I do not believe that the pope is either a diplomat or a religious figure i believe that the Pope is a philosopher. My reasoning for saying this is because the Pope has a lot of education and life experience and he is an iconic figure of how to live your life. The Pope in the forum stated that he does not fear foreigners because at one point we were all linked to foreigners because of our family backgrounds and because of this we should not fear foreigners. Foreigners come to this great Nation for better opportunities and a better life for their families not for violence or hate. Also, the Pope in his speech mentioned the "Golden rule" the golden rule states: "Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you" The Pope clearly believes in respect and equality. Nobody is better than the next guy because we were all meant to do something in this world therefore we all contribute equally. Because of the Pope's statements i do not believe the Pope acted as a diplomat or as a Religious icon he only solely acted humane.
Religion is not a common tool in foreign policy, but it could be a good key to start a dialogue among different cultures and different way of life for diplomatics. I think, indeed, that religious structured power are actors in the global game of the international relations, so churches and organized religions are without any doubt subjects of diplomacy. Therefore religion is a tool - but an unusual tool -, religious structures are actors. Religion could probably be used as an effective foreign policy tool. I just don't think we have the resources to utilize cultural differences and understanding to pull it off.
I must disagree with Alyssa on this first issue because although he acted in a humane manor which I can agree with he cannot cast aside the religious power bestowed upon him. I draw this from the fact that his position as pope not his philosophical or humanitarian ideas allowed him to address congress. This is evident due to the lack of humanitarian speakers who have been able to achieve this session with congress. Thus I can conclude that it is his position as pope as well as the favoring of the catholic church within our government that allowed for him to make this address. I would say that Pope Francis although wishing to make a diplomatic approach is inevitably a religious icon.
As for this second issue I must also disagree on the use of religion in international politics and in sparking dialogue among different cultures. In regard to international politics I feel it best that our independent nations not be worked as marionettes by powerful organized religions. In order to make the most efficient and moral decisions on the stage of world politics it is essential to consult logical evidence and scientific fact as opposed to superstitions or religious dogma. I fear the likes of Theocratic nations because of the irrational decisions and threats that they pose upon developed nations. For example Saudi Arabia is an example of a modern theocratic nation, the Saudi people are required to follow and worship Islam this is enforced by their government. The punishment in this nation for apostasy or a renouncing of a religion or belief is death. An extreme punishment for a renunciation of Islam but this isn't all, persons convicted or suspected of blasphemy are subject to inhumane methods of torture in order to get a confession of apostasy or to expose others. These cruel acts of irrational paranoia, execution, and torture are all in the name of religion and therefore some people such as myself are appalled by the use of religion in international politics. Religion is an exceptional topic to spark discussion if you were talking to a religious figure or someone like Richard Dawkins, but in regards to politics religion should not have a foothold on decisions that effect people without or of a different faith.
My understanding is that the pope wished to address congress in a purely diplomatic fashion in which I can respect for a man in his position. However Pope Francis's philosophical ideas are only able to reach congress due to his religious position, and to my understanding of our Deist founding father's ideals, this is against what they believed for our nation. Names idealized in our country such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and even George Washington were more Deist than Christian and thus founded our nation on a belief that our government should not be ruled by any mega powerful religion. But the ties of Christianity were seeded into our lives due to the actions of one man whose name and ideals have been demonized in this nation, none other than Joseph Stalin. The action of Stalin that allowed for the bleeding of religion into our government was his dogmatic belief in Marxism and thus Marx's saying "Religion is the opium of the people" lead him to suppress and weed out religious influence in the USSR, becoming an Atheist state. Due to the Cold War tensions president Dwight D. Eisenhower adopted the phrase "In God we Trust" as a motto for the united states to get at Stalin. Due to Eisenhower's actions people are quick to demonize Atheism just as they demonized Stalin. Yet Atheism was not his fault, rather it was his dogmatic belief in Marxism which ironically is more similar to a dogmatic belief in the Quran, Bible, Torah, or any other religious scriptures. Now if we look at modern day when the USSR is dissolved and science and education are respected and valued, one might ask why we still use such things or perhaps why religion has any place in government at all? My answer to this is that it doesn't, and my thoughts on this address by the pope regardless of his message is that he violates our fundamental ideals as a nation to be so favored among our leaders. His address to congress provides no more than a philosophical insight to controversies from only his perspective, which in fact differ from the thoughts of the church as a whole. This address would be better served if a leading scientist or a civil rights leader addressed these issues, rather than a religious icon to state his opinions on these issues that carry no more weight than any other seventy eight year old.
