Religion and Politics (no spam)

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:03 pm

A great political force has emerged from evangelic churches on Brazil. I'm quite annoyed with it, cause IMO politics and religion should not mix. And by that I dont mean that the churches should not risk the politic path.

By that I mean that I'm worried about those nominees who used of the faith of the people to get more and more votes. And there were not few of them on our last election, for mayors and other public functions.

I wish to know the opinion of the gamebanshee members about the use of the faith of the people to garther votes.

My opinion is that it is just disgusting.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:17 pm

It's long been a cheap tactic employed in many countries, Luis. And before anybody pushes the Kick-the-US button, it should be noted that it was a big factor in the UK back in the 19th and much of the 20th century, and has also been responsible for much support among parties in the Scandinavian nations, the Netherlands, Israel, Italy, France, etc. Many parties in Europe received the specific endorsement of a given church.

What makes things different today is not so much the politicians or churches doing this, but citizens of a specific denomination creating grassroots organizations to support candidates that follow a platform of religiously inspired issues. This is dangerous because it applies a litmus test to candidates not based on competence, experience or knowledge, but upon a series of opinions formulated through a very narrow view of documents 2000 years old or more. I'd suggest that politicians elected in this fashion are neither in touch with reality, nor capable of flexibility of dealing with modern issues and individuals.

Tower_Master · Post by **Tower_Master** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:42 pm

As an individual with a pretty strong faith (or, at least, I'd like to think so), I'd say that I still agree with you, Luis. My religion, obviously, gives me a certain set of morales, but they have NO place in politics or the government. The people of the world do not, obviously, prescribe to one uniform faith, and, because of such, our respictive governments should not be entwined with any sort of religious denomination in any way at all.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:24 am

Yeah, Fable, I hoped that. Faith is a strange effect, a strange appearance in our "rational" minds. Charismatic persons come, leave theyr mark and tons of people start following them.

Check this text:
"...These evangelic politicians, (...), act following a specie of religious populism, a dangerous mixture from what is of more demagogic and paternalist in politics with what is more fearing and fatal on the faith universe."

Sorry for the bad translation. But Populism and faith are the main concepts that concern me here.

Check out another stupidity, from our president:

"A plan by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to create a national journalists' council to regulate Brazil's boisterous press has prompted mounting criticism here. News organizations that would be affected by the bill call it the most serious threat to freedom of expression here since a right-wing military dictatorship..."

He is a charismatic leader. Charisma is the very source of the power of the evangelic churches. And, if I'm not mistakent, Hittler himself is considered one of the most strong charismatic leaders of all times.

I'm scared with this. Religion mixed with politics and a president that want to "enslave" the press.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:42 am

"A plan by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to create a national journalists' council to regulate Brazil's boisterous press has prompted mounting criticism here. News organizations that would be affected by the bill call it the most serious threat to freedom of expression here since a right-wing military dictatorship..."

This is something rather different than your thread's subject, but it's interesting. It sounds like Lula wants the press to monitor itself. Depending upon the people chosen for the council, the power it receives, and the way in which it applies that power, it could be either a very good thing or a very bad one. If they're intelligent people who have given this matter a great deal of thought, they might suggest measures that make newspapers more accountable for printing falsehoods. They might force more disclosure, and in a more obvious fashion, when a news outlet's editorial slant is quietly compromised by personal relationships between its staff and the subjects it covers. (For example, some of the supposedly non-biased news anchors on Fox have appeared as guest speakers at US Republican conventions--not something Fox publicizes, but definitely a matter that should be disclosed whenever they report political news because of inherent personal bias.)

On the other hand, such a body could be just as easily used to force out one's political opponents and restrict freedom of the press, all at the supposed instigation of "the People."

Sorry for the spam, but you brought the matter up. It's probably best to move this discussion to a different thread, if you want to carry it on.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:20 am

[QUOTE=fable]And before anybody pushes the Kick-the-US button[/QUOTE]

I can't resist the urge to give another history lesson here

When we (I mean the Hungarians) entered Europe, a pagan tribe arrived from the East, bringing their tribal shamans and pagan traditions. Approx. 100 years later a king (Stephen) thought we should make friends with the neighbouring nations in order to stay alive in our "new" home - let's start that by accepting their religion! So he asked for help from the Christian countries, and indeed, foreigners came to fight by his side against those who'd rather sticked to the traditions. He won, Hungary assumed Christianity, and he was crowned by the pope, too.

