If a supposed Christian politician supported abortion and claimed he was "separating his personal beliefs from his political outlook", there would be large conflict. One person can not hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. It is logically impossible. If I say that my personal belief is that abortion is wrong, but I actually think that it should be allowed I am not being true. I can't think it is wrong and right at the same time.
However, because one or the other must be given, I would say Yes. Mainly because every politician is already allowing every decision they make to be influenced by their religious views.
Whether it is an atheistic religion or a Christian religion, or a socialist religion.
Indeed, we elect politicians based on our religious views, so why shouldn't they make their decisions by those same views?
in politics one must have a belief in order to be part of a party. even i life in general one has beliefs that affect their friendships. politics should be the same. if one party is pro-life and the other isn't then you with the one that believes what you do do that you can help make the difference. your political view should always meet half way with your religious beliefs
And if religious beliefs do influence morals, how can you compartmentalize the two? Where do you draw the "line in the sand" between the two? I don't believe it's possible. This is why I believe that religious views will always play an influential role in the decisions of politicians. Of course, this only applies if they are not Atheist or Agnostic! Regardless, I find it difficult to understand how someone (a voter) who claims to be a devout Christian with strong moral beliefs can simultaneously support a politician whose beliefs are quite contrary to their own. If your political party "boos" the use of the word God, then "boo" to you for continuing to support them.
One's religious beliefs are often intertwined with their view of morality. I fail to see how any politician that truly believes in something can make any decision without being influenced by the moral positions of their religion. Being influenced by personal religiously inspired moral views is different from breaking a boundary between church and state by legislating religion.
Whatever stance a politician takes should depend on what the politicians honestly thinks is true. If a politician think some religious point of view is true, and if that religious point of view has some bearing on a political point of view then that religious point of view should influence the political stance the politician takes. If there were a politician, for example, who said, "Religiously speaking, I think all people have a right to life that ought to be protected," but then turned around and said, "Politically speaking, I do not think all people have a right to life that ought to be protected," that politician would be contradicting himself. People either have a right to life that ought to be protected or they do not. It can't be both. Consistency demands that politicians sometimes allow their religious views to affect their political stances.
How are you supposed to determine what the best political action is without considering the morality of it? And how can you make a decision without letting your religious views (if you have any) influence it? Supposedly the constituency of a politician likes their views, so it shouldn't be a problem. What's the difference between religious and nonreligious views?
I am a Christian first, and an American second. I am all for a politician putting his Christian values before his political values. Politicians need to set examples for this nation. If we look back on how this country was formed, we can see that this country was built on fundamental Christian values and beliefs. We have, over the last 30 to 40 years, slowly slipped away from those same values and beliefs that built this great nation.
If a political candidate held that each human life is important, not to be destroyed without good cause, then we would not tell him to set aside that belief while he's in office. Indeed, we'd think it good reason for putting him in office in the first place. Yet such beliefs often stem from a core world view, such as "God created each life" or "there is no afterlife so we must hold sacred the one chance we get". In America, we value religious diversity, and we also allow any citizen the chance to take office. Those two ideas combined suggest that we also value religious diversity in office. To bid the religious to abandon their beliefs during their most important civic duty is tantamount to forcing them to take up atheism, and that's something America has never stood for.
Telling someone to be a politician, but ignore their religious beliefs while acting in their office is something that simply can't be. That would be like telling an athlete to run without thinking about running. Religious views are a core part of a person, unless they don't have any they are going to be a part of their decision making process and the actions that they undertake in any job in which they act, including politics. There is no way around it and there is no way to stop it.
Religion should not have a say in political decisions,
people that 'believe' instantly covert their religious views with real decisions, even if its good or bad, it is still not justifiable because it makes it directed toward what the person believes. We need strong, scientific minds with rational decision making skill to be able to create a equal sum.
Since everyone has different religions and hence follow differing views, beliefs, it will be quite a hindrance to decision making, if they choose to stick to a certain religion's laws. It is tough to make a concensus where it will satisfy other religions should they choose to adopt it as a part of decision making.