While I do agree with you that Pope Francis was able to talk to Congress because of his religious position, I feel that, his position had nothing to do with what he was saying. The Pope was talking to Congress about issues regarding the country and the world, not regarding religion. I feel that he was acting in a diplomatic way because of the division between church and state. Yes, what he said was from his perspective. Anyone else talking to congress would also be talking from their perspective. What people say when regarding what they believe, is their perspective. Saying that his opinions don't 'Carry any weight" because he is a religious figure isn't true because anyone talking about the topics he discussed, is saying their opinions, which aren't based on facts anyway. anyone talking to congress or just talking about the issues in general, no matter their age or position, is only offering opinions.
I believe that in this speech that the Pope acted as both a diplomat and a religious icon. When talking to leaders of a country, you will talk in a diplomatic way, but also he tied in his religious beliefs because that is part of his identity. Even though religious figures will give their opinions that are grounded in their beliefs, there is no reason that the citizens should not listen and contemplate what they are saying because many times, especially in Pope Francis' case, they are very intelligent.
Although the Constitution states that America does not have an established religion, the founders of this country were Christian, which could have impacted how our nation was founded. I agree with the first person who commented in that religion could be a useful tool, but I believe that it would not be completely effective. We have to be respectful of other religions, but religion could also be a dividing factor.
I think your point about respecting religions is really important. In Saudi Arabia, the theocratic state seems to prohibit development in all sectors of life. In order to run a diverse country with foreign trade, it is inappropriate to force all citizens to comply to one set of religious doctrines. However, religion does play a role in forming morals - something all politicians should have. Nonetheless, freedom of religion cannot be respected in a theocracy.
In order to discuss the first question, I feel it necessary to define "diplomat". The term refers to one who represents another country abroad. While other definitions have arisen over time, I cannot view the Pope as a diplomat in this situation. His advice has little pertinence to the country he represents - the Vatican City. He discusses the issues of immigration, abortion, the death penalty, and the environment without much relation to his own country. The Pope simply issues his own platform as a religious leader. While he only mentions God on several occasions (including "God bless America"), he acts as a religious leader who attempts to use God's word to guide the politicians.
America is a secular state; thus we should not use religious doctrine as law or create a religious police to enforce doctrines. However, each politician should possess their own religious beliefs that shape their values. The values of politicians and those who they represent are the forces that should shape legislation. If said influences happen to be religious, there is no problem. If a politician wants to defund Planned Parenthood because their religious beliefs view abortions as unethical, religion is playing an appropriate role in politics. As long as a theocracy is not formed, American politics should be influenced by religion. The Pope's speech seemed to respect America's secular government while still trying to use religion to guide our lawmakers.
I like that you clarified the meaning of the term "diplomat" in order to demonstrate why the term does not pertain to the Pope in this situation. I agree with Mark in that although the Pope speaks of issues regarding immigration, abortion, the death penalty and the environment, he does so without referencing his own country. Therefore, the Pope did not act as a diplomat.
Similar to what my other classmates have said, I believe that the Pope acted more as a religious icon rather than a diplomat. Although he only referenced "God" a limited amount of times, like Mark said, the Pope's point of view on all issues is based primarily on his religious beliefs and values. Pope Francis is a religious icon regardless where he goes and what he speaks about. Although he did not necessarily refer back to his religion repeatedly throughout his speech, it is obvious that his values and opinions are based on his religious beliefs.
Being that the United States is a secular state, religion should not play a role in U.S. domestic policy decisions. The reason why it is vital for the government to make decisions in the first place is due to controversial view points and opinions, if religion is then a factor that determines these decisions it would create further controversy. I agree with Laura in that we should respect other people's religion but we should not have to compromise our own beliefs for the government to make decisions in bias of a different religion.
I agree that the Pope regardless of where and what he speaks about, he is still a religious figure. After all he is the Pope. Throughout the speech, he does not push the issue with the use of religion, but it is true that the values and opinions that he has are resulted from his religious beliefs, too. It is also important that the government stays as a secular state because decisions affected by religion would cause bias decisions which would create more conflicts.
In agreement with what many other have said, the Pope acted more as a religious figure because he did not represent a country abroad. In this case he did not represent the Vatican City. In his speech, he discusses the issues of the environment, abortion, the death penalty, and immigration. In agreement with what Mark had said, the Pope had rarely said anything pertaining to God except for the fact when he said "God Bless America." Though his choice of words were still directed towards politicians in a more religious manner to guide them in their decisions.
Since the United States is a secular state I believe that religions should not play a role in domestic policy decisions. This is because it is important for the government to make decisions solely for the purpose of making better decisions that are unaffected by religion. If religion were a factor in decision making, there would be a lot more disputes over what should be done. I agree with Lilly in the fact that religion could compromise their own beliefs to make bias decisions in government.
I agree with your opinion that religion would be a bad idea to mix with government. Because it is the Pope it is hard for us not to consider him as a religious figure but I agree he tried to stay away from religious words because of where he was and tried to stick with political issues.
Although it is hard to not say the Pope is being a religious figure speaking to congress he clearly tried to keep religion out of his speech. He spoke only to address issues even though he was not speaking of a country. Pope Francis' main concern was about current issues that he believed in.