Imho, he used Christianity as a tool to integrate into Europe. Now he's the greatest saint of Hungary.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:24 am

Antonio, didn't you know he planned this when he was elected? Or is it a completely new idea from him?

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:41 am

[QUOTE=fable]On the other hand, such a body could be just as easily used to force out one's political opponents and restrict freedom of the press, all at the supposed instigation of "the People."

Sorry for the spam, but you brought the matter up. It's probably best to move this discussion to a different thread, if you want to carry it on.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you spammed, I think I was too restrictive on this thread title.

The measure Lula took is being viewed by the national and international press as a way to restrict freedom of the press. His party - as lots of people are noticing - wants to dominate all after years of unsuccessful tactics as oposing force. Lula was elected after changing his behavior and promisses - from a pró Fidel to a pró Freedom - and promissed a few social enhancements - like the extinction of the hunger, and lots of new jobs - that never happened, but are treated by the government marketing (today) as the very facts of truth. In fact, Paoloci (minister of fazenda, or economy if you prefer but thats not the exact term) tells that Brazil left the red danger area and is now growing. Well, okay, it is growing for real? No. If you say that we are growing now at a nominal 3% rate and the inflation is about 7% a year and we add the populational growth - sorry I cant remember the statistic - I say we have a big problem with recession, or at least stagnation.

So, you see, he has been elected by his charismatic ways, with the support of the midia, keeps the same politics that the former governor had, dont make what he promissed, keeps making international mistakes all the time, want to keep the press on his right hand and, for the brain sake, THE PEOPLE LOVE HIM. It has the same interaction that exists between a priest and his flock, a faith relationship.

Understand why I brought that up? (Fable, if you want to change the title, I'll be thankfull)

And Brynn, I think the church has been responsible for very good things in the past. And may be responsible for very good things in the future. But I'm for sure convinced that theyr "commandments" are outdated, and that in most cases, religion have become nothing more that "gimme your cash, I'll sell you a place in heaven".
- Edit: I didnt vote on him. And I knewed that this kind of things could happen, everybody knewed. But in a democracy people vote, and a good marketing team may buy even the richer nations... ah, the fact is that we have lotsa poor people, low school grade... marketing is easier.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:44 am

So what do you think the solution might be? Elect another president? Or ruin his reputation somehow so that the people won't like him so much?

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:50 am

Brynn, as a matter of fact the press tried to "disarm" him, and placed several facts that happened on his government in the eyes of the people.

But his party is now the strongest lobby in the congress.

So, one way or another, the press will have to say what they want to, dont you agree? And Lula's suffering as a worker on the past is branded on the minds of the people.

In Brazil, populism is the solution. Thats why you see Rio de Janeiro becoming the war zone that it is. That is why in São Paulo there are tons of quick kidnappings. Yes, never come to Brazil, it's very dangerous.

Brynn · Post by **Brynn** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:01 am

War zone? Is it that serious? Are they trying to remove him from office by force?

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:13 am

No, in Rio the matters of personal security are getting worst every day, just like in São Paulo. The bandits dont care about police forces anymore in several places. For example, there were barricades on Rio de Janeiro last week, for the bandits of one favela to avoid the entering of another bandit group.

So, as you see, everything is wonderfull, as the marketing team from the president says...

You understand what I mean?

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:26 pm

I am always suspicious of political leaders who play the religion card. Religion has no place in politics.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:40 pm

[QUOTE=Sojourner]I am always suspicious of political leaders who play the religion card. Religion has no place in politics.[/QUOTE]

Sojourner, I never saw that before. I'm

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:09 pm

[QUOTE=Sojourner]I am always suspicious of political leaders who play the religion card. Religion has no place in politics.[/QUOTE]
As often as I am to argue against religion, in general, there is definatly some extreme bias in those photos regarding hitler's relation to the Catholic church. It's not uncommon for any major government/military force to have a strong unifying faith in a common religion. Germany, being smack dab in the middle of Europe, would obviously have strong ties to the faith.

