It wouldn't really be possible for it to be another way, and they'd probably find a way around even if it wasn't allowed (calling gay marriage unconstitutional instead of saying it's an abomination or something for example). That said, I don't like the idea of legislating morality and religion and it would be nice to see an atheist or muslim candidate gain traction...
A politicians should act according to what she thinks is true, regardless of WHY she thinks its true. It would be inconsistent to believe something is true, but then to behave as if it weren't true. There are some religious beliefs that have a bearing on politics. For example, some religions think life is valuable and ought to be protected. If that is the case, then politicians who subscribe to that religious belief ought to support legislation that protects life.
Our religious beliefs can shape our values. Our values effect our political positions. That being said, there are certain areas that a politician cannot legislate even where he has a disagreement. He cannot demand that only a certain religion be recognized or that you must obey everything in the Bible if not a Christian. However, he does have to vote consistent with his faith, as all people should.
Politicians should not mix their religious views in their agendas, because it can lead to bad policies. In a free society, people have different views on what is right and wrong. This means that there is never going to be a complete agreement among the people of a constituency. Politicians represent these constituencies and letting their religious views influence them can reduce the level of freedom an individual in that particular constituency enjoys.
I think that it would be near impossible to expect someone's behavior to not be affected by their belief system. And, one's religious views can be a big part of this system. I think that asking someone to behave, (be it at work, home, school, or wherever) without taking their religious views into account is asking for the impossible and it's asking that person to be someone who they are not. Politicians' agendas should be expected to be influenced by their religious views. We, as the people who elect them, have a choice to put these officials into office, or not. But, at least we know where they stand as human beings.
As much as people say that politicians should not allow their religious beliefs to be a part of their influence, it is absurd to tell them to turn off their religion.
Almost anything we do has either a direct influence or underlying influence from religion. It would not be right to ask politicians not to. Actually we would just be lying to ourselves if we thought they weren't.
We elect politicians generally because we agree with their viewpoints and want the same things accomplished. For some people, their religious views have a profound impact on their views and, subsequently, their agendas. To ask a politician to exclude their religious beliefs in setting their agenda would be to ask them to act as if they were a different person.
Why would you have a religion if you did not allow it to influence the choices that you make on a daily basis. If I believe that there is a God who tells me to do things a certain way, then I most certainly should be applying that to my work in whatever I do. The work of a politician is to make or advance policies that they believe are beneficial, therefore their religion should influence them. This in no way runs counter to the separation of church and state because you can't expect someone to remove their beliefs from their actions when they are involved in politics.
I will express my views as a Christian. Even the Bible was explicit in these issues. In the book of Exodus, Moses was not chosen as the high priest but Aaron. Their roles were different-Moses for Administration and Aaron for Religious duties. The laws for religious activities were different from the ones for administration. As humans, we are influenced by our environment. By environment, I mean sights, sounds and location. There is no one on this Earth who can argue that they are not influenced by their ENVIRONMENT; and so anyone who follows any ideology will naturally lean toward that ideology for guidance. And I feel we should forgive them. That been said, I strongly believe that anyone's religion is personal to that individual and must not be imposed on others. RELIGION is based on FAITH while politics is based on FACTS. Politics can be amended while Religion is cast in stone-Adherence to religion on the other-hand, is not cast in stone. To religious adherents, their religious beliefs may assist them obey laws of the state, at the same time, non-religious individuals may not need any religion to assist in obedience to the laws of the STATE.
Laws should be made for everyone regardless of their beliefs. The fact that I disagree with anyone religiously does not make that individuals a bad person.
I don't want anyone's religious views forced on me. Especially by enacting laws based upon religious views. Most especially by enacting laws that control my body and it's ability to bring forth children. I decide on where and with whom to have children. Then I will be best able to plan and provide for them over an 18 year period.
It is true that politicians will almost always allow their religious views to effect their decision making, however that does not make it right. Right wing believers *in most but not all cases* believe that abortion and homosexuality should remain illegal because it goes against their beliefs - yet the constitution does not state who has control over these topics so that leaves it up to the states not the fed and even in the case of the states - I believe they don't have the right to control a woman's body or decide who can share a bed. Where as the left *usually but not always* holds belief in high charities and fairness. These powers yet again are not left to them in the Constitution yet because of what they believe religiously, politicians deem it to be their job to control these things. Over all both sides are guilty of this act that goes against what our founding fathers established for us. Food for thought.