Religion are a variety in the world. If public decision making follows or is derived from a certain religion, it can disadvantage or be beneficial to a certain group of people. This can cause social unrest and conflict in a country. The public will feel like another religion is forced upon them causing racial tension. Discrimination and Prejudice can also arise. Hence for the preservation of peace and cultural diversity a city has to secular as possible.
Southern politicians use the bible and Christian beliefs to get votes from the uneducated religious citizens. A lot of your alabama citizens vote republican and are poor as dirt and use to vote democrat until the obama the black man won..So republicans are throwing around the bible to get the christian foik votes. Even using duck commander a hillbilly trade mark they relate to just to get votes.
Of course a Politician can choose to put aside his/her RELIGIOUS beliefs and still maintain personal integrity! If he/she cannot, get out of politics. You don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one, but don't vote to change the law that now allows women to choose what is best for them and their families! You don't believe in gay marriage? That's your personal position so don't have one and don't attend one if your faith requires such a show of displeasure. But as a politician, your vote is not about what YOU personally believe or what your blind faith tells you to believe, it is about what is the Law and what best supports the needs of all of people that you represent. Religion simple does not belong in politics. Too many people think Christianity should rule all of our lives in every aspect. As a non-Christian, this constant emphasis on God & Jesus is disturbing to say the least. What most people do not realize is that there are over 200 different Christian denominations in America. If you look closely at them, you realize that they don't really worship the same God & they don't interpret the Bible the same. What is understand to be the "literal truth" in one church is blasphemy in another church. Makes me shudder to contemplate a politician voting on an important state or national issue based on his/her idea of religious "faith" to sway which way to vote. There is separation of Church and State for very good reasons, Folks!
It is not a valid argument for a politician to use if the argument stands on a religious background. The Constitution specifically establishes the separation of church and state. If a politician is to assume a stance on an issue, it should not be because of a religious bias. They cannot cite religious objections/obligations as arguments to affirm/negate a political action.
Religion is catalyst for all wars, hate crimes & backward thinking. Religions were made up by humans in the dawn of history to explain the unexplainable which is now taken care of with science. Every day more & more of contradictory nonsense is explained away by science. How can an intelligent person truly believe that the world is 6000 years old. Or a boat capable of containing all the worlds species. Islam then believes rapes are the woman's fault. I needn't go on. Religion: together we can find a cure.
There are people from various areas that have differing problems and beliefs. If people are rooted strictly in their religion, how are they to reconsider their views? They are not interested in improving other peoples' lives, but of promoting their beliefs. A person can have morals and be non-religious, just as a religious person can be lacking morals. Politicians who follow their religious dogmas are only helping people of their religion or of a religion of similar goals. Why are we dragging our feet over issues that should have little to no opposition (i.E. Gay marriage)? Instead, politicians should work on improving society and helping people. Religion has helped to keep prejudices intact and has worked its way into America's schools. Stop teaching abstinence (it's ineffective, anyway) and stop the violence, hatred, and prejudice against homosexuals. The only way for society to ever advance is to have a true separation of church and state. We need someone who is aware of everyone's problems not just people of his or her group. People are suffering everywhere. Why not help them because they need help and equality? Favoritism should not be allowed in our government. After all, places with the least amount of emphasis on religion have been rated the happiest because they don't drag their feet looking to see if the scriptures give them approval. They just go and fight for human rights. We do not need a middle man (the scriptures) to seek approval from, we need a sense of humanity, of unbiased love and compassion, religion which seeks not to understand or try to understand, only to dictate, can never achieve this. Besides, if religious politicians should be allowed to use their religion in their beliefs, atheists should also be allowed to preach against the scriptures and make choices that would only benefit their group. Fair is fair, right?
It's very simple indeed. If I need to construct a bridge, I should listen to a civil engineer. If my car breaks, I need to take it to the mechanic, not to sit by the sidewalk and pray.
If politicians need to make any investment, they need first to consult the specialist with the propper scientific knowledge.
By letting their religious views influence their political stance without thinking logically, they are not allowing us to act freely. If my religion (or lack there of) said that I can have birth control or marry the same sex, but they won't allow it because of theirs views, they are oppressing me.