Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Religion and Politics
23 Answers
I've unashamedly pinched this question from rov1200 (who posted it days ago in News) simply because I thought it might liven up the current sluggishness of R&S.
//The good that people of faith all over the world do every day, motivated by their religion, cannot be underestimated and should never be ignored.// Tony Blair.
So, should religious faith be part of a politician's vocabulary?
I really want to ask Tony Blair what he thinks motivates non-believers to do good deeds, but since I can't right now, I'll ask ABers instead - but in answering that, please don't ignore the original question.
Thanks rov1200.
//The good that people of faith all over the world do every day, motivated by their religion, cannot be underestimated and should never be ignored.// Tony Blair.
So, should religious faith be part of a politician's vocabulary?
I really want to ask Tony Blair what he thinks motivates non-believers to do good deeds, but since I can't right now, I'll ask ABers instead - but in answering that, please don't ignore the original question.
Thanks rov1200.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, religious faith should NOT be part of a politician's vocabulary, for it to be so makes it impossible for them to adequately and objectively serve the electorate in all it's forms. As to what motivates non believers to do good deeds, I would imagine it's just because knowing good from bad, right from wrong is not the sole monopoly of the religious- non religious people are nice people too!
I'm not sure, but I think it probably should - I mean whether you agree with it or not it's only fair that they're open about what motivates them and what they believe.
Rather than being disparaging of the non-religious, Blair's quote above looks a bit defensive to me - sort of saying 'ok we're nutters, but our nuttiness motivates us to do good, so we should still be allowed to make a contribution - don't ignore us please'.
I could be reading it wrong though.
Rather than being disparaging of the non-religious, Blair's quote above looks a bit defensive to me - sort of saying 'ok we're nutters, but our nuttiness motivates us to do good, so we should still be allowed to make a contribution - don't ignore us please'.
I could be reading it wrong though.
I can see what he's saying Ludwig, and yes, I think you're right in saying it's defensive. However, I get the impression that he's implying that only the religious do good and therefore that's a very good reason for excusing the 'nuttiness' that is religion. The fact is though, it is not only the religious who do good, so where does that leave the argument?
Yes, that's what I mean when I say it's defensive - it's as if he's been asked why religion is responsible for so much bad in the world, and he's excusing that by saying it's responsible for a alot of good too.
I don't think there'll be a situation in this country where politicians do make a big deal of religion, because it's a vote loser. Blair always squirmed like crazy when he was asked about it, because he knew every time he talked about god he was just seen as a fruitcake.
It's different in America where the opposite is true - it's essential to be religious because it's a vote winner.
I don't think there'll be a situation in this country where politicians do make a big deal of religion, because it's a vote loser. Blair always squirmed like crazy when he was asked about it, because he knew every time he talked about god he was just seen as a fruitcake.
It's different in America where the opposite is true - it's essential to be religious because it's a vote winner.
I think a politician has to recognise the cultural realities of life - and religion still forms a major part of our society, rightly or wrongly.
Where it gets worrying is when politicians allow religion or faith to drive their policy making, in contradiction to evidence or science.
It also seems wrong to me that in places like the USA, you would be extremely unlikely to be elected if you were a self-declared atheist - So despite the constitution making the statement of being a secular nation with religious freedom for all, it now seems that to become a senior political figure you have to declare a faith and preferably christian.
In 2010, religion and faith hold far too much sway in global political decision making, and the more fundamentalist the religion, the more of an anchor on cultural and humanitarian development.
Where it gets worrying is when politicians allow religion or faith to drive their policy making, in contradiction to evidence or science.
It also seems wrong to me that in places like the USA, you would be extremely unlikely to be elected if you were a self-declared atheist - So despite the constitution making the statement of being a secular nation with religious freedom for all, it now seems that to become a senior political figure you have to declare a faith and preferably christian.
In 2010, religion and faith hold far too much sway in global political decision making, and the more fundamentalist the religion, the more of an anchor on cultural and humanitarian development.
