Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How religion influences government
Effect of religion on society
Effects of Religion in Society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How religion influences government
The place of religion in the public square is a debateable topic. In essence, the dispute centers on the fundamental question: should religious beliefs be excluded from consideration of public policy? That is to say, if society strongly believes that the state should not adopt or implement religious positions, views or policies; to what extent should religious ideologies or concepts be used to publicly support or oppose governmental actions? Or perhaps do religious beliefs and public policy make too dangerous a mixture to even consider? In any vibrant culture, governmental decisions and actions are largely influenced by the public square. Policy-makers discuss, justify and support or oppose public issues in hopes of reaching a consensus in the enforcement of public policy. Liberal thoughts within public debates clash when placed in the same forum as democratic pluralistic societies. Religion, in theory, is a sense of individuality. Thus, to exclude religious beliefs from considerations of public policy would be close to impossible. So is it acceptable for public officials to make decisions grounded in part by religion? This paper asserts that religious beliefs should be excluded from consideration of public policy because; 1) it leads to the ignorance of many religious minorities in the face of dominating religious groups; 2) religious views jeopardize social stability; and finally, 3) it diverges the basis of political decisions from the needs of the public.
[1ST BODY]
It is understood that religious beliefs should be excluded from consideration of public policy because it leads to the ignorance of many religious minorities in the face of dominating religious groups. Most people believe that the question on whether re...
... middle of paper ...
... that simply cannot be historically verified by any one individual. This paper has been written in the hopes that readers think outside the box on the issue of religion and the public forum. I encourage readers to consider the entirety of religion and politics and not focus on what is simply written within a holy book. Readers should ask themselves the question of what they believe to be the defining problem amongst religion and public policy. They should take away with them the realization that all worldviews, more specifically religious ones, are always based on outward appeals to artefacts, texts, scriptures, authorities or traditions; that religious beliefs should in fact be excluded from considerations of public policy because those who do not think they are true should not be forced to follow them by law. This, in absolute, is the core of my position.
Religion is a part of society that is so closely bound to the rest of one’s life it becomes hard to distinguish what part of religion is actually being portrayed through themselves, or what is being portrayed through their culture and the rest of their society. In Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln states that religion is used as a justifiable mean of supporting violence and war throughout time (Lincoln 2). This becomes truly visible in times such as the practice of Jihad, the Reformation, and 9/11. The purpose of this essay is to show that as long as religion is bound to a political and cultural aspect of a community, religious war and destruction will always occur throughout the world. A historical methodology will be deployed in order to gain
A common opinion of the people of Sweden is that America is country controlled by a group of Christian fanatics. I wish to showcase that Americans different views on religion in comparison to Europeans are mainly due to historical reasons and that its diverse religious views does not necessarily affect their political views. A common misconception is for example that both abortion and homosexuality is illegal and generally opposed by a majority of the American public due to religious reasons, I believe that this is simply not true and wish to bring forth evidence for this.
With sounds of youthful laughter, conversations about the students’ weekends, and the shuffling of college ruled paper; students file into their classrooms and find their seats on a typical Monday morning. As the announcements travel throughout the school’s intercoms, the usual “Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance” becomes no longer usual but rather puzzling to some students. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.” Confusion passes through some of the student’s minds. With the reoccurrence of “God” in the backdrop of American life, the relationship between church and state has become of little to no matter for American citizens just as it has with American students. While congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, the term “freedom of religion” presents itself to no longer be the definition of “free”, while also having its effects on debates today. According to Burt Rieff, in Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty, “Parents, school officials, politicians, and religious leaders entered the battle over defining the relationship between church and state, transforming constitutional issues into political, religious, and cultural debates” (Rieff). Throughout the 20th century, many have forgotten the meaning of religion and what its effects are on the people of today. With the nonconformist society in today’s culture, religion has placed itself in a category of insignificance. With the many controversies of the world, religion is at a stand still, and is proven to not be as important as it was in the past. Though the United States government is based on separation of church and state, the gover...
