I'm reading an interesting book right now. It's called "The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West", by Gilles Keppel. I'm reading it for a paper that I have to write, but I chose it because I wanted to gain a better understanding of the conflict in the Middle East. Keppel presents Islamic fundamentalism in a completely objective light, which I find refreshing. It's nice to see it through an objective lens, rather than obscured by the opinions of people who thinks all Muslims are like that. But what it really brought me to thinking of was the volatile mixture of religion and politics.
Let me explain.
The separation of the Church and state is one thing. We all know that - it means that the Church as an entity does not have any political influence within a government. However, religion mixed with politics is different.
When you mix religion with politics, you see the situation in the Middle East, where fundamental Islam has eroded the rights of women, legitimized jihad, and basically created a society based on a text written thousands of years ago.
When you mix religion with politics, you get the uproar of Obama *possibly* being a Muslim. It sickens me to see someone in the middle of such an uproar just because he isn't a loud&proud, fundamental Christian. The Bible itself says that it is better to worship sincerely in private, than showboat it on the street corner (that's a paraphrase, I don't remember the exact passage). If Obama wishes to keep his religion private, that's his right. His religion should not have any influence on whether people vote for him or not.
When you mix religion with politics, you find out why Bush got so many votes.
I see the same up here with Harper. He tried to bring his Christian values in early in the campaign. That's when I lost all my respect for Harper. Christian values, and all religious values for that matter, are a personal, spiritual belief. They are not a political tool! Religion is a means for expressing spirituality, not for political control. A person should not be voted into office based on their religion - that's their personal choice. If they're trying to use it to gain more votes, it's obvious that they're not in it for the right reasons.
*disclaimer: I am an agnostic, I do not write this from a pro-any-religion stance*
So I guess my point is that a politician who is using his/her religious views for political means is not in that religion for the right reasons - they view it as a benefit to themselves in this world, not as a spiritual fulfillment to take them to the next.
A politician who can legitimize his/her actions based on a literal interpretation of a text that is thousands of years old is not a politician that is ruling in the best interest of his/her state, because that politician is obviously taking words out of context to apply them to today's society. Contrary to popular belief, those religious texts are not timeless. They were written for the people of their day! Take the book of Revelations, for example. It was written to give hope to early Christians fighting for their religion. It was written for those Christians, not to be endlessly taken out of context and applied to everything as a sign that doomsday is approaching.
Or take some of the laws in the first few chapters of the Old Testament. They served a purpose in that time, often providing laws that concerned sanitation in the day. Interpreted and applied literally today is taking them out of context, because they were written in the context of the time. Or take the laws against homosexuals. Think about it. The primary function of a man and a woman was to procreate. If there were people indulging in homosexuality, they were providing nothing towards sustaining the tribe or the family. Sometimes an anthropological standpoint is the best way to look at some of these laws in religion, rather than interpreting them as fact.
I hope I didn't offend anybody, that really was not the purpose of this blog. I respect followers of all religions who are in it for the right reasons - I just wish to point out what I view as the wrong reasons for being religious.



I agree with a lot of the statements you make here. Religion should not be used to gather votes, and no one should be discriminated against just because of religious rules. Besides, aside from the ten commandments and a few other rules, most of the rules in the Old Testament do not need to be followed by Christians. The Bible says so, somewhere in there. I'll have to see if I've still got the page marked in my Bible... But I do know that the law against homosexuality isn't one of those that are required for Christians to follow.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!