet and it's not letting me post internet links, but you can find documentation pretty easily on the net.

Of course, there is cross-fertilization in all these areas; the ideas of The Enlightenment no doubt influenced religious thought.