I also think religion should have very little place in politics. We have a separation of church and state for a good reason. There are so many religions out there it would throw the government into chaos. This question of course would be easier to answer if everyone was one religion but because we are not it brings into question how much our religion will change our views. The people of the US don't like religion being a part of our politics especially because it was believed that a catholic president would listen only to the pope and not the people. The separation works now and if it works than we wouldn't want to change it.
I agree with Mark concerning that the Popes main concern was about current issues that he believed in which demonstrates his diplomatic point of view rather than his religious point of view.
The Pope acted as both a religious icon and a diplomat depending on a persons point of view. When the Pope was talking about immigration he came across more as a diplomat if your view point is from the liberal left. When he was talking about abortion and pro life that appeals more so to conservatives since it is more so a religious icon. Even though he did not concern everything he was saying about God and did not mention him in his speech an abundance of times, Pope Francis still enforces his values through his religious beliefs.
I feel as if government and religion should be two separate things, therefore religion should play no role in US domestic policy. I believe in separation of church and state likewise to what Mark said. If we did not have separation of church and state our country would not be where it is today since there would not be multiple opinions and you would have to listen to everything the church says.
I agree that with Gabriella on the fact that if religion were to be a prominent piece in our government we wouldn't be able to reform as much as we have, due to the fact that there wouldn't be a diversity of opinions but instead a set one. With this there would be no development to our country and we would remain a stagnant nation.
Gabrielle Hartman Even though Pope Francis is a prevalent religious figure he tried to keep the issues he discussed about, "The land of the free and the home of the brave." He rarely referred to religion when talking about the problems America is facing. Although Pope Francis was talking about diplomatic issues he still represents a religious icon. Everything he says comes out with a religious connotation because of the spot he holds within the Catholic church. Considering he visited America in order to give religious sermons, and bring together religious people's it is nearly impossible to not view him as a religious icon. Pope Francis expressed some wonderful ideas that did not relate to religion which simply makes him an intelligent man that has great ideas. Him being a religious figure speaking in a government building does not translate to trying to implement religious ideas in government. Pope Francis an overall religious figure who has several great diplomatic ideas that the United States should try to reform toward.
Pope Francis, a religious icon, expressing great advice for America does not translate to the merge of church and state. There are many important morals that are derived from religion and are un-coincidentally part of our legal system; religion has been an important part of society since the beginning so it is interesting to hear an opinion from the Pope. Considering religion is so variable it should have no place in making political decisions, but that does not mean denying the advice from a great religious speaker. Having the government and religion combined is a recipe for disaster. Especially in a country like America where there are so much diversity. Religion is a personal decision that every single person has the right to have. Religion and the state should remain completely separate because everyone has the right to their own religious freedoms with no interference of the government.
I agree with Gabrielle's comment in that he did not always refer to religion when discussing diplomatic problems, and was not trying to force the government to agree with his views.
1. I believe that the Pope acted as a diplomat when talking to congress. He only talked about his opinions on issues, not about the religious aspects of them. Yes, I know that his opinions could be influenced by religion or by his position in the religious community, but he didn't address them.
2. I don't think religion should play any role in U.S. politics. Church and state should be separate. There isn't one religion in the United States that could have an impact on the country, there are many different ones and thus should be kept separate from state and politics.
I agree with Ashley in that the Pope acted as more of a diplomat than a religious figure. He did not back up his opinions with religious reasons, so they were his own. I also agree with her in that religion should not play a role in U.S politics. There are many different religions, too many to have all of them represented, so it would not be fair to only represent some and not all.
A) I believe that the Pope acted more as a diplomat than a religious figure when addressing Congress. During this part of his speech, he did not mention religion much but did give his opinions on many issues such as immigration and the death penalty. However, I wonder if his overwhelming religious appeal makes people think that the issues he speaks on all have to do with religion, when sometimes he does not mention religion at all.
B) Religion should not play a role in politics. Although I am a religious person myself, politics and religion should not mix. However, it is very hard to do this because religion often plays a major role in the lives of people who believe in religion. Because of this, many laws are based around peoples religious beliefs, when in reality they should not. In addition, there are so many religions, that it would be hard to incorporate them all into politics. People should be respectful of others who have different religious beliefs than them, or even none at all, and they should not let their religious beliefs interfere with their views on politics.
I understand Adriana's idea that people seem to think he was acting as a religious figure simply because he is the Pope, but I don’t think that the logic behind such thinking is irrational or wrong. Religion is defined as a particular system of faith and worship. A person's religious beliefs pervade many of their opinions, so when the Pope discusses his views on issues such as immigration and family values, it becomes clear that he is speaking as a religious figure rather than a diplomat.
