Comments on Religion and Politics

Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t - Add a comment - Go to Religion and Politics

amdg

That may well be, and it would not surprise me, he was a politician after all and they are all guilty of questionable things. But somehow the media played out the trivial stuff that most people use against him over anything of na real importance. All in all I can honestly say that outside of his sexual problems, I have no clue as to what he really idd the whole time in office. Why? because that is all the news covered it seems. Bush on the other hand scares me to no end. This guy does not seem to care one bit about the country itself, but seems more concerned with just doing his own little thing. Clinton at least seemed to get some stuff in order. If they would have found someone with more personality than Gore, then things might have turned out differently. Kerry right now looks to be a do nothing president, and that might be what we need.

One day I hope either the Republicans or the Democrats can find just one person, just one, worth voting for. I will bet anything it will not happen with in my life time.

Enough politics though. I really, really hate politics.

posted by kooka_lives on June 25, 2004 at 10:31 AM | link to this | reply

I suppose your rigt-sex with an intern isn't a big deal

But selling nuclear secrets to China for campaign contributions is. And he did so. Read the Cox Report. I'll stop there. My "stupid" political debate doesn't hold a candle to yours, anyway.

posted by AnCatubh on June 24, 2004 at 11:56 PM | link to this | reply

Kooka

Good post.  It'll never happen.  tg

posted by tbgroucho on June 21, 2004 at 12:08 PM | link to this | reply

pres & vp

Ralph Nader & Michael Moore

posted by Xeno-x on June 20, 2004 at 3:02 PM | link to this | reply

amdg

I am not getting into your stupid political debate. I really, really hate politics. But what Clinton did was his own personal business and I really do not think it ever should have become what it became. It should have stayed between him and those personally involved in it. It has just become something to point fingers at. Bush's own little persona war (At first I was not sure about that. I was figuring that maybe there as something to it all. Since then I have seen enough to know this really had nothing to do with any real threat, just Bush wanting to get Iraq) and that does effect us all. Bush lied and got others to lie for him, in order to get us to go to war and loose lives for his own agenda. Clinton's lies got no one killed. BIG DIFFERENCE THERE.

Both of them are 100% grade-a idiots. It is just that Clinton really did nothing serious. Bush should have some serious explaining to do now about his actions which have cause American lives.

Okay, here's a little bit of politics for you

VOTE THIRD PARTY. IT MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO ELECT SOMEONE WITH HALF A BRAIN TO PRESIDENT FOR ONCE.

posted by kooka_lives on June 19, 2004 at 3:57 PM | link to this | reply

somalia -- you forget so soon?

started by Clinton's predecessor -- let's see, who was that?
otherwise, AMDG -- let's put the gloves on and spar over there in my blog in -- wait a minute this Is religion AND POLITICS -- sheesh we can do that here -- maybe in another blog -- AMDG --you create the blog and we'll all go over to it -- us liberals and we'll take you on.
good fun of course right? :-)

posted by Xeno-x on June 19, 2004 at 11:36 AM | link to this | reply

kooka

clinton abused his office by cavorting with an intern, a woman so many years his junior and so clearly immature and lied under oath about it. he acheived a surplus by raising taxes on the middle class and bolstering government programs. not that the repubilicans did much bette at the time. it's so easy for libs to pop off about "mad george" but i don't remember any crying foul when billy bob indiscriminately (and ineffectively)launched missiles to divert attention from his"private life". How about the debacle in Somalia? How about whitewatergate, travelgate, Fostergate, misuse of FBI files ad nauseam ad infinitem?
Bush believes Iraq and Al Qaeda pose a threat to us and the rest of the free world. If he's right the present course is not madness, but self preservation. Do you need a need a warhead parked up your arse before you feel compelled to act?

posted by AnCatubh on June 18, 2004 at 7:36 PM | link to this | reply

amdg

Clinton did much more for this country than Bush. Now I think they are both worthless and should never have gotten that far, but this goes against your point. Clinton's lack of morals were more based on his personal life, which is his own perosnal problem since it really does not hurt anyone outside his family. While Bush seems to have a lack of morals towards everyone else's rights, and that affects the whole country, if not the world. And Clinton was not an Atheist, he just did not have strong beliefs. Clinton did get the budget under control and do some good for the country. Bush, using his 'high morals' had done nothing but caused problems. I would take Clinton over Bush any day.

posted by kooka_lives on June 18, 2004 at 11:01 AM | link to this | reply

Right On!

