Why are priests allowed to vote?

[woody60707]

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?

Wow. Really? No really??? The US government doesn't give a damn what you. I'm a atheist. My friend at work is a hardcore jebus fan. We both get the same vote (1 vote FYI).

Now if the Ilubjezbus people started getting more then one vote/person, there would be a problem! Now a fact of this nation is I live in is that 9 out of 10 people believe in this make believe being of some type. (I don't!)

But really, would you denied the right to vote by the people who disagreed with you...Because that's really not disagreeing at all!?!

 

[Bill3000]

They're voting, not campaigning at the pulpit.

 

[MobBoss]

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?

I hope your kidding with this...

Voting is a fundamental right, and its not an issue of 'church and state' if clergy votes.

 

[Dreadnought]

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

Win.

Thread over.

 

[bhsup]

They're voting, not campaigning at the pulpit.

Actually, Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Kansas City used to give political speeches all the time from the pulpit of his church. He was still giving sermons (politically motivated and just good ol' religious ones) when he was Mayor of Kansas City.

 

[Yared]

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

And while we're at it, why don't we take away the rich people's right to vote?

We know that they're just gonna end up bribing the politicians anyway, it's unfair for them to get a vote on top of that.

 

[philippe]

of course clergy should be able to vote. I do frown on the clergy telling us on what to vote. As I have heard in a sermon myself last time i was in a church.

 

[deanej]

All of congress could be Christian fundamentalists for all I care, as long as they follow the 1st amendment*.

*Let's ignore how incredably unlikely it is that Christian fundamentalists would follow the 1st amendment for the purposes of this argument.

There's also the issue that there are different ideas of separation of chruch and state. There's "the state has no religion" (used in the US), and also "no religion is the state's religion" (used in France).

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Actually, Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Kansas City used to give political speeches all the time from the pulpit of his church. He was still giving sermons (politically motivated and just good ol' religious ones) when he was Mayor of Kansas City.

Who was the Catholic priest who served in Congress? Was it David Dreier (D-MA)?

 

[bhsup]

A lot of pastors and whatnot serve in Congress. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Priests, etc., are citizens. To deny them the right to vote for taking up an honorable (if controversial) profession is offensive to the very concept of citizenship.

Furthermore, they do not vote in elections in their official capacity as priests any more than politicians (in the United States, at any rate) pray in their official capacities as Members of Congress, Governor, President, Mayor, Drain Commissioner, or whatever. They pray as individual human beings. Similarly, priests vote as individual citizens.

 

[Traitorfish]

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?

Answered your own question there, I think. If Church and State are indeed separate, than the State should have no more interest in whether any given voter is a clergyman than in any other professional affiliation. What someone does with their own time is their own business; there's no more reason I should deny a man his vote because he is "employed", in his way, by the First Church of Such-and-Such than because he is employed by ThingumyCorp or Wotsit & Sons.

Now, when they become full-time public servants, it gets trickier, but that would still depend on formal affiliation and active practice. Someone who is technically a clergymen, and retains that status while not practising as such, I have no problem with, but if they actively practice in a formal role, then it becomes questionable.

 

[Elrohir]

*Let's ignore how incredably unlikely it is that Christian fundamentalists would follow the 1st amendment for the purposes of this argument.

Don't troll. Most Christians, even fundamentalist Christians, in the US respect the 1st Amendment a great deal. Even in the areas where they disagree from current policy, it's generally fairly minor in practice -- and the number that are actually theocrats, and would act theocratic if they were in power, are even smaller. (And since they're almost entirely libertarians, it wouldn't be what'd you expect, anyway )

 

[Tani Coyote]

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?

As has been said, the same reason we allow religious people to vote.

The idea isn't to separate religious people or religious groups from government, only to prevent religious policy. The clergy is small and their influence in government is limited to themselves; one man, one vote. We're not talking the government sponsoring the religion of those same priests, even if it sponsors some of the policies. But that is just democracy.

Basically, the idea is: you can enforce religiously-motivated policies if you can secure the number of votes, but you cannot enforce religion itself. The priests are free to prohibit gay marriage, abortion, etc. through the way they vote, but they are not free to force their religious denomination upon everyone.

 

[Silurian]

As a non religious person I believe that the clergy must be allowed to vote and stand for office.

Of course if they stand for office they should expect their religious beliefs to be scrutinised.

I do not want religious people to have to hide their beliefs to get elected (or use their vote).
I want to know if a person has strong beliefs in one area so I can take it into account when I vote.

 

[JollyRoger]

We allow them to vote because that is at least a portion of one day where we can be sure they aren't doing something more nefarious.

 

[Squonk]

for the same reason that citizens of a state can become clergymen, duh.

 

[deanej]

Don't troll. Most Christians, even fundamentalist Christians, in the US respect the 1st Amendment a great deal. Even in the areas where they disagree from current policy, it's generally fairly minor in practice -- and the number that are actually theocrats, and would act theocratic if they were in power, are even smaller. (And since they're almost entirely libertarians, it wouldn't be what'd you expect, anyway )

Than how come they want our laws to be based on the Bible? Stuff like "intelligent design" (creationism with God subbed out with the word designer), wanted prayer time in public schools, just about every action taken by the Texas Board of Education... the list of stuff proposed/implemented that goes against the first amendment is quite long.

Freedom of religion is not just freedom to pick whatever denomination you want. It's the freedom to pick any religion you want (or no religion).

 

[GenMarshall]

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.

Regardless if they are the head of the church or not. They are still citizens in there respected home country.

 

[Lillefix]

Our last prime minister was a priest(norway). Here he has just married away his daughter:

This was at the same time as he was prime minister btw.