The Pope acted as a diplomat and a religious icon. In this video, he presented himself as a diplomat for he was able to address diplomatic matters such as immigration, the environment and abortion without much reference to religion. But, his opinions regarding these issues are influenced from his own religious faith.
Religion should not be involved in U.S politics because many people have different beliefs. There would be much commotion if the separation of church and state did not exist. However, it seems that religion will always have some place in politics because politicians will use their religion to support some of their causes.
I agree with Emily that it is difficult to distinguish whether the Pope's address was diplomatic or religious. I share the belief that it was a combination of the two; his religious identity and affiliation influences his diplomatic opinions for America.
In his address to Congress, Pope Francis acted as a religious figure rather than as a diplomat. Mark was correct in pointing out that the Pope did not speak on behalf of Vatican City so much as he used his authority as the Pope to influence politicians. His religious beliefs clearly influenced what he was saying. Although the Pope was careful not to specifically reference religion or God many times throughout his speech, his views on immigration, abortion, and marriage are influenced by his status as a Christian leader. It is imperative that the United States remain a secular nation and maintain the principle of separation of church and state. In this instance, that principle seems to have been violated, as the leader of the Catholic Church addresses the United States Congress and spouts his own views on a variety of issues. If one religion is favored by the government, then that religious organization gains too much influence over American politics. Therefore, religion should not play a role in U.S. domestic policy decisions.
Jamie Lerner Although my response differs from Juliets, after reading her response I actually do agree with her. I thought because The Pope had never specified his religious beliefs that meant that he was speaking politically only- making him more of a diplomat. His authority comes from being the Pope, and representing a religion rather than a foreign area, meaning he speaks as a religious figure. He never specifies where his opinions come from but his lack of representation of the city and his representation of Cathollic opinions instead mean he clearly does not speak as a diplomat. Thank you Juliet, I recognize and understand the other opinion enough to change my own!
Jake Rosenblum The Pope in this particular clip appears to be acting as more of diplomat that is fueled by religious intentions. It is well known that the more strict sect of christianity serves as an anti-abortion group, so it is of no surprise that the Pope would speak about the protection of life at all stages (anti-abortion sentiment). Also he serves as a diplomat who supports the opening of our boarders to all that want to come to America. He strikes at the nation's morality appealing to the sense that we are all immigrants.
I personally believe that religion has no place in the government whatsoever. When the founders wrote the constitution they wrote down to keep church separate from state they knew it was best for the country as a whole. Referring back to the Pope's take on immigration being that we all come from different backgrounds and ethnicities there are too many ideas to have any one included in government. There is room for both within the country as long as they are two separate identities. Religion has no place influencing domestic policy decisions because it is destined to lead to inequality.
Jamie Lerner A.The Pope speaks as a diplomat rather than a religious figure. The pope never defines his religious beliefs, but only states his opinions. while these opinions may be common among those who agree with his religion, they are also common among americans who do not identify as religious. He also never claims that his religion is thee reason for his beliefs. He speaks about family, the death penalty, and abortion which are all current issues that America is facing and his opinions fit that of many americans, not only Catholic Americans. B. Religion should play no part in decisions as the religion(s) of those who make these decisions are not representative of all the religions practiced in the country. The beliefs of one religion may violate the beliefs of another and may not even be the best choice for the country as a whole. It is not fair to use religious beliefs to make decisions in a country where church and state are separated.
Richie Guerriere While I do agree that the pope never specifically defined his religious beliefs , they are quite apparent due to the nature of his position. However, as mentioned in my post, a diplomat is someone who specifically represents a country, but in this case the Pope does not necessarily represent the values or intentions of the Vatican City, despite how aligned their ideology might be. Finally, I do understand your point about how the issues he spoke about do affect all Americans, and not just Catholic-Americans. Despite this statement, his religious viewpoints certainly due have ties to the values that he shares with the American Politicians. Overall, I can definitely understand and respect your opinion.
Richie Guerriere A) In order to accurately answer this question it is important to understand the definition of a diplomat. A diplomat is an official representing a country abroad. Although Pope Francis gave his political ideology on issues that affect our country today, he is not representing the Vatican City, therefore he should not be considered a diplomat. Despite discussing a wide array of controversial topics, the advice Pope Francis gives comes strictly from that of a religious figure since he does not associate himself with his own country, although rarely saying “god”, Pope Francis uses his religious guidelines to advise the politicians one way or another.
B) If the United States is truly a secular state than religion should have nothing at all to do with politics. Of course, since christianity is still not fully separated from the government there will continue to be politicians who use religion as a guide to their decisions. However, as long as American never turns into a theocracy it is still allowed for politicians to have religion influence the values that shape their ideology. As Mark Fedoronko mentioned above, the Pope’s speech did respect the secular government of America, while still promoting some religious values.
