Amazon.com Widgets
  • The Word "Church" is the Word "Ecclesia" and this is a "Political" word!

    "Godliness exalts a nation...” Proverbs 14:34
    “Without wise leadership, a nation is in trouble, but with good counselors there is safety.” Proverbs 11:14

    William Wilberforce was an English Christian Politician - who abolished slavery because of his strong Christian conviction.

    If Christians stand for Truth, Justice they cannot but help, become involved in politics.

    In the Old Testament we see; Daniel and Joseph Serving God in the office of Presidency.

    In the New Testament we have Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul (Governor of Rome) , who was converted to Christianity and remind in office.

    Jesus said we were to be salt and light in the world, the yeast in the dough of society. We are to exercise Kingdom Influence for the benefit of all,

    "Archbishop Desmond Tutu said in the thick of the battle against apartheid, 'When people say that the Bible and politics don't mix, I ask them which Bible they are reading'".

  • Separation of church and state is misunderstood.

    Yes the church should be involved in politics. The argument that the Constitution separates church and state is widely misunderstood. That provision is supposed to keep the government from interfering with peoples religion and the way they worship God, not keep religious people from participating in government or politics. Our own Pledge of Allegiance states "One nation, under God, indivisible. With liberty and justice for all." Did you hear that? Under GOD! INDIVISIBLE! It doesn't separate God or religion from government. It separates government from messing with our religion or our God.

  • The Church can and should be involved

    It is the freedom of every citizen to express their opinions and be involved in politics as they see fit. The church has no right to reflect political partisan, only to guide the members towards the most biblical candidate or party by encouraging it's members to vote in the way God leads them. The Bible says in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, "Of course we are human, but we don’t fight like humans. The weapons we use in our fight are not made by humans. Rather, they are powerful weapons from God. With them we destroy people’s defenses, that is, their arguments"(God's Word Version)

  • Yes, for the good of the people.

    The church should become involved in politics when the good of the people is in jeopardy. The church has a moral obligation to be the voice of the voiceless. Looking back in history, figures such as Romero and Belo became involved in politics because of a corrupt government. A dictatorship's strongest weapon is fear. When the people have their rights stolen, the church must intervene and give back the voice to the people.

  • Yes, not controlling but involved.

    The Church should be involved in politics. Granted, I'm not saying it should CONTROL the government, but that it should be allowed to share its views just like any other institution. If one looks back on history, many times it was the government that controlled the church just as much as when the church controlled the government.

  • The Church has influence!

    The church should be involved because they have the capability to help! The force and influence of the church is paramount and it is key that this is used to benefit the world. I feel my best example would have to be during World War II, in which Pope Pius XII spoke out against the Nazi Euthanasia programme, and as a result the scheme diminished. I am a secular, yet I still believe religion to be a force for good (in small doses though, I do not feel that religion should rule whole nations).

  • Christianity gives moral imperatives

    Jesus says we should share our food with the hungry, our clothes with the naked - but we need to work to ensure that sharing always happens - equality of opportunities and resources not the rich doling out charity to those they keep poor by policies that act against them

  • Because i said so

    I think they should because i sadhucouwdc;iuwgf;vouhwfouv d d d d dd d d dd d d d d d d d d d d fd d d d dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d dd d d

  • It gives a unique perspective

    There are still many religious people in western societies and therefore they should be represented. It is a democracy therefore religious and secular people should be represented like-for-like. If they wernt then that would be unfair. Religious morals are often good and so to alienate them would be wrong and stupid

  • The Church should be involved.

    It has always been the church's mission to be on the "front lines" to love people, encourage people, and to live our lives to the best of our ability. I see no need to dissolve something that at the beginning of this country was essential. The majority of the founding fathers were christian men, who used the church to further political ideals, so why must we take the church out of it? Are the ideals any different? If they are then we must seriously rethink the ideals, huh?

  • No the church should not be involved.

    Should the church be involved in law making.

    The church should not be involved in lawmaking. The church should not be involved in law making because the church and the government are two very different things. The church should not get involved in the affairs of a country and they should never ever get involved in law.

    The first reason that the church should not get involved in lawmaking is that the church gets their laws from a book that is 2000+ years old. I think that the church should not get in other people's affairs(people that don't care about the church or their beliefs) ,they should not sing loudly and that they should never get in lawmaking.

