Why are certain religions highly political?

They organize wars and theocracies, they discriminate against other religions and are generally not pacifist. Yet other religions have small temples, have smaller congregations, and generally seek to avoid political conflict.


I like to believe the idea that IF there is a creator (or even a spiritual truth), then it is not a politician/dictator.

 

I am not aware of any religion that commands its followers to get into politics.

 

There have been plenty of examples of people in organized religion leading military conquests, influencing government, and claiming the divine right to rule, all under the guise of organized religion.

 

Postmillenial Christianity for sure, including Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism. Zionism. Some forms of Islam. Baha'i is pretty fond of the "one world government" notion.

 

Under the guise of religion but that is not the religion itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Well I am not familiar with those so I will assume you are correct.

Thank you for the information.

 

You are contradicting Romans 13, which explicitly defends Lucky13's point and says it is God's will.

I'm glad you don't agree with them. The Bible describes a millennium of Christian rule over the earth. Postmillenialists says that this millennium of rule must be satisfied before Jesus returns; Premillenialists say that Jesus will come back and then Christians will rule over the earth for a millennium. There are, of course, other Christians that say the millennium has already passed, or that it is symbolic.

 

Its about beliefs.

One group has long believed that bastard kids of single mothers destroy society from within, while the single mothers represent a social weakness, themselves, which undermines with poverty and produces more singe mothers.
They believe destruction comes when sexual promiscuity is allowed.

Others believe they hurt no one when they are openly sexual and active, without the bounds of Marriage as a protection for the children which will come.

Hence we have War between these two groups.
One is called "religious" because that group never previously had evidence that bastards destroy a society.
The other was once called Eros and Ishtar, religions too.

Rev. 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written,(Istar), Mystery (religion of ancient) BABYLON, THE GREAT, (economic wonder), THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS(teaching her subtle system of de facto prostitution) and abominations of (a subculture of adolescent promiscuity, of abortion, divorce, STD, homosexual marital consecration, and multiple marriages upon) the earth.

Amplified Theistic Evolution Bible: http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id97.html

 

yeah,...
But the text of what the NT is saying is that Truth will be the great sword which rules in the end.

During the 1000 year of Jesus, as the only God, when all myths disappeared during the Dark Ages, the New Testament was the great rod of iron whch men totally accepted.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

Its a Cultural thing.

We see feminism today making what they say is Politically Correct the basis for what Politicians end up writing as laws.

Gay marriage is a great example.
The hair dresser has a right to be a girl, according to he feminists.

 

Hmmm,...
You misunderstand that "god" is Reality.

Read Romans 13 and use Realty when you read "god," and you'll then understand what Paul was saying.

 

As we've already covered, your views don't actually covered "all myths", but only some myths in a small corner of the globe, and not even a well-defined corner, and at best, the victory only came at the tail end of that 1000 years.

I understand your interpretation, but I was addressing the existence of people with other interpretations.

- - - Updated - - -

I know that is what you think. I'm talking about the more obvious, plain-meaning and common reading. Though kudos for not ignoring it entirely, as so many modern Christians do.

 

He is incorrect.

God is Reality.
Hence what Paul is saying is that even kings an not make the tides of the sea come in because they command it to be so:

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, (Reality). For there is no power but of God, (Reality): the powers that be are ordained of God, (Reality).

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power (of Reality), resisteth the ordinance of (Reality, itself), God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, (eventually).

 

Then you failed to understand what I was saying. The entire point is that there are religious that encourage political involvement. Are you seriously going to pretend to deny this?

I said that Postmillenialist Christians, Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists encourage political involvement, as do some Muslims and Baha'i. Are you really pretending like you disagree with those statements?

 

Religion confers power. So those who seek power will adopt a religion in order to fulfil their objective. That must have been known to the US Founding Fathers who saw what had happened in Europe and Britain through the con job that was the Divine Right of Kings.

I'm not sure if organised religions seek power as a matter of course, but senior practitioners of religion in various societies seem to have been able to gather power for themselves. In Europe and Britain historically religion and power have been steadfast companions. Even in pre-Christian pagan Europe and Britain the chiefs relied on the authority of holy men to support them. The same mentality existed in Europe and Britain up until the Enlightenment. Various kings and emperors of Europe courted the support of the Pope to remain powerful. The Enlightenment was the beginning of the end for that. Now the power of religion in the west has waned significantly.