Any religion is fine when practiced in your own time and only when it affects yourself. When religion is used as a decision making process, the decision becomes one-sided, solely based on a moral value set by a non-proven being. Politics and what is good for the masses should be based on logic and compromise. When you add religion to the mix, it becomes either that way or no way.
In the current 2012 Presidential Election, there are rumors that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, will take away the rights of anyone who is not Christian. Politics, of course, are all about lies. Whether this is true or not, it still proves that politicians should not let religions interfere.
The primary goal of a politician should be to take action that represents the interest of the people that he/she is representing. As soon as personal biases, religious or otherwise, come into play, it defeats the entire purpose of a representative system. Besides, separation of church and state is a concept that needs to be embraced.
While politicians are certainly free to hold religious views, I believe that allowing them to influence political agendas is a mistake. Too many politicians wear their religion on their sleeve, as well, in order to curry favor with religious constituencies. I believe religion should be kept out of politics, as much as possible.
Religion brings many different feelings and emotions which I believe have no place in American politics. We were founded by people who enacted laws to protect people from being required to practice any particular religion and, by using religion to create laws and standards, we are being forced to follow morals that we may not believe in.
Separation of church and state keeps the dominant religion from influencing government matters/policies. One politician's religious views may conflict with current policies and laws, allowing bias to occur. Laws should be made with logical, rational thinking, not religious beliefs. Countries that let religion influence their government can no longer be democracy.
In many countries, where politicians make policy based on religious views, the rights of the people to choose their own religious views suffer. When religion and politics become too intertwined, you end up with a theocracy, in which religion becomes the basis for all laws. It will no longer be a free country but, instead, a religious state.
Politicians should not allow their personal religious beliefs to influence their agenda when it comes to any matters outside their church or family. To do otherwise would be to change congress into a soapbox for every member's particular beliefs, or lack thereof, and would likely become even less efficient than it is now.
It is hard enough to pick a politician that you can agree with, let alone one who is also the same religion as yours. If religious beliefs become a bigger part of politics then politicians will start to lose votes from anyone who is not a member of their religion; worse yet the issues or agendas will no longer matter. People will simply vote for a religion, nothing else. It wouldn't matter what they felt about health care or the elderly. They could raise taxes to unsustainable levels and give every senator a gold plated seat; if they were the proper religion people would be forced to vote for them by their religious leaders and condemned as sinners if they did not.
While it's tempting to argue that religious goals are fine in public policy, so long as candidates are honest, the better argument seems to be that however religious or otherwise particularized one's motivations may be, the agenda one advocates ought to be based on sound, accessible reasoning about secular matters, because that is ground on which everyone can, on some level, participate, and because it minimizes the scope of conflict about messy transcendent questions. The alternative scenario motivates people to lie about their religious beliefs to get a seat at the table, which is a pretty awful incentive structure to set up. Candidates should be forthcoming about religious motivations, especially if they guide certain candidates in a different direction than they'd have pursued otherwise, but the policy debates and much of the broader discourse should be about facts and debatable values. (Genuinely religious debates are notoriously hard to judge.)
There are certain morals that everyone can agree on, with or without god, such as lying and stealing. Every crime falls into one of those two categories and we don't need god to tell us that certain actions are just wrong. The religious beliefs I worry about influencing a politicians agenda are the ones that preach the spreading of the word of god, the lack of right to end one's own death when dealing with a painful and terminal disease because god says it is wrong, not having the choice of abortion because god says every life is sacred, and other such things that would negate the rights of choices that are protected by our constitution. Religious beliefs cannot be allowed to negate any right of choice that is protected by our laws. Freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion if that is one's choice.
Discrimination can happen at many stages, be it the state level, the country level, or at the world level. This can lead to injustice to the people following another religion, which can further lead to more conflicts and wars.
Politicians are meant to serve the country and it's people, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity, etc. When religious views are mixed up with the agendas, one cannot do justice to the people who've elected him.
Needs and sufferings of people know no religion and must be tackled by the state without any other extraneous considerations. Then only it becomes an ideal state and a true democracy.
Diluting political agendas with religious views will result in nepotism and injustice and this cannot be allowed in an ideal state.
Religion has no place in politics and is too often used to manipulate voters. Facts and science should influence decisions, not specific religious beliefs. We have all seen the crimes committed in the name of god, so politicians should not perpetuate this by validating one set of beliefs by giving them the stamp of approval.
No! Let's say they are Catholic. Are they gonna make all of the fast food restaurants and/or all meat selling restaurants not sell meat on Friday just because that's what they believe? That would be unfair to the not Catholic citizens of the United States. So I believe it should not influence their agendas.