    Some people may say that the churches laws are good and peaceful but we don't have to forget that the church has ordered the killings of millions of people. An example of this is the crusades. The church ordered knights to go and "reclaim" the "holy" land from the Muslims. The holy land is where Jesus is supposed to have lived. Because of this order millions of Arabs and Christians were killed fighting for very stupid reasons.

    Another example is when the church killed thousands of people during the Spanish Inquisition. The church got people that did not believe in god or were simply not Christians and they were tortured and killed. This should've never have happened because it is very stupid to kill people for what they believe in.

    What all of these cases have in common is that the church or a very I religious king/queen ruled during that time. One of the main causes of fights today is here between religions. An example of this is the Arab-Israeli conflict an conflict that is about fighting because a long time ago their ancestors fought each other for the holy land and that the Jews and the Muslims can't live peacefully side by side.

  • No, the church should not be involved in politics as in theory there is a separation of church and state

    Most churches although, having a premise of a spiritual nature, are religious institutions and themselves seem to have politics at work in their own systems, which makes it understandable that although they should not be involved in politics, they are. The intention of the separation of church and state was to ensure that individuals could practice their spiritual or religious beliefs without fear of retaliation. Religious–political affiliations are a contradiction of that intent.

  • Politics is a tool people use to gain power, control and money over other people by offering favors in return for support.

    Politics is a tool people use to gain power and control over others by offering favors in return for support. Things get done not because it’s right or wrong but because it benefits someone. Politics is used to look like they are blessing God but this is counter to God.

  • Don't like the framers?

    ALL men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights, not just Protestants, not just Catholics, not just Jews. By stating that Church and lawmaking should be integrated, you are stating that religions and minorities should have different levels of representation in a Congress or any Office of the United States. Remember that the main reason that our Nation separated from Great Britain was that the people from our territories were not receiving representation in British Parliament. If the two are integrated, would America itself split off into different nations, each governed by different religions and beliefs???

  • The "church" should imitate-- the one who they claim is their leader.- Jesus.

    Their 'instruction book' tells them to stay out of the worldly politics.
    Jesus’ followers should be “no part of the world.”
    ''If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you'' (John 15:19)
    The church should do like Jesus did:
    "Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36)
    That seems pretty straight forward and simple to me.

  • Church shouldn't be involved with the State.

    First, if the church is involved, you have to figure out which church. If its all faiths and religions, all of which claim to be divine and infallible.. Well, then we start with an irreconcilable problem. There would be no way to satisfy all parties under one State.

    A secular state, based on having reasoning behind laws and justifications based on secular ethics is the only way to make religions play nice. Dogmatic, faith based laws cannot do that, mainly because if you disagree... You aren't allowed to question it anyway, and if you aren't of that faith that faith cannot give you any satisfying justifications for such laws.

    "because god says so" is never a convincing argument. Not for everyone. The fact that believers cannot get along among themselves is great evidence of this.

    The only way to be inclusive of the population is to keep our most divisive institutions out of the State. And the people claiming their religions special right to State matters sure seem to use their religion to justify it, as opposed to actual reasons everyone can agree on.

  • Church and state must always be seperated

    Just because as a nation we were awarded with the freedom to practice religion doesn't make it acceptable to let it interfere with politics. Think of it like this: If one person was told the sky was blue all their life they would believe so. However if another person was told that the sky was in fact grey they would believe that.. When these two meet and they will most definitely have a debate because the color of the sky has always been the simplest thing to them and they can't see around it, or even agknoedge the others opinion. They would rather be stubborn and keep to their tradition instead of actually considering if all they knew was wrong.

  • Church and state must always be seperated

    Just because as a nation we were awarded with the freedom to practice religion doesn't make it acceptable to let it interfere with politics. Think of it like this: If one person was told the sky was blue all their life they would believe so. However if another person was told that the sky was in fact grey they would believe that.. When these two meet and they will most definitely have a debate because the color of the sky has always been the simplest thing to them and they can't see around it, or even agknoedge the others opinion. They would rather be stubborn and keep to their tradition instead of actually considering if all they knew was wrong.

  • Not everyone has the same religion.

    Not everyone has the same religion. That is actually one of the reasons behind pilgrims coming to America. If one church got involved in politics and helps create laws and cultural norms then it would create , not only, a bias country politically, but also socially. Therefore causing hatred and possible uprisings.

  • What about unreligious people?

    If there is an unreligious person, or someone of a different religious belief, how do you think they would feel if there were a new law past which was bases on Christianity or the Christian god? They wouldn't be happy, and would create turmoil, which would help to destroy our nation. Therefore it is easier to just not let members of the church be in government


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.