Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CelestialBadger The only thing I would call "manipulating religion" is if a politician tries to get elected on religious principles that they don't actually believe in. But no matter what their motivation is, if a politician tries to get elected on a platform of social programs that help the needy, and he manages to raise enough support to get elected, I don't see a problem at all. I mean, theoretically I don't see a problem. It seems like your gripe is more with representative democracy, not with politicians manipulating religion. After all, this flawless system allows us to vote people out if we have a problem with them "coercing" us into supporting various social programs, whether they're coercing us for religious reasons or just because they think it's the right thing to do. |
What I mean by 'manipulating religion' is that politicians say that a religion says something that it doesn't. Bringing up social programs in the context of Christianity was to show it is one of these cases. Taking from your neighbor and giving to the poor isn't charitable, using your own resources and giving it to the poor is. Politicians saying that forcing these social programs is charitable and thus someone of a religion should support if they are practicing their faith is manipulating religion. Selling a social program to people on that basis bothers me, not the social program itself. I'm in favor of many social programs because I think they can improve the country, not because of the false idea that it's truly charitable. Selling these programs on the latter is my problem.