Richie, I agree with your statement. I believe that the pope was using his beliefs in order to sway the opinion of the politicians within Congress. He did not represent Vatican City when addressing Congress, but represented his religion. Thank you for providing a great response that helped define what a diplomat is and also for displaying rather clearly why the pope did not act as one. Thus, I agree one hundred percent with your opinion Richie.
I agree with Richie regarding his opinion that the Pope is not acting as a diplomat, and his definition further helps support that the Pope is not trying to represent where he is from in this speech, but that he was asserting his opinions and beliefs that stem from his religion.
Evan Ryan A) Within his address to Congress, I believe the pope acted as a religious figure and not a diplomat. While invoking various religious beliefs, such as the golden rule, he applied them to current political ideas and voiced his opinion on abortion, the environment, and immigration. While the pope discussed political policies, he showed his opinion, and his opinion is based off his religious beliefs, thus he acted as a religious figure. B) Within the United States, I believe that religion should stay separate from foreign policy. The founding fathers were very clear about a clear distinction between church and state, and tolerant of other religions. By allowing religion to influence political policies, the United States would almost be sponsoring a certain religion within the government, and that is against what the founding fathers wanted for America.
A) I feel as though the pope acted as a diplomat. He managed to keep the conversation based on secular issues instead of religious ones, and attempted to appeal to American people by talking about immigration. However, he did slip in some statements that one would believe are a result of his religious beliefs, as he makes a pro-life statement about midway through the video.
B) I feel religion should stay as far away from policies as possible. On numerous occasions, religion has proven to cause a lot of controversy in its involvement in politics. I believe that, while people should respect one another's beliefs, religion should not at all take such a large role in the development of policies.
I do agree that Pope Francis tried to remain away from religion while speaking to Congress. But I also disagree because as Richie said above, the pope is not representing Vatican City but is speaking on his own views which are influenced by his religion.
A) In his address, Pope Francis is acting as a religious icon rather than a diplomat. While he does not specifically speak about Christianity, many of the issues discussed are shaped by his religious beliefs. For example, Pope Francis speaks on "our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development," which clearly reflects his religious influences due to pro-life and Christianity being closely related.
B) I believe religion should stay separate from U.S. domestic policy decisions, but should not be disregarded entirely. While it is not good to have a government mostly controlled by religion, many political views can be influenced by one's religious affiliation and can bring positive idea. However, the government should stay away from decisions which are too heavily based upon religion as the U.S. is representing a plethora of people who have different beliefs.
I agree with joe when he says that pope Francis is acting as more of a religious figure than a diplomat. His views such as the golden rule are all based on his religious beliefs. I also agree with joe that there shouldn't be a lot of religious influence of the government. The U.S isn't a theocracy and shouldn't be treated in that way, but some religious beliefs should be allowed to help the people in government better shape their opinions
I do agree that religion played a role in shaping the Pope's stance on some of the topics he discussed, but the Pope was very careful to not fully reference any religion. He was applying his positive messages of humanity and unity that he spreads throughout the world through saying things like family life being beautiful, rather than taking wither side in the gay marriage debate. -Joseph Boroda
A. In this specific video the Pope acted more as a diplomat rather than a religious figure. In his address to congress he spoke of many current issues that have an impact on all people, and not just those of the Catholic faith. He stated his opinions on topics including immigration, abortion, family and the death penalty, but never truly connected it to religion. As Evan stated, his opinions are most likely influenced by his religious beliefs, but I feel his speech was geared more to address current issues America is facing and how the Pope feels about them himself.
B. In the United States religion and domestic policy decisions should remain completely separate. As it is known, the U.S. is a melting pot. This melting pot is a mixture of cultures, races and also religion. If every religion cannot be represented, then one religion should not be able to influence the decisions made. The U.S. is known to be a country that greatly values equality therefore religion must remain separated from decisions made by the government.
I agree with Kellyann's idea that he made no reference to religion when discussing the current issues of the United States. I also like how you stated that America is a melting pot of religions and cultures. This definitely supports that church and state should be separate in the diverse American society we live in currently.
James Graziano After watching the video, I was certainly convinced that The Pope acted as a diplomat. He addresses many of his views, such as placing an emphasis on family values, abolition of the death penalty and being against abortion. Being The Pope, many of these ideas are driven by his strong faith in religion, so I can understand why others may say that he speaks as a religious figure. However, I am still convinced that he speaks as a diplomat, which is supported when he talks about the importance of business since it creates jobs and produces wealth. This reference to business is purely diplomatic and has very little to do with religion. Religion should play no role in US domestic policy decisions. Every country has people that maintain different religious beliefs, so using religion as a reference frame is inappropriate, especially in a diverse country like the United States. Religion as a basis of government in this country currently would lead to much controversy and political turmoil. However, if an aspect of American government happens to coincide with religious values such as human rights, there should not be a problem.
