Running Head BIBLE VS POLITICS

Does Religion Belong in Political Debates (Bible vs. Politics)

Sean Glynn
Rowan Cabarrus Community College

BIBLE VS. POLITICS

Does religion belong in politics? (Bible vs. Politics)

My personal option on the topic at hand of religion in politics is that without a doubt it should be left
outside the realm of it. A world with religion at the helm is no better than a corrupt government if in fact
it would be a corrupt religion-based state. My call to action stems from three main points and
counterpoints to the Sayers of why the bible should be included. The first point is that the country we are
in is not solely Christian in fact, there are as many other religions out there then the number of fingers on
both my hands, in truth why should one religion speak for another. My second reasoning is that a
document before the change of modern history should lead a group of people to take rights away from
another group on the idea that one person is better than another, because of factors such as gender or
sexual preference . My third way of thinking that differs from theirs is the fact that such a text has many
ways to be thought of that one groups thoughts may completely differ from anothers. Note my thoughts
are not to be interpreted as anti-Christian but to be anti-religion based state.
The way most educated people see the difference between us and the Muslim World is
the fact that we are not a country guided by one religion our influences come from all religions centered
on us. What people fail to see is that by voting solely on your religion, you the voter lose your vote. The
way you lose your vote is because, if you vote based on what someone else tells you to do, you in turn
have gave away your vote. What I am saying is not to lose your ethics when you vote, but at least if you
vote, do it on your beliefs not those of some other non-fact based source. Also, by going only based on
one religions it hinders others by forcing ones beliefs on others (mock debate, 2014). Good beliefs also
stand on fact rather than options to make them creditable, if you tell another religion to belief your ideals
because the bible says so, those people will not belief a word of what you are saying and why should
anyone else take you seriously in an argument since someone else is making it for you about two
thousand years ago. An argument is centered on the fact that you can argue solely on your words and not
use outside sources to make your point before you try to back up your point with rational examples.

BIBLE VS. POLITICS

My second idea comes from the general idea that everyone should be on the same level. But, in truth the
world is not so fair and if we use the Bible (or any other religious book) we as a society will fall as a
whole. Because as defined in the political essay by (Cauthen, church /state) we may have values that
stem from Christianity but it is not the sole religion of this country. This summarization of the essays
theme does define some of the key points made by this argument that it, if in power would prevent some
rights of man. Such as the rights of women and the rights of gays and also gives the right to own slaves
and that certain sins are not able to stick with modern society. This bible quote: a man shall not lay with
another man states directly my point of telling others how to act. It states that there should be no gays
which tell others how to live and affects the rights of man. In fact, Jesus himself never talked about that
subject and the only stating of that subject differs from what the Messiah states. As an Old Catholic, I
should know for a fact from (AP Human Geography) that Christianity is one of the three universaling
religions, which means that it has been spread by missionaries and other people by movement of the
religion to other groups , ex.(Spanish to the Indians making them Catholic) (AP Human, World religions)
. In simpler terms, this is an expanding religion with many followers of many different sects of many
different values that may be the same, but with different leanings towards other subjects. So in truth, a
group in power would place another group whom it dislikes such as gays or woman at a lower position
themselves in terms suppressing them in power.
My third conflict with this idea is if it does succeed, who will lead this situation. As an old world Catholic
with unnormal values, if this does succeed by weird methods (even thought I would be unhappy about
this) I would want there to be an equal amount of representation. The way I see it thought it should never
give one group of people more power than another. It will create an upset in power for everyone else.
This upset may lead to another holy war, which would pit all sects of Christianity against one another
and against every other religion in the United States. This hypothetical situation could arise if religion
was placed as a major part of politics. If this situation were to happen in the United States, it probably
would change how the party system would be set up. The parties would no longer be democrat or

BIBLE VS. POLITICS

republican, they would be Catholic or Baptist. This country would be further divided among the people
into smaller groups of people who would isolate others based on religion and would cause ethic religions
such as Judaism and Islam to be further hidden in our culture, just because they make up a tiny part of our
cultural heritage. These points illustrate my earlier points that if a group in power can use religion of any
kind to suppress the beliefs of another person or group that person or group in power will use it by any
means necessary or deemed that, will use that power or ability of that power to prevent that group or
person of that group from gaining any power (or more than the group in power) to keep that group from
succeeding to survive. That fact above in my own option was use by any of the three major world
religions to abolish the use of smaller traditional world religions from gaining any more footing then they
already have. What it boils down to in the end is that people will always keep the little person down. This
is not to say that I am not a religious person, I think their needs to be a time and place for it.

The conclusion of this essay concludes with this main argument point centered on the by the theme of this
paper, If a religion of any caliber, limits the rights of its followers for any reason that affects a group
based on the moral beliefs that do not affect others in a morally or unlawful way such as homosexuality
and the teaching of women and/or the power of giving women certain basic comforts or the ability to
allow them control of their own body , that part of the religious teachings if not the whole sect itself or
that practice of preaching against the act should be if not at the least considered corrupt if not wiped out
and if a practice with something considered corrupt or harmful is found it has no real place in politics, and
if such practices are considered in their religious beliefs, then it is stated that those beliefs have no place
in a rationalized society which should in truth try and if not succeed in the long-run ,prevent things ,ideas
or people from hindering the society. A society with people like that at the helm or even ideas that have
that idea at the front run of their belief system will ultimately cause the doom of the societies morals and
as such should be limited from politics as another thing/idea that would corrupt it .

BIBLE VS. POLITICS

(AP human Geography, world religions,2010-11)
(bible , Sins)
(Cauthen, church/state)
(Mock Debate ,2014)

BIBLE VS. POLITICS

BIBLE VS. POLITICS

(bible, sins)
(Cauthen, church/state)
(mock debate , 2014)