Just a little editing would help, Kooka_Lives, but basically, you've got it right, in my book.

posted by WindTapper on June 18, 2004 at 8:23 AM | link to this | reply

kooka

Religious beliefs don't necessarily stem from organized religion. You could say creed or code of conduct instead. I think that poll reflects the desire of most people to see people in office who adhere to some moral code, kind of like the one outlined by westwend in his remarks to deverdoodle.
Incidentally, we did see a godless person, nearly totally devoid of a moral code, occupy the highest office in the land. He was a toal disgrace.

posted by AnCatubh on June 17, 2004 at 8:57 PM | link to this | reply

So what if Clinton got a BJ?  Bush advocated murder, but I guess it's ok because he spouts his religious beliefs.  I heard that the soldiers have to pray for the president in their daily prayers.  Why pray for him?  He's not the one fighting?  Religion needs to stay out of government as much as possible.  Bush is a prime example of what we don't want for a president.

Keep on Kooka!!!!

posted by michellerenee143 on June 17, 2004 at 5:18 PM | link to this | reply

Original_Influence

The rule may have been there for a long time, but the actual act of keeping the two separate has not. Otherwise the whole gay marriage thing would never end up an issue. Prostitution would be legal. And any number of other laws would never come to light. Religion is a large part of our present politics, and it is one of the things that keep bring us down as a country. We will be able to grow once we can break free of these religious ideas and just use common logic as the foundation of our laws. it would not solve all our problems, but things would get better.

posted by kooka_lives on June 17, 2004 at 4:23 PM | link to this | reply

b-mannomore

Great point.

If often seems like these Christians have fears that God will not provide for them or help them, yet that does go away from what is taught.
Does that show a true weakness of faith?
Maybe they do see the flaws and do not really believe then and are just going through the motions to play it safe.

It seems you have given me a good idea for a future post.

posted by kooka_lives on June 17, 2004 at 4:19 PM | link to this | reply

Deverdoodle

My hypothesis is not faulty

I did not need religion to tell me that killing another person hurts society. Religion is not needed to tell me that stealing is taking form others and since I do not like to have my stuff taken from me, then I should realize that those others do not like having their stuff taken from them.

The simple fact is that the truly needed rules will always find a way into any society because there are common logic and do not need nay kind of religious backing to make sense. The only part religion is needed for if to force those who can not think logically into following the rules through fear, and often times that does not work at all. The middle-east is a great example of this. It is the chaos you describe, caused by the religious ideas being used to govern them. If you were to take the religious beliefs away and make them all look at things with pure logic, then they might just be able to see that all the killing and such are wrong. But that religious beliefs hanging over them takes them away form logical thinking and creates chaos.

Atheism does not promote chaos or hate. It promotes the idea of doing as you please as long as it does not hurt others. It is the pure idea of the golden rule. If you could get people to use real logic and follow the idea of making sure you take into consideration how others might feel, the world would be a much better place.

posted by kooka_lives on June 17, 2004 at 4:16 PM | link to this | reply

more for deverdoodle from westwend

maybe I shoud let Kooka do this -- he will -- he'll probably shoot me for it -- or push me off Red Rocks --
but I think any society developing, whether it has religion or not, will pretty well develop a set of mores along the lines we have seen -- in the finest examples, that is -- the Great Precepts (do unto others, love thy neighbor, etc)
It wouldn't take a religion to emphasize these.
the problem we have here is that religion has buried these mainly under layers and layers of credos and this rule and that rule and liturgy and other such hogwash (excuse my language) so that the main precepts are pretty much set aside.

"Say a hundred 'Hail Mary's', my son." and all's well.
"Don't pay cards on Sunday -- while we're at it, don't play cards at all!"
"Women have to wear long dresses!""Don't marry outside your religion!"

What do these and other such prohibitions and proscriptions have to do with morality?

See the previous comment otherwise.

The point here is, I think people would probably develop a better set of rules for interacting without the interference of religion.

They would learn not to treat others badly. To treat others like they themselves would be treated.

posted by Xeno-x on June 17, 2004 at 2:32 PM | link to this | reply

deverdoodle

morality -- what is it? -- how is it defined?
it's different things to different people, different religions, thus it is not quite "written in stone"
prime directive: "do no harm"
then this sets the tone.
don't treat others like you wouldn't want to be treated.
actions can be selfish and harmful, or they can be magnanimous and constructive.
certain precepts help us understand what this can be.
yet, it's life's experiences that can help us the most.
some need a strict code
some don't.
the Law is a governess to lead us to faith, which we have when we have reached the proper maturity.
this might not be as clear as can be -- sorry

yours truly,
westwend

posted by Xeno-x on June 17, 2004 at 9:59 AM | link to this | reply

I agree with you in part, but...

Your hypothisis is faulty. True, religious influence should not play a part in the decision making process of our leaders. That's why we all left England in the first place. But realistically, it would be impossible to separate the two and expect our politicians to make any decision without religious influence.

