Problems with "Pagans"

[Maxply]

Oh, I think the interesting thing, and you may agree, is that the classic liberal approach has problems with the “separation of church and state” when it comes to a person figuring out the issues. I’m appalled by partial birth abortion, think it’s barbaric for many reasons, including religious ones. But there are some who feel a person/voter shouldn’t act on the basis of any religious concepts. . . which, to me, denies an essential component of one’s moral character.

re: Paganus. If you, as an individual, choose to live in society, you are obliged to follow laws. Laws are created as generalized rules for behavior. In a democracy, the goal is to maximize personal freedom while also keeping society nice and civil. And perhaps even working toward mutually beneficial progress. So yes, someone (the legislature) can tell you what to do. Radical anarchism is a nice sunny idea, but impractical since unachievable. Read some Thomas Hobbes for further insights.

 

[KarenNC]

Oh, I think the interesting thing, and you may agree, is that the classic liberal approach has problems with the “separation of church and state” when it comes to a person figuring out the issues.

I think that I travel in what I believe to be quite liberal circles, and I have never heard that argument advanced. I have a hard time believing it is a “classic liberal approach” regarding individual voters.

** But there are some who feel a person/voter shouldn’t act on the basis of any religious concepts. . . which, to me, denies an essential component of one’s moral character.**

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with an individual voting his or her conscience as an individual or acting in his or her capacity as individual. It does not violate this, for instance, when the President or other elected official attends the house of worship of his or her choice, sends their child to a private religious school, or casts their * private, individual * vote in an election. In those cases the official is acting as a private citizen, not in the capacity of his or her office as an elected official.

It applies when that person is voting or acting as an elected official and representative of the government. By taking the oath of office, he or she has sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the tenets of his or her religion. I refer you again to John F. Kennedy’s speech on separation of church and state
beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4080_1.html

 "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise." 

 ***     But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same***."(this is on the third page of the speech, the url for the first page for context, emphasis is mine)

Here is an example of a man willing to uphold both his religious principles ** and ** his duty under the law as an elected official of the United States. I would that more were like him in this respect.

 

[Maxply]

Karen, thanks for all the quotes I see what you’re getting at.

I just believe that a person is a person and doesn’t become something other than what he is, once elected to office. I’m different from you, and it’s okay with me if someone elected acts on his religious beliefs. You can always vote him out.

More philosophically, IS there a sui generis “Elected Official” robe that a person in office can wear? I doubt it. Issues and values don’t cleanly split into “personal” and “public” distinctions. The kind of thought-experiment you propose is interesting, but it presumes the official is willing to adopt a set of ostensibly “neutral” principles.

Pace you, I’m leery of what this set of universalistic principles might be. I suppose I feel people are flesh and blood, and not paper corporations.

 

[KarenNC]

I just believe that a person is a person and doesn’t become something other than what he is, once elected to office. I’m different from you, and it’s okay with me if someone elected acts on his religious beliefs. You can always vote him out.

Is it okay with you if someone whose religious beliefs differ from yours acts on them in his elected position as your representative in our government? Yes, you can always vote him out, but by then much damage can have already been done in the name of his religion that could take decades to undo.

My hope is that a person who could not put the good and will of all the people he was elected to represent (not just those who share his religious views) above his own personal will would be very upfront about that in his election campaign so that I can avoid voting for him. I don’t want a Neopagan in office who will cast “Neopagan” votes, either.

 

[cheddarsox]

What’s the point of a belief system if a person doesn’t “act on it”? I don’t know if it’s possible or logical to put one’s beliefs aside because a person holds public office. Nor do I know that it is preferable.

While I don’t think one should use their political office to institutionalize thier faith, build places of worship, etc, I fully expect them to live with integrity and by the precepts of their faith. I would be alarmed (and have been) when they do not.

No point in professing a faith if it does not affect how one lives, believes and makes decisions.

I don’t put my faith on and off like a cloak, it is who/what I am.

cheddar

 

[KarenNC]

While I don’t think one should use their political office to institutionalize thier faith, build places of worship, etc, I fully expect them to live with integrity and by the precepts of their faith. I would be alarmed (and have been) when they do not.

Agreed. It is exactly that which becomes the problem. Too many have (historically and currenlty) tried to use positions as elected officials to enact laws that support an institutionalization of their faith. It has been seen time and again among various sects of Christianity as well as between Christians and non-Christians. Balancing the same level of freedom for both majority and minority religions is a tricky thing, and one that our country has not always done well, sometimes not doing enough, sometimes going overboard.