Should religion play a bigger role in politics and why?

I would have to go with yes on this because if politics where to somewhat follow on the basis of some religion, politics in the U.S. would be a little less corrupt than it already is. Then again it would be a little chaotic due to thinking what kind of religion should politics follow, so it's kind of hard to choose yes or no for me.

I voted no,

I don't want any decisions that effect an entire country to be based around something that not everyone believes in or agree's with.

True that. It's really hard to get like millions of people to follow a single religion. Plus it's not really bad to have a country based on one religion but only if that religion is something that you can logically follow.

NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE
NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE

I can not even begin to stress how much I oppose this. Like, I can't even see how a rational person could think this is a good idea. My head is so full of fuck even at the though of it.

In theory we have a higher chance to stop corruption in government just with the average citizens word of mouth with the current economic status than ever before, I would like to see people get even more angry and put an end to it.

Always seems like people forget about what those morons do when the economy is doing well.

No. There's a reason why these two are separate in most countries. And I doubt it would be of any help against corruption as you propose. There has been enough corruption in religious institutions as well. As it's said, power corrupts, and even if you'd have religion play a bigger part in politics, the result would be exactly the same on the corruption front, while also introducing possible religious oppression of those of no or a different religion.

Religion + politics....The only possible way I can see that working is if we all became Buddhists. No, wait that won't work either because we'd fall back into the same conservative/liberal B.S. and start bickering again.

When I hear people pressing for integration between "church and state" my mind immediately transports to Taliban Afghanistan, post-revolution Iran, etc.

Yes, THIS.

Religion is not the only source of morality. Plus governments based on religion get hella corrupt too--I would argue that they are MORE corrupt than secular governments. See: The Vatican, The Philippines (which is technically secular, but the Catholic church has a stranglehold on the government), Islamic states and all of the other theocratic nations in the world.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is just stunningly naive. Do you really think that organized religion has existed for millennia without being host to some of the many of the most vivid examples of corruption and abuse of power?

I'm very much opposed to religious organizations being treated differently (ex: tax breaks) than any other group. Imo, a church represents only a group of people who shares views on some topic or enjoy participating in some activity; they should receive no benefits that a group espousing bird watching or rock climbing would not.

That said, I oppose arbitrary religious censure, like the banning of replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" and crap like that, partially because it infringes on the rights of others for no benefit beyond sparing some politically-correct wusses some angst, and partially because it makes the rest of us non-religious types look like a bunch of petty, bored losers.

I've seen children smarter than the OP. I think what he really means is, "An absolutely correct philosophy that the entire universe and everyone that lives in it should follow".

Unless you want priests dictating what the government should do, then click yes. Otherwise, leave it to politicians to do their work on their own and click no.

Oh and also, if you don't want politicians hiding their personal agenda saying that 'it was the will of God', click no. It works effictively too, say if a politician cheats his/her election then says that 'I won cause my God made me win', then no one would ever question that, except maybe for non-believers.

Religion shouldn't play a bigger role in politics, it needs to play a smaller role. Politicians tend to try and use religion to gain supporters and votes. Look at Rick Perry's prayer rally. Then there is the whole court system. You have to swear on a bible and some court rooms even have crosses in them! This would be very uncomfortable for some non-believers. I mean imagine walking into a court room and seeing everyone wearing turbans and having to swear on a Qur'an.

If you would want the government to be based on one religion the main question would be what religion and why? and once you pick one, what standards would it be by? there are churches here in the U.S. that would give you the clothes off thier backs and theres ones like that church that hates everyone and protests at funerals. even then once you get a main religion people will be in an outrage that thier religion is not accepted into the current government causing much disturbance in our already hate filled country. Besides we dont want to give more people a reason to hate our government now do we?

Agreeing with this, everyone else seems to think theres only one religion...

It all depends on what religion where talking about, if it were something better, where the religion HIGHLY regards poeple in all-views and aspects to the same person. Theres also Communism, but we can see that communism really only is perfect on paper.

Like DaSheepDog said, This would probably push out other religions (if the religion were to be unaccepting of other religions) and that could lead to hate.

Actually, there not another religion as divided as Christianity. Why? Because (most of the ) other religions don't claim absolute knowledge or absolute interpretation of knowledge.

Warning! The following video is Atheist propaganda, if such material causes you to incessantly rage, just don't watch it! If you're religious, but have the good humor to laugh at a satire that pokes at the inconsistencies surrounding your belief, you'll likely have a laugh too... though chances are you'll be still offended.



...so I wonder what "singular religion" or RELIGION in big capital letters does OP refer to?

Nice one. :D

Seen this?

That clip just made me lol. He probably had a lot of time to find those contradictions.

Religion already plays a big role in politics.

Separation of church and state ftw.