 You refer to people being left to develop their own moral balance. The fact is that morality has been seated in the spiritual beliefs of mankind since humans were able to question the universe. This does not necessarily mean a belief in organized religion, but it does mean that spirituality in effect is morality. Therefor, it would be impossible for anyone to judge their morality without some spiritual compass, be it Islamic, Christian, Judahism or even paganism. Even atheists, even though they denounce a God, can not disclaim that their moral beliefs stem from some point in their heritage that was affected by religion and passed on to them by parents or society.

Even if you could turn back the clock of time and create a pure society who's day to dy decisions were made purely from their own experiences with absolutely no spiritual influence, most of us probably would not want to live the life that would evolve. Can you imagine the chaos of each of us doing as we please just because we want to, when we want to, without regard for those around us. What a brutal and hateful world it would be.

 

posted by Deverdoodle on June 17, 2004 at 6:33 AM | link to this | reply

we dark -- we light - we dark again

Remember who pretty well ran things during the "Dark Ages"?
right
with all these kings and feudal systems vying for power, still, "The Church" was supreme power -- reason for the Crusades, etc.
Recall all the superstition that bounced around then too.
How long after Galileo did "The Church" finally apologize and officially state he was right?
and here we go again
Ariala's blog relates how superstition still rules.
demons and such --
someone is making up "boogie-men" to scare themselves and others with.
but suuperstition never really died -- I think we all know that.
with the ascendancy of GWB, and the religious right, it's back again
like the little girl in front of the TV in Poltergeist II
"They're baaaack!!"
be afraid
be very afraid

posted by Xeno-x on June 17, 2004 at 6:22 AM | link to this | reply

The thing that bothers me most about this topic

is how main stream Christianity is currently projecting how bad it will be when our government becomes more secular.  Notice I said when, not if.  It says a lot about the faith of these people when they are more concerned about the collapse of the United States (that will inevitably be caused by gay marriage, according to some of them) than declaring God's ability to provide for them.  The inconsistency in the presentation of their message makes it hard for logical people to take Christianity seriously.  Have faith in God, but if the government passes this law it will be the end of the world as we know it, please!!

posted by Budmannomore on June 17, 2004 at 12:36 AM | link to this | reply

A weekend spent in luvly downtown Tehran would shut em all up for awhile

if anyone can point to a successful religious state country that is or ever was I'd like to see it. So far the track records of these countries has been one of heavy handed oppression, the stifling of intellect and discouragement of free thinking. While their populaces languish behind the times. I say the further we get away from emulating those people the better off we are. But of course the non seperation of church and state proponents are speaking of Christianity, not any other religion, so it would be different..........yeah right, sure it would.

posted by gomedome on June 16, 2004 at 6:47 PM | link to this | reply

antidisestablishmentarianism

the state is doing fine without the church.
sounds like original influence is an antidisestablishmentarian.
I finally get to use the word
antidisestablishmentarianism
I'll write a post on it sometime
it means in favor of restoring state sponsored religion -- being agains the disestablishment of such.
establishment being a state run religion or religion run state, reallysort of interchangeable.
for the middle ages that was the norm
then Luther broke that up (after so many lost their lives trying so to do)
then Henry VIII decided that Anglicanism could fill that role.
the way I understand Original influence there, he/she would want such a grand "state of affairs" back, where religion influenced the state so greatly that there would be no dispute with the purity and truth of such.

posted by Xeno-x on June 16, 2004 at 6:20 PM | link to this | reply

Separation of church and state has been

in effect for a long time...seems to me the state isn't doing too weel without the church...it's okay for Bill Clinton to get a bj but it isn't okay for us to say GOD...give me a break!

posted by Original_Influence on June 16, 2004 at 5:40 PM | link to this | reply

y-l-f

The only 'higher power' any politician should be worried about is the people who live in his/her country. They are what is important. Their freedoms and rights are what needs to come first. Any religious agenda just weakens the position.

posted by kooka_lives on June 16, 2004 at 10:37 AM | link to this | reply

higher power?

we are part of the Great High Power of the Universe.
we should quit pushing responsibility over onto something that so far really hasn't answered much or spoken that much.
we need to take responsibility on ourselves instead of say God or the Lord blesses or saying the devil tempted me.

posted by Xeno-x on June 16, 2004 at 8:01 AM | link to this | reply

A person who does not believe in a higher power cannot BE a higher power.

posted by TARZANA on June 16, 2004 at 6:42 AM | link to this | reply

I know alot of "religious" businessmen

and there is nothing moral or ethical about they way they do business. Business Ethics is an oxymoron. So when you take a fascist government, like America has, run by business men, complete with an overpaid board of directors and enough loop holes to knit a 360 mile blanket, and you add religion, what you get is a large group of people acknowledging that if there is a hell they are going in a hand bag. There is nothing good about that.

posted by Flumpystalls3000 on June 15, 2004 at 7:02 PM | link to this | reply