James, I do agree that the pope's decisions were not purely driven by religion, but he still made points that sprung from his religious vales. His views on abortion and the death penalty were due to his faith. In addition, the pope does not represent a country which prevents him from being a diplomat. I agree that religion does not belong in the United States government except in the case of valuing human rights, which should be important to everyone.
Allie Castle A) Pope Francis was not acting as a diplomat because he allowed his religious beliefs to form his political opinions. For example, his view on abortion was something that comes straight from the Catholic Church. He is also anti death penalty, which many people are, but he feels this way because of his religious background even though he doesn't necessarily say it. He was focusing on issues a diplomat would focus on such as the environment and immigration policy but many his opinions were shaped by his religious beliefs. In addition, he does not represent a country which doesn't make him a diplomat. B) Religion and government should be separated, as they have been in the entire history of the united states. People would lose their ability to express their religious beliefs if they have to follow someone else by law. Having laws that are neutral in the realm of religion allows people to practice and do what is right for them. For example, people who are roman Catholic do not have to get abortions, but if someone is in a situation where they need one, they should be allowed to get one.
I completely agree with Allie that government and religion should be separated, as it allows for individual freedoms of religion, and neutral laws show that one religion is not seen as superior to another. I do agree that his diplomatic ideas were shaped by his strong religious values as the Pope, and that he does not represent a country so he can not technically be a diplomat, but in this case I felt that his way of speaking portrayed him as one.
Jake Viache A) In his address to Congress, the Pope acted as more of a diplomat than a religious figure. He states specifically that religion is not perfect from flaws at the beginning, and as he speaks further religion is mentioned very little in any of his topics. His views on the subjects such as immigration may have been influenced by religion, but if he were trying to act as a religious figure he would have specifically mentioned religion more, rather than speaking of current political issues from his viewpoint. He seems to want to appeal to Congress rather than speak of strictly religious views on subjects.
B) Religion should play very little, if any, role in US domestic policy decisions. From all of the varying religions in the world and the US alone, one single religion, such as Christianity, should not be used to determine policies in a country known for freedom of religion. Although everyone will not always agree with politics in the first place, adding an emphasis on religion would make agreements even more difficult.
I agree with Jake's comment that if the Pope wanted to address Congress with more of an emphasis on religion he would have mentioned Christianity more. the Pope probably anted to appeal to more of congress, as he knows that not all of them are catholic.
In concerns to whether Pope Francis was acting as a diplomat or a religious figure, I must say he tended to act more as a religious figure. This is because he does not force any views upon us, rather he gives us his holy opinion and advice. His wisdom, denoted the fact that we must concentrate on resolving many problems that are circulating, that we refuse to compromise with. He just merely gives us his advice with his strong religious background obviously taking part in his advice to us.
I disagree with religion being associated with government, however, this is not a representation of us using religion in government decisions, this is because the Pope is not preaching versus from the bible instead he is just using his wisdom to further help us. We are jut accepting his advice, it is just another point of view.
A) The Pope clearly asserts several of his religious beliefs throughout the video. In this I believe he represents both a religious icon and a diplomat, but overall he speaks as a religious icon. Specific references to issues regarding abortion and the importance of family are ideals that are associated with his religious values. What he does that makes him seem to be a diplomat as well is that he addresses specific issues going on in America that he views from the standpoint of another country, but the responds with an opinion that could be correlated with his religion.. The Pope is in fact a religious icon anyway, and it would be difficult to argue that he is completely a diplomat because of who he is and what he represents.
B) I believe religion and domestic policy should not have anything to do with each other. Religion is it's own entity in a sense, and it should not play a role in how a region is governed, especially in the United States, which was brought up to support and give the freedom to people to practice the religion they choose. Since not everyone shares the same beliefs. I feel that associating religion with domestic policy can only cause problems for a government, although it is a prevalent factor in opinion and conversation of the population. Considering how strong people may be to their specific religion that their government may not be appealing to completely, it is hard to say that one should play a role in the other successfully.
I agree with Amanda's statement that is difficult to disassociate the Pope with the position that he holds. Even if he is not speaking about religion, the Pope is undeniably a religious figure. However, i disagree with her statement that since the pope spoke about issues such as abortion in his speech, he was acting as a religious icon in that particular moment. Of course, the Pope's views on these topics are based on religion, but i do not think that necessarily means that he was speaking as a religious icon. Many political figures and members of congress are heavily influenced by religion, but expressing their opinions that were shaped by religion does not make them religious figures.