The most important aspect to consider is why political parties split when it comes to religious battles in the first place. Glaeser (2005) starts this argument by explaining that when you attract the median-voter there is always a high voting turnout. If this is true, then why do politicians take both ends of the spectrum in most cases when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage and abortions? Glaeser (2005) contends that there are statistical evidence that supports the connection between religious attendance and religious extremism. Exit polls from the 2004 Presidential election show a strong rise in the correlation between religious attendance and party affiliation. This happens because religion as a whole becomes a medium for discussion, much like major news organizations. The only difference is that religion is singular in its method, as Glaeser (2005) points out, in that the people focus on one issue and decide politically based on the preferences shown. The political parties differ for two majo...
This essay is dedicated to the expression of the various official views of religious bodies within our nation. Most major denominations are represented. These religions have long been the custodians of the truth, serving to check the erratic and unpredictable tendencies of political, judicial and social bodies which would have Americans killing off their elderly and handicapped.
In his 2006 “Call to Renewal Address”, Barack Obama gives his thoughts on the role of religion in democracy through a response to earlier accusations of his un-Christianness during his 2004 Senate race against Alan Keyes. He addresses both his accuser, who suggested that Obama's views disrespect his faith as a Christian, and his liberal supporters, who urged him to ignore these statements because “a literalist reading of the Bible was folly” (2). In his speech, Obama recommends a middle ground between these two views, in which “the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values” (7), as the only way to connect religion and politics in a “pluralistic democracy” (7). This attempt, motivated in part by the role of religion in his own upbringing, is his way to “bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring” to debates in which “faith [is] used as a tool of attack, … to belittle [and] to divide” (8). However, contradictions in his speech prevent his vision from becoming a useful model for religiously-motivated political action. Moreover, the fundamental nature of religion, which he admits “does not allow for compromise” (7), makes such a vision impossible.
As James Madison, the fourth President of the United States said, “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it is right of every man to exercise it as they may dictate” (Haynes, C...
As many people already know, politicis and religion some times go hand in hand. Recently, president Obama delivered his Inauguration Speech to the world. There were several remarks mentioned that pertained to religion. Many of the remarks can easily tie in with the American culture core values, which include, Americans are among a chosen people, manifest destiny, morality yields prosperity, and the protestant ethic.
In this paper, I articulate and evaluate an important argument in support of the claim that citizens of a liberal democracy should not support coercive policies on the basis of a rationale they know other citizens reasonably reject. I conclude that that argument is unsuccessful. In particular, I argue that religious believers who support coercive public policies on the basis of religious convictions do not disrespect citizens who reasonably regard such religious convictions as false.
...iberties. Ed. Noël Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Government Neutrality Is Not 'Anti-Religion'." Psychology Today (3 Oct. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
The separation of church and state has been a long debated topic in the history of America. Although founded upon Christian ideals, the framers of the Constitution explicitly outlined the government to function secularly, in what is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause”. When interpreting the Constitution in regards to religion, there are two primary philosophies. The first philosophy this paper will explore will be referred to as Positive Toleration. In general, the idea of positive toleration creates an environment that is encouraging of all religions. The second philosophy, which will be referred to as the “Wall of Separation,” encourages government freedom from religion. Although historically these two philosophies have jockey back and forth in public popularity, as America moves into the future, the Wall of Separation philosophy will take a strong-hold and will set the course for how the Establishment Clause will affect local government, schools, and private religious practice.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...
For the entirety of the United States’ existence, freedom of religion has been a guiding principle of the nation. Despite, or perhaps because of, the deep, varied religious heritage of many Americans, America was the first country in history to abolish religious requirements for civic engagement (Edwards). However, paradoxically, the United States also has a history of religious discrimination, as seen in historical bigotry towards Catholics, some Protestant sects, Jews, Atheists, Mormons, Muslims, and other marginalized groups. Indeed, the conflict between America’s secular ideal and its often faith-dominated reality is a common theme in American history, continuing to this day. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, persecution
For thousands of years, religion has exerted a great influence over economic and political life. Even today religion is called upon to support rulers, contacts and other legal procedures.
Discrimination based on or derived from religion has been a cause of significant suffering. Prejudice directed against people based on their religious beliefs, practice, identification or association has resulted in a wide range of discriminatory practices. Prejudice and discrimination based on religion continue to be problems even in countries that otherwise has achieved a high level of religious diversity. Prejudice based on religion has been used to justify discrimination against those with different religious beliefs, individuals of various ethnicities, those who are not exclus...