Political Exploitation of Religion

H

hypewaders

Save Changes
Registered Senior Member
I rarely venture into this :shudder: creepy forum. Which could make this exciting, if y'all don't creep me out too much. Anyway, I'd like to start by pushing a few religious buttons, except I don't really like doing that. So if only each one here who has religious convictions, and is reading with some interest this far would please do me this favor, for the sake of better conversation:

Consider your religious buttons pushed right now, as if I have posted something that preferably strongly affirms your beliefs. If this seems a stretch then kindly pretend that I have threatened and insulted your core beliefs. Thank you for your deepest indulgence.

OK let's consider the possibility that openly religious, and especially openly fundamentalist leaders all over the world are suckers, because their most tender fundamentalist beliefs are easy to fondle or strike.

Hopefully that concept will push a few buttons, and fire a few synapses. It is my belief that religion is commonly exploited by small interest groups and individuals, for the purpose of exerting prodigious political and economic power. Part of the proof of my belief is how openly religious politicians have an anomalous propensity for policy that directly violates the universal notion of truth and justice imbedded in all religions.

Religion may not be the Opiate of the Masses, but in the sense of political figures openly devout and charismatic in their religious beliefs, there's obviously something significant going on.

Why?
 
I knew a family of devout Christians growing up. They didn't believe in the stock market and such, so they consistently invested in Churches. Not once, but twice in 10 years the Church went "Bankrupt" by stealing all of the money and running. Since they weren't a business and the money was volunteered there were no actions that could be taken in lawsuit. They were a really nice family and they twice lost everything they had.

So the father of the family had to build a house himself, which was continually infested.

Some people definitely are cursed.

In any case, Christians take advantage of other Christians...but that's the case with humanity in general.


I'm adding a little upon edit.

Language in a large part was created as a means to collect taxes. Laws were ordained to enforce boundaries. People would frequently attempt to avoid being absorbed...but in the mean time paid taxes. Those taxes paid soldiers to enforce boundaries. When people found that deifying their ruler could bring more voluntary taxes by causing people to give into laws...they did. Later when people felt they could become that ruler they had incentive to continue to pay taxes...
Whether or not there was an intentional desire to become wealthy is debatable...I think genuinely people felt that imposed order was better than order inherited. For example; I believe it's more righteous to kill your enemies than force them to behave.
However this is not the case today; or for much of religious history. So disorder remains.
 
Last edited:
-Unless we choose to live otherwise, and I know people believing many major religions that have. So while you may say that corruption is innately human, there also remains the demonstrable and beneficial capacity to live without participating in it.

It would also be interesting to explore here the notion of religious moderation in and of government. It is not evident to me that all religious influence is tainted or disruptive to the greatest good.
 
České Hranolky: "I believe it's more righteous to kill your enemies than force them to behave."

Do you believe it more righteous than minding one's own business? Does unnecessary and offensive warfare not conflict with the foundations of all viable concepts of righteous belief?
 
hypewaders said:
-Unless we choose to live otherwise, and I know people believing many major religions that have. So while you may say that corruption is innately human, there also remains the demonstrable and beneficial capacity to live without participating in it.

It would also be interesting to explore here the notion of religious moderation in and of government. It is not evident to me that all religious influence is tainted or disruptive to the greatest good.
Click to expand...


You're right; I intentionally don't associate with group movements. But in religion there's a fine line between heresy and logical disagreement and it's risky to walk it. It's difficult to dedicate enough of your time to recognize what exactly is heresy and what is not AND have the ability to defend yourself. To be religious in a strict sense you essentially are a martyr. If you stick to the rules ordained you'll be minutely excommunicated by the religious community as an extremist heretic and an extremist lunatic by the secular community. At this point, where do you go? Some find it easier to join the religious body in the bad and the good; others disassociate entirely. I personally choose to walk the fine line.

Religious moderation is good, this is the political system set up ideally in religion. A court. A man who is righteously religious. A political King. Those are the tree bodies of government explained as ideal. Yes all three are righteous.
- One looks through the world as an impartial judge and keeps order in the land.
- One looks at the world with an idealistic eye in benefiting the common people.
- One looks at the world with the intent to maintain a kingdom from its neighbors and internal uprisings.

In Hebrew: Beiz Den | Kohen Gadol | Melech

It's really the founding principal of democracy. The difference is instead of a Kohen Gadol you have a Congress...which is far from righteous.