Granted, Nazism probably appealed to the most zealous/fundemental of Catholics, but I hardly think these pictures constitutes Hitler playing the 'religion card' as actively as other leaders in the 21st century. In fact, from my personal studies on the rise of the Nazi regime, Religion was one of the more muted points he used, relying more on creating a superior german race based from their true Aryian roots, and instilling a sense of pride. (thats not to say he didn't invoke the card, just that these photos make it appear as if he invoked it far more than he actually did.)

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:27 am

Aegis is absolutely correct. Although those pictures come from the US Holocaust Museum, just a few were "compiled" on a website that's militantly anti-religious: NoBeliefs.com. That in itself should give pause before accepting anything they place up on their least favorite subject.

Religion was a minor issue to Hitler. Goebbels essentially saw it as a propaganda tool, but for Hitler, it was hardly worth a moment's notice. Modern conservative leaders in Germany are more likely to play that card, in fact.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:55 am

[QUOTE=Sojourner]I am always suspicious of political leaders who play the religion card. Religion has no place in politics.[/QUOTE]
Godwin's Law has been evoked. The original thread can now be considered dead.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:06 pm

If Hitler espoused any sort of "religion," then the rabid nationalism that the Nazi party worked diligently to maintain would qualify. Other than that, as long as churches marched in step with the Nazi party, they were basically ignored.

Historically, theocracies are poor and oppressed nations. The clergy tend to hoard wealth and indulge in opulent lifestyles, eventually draining the public coffers dry. This can be seen at any number of mainstream Christian churches in the U.S., particularly in the South. These are theocracies in minature. A good example of what I'm talking about here: you have a young couple with a baby, and both were laid off from their jobs. They drive a beat-up sedan that guzzles gas. The "pastor," on the other hand, drives a cadillac, wears tailored suits, and lives off of people like that couple. All the while he postulates on holiness and generousity from his professionally-lit podium every Sunday, bragging about the $10000 baptismal they just purchased from the building fund...and these folks sitting in the pews are desperately broke.

Rush Limbaugh bragged that he was a paragon of virtue and morals, someone you could trust with your own daughter or baby. He stated that anyone caught doing drugs ought to be sent up the river. During that time he was an addict himself, purchasing his synthetic opiod pills through a drug ring. You don't hear him complaining about not being sent up the river after he was caught, do you?

Religion should stay as far away from government as possible. It is utilized as a tool to control the masses by those in power, to keep them pacified and subdued. History tells that tale again and again.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:12 am

[QUOTE=Chanak]Religion should stay as far away from government as possible. It is utilized as a tool to control the masses by those in power, to keep them pacified and subdued. History tells that tale again and again.[/QUOTE]

But we never seem to learn do we.

The so-called 'Religious-Right' have finally reared their ugly head in Australia. I'm a Christian myself, but I don't see anything wrong with gay marriages, abortions or stem cell research. I don't exactly like it when someone says that he or she speaks for all Christians when they make a political statement because they certainly don't speak for me.

As for the new Christian party, they're supposedly linked to the more established movement in the US and not surprisingly push a very similar conservative theme.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:03 pm

[QUOTE=Tamerlane]But we never seem to learn do we.

The so-called 'Religious-Right' have finally reared their ugly head in Australia. I'm a Christian myself, but I don't see anything wrong with gay marriages, abortions or stem cell research. I don't exactly like it when someone says that he or she speaks for all Christians when they make a political statement because they certainly don't speak for me.

As for the new Christian party, they're supposedly linked to the more established movement in the US and not surprisingly push a very similar conservative theme.[/QUOTE]

Most spend their lives learning little, Tam.

I'm not that surprised to hear about this development. A number of connections between like-minded Christian fundamentalists on both continents have existed for some time - in particular, Ken Ham and his "Young Earth" creationst crowd have spent a good deal of time over here either visiting, or having their material circulated by associates to churches, schools, colleges, etc. They've welcomed with open arms by fundamentalist denominational headquarters in the U.S. (and Canada as well) since they claim Genesis is literal and that the scientific establishment has been lying to the public for over a hundred years because they hate God, goodness, Mary Jane and home-baked meals.

For those who feel their faith is personal and that it speaks for itself in their own lives, it might seem like the fundamentalist activists are trying to shove their agenda down people's throats. After all, Christ didn't filibuster the Roman Senate trying to make following him legal in Judea.