Why are priests allowed to vote?

[bob bobato]

Quick, potentially dumb question that google couldn't answer. If, in many modern democracies, there is a seperation of church and state, why are clergy members allowed to participate in government by voting?

 

[_random_]

For the same reason all religious people are.

 

[bob bobato]

For the same reason all religious people are.

Yes, but religious people as a group do not represent their church. But clergy members are 'the' church. They are the ones the state is supposed to be separated from.

 

[Elrohir]

Quick, potentially dumb question that google couldn't answer. If, in many modern democracies, there is a seperation of church and state, why are clergy members allowed to participate in government by voting?

Because they're human beings and citizens, and still get the basic rights we associate with such status?

 

[bob bobato]

Because they're human beings and citizens, and still get the basic rights we associate with such status?

Well, yes, but I don't think that's the only relevant criteria. Prisoners are citizens, too. And so are administrative members of religious groups that technically should not be part of government. If they have the same right to take part in government as other citizens, and by extension a pope could theoretically become a head of government, and all seats in parliament/congress/etc could theoretically be held by representatives of some religion, then how has the church and state been separated?

 

[Dreadnought]

The power to determine who can vote in the USA is left to the states, so you would probably have to read each state's Constitution to see why clergy can vote (or, why they are not prevented from voting).

Internationally, I am not sure.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, yes, but I don't think that's the only relevant criteria. Prisoners are citizens, too. And so are administrative members of religious groups that technically should not be part of government. If they have the same right to take part in government as other citizens, and by extension a pope could theoretically become a head of government, and all seats in parliament/congress/etc could theoretically be held by representatives of some religion, then how has the church and state been separated?

Criminals are also locked up in cages -- should we do that to priests, too? (It's a bad comparison. Criminals have their rights restricted because they have violated the rights of others. Simply being a priest is not a violation of anyone's rights, and is not a crime)

So I think we should turn this question around, because you're the one asking such a weird question: why wouldn't priests be allowed to vote, assuming they are law-abiding citizens? (Perhaps an unwarranted assumption these days, but let's not go there ) You have a weird and different perception of what separation of church and state is -- why don't you explain why you think your view is preferable to the "normal" view? (And to such a degree that it warrants the restriction of thousands of people's civil liberties -- quite a high standard to reach!)

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, but religious people as a group do not represent their church. But clergy members are 'the' church. They are the ones the state is supposed to be separated from.

The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

it basically means Congress cant make any laws telling us what to do wrt religion...

examples

In God We Trust on coins does not make any religious-based demand upon us therefore it does not establish religion

Congress coerces schoolchildren into taking daily loyalty oaths to the state and it's God (the Pledge of Allegiance). That establishes religion... Maybe one day the court will figure that out, I aint holding my breath.

 

[bob bobato]

So I think we should turn this question around, because you're the one asking such a weird question: why wouldn't priests be allowed to vote, assuming they are law-abiding citizens? (Perhaps an unwarranted assumption these days, but let's not go there ) You have a weird and different perception of what separation of church and state is -- why don't you explain why you think your view is preferable to the "normal" view? (And to such a degree that it warrants the restriction of thousands of people's civil liberties -- quite a high standard to reach!)

Because it simply doesn't make sense. Governments are not supposed to favor or be dominated by religious groups. And yet priests, people who have dedicated their lives to their church and are always supposed to protectect it's interests, are given the chance to participate in government. They're in a conflict of interest, between those of their church and those of the government. How could they be expected to be faithful to both? If there were a referendum, for example, on the status of some religious institution and it's relationship with the state (such as religious education in public schools), they would naturally vote in favor of their church, because they would be protecting their own.
Of course, the same could be said about all religious people, I suppose. But the difference is that clergy members are the mouthpieces of church policy, whatever their own personal opinion, while churchgoers are independent. Priests have to support a given policy, in other words, while the merely religious don't.

 

[civ_king]

Well, yes, but I don't think that's the only relevant criteria. Prisoners are citizens, too. And so are administrative members of religious groups that technically should not be part of government. If they have the same right to take part in government as other citizens, and by extension a pope could theoretically become a head of government, and all seats in parliament/congress/etc could theoretically be held by representatives of some religion, then how has the church and state been separated?

Prisoners broke the law and clergy didn't necessarily so?