It could work, but the nation has to be moral and agreeing upon a set standard of morals.


České Hranolky: "I believe it's more righteous to kill your enemies than force them to behave."

Do you believe it more righteous than minding one's own business? Does unnecessary (offensive) warfare not conflict with the foundations of all viable concepts of righteous belief?
Click to expand...
Nah, give them the option of fleeing from you first. If you do not give them that option you're unrighteous. If they choose to stay and behave as they do, there will be war. This way 2 disagreeing factions are fighting about ideals, and not for power. If your faction can not acquire enough agreement you will have no military. If you conscript one, it will still be less effective than a voluntary idealistic military
 
"in religion there's a fine line between heresy and logical disagreement and it's risky to walk it."

Very true, but I have scant respect for superficially-religious people who shy away from that tricky walk; they're weaklings.

"I personally choose to walk the fine line."

I enjoy staggering around, often falling down to think.
 
hypewaders said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Why what?

Why do politicians do this?
Because it is much easier to manipulate people through faith, than facts (religious faith, party faith, philosophical faith).
Get people to believe that you have the same God and beliefs and that "other" is somehow threatening those beliefs and they are putty in your hands.

Why does it work?
The same reasons religions work.
They foster the same fears, insecurities and shame that they feed off - it's a never-ending feedback cycyle.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - Henry Louis Mencken
 
Why is "religious" influence in politics manifesting mostly bad policy?

1 Raven: "it is much easier to manipulate people through faith, than facts (religious faith, party faith, philosophical faith)."

Yes, that's true- but why is the influence consistently toward trouble?

We agree about the vulnerability of religion and religious figures to being manipulated for political purpose.

My question is, what does this reveal about religion and religion's manipulators?
 
hypewaders said:
Why is "religious" influence in politics manifesting mostly bad policy?

1 Raven: "it is much easier to manipulate people through faith, than facts (religious faith, party faith, philosophical faith)."

Yes, that's true- but why is the influence consistently toward trouble?

We agree about the vulnerability of religion and religious figures to being manipulated for political purpose.

My question is, what does this reveal about religion and religion's manipulators?
Click to expand...

Directly it means that perfection and evil are brothers.
 
It reveals that those who manipulate others are generally dishonest and self-serving bastards - as opposed to public servants.
 
CheskiChips: "...perfection and evil are brothers."

Or perfection is beyond good and evil. That's what a lot of mystics say. But the typical manipulated True Believer politician is never a mystic, and I have reason to doubt that our manipulators are.

one_raven: "those who manipulate others are generally dishonest and self-serving bastards - as opposed to public servants."

But significant majorities in many nations and religions can't tell the difference, or avoid making any open appraisal.
 
Your original point is correct, hype, in that politicians use the people's faith against them. Bush is an extreme example--I am pretty sure he's the first Evangelical to take that office--but they all do use God as a way to appeal to a large number of voters. It's easier trying to convince people with faith than policies, which is why they do it.

But religious moderation of government? No. That's a terrible idea. The reason for that is because power is corruptable, and once you give the power to a religious authority...I think you can see the slippery slope, yes? The best system is the one that has checks and balances, not a supreme ruler, or an outside moderator that has a god on his side. And honestly, it isn't fair to tell the citizenry that their government is overseen by a religious authority that is not of the faith they have. Now, suddenly, we have a looming threat of religious persecution. Not saying it would happen immediately, but it is an inevitable outcome in time.

Religion is best kept with the people, not the government. Morals change faster in society than they do in church, temple, or mosque, so you'd end up with a mess of pissed-off people fighting against the establishment long after society has already deemed them (or their actions, or whatever) as acceptable. Look at gay marriage as an example; society is already moving towards acceptance of it, and two state governments have already legalized it. The federal government, however, hasn't, and has even tried to make it unconstitutional. Eventually, those tolerant masses will send their own people into power, and the fed will legalize it. But if you add a religious authority to the governmental mix, and you hit a wall, because it no longer matters what society thinks, it only matters what the religion says.

God complicates government.
 
JDawg said:
The federal government, however, hasn't, and has even tried to make it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Just one point...
The Federal GOvernment has not tried to make it unconstitutional - certain individuals (236 representative votes yea) tried to get the ammendment passed.
If the Federal Government tried to make it unconstitutional, who would stop them?
 
