The Politics Test: #9

[ElectionsGuy]

1. Strongly Agree. 71/29, 54/16/15/15
2. Agree. 52/48, 43/10/26/21
3. Disagree. 21/79, 4/17/38/42
4. Strongly Agree. 70/30, 55/14/14/16
5. Strongly Agree. 87/13, 58/28/5/8
6. Strongly Agree. 87/13, 60/27/7/7

Keep voting on proposition 7
Keep voting on proposition 8

Strongly Agree. Only when someone's religious liberty is violated should government step in.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Depends on context

[Goldwater]

Strongly agree.

[YaBoyNY]

Strongly agree, with certain caveats.

[Crumpets]

Strongly agree, although I don't consider the Kim Davis issue and others of her ilk a "religious matter."

[Intell]

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

[Goldwater]

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

If your only justification for a law is religion, you have a bad law.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Strongly Agree

[Intell]

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

If your only justification for a law is religion, you have a bad law.

I mean you can justify why you like this law for your religious beliefs, while the law must have secular backing in it.

[Joe Republic]

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country.

Why should that be the government's job?  Especially when not all of the citizens who pay taxes to it follow that religion?

[PJ]

Agree in the sense that there should be a separation of church and state, but I agree with Crab. The question is very vague and depends on context.

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

If your only justification for a law is religion, you have a bad law.

I guess this would be consistent if you want completely abolish organized religion, but I don't see how you can totally divorce religious beliefs and their influence on public policy, as long as religion does exist, even under total separation of church and state. If someone believes in a certain religion, that religion is going to have an impact on their views in some form or another.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Poverty, banking practices, warfare ... religions have things to say about all these matters.  I really have no idea what this question is supposed to be asking.  It could mean opposite things depending on how you interpret it.

[Türkisblau]

Strongly Disagree. This is an idiotic question because religion is an integral part of our society, and certainly should not be wholesale ignored. As shua points out, "religious matters" is pretty damn broad!

[/]

Strongly disagree; religious practices should be heavily regulated by the federal government. Of course, that's not to say that people should be punished for practicing religion, but government policy should be strictly opposed to allowing adults to indoctrinate children with religious beliefs that they do not, in all honesty, get to choose for themselves.

[Mr. Smith]

Depends on context

Which is why I disagree rather than take a strong position

[DavidB.]

What the hell does this even mean? I'll vote "agree" but I find this statement to be incredibly vague.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

What the hell does this even mean? (...) I find this statement to be incredibly vague.

[ElectionsGuy]

The interpretation of this question is up to you. Some of these are like that, honestly I thought it was pretty simple. Just define what 'religious matters' are and then agree or disagree to the jurisdiction to whether the government can get involved. For me, religious matters are ones that are most personal, like going to church and raising money for charity, so I don't think the government should get involved.

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

Isn't this religious favoritism, strictly against the 1st amendment?

[Intell]

The interpretation of this question is up to you. Some of these are like that, honestly I thought it was pretty simple. Just define what 'religious matters' are and then agree or disagree to the jurisdiction to whether the government can get involved. For me, religious matters are ones that are most personal, like going to church and raising money for charity, so I don't think the government should get involved.

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

Isn't this religious favoritism, strictly against the 1st amendment?

I mean if I was in the US, a bit, I mean protecting the major religion of the country, while allowing religious freedom and the freedom of religion. Alas, I am not in the Us but I don't know Australian constitution, so I have no idea what it states in the Australian Constitution.

[ElectionsGuy]

The interpretation of this question is up to you. Some of these are like that, honestly I thought it was pretty simple. Just define what 'religious matters' are and then agree or disagree to the jurisdiction to whether the government can get involved. For me, religious matters are ones that are most personal, like going to church and raising money for charity, so I don't think the government should get involved.

Disagree, the government should fund churches, religious charities and religious school in the communities, as well as protect and preserve the major religion in that country. The religious views of a religious entity can be taken in account by legislators when making a law, and the justification for this law can be religion,this can be the case as long as this doesn't hurt or harm others and put people in an unequal footing.

Isn't this religious favoritism, strictly against the 1st amendment?

I mean if I was in the US, a bit, I mean protecting the major religion of the country, while allowing religious freedom and the freedom of religion. Alas, I am not in the Us but I don't know Australian constitution, so I have no idea what it states in the Australian Constitution.

Then again, it depends on 'protect and preserve'. I assume that means treating the major religion in a different way than others. Many candidates in the US could and have run on 'Judea-Christian' (probably botched that spelling) values, not many have run on 'protecting and preserving' Christianity since its not really necessary.

You could also just answer the question in Australia's context, which is probably what you did (and I realize that questioning you was unnecessary if that's the case )