A) I feel that in this matter, the Pope acted more as a diplomat than as a religious icon. He simply expressed his views on various controversial topics and for the most part left religion out of the discussion. Although, as many others pointed out, the Pope's views are heavily influenced by his Catholic faith, this does not mean that he was acting as a religious icon in his speech to congress. He never attempted to push the Christianity or center the discussion around religious topics. The Pope's position as the head of Catholic Church is certainly what gave him the status and credibility to speak in front of Congress, but in the speech itself, he acted more as a diplomat. B) I believe that religion and government should be kept as separate as possible, as the founding fathers intended. The government of the United Stares should absolutely not align itself with a particular religion. That being said, even though the US is a secular nation, it is undeniable that religion plays a large role is shaping people's morals and beliefs. Therefore, this will be reflected in voting and may lead to decisions that seem to go along with particular religion. I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing because this does not represent the government aligning itself with a certain religion, but rather the majority of the nation sharing certain views that (since the US government is designed to reflect the views of its citizens) should be reflected in political decisions.
I agree with Miranda's statement in that the Pope did not necessarily use his religious authority to validate his ideas. Also, despite his obvious bias to the Catholic faith, it did not seem to heavily interfere with his surprisingly progressive thinking. I also believe that government and religion should be kept separate, being that the Separation of Church and State was one of the initial goals of the formation of this country. I also like how she pointed out that the government should govern its people based on their views, not what the leaders believe.
A) I believe that the pope was acting as a diplomat rather than a religious icon. My reasoning behind this is because he constantly references the golden rule, which is found in many different religions other than roman catholic. Also he avoids many religious points. He speaks of how to act towards others rather than why religion would dictate you to.
B) To be honest, at this point it is simply comical that this needs to be a question. America was founded on the beliefs of separation on church and state yet here we are, 2015, and we still have to question the morality of what our fore founders have already decided and agreed upon. But for the sake of this question, religion and government should be kept separate. The laws created in this country should be made to reflect the needs of the many rather than the religious principle behind it.
I mostly disagree with Sarah on the first question. I agree that his reference to the Golden Rule is more diplomatic, but his opinions on the issues of immigration, abortion and the death penalty are all heavily shaped by his religious views. I agree with Sarah on the second question. Religion should be separate from the government. Law should rather be influenced by logic, reasoning and evidence.
A) In this scenario, the Pope served as a diplomat. If he were serving as a religious icon, then there would've been more reference to religious beliefs and faith. However, to say that his religious authority had nothing to do with the address would be crazy; he never would've been acknowledged if it were not for his religious high-ranking. Despite the obvious aforementioned fact, his religious views did not seem to interfere with his surprisingly progressive thinking.
B) The Pope, normally, should play little to no role in domestic policy decisions. However, when simply approaching the nation as a diplomat, and not as a religious authority, his words can be recognized with value. When simply restating the ideals of society, and not pushing a religious agenda, the rules of Separation of Church and State are followed. As long as addresses are kept secular, I believe that anyone should have the privilege of expressing their ideas.
I agree with John for the most part. It's not like the pope is trying to establish his opinion as the only correct thing or anything of the sort. He is doing what many other diplomats have done in stating how he feels on issues. While his position as pope obviously connects him to religion quite strongly, he was not using that in any way. As for the other question, while he didn't do any harm and seems like an incredibly smart man, I still don't think it was setting a good precedent allowing a man of his position to address congress.
Courtney Woods 1) Although Pope Francis wants to present himself in a diplomatic matter, (as would anyone else speaking before Congress), he is seen more as a religious icon. During his speech, he does not necessarily represent the views of the Vatican City but he presents his own personal beliefs. These beliefs are reflected by his religion. He knows that the members of Congress have various religious beliefs, which is why he doesn’t emphasize his own. His political views on issues such as abortion, immigration, and the environment are shaped by the Catholic religion. 2) I don’t think religion should play a big role in US domestic policy decisions because it’s too controversial. As said before, religious beliefs often shape political opinions. While each participant in government may have different religious beliefs, they may have different political ideas on the law, which wouldn’t get anything done concerning the making of decisions. However, I do agree with the fact that religion links to the communication of many people, and it may aid in considering different options and ideas before settling on a decision.
I agree with Courtney in that the Pope was only imparting his own personnel religious beliefs on to congress, exempting him serving a diplomatic role. Although it should be noted that this does not nullify his speech, rather that is up to the listener and how they view the content of what he said. I also agree that religion can distract politics. If the government goes anyway in acting for or against any religion it can inhibit the freedoms of others. The most democratic way would be leaving government out of religion and allowing people to practice how ever they see fit in their personnel lives (so long as it doesn't effect others).
I agree with Courtney that the Pope's views are shaped by his religion, and he is viewed as religious figure. However, I do think that he kept religion out of his speech. He addressed the Congress, and didn't talk about the Bible, but rather talked about how he feels about political issues. I also agree that religion being involved in government would cause a lot of controversy, since we have so many different religions practiced in America.