 

Religion IS politics, at least it was until the Enlightenment separated the two in the18th century. What better way to enforce your authority and make it legitimate than to say it comes from the Almighty Ruler and Maker of Everything? and if it does come from Him than how can you possibly argue with it? Law is tied to morality at the highest level. The rulers precepts are necessary parts of the very fabric of existence. Disobedience is sin, even more, it is a crime against nature. Political power is the reason religions exist.

Anyone with even the slightest nodding acquaintance with history should find this childishly clear.

It's not so blindingly obvious with some religions than others but that doesn't mean those religions are less political; quite the opposite in fact, in those Faiths the connection is so complete that it goes without saying, not mentioned because it is assumed, an organic whole, part of the definition of religion, as it were.

 

Remember that Christians have every reason as do Gays to fight against sexual promiscuity and for sexual promiscuity.

Gays are the people making Laws which say marriage suddenly means any two people can sign up.
That idea is new and rather innovative for America, Canada, and Ireland now.

Christians need to express their beliefs because the Truth is what they are supposed to be advocating, even if others even martyr the for doing this.

 

In a democracy, Religion is cultural, though.
It sets standards of sexual behavior and then the culture gets Laws which are political.

We see that the Gays have won in America, where they practiced their sexual beliefs, whie the churches argued against them.

Laws are based on majority opinions or else nine guys in robes.
The god, Eros, won here.

 

Beliefs without evidence are always called eligion.

The Christians believe Gayness is anti-christ behavior.
Gays actually believe what was once called the religion of Eros.

Gays won in America, because nine men said so.

 

Yes.
Especially in a democracy religions are encouraged to vote their beliefs.
What is your point though?
Are they different from Gays who actually don't call themselves believers in Eros, but they are though.

 

Bahai are not at all like Postmillenialist Christians, Reconstructionists or Dominionists: they are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Bahai beliefs and policies (2 levels) have several elements:
1) endorsement of the separation of church and state (God and Caesar) as a religious principle. God delegates the task of governance to civil governments, not to religious leaders or institutions.
2) in line with this, the Bahai religious institutions may never replace civil governments.
3) Consultative representative democracy is the best form of government, but not the only possible form. Within that, constitutional monarchy is preferable to a republican form of government.
4) Democracy involves a civil duty and therefore a religious duty to vote and participate in politics, where possible, taking other religious duties into account. This participation is individual: it is never the Bahai institutions or Bahai communities as such that enter politics (see 1 and 2)
5a) However, for as long as Bahais are a small community, scattered as minorities around the world, and in many cases living under authoritarian governments, the participation of individual Bahais in the politics of one country may have unintended consequences for the Bahais in another country. Therefore that participation is very much restrained at present, and occurs chiefly in local area politics.
5b) Moreover, one of the primary Bahai goals is to establish unity. This means that a Bahai cannot consistently enter an adversarial, partisan political arena. Since that covers most politics in most countries at present, Bahai political participation is also restrained under this heading.
6) Both the conditions under (5) are temporary. When conditions change, Bahais (as individuals and not as institutions) may be expected as good citizens to enter politics in the spirit of public service. Under these conditions, Bahais should not seek to impose Bahai religious practices (such as abstaining from alcohol) on any other person: rather their concern should be for the good governance of the civil community in line with the wishes of the people, to whom they are answerable.

If anyone is curious I can find quotes from the Bahai Writings to support each point. For now it's enough to say that the Bahais are nothing like Dominionists.

 

I am interested especially in Bahai theology and, within that, in political theology (which Bahais call ‘the social teachings’). I wrote my MA dissertation on Church and State in Islam and the Bahai Faith, and am now working on a study of the institutions of the Bahai community, which is intended to become a PhD thesis.

 

All religion is political..

When Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount he was teaching the people how to cope with the Roman occupation... which was the burning issue for the Jews in those times.

 

How then do you explain this?

Matthew 22:21 [Full Chapter]
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

 

Simple.. The Roman coins depicted the head of Caesar and the Jews were highly offended by that.. To them that was idolatry.......and they wanted to trick Jesus into saying something against the Romans in public..

Jesus outsmarted them by saying "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars"..

 

Fundamentalism rejects the separation of church and state, so they want to institute a theocracy. I think the mainstream religious folk are sane.