Criminals are also locked up in cages -- should we do that to priests, too? (It's a bad comparison. Criminals have their rights restricted because they have violated the rights of others. Simply being a priest is not a violation of anyone's rights, and is not a crime)

So I think we should turn this question around, because you're the one asking such a weird question: why wouldn't priests be allowed to vote, assuming they are law-abiding citizens? (Perhaps an unwarranted assumption these days, but let's not go there ) You have a weird and different perception of what separation of church and state is -- why don't you explain why you think your view is preferable to the "normal" view? (And to such a degree that it warrants the restriction of thousands of people's civil liberties -- quite a high standard to reach!)

you do realize that a whooping ~0.04% of Catholic priests are pedophiles, and probably holds true for Protestants too

 

[amadeus]

How does allowing priests to vote constitute the establishment of a state religion?

 

[Elrohir]

Because it simply doesn't make sense. Governments are not supposed to favor or be dominated by religious groups. And yet priests, people who have dedicated their lives to their church and are always supposed to protectect it's interests, are given the chance to participate in government. They're in a conflict of interest, between those of their church and those of the government. How could they be expected to be faithful to both? If there were a referendum, for example, on the status of some religious institution and it's relationship with the state (such as religious education in public schools), they would naturally vote in favor of their church, because they would be protecting their own.
Of course, the same could be said about all religious people, I suppose. But the difference is that clergy members are the mouthpieces of church policy, whatever their own personal opinion, while churchgoers are independent. Priests have to support a given policy, in other words, while the merely religious don't.

Priests don't necessarily have to support a given policy. Not all religious organizations have strict controls on such things. On that level at the very least, I think you're being ridiculous -- religious leaders are not such a homogeneous group, and do not perfectly mirror the political or social ideals of their organizations. Besides -- who doesn't have a conflict of interest when it comes to voting? Rich people want lower income tax brackets. Gun owners want looser gun control laws. People who live by the beach want higher fines for those shoebies who litter; people in city want cheap utilities, even if it means draining the aquifiers of neighboring counties to get their drinking water. Conflicts of interest are inherent in human interaction; I don't see why we should single out priests.

And for the record, it makes perfect sense to me. They're citizens, and citizens have certain rights, including the right to vote. I don't see how religion dominates the state in the US, and I don't see how restricting priest's right to vote would actually do anything towards fighting off the hypothetical specter of religious domination of the state. (For every priest, there are dozens or hundreds of regular people who go to church. And hundreds who don't go to church at all) There just aren't enough of them to actually make a significant difference, even if they voted together. (Which they don't) So even if you're right that in theory they cannot vote fairly because they must somehow support their church's views, arguing that they should lose suffrage is still unfair because it doesn't actually have much of a serious impact on anything aside from the people having their rights violated. If the populace doesn't want a theocracy, letting priests vote won't create one. And if the populace does want a theocracy, then priests who vote are the least of your worries. Since your problem is imaginary and your solution would be ineffective even if your problem existed, I fail to see why this ideas is worthwhile in any respect. (No offense to you personally, I just don't see how it's any good. )

For the tl;dr crowd: Violating basic human rights for negligible social gain based on dubious assumptions is dumb.

you do realize that a whooping ~0.04% of Catholic priests are pedophiles, and probably holds true for Protestants too

Learn to laugh.

 

[Berzerker]

you're confusing Jefferson's description of the establishment clause with the actual clause, he was emphasizing this "separation" as a barrier to protect religion from the state, not to separate religious people from their government. The 1st Amendment simply tells them they cant impose their religion on others...

 

[NBAfan]

If clergy can't vote, then welfare recipients should not be able to either.

 

[ZeletDude]

I think they should vote because basically this is saying that people who are religious can't vote or run for anything because it might mix church an state..which is not true..

 

[Yared]

Why?

Because they are American citizen. Religious folk are allowed to vote too, being a clergyman doesn't change that.

Now, if we were talking about clergymen inside the government...

 

[aneeshm]

Quick, potentially dumb question that google couldn't answer. If, in many modern democracies, there is a seperation of church and state, why are clergy members allowed to participate in government by voting?

If you want such a strict separation, then the laws of the land shouldn't apply to the Church and clergy either, should they?

 

[Perfection]

Because if we didn't let them vote it would violate the first amendment.

 

[classical_hero]

Bob, how does it feel to be outnumbered so badly?

 

[Silurian]

The clergy should be allowed to vote and so should convicts within say 2 years before release date