Just one point...
The Federal GOvernment has not tried to make it unconstitutional - certain individuals (236 representative votes yea) tried to get the ammendment passed.
If the Federal Government tried to make it unconstitutional, who would stop them?
Click to expand...

I'm aware of how it went. I was trying to make it flow as quickly as possible, which is why I also failed to mention that the two states to legalize it are California and Massachusettes.

Nitpicking a bit, aren't we?
 
JDawg said:
Nitpicking a bit, aren't we?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. :shrug:
I think it was a valid point to make.
Saying that the Federal Government tried to do it, implies that they were united in their effort and someone other than the Federal Government stopped them.
If you said that the Republican Party tried to do it, then bringing up the fact that a few Republicans rejected it would have been nit-picking.
 
hypewaders said:
I rarely venture into this :shudder: creepy forum. Which could make this exciting, if y'all don't creep me out too much. Anyway, I'd like to start by pushing a few religious buttons, except I don't really like doing that. So if only each one here who has religious convictions, and is reading with some interest this far would please do me this favor, for the sake of better conversation:

Consider your religious buttons pushed right now, as if I have posted something that preferably strongly affirms your beliefs. If this seems a stretch then kindly pretend that I have threatened and insulted your core beliefs. Thank you for your deepest indulgence.

OK let's consider the possibility that openly religious, and especially openly fundamentalist leaders all over the world are suckers, because their most tender fundamentalist beliefs are easy to fondle or strike.

Hopefully that concept will push a few buttons, and fire a few synapses. It is my belief that religion is commonly exploited by small interest groups and individuals, for the purpose of exerting prodigious political and economic power. Part of the proof of my belief is how openly religious politicians have an anomalous propensity for policy that directly violates the universal notion of truth and justice imbedded in all religions.

Religion may not be the Opiate of the Masses, but in the sense of political figures openly devout and charismatic in their religious beliefs, there's obviously something significant going on.

Why?
Click to expand...

I don't know wether your intention was to insult people of faith or not.

But anyway as i try to figure out if your post was a question or a judgement or what i will just post some thoughts.

Religion that serves the state and the elites of this world are false to the teachings of the Messiah Jesus. i do not believe any follower of Jesus should take any part in politics.

Yes the satanic powers that rule this world use religion as one of a plethora of tools they use to heard the masses and direct world affairs towards their planned goals.



All Praise The Ancient of Days
 
Adstar: "I don't know wether your intention was to insult people of faith or not."

Well, it's high time you figured it out then: It was not.

"as i try to figure out if your post was

[a]a question or
[p]a judgement
[c]or what

The honest and true answer is [a]. Has your religion made you paranoid, or is this an unrelated handicap?

"Religion that serves the state and the elites of this world are false to the teachings of the Messiah Jesus."

So public religious ministers to our Presidents are/have been heretics in your view? Do you believe the book of Leviticus contains a description of their just punishment?

"i do not believe any follower of Jesus should take any part in politics. "

You mean, let us atheists, Muslims, Buddhists etc. do the driving. OK, Fine. Think of it like an urban taxicab then:

[bad Indian accent] Now keeping quiet back there with religious indignance, or I stop car. Thanks[/bad Indian accent/analogy]
 
Last edited:
one_raven said:
I don't think so. :shrug:
I think it was a valid point to make.
Saying that the Federal Government tried to do it, implies that they were united in their effort and someone other than the Federal Government stopped them.
If you said that the Republican Party tried to do it, then bringing up the fact that a few Republicans rejected it would have been nit-picking.
Click to expand...

You can try to justify it all you like, but you knew what I meant, and so did the people in this conversation...so, nitpicking.
 
JDawg said:
You can try to justify it all you like, but you knew what I meant, and so did the people in this conversation...so, nitpicking.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone else - just as you shouldn't try and speak for me - but no, actually, I didn't know what you meant.
How could I know how aware you were of what happened or the political process?
 
Here's an insightful look back for those of us in the West who are accustomed to being told that our traditions are more sociopolitically advanced, and exclusive of the history of "them mozlems" and Islam; as if our Western societies were not built for sub-missions.

these manifestations are, they indicate a widespread tendency; in the application of scriptural declarations to matters of social economy, which has not yet ceased, though it is fast fading away.
Click to expand...


I think it is the same old game. And it's changing but not fading away. There has for a very long time been an viral generational perpetuity of influential people manifestly unbelieving in the religious movements and societies that they are profoundly and often destructively manipulating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top