A) Obviously the pope wasn't gonna get up there and just start preaching, so since he didn't I'd say that's pretty good. He was certainly trying to present himself as a diplomat which I definitely give him credit for but he can't hide what he is; a religious figure. Although he did a good job touching upon issues, I still think the fact that he is head of a major religion is a very big factor in all of this, so he can't be seen as simply a diplomat. B) Religion should have absolutely no role in the government whatsoever. But we all know that that will never happen. So I guess it's fine how it is. If it could be less, that'd be better of course, but since it's not showing too many signs of changing, we'll have to deal with it.
I agree that the pope can't really appear as anything less then a religious figure but i think that he was behaving as a diplomat. As for the religious aspect in domestic policy i think that for the most part religion should be kept separate but you have to keep in mind that many people vote in line with there religious beliefs so it is impossible for religion to be kept separate from policy making and realistically it is part of our governmental system for people to individually chose whether or not they wish to involve their religious beliefs in policy making.
Anne Jordan A) I would say that the pope was behaving as a diplomat because the way he was addressing congress, as apposed to talking solely about religion and issues relating to religion he is speaking about general issues and politics. It is clear that even though he wasn't behaving like a religious icon he is seen as a religious icon by the insane amount of applause after practically every word he said. B) I think that key factors in religion are typically moral grounds for the common masses such as "thou shall not kill". in the sense of moral leadership i believe we should allow religion to play a role in domestic policy making. I don't think that we should allow all religious aspects to guide or rule over policy making domestically, there must be a non-religious thread to bring it back to the people to sustain separation of powers.
I agree with Anne about how the pope is behaving as a diplomat, He is a religious icon and can't ignore it, but I disagree and think that religion shouldn't be a part of domestic policy making but it shouldn't affect the domestic policy decisions that are made because the US has a seperation of church and state.
I cant see the Pope acting diplomatically here, although i wouldn't have hoped for him to. My reasoning is that he doesn't seem to be acting on behalf of the Vatican but rather on behalf of his personnel views - views that represent the Catholic church. Quite honestly the Pope has no business being a diplomat and every business being a religious icon. To judge his words on his role rather than his content is the flaw here, not the fact that he is a religious icon. Though it has to be questioned why the Pope was there in this scenario. If he is not a diplomat than he is solely based upon his religious authority which to many people just makes him an average man. Does an average man have any business addressing congress? Congress inviting him to speak in a way implies that congress recognizes his religious authority which really shouldn't have a place in American politics.
I tend to disagree with Ethan because the Pope is the diplomat for the Catholic Church. He is the head of a worldwide, highly influencing organization that has many followers around the world and in the US. He is a representative for people, and if you could compare the Catholic Church to an interest group, he is the representative for an interest group: the Catholic people. When he goes to Congress, he is using his power as a religious authority, but acting as a diplomat or one of the many world leaders because he is.
A. The pope acted as a diplomat than a religious icon. He did recognize that he is currently a huge religious icon. He attempted to avoid religion most likely because the United States has a separation of church and state. Even though he attempted to be purely a diplomat, he could't just avoid the fact that he is an enormous religious icon, so he was forced to touch on a few religious points.
B. Religion should not play a role in the United States domestic policy. Separation of church and state should be preserved. Religion should not play a role in domestic policy decision making such as capital punishment and abortion. Yes, religion sways the choices of politicians on both of those policies, but truly it shouldn't have an effect on the final decisions that are made.
I agree that the pope used religion as little as possible to maintain his status as a diplomat. but because of his status in the catholic church, not mentioning religion was an impossibility. But because he used so little of religious speak, his argument was more effective -Dante Gargiulo
A. Pope Francis, in front of the joint session of Congress, acted as a diplomat. He had platforms and ideas that represented a large group of people, many in the US and even more outside of the US. The Catholic Church, whether people like it or not is not just a religious authority, but a world influencer because of its expanse of followers. The Pope, in the specific situation is acting as a representative for the Church and Vatican. He is addressing issues that are important to the US government and the Church alike, and trying to create solutions or change people's minds, therefore acting as a diplomat. B. Religion should not really take any role in the creation of US domestic policy, unless it is in a policy about religious equality. The founding fathers and Constitution both clearly stated this country's need for separation of state and church as a main facet of the nation. Of course in such a diverse nation the government has to deal with issues that do have religious and moral grounds that impact policy because it does have to do very personally with the people of the US, but people making the laws and enforcing them should not be heavily influenced by religion while making policy, but rather morals. It should not be God or the Pope guiding politicians and lawmakers, but the guidance of the American people, and what is right to do for man and the people of the US.
Anne Jordan A) I would say that the pope was behaving as a diplomat because the way he was addressing congress, as apposed to talking solely about religion and issues relating to religion he is speaking about general issues and politics. It is clear that even though he wasn't behaving like a religious icon he is seen as a religious icon by the insane amount of applause after practically every word he said. B) I think that key factors in religion are typically moral grounds for the common masses such as "thou shall not kill". in the sense of moral leadership i believe we should allow religion to play a role in domestic policy making. I don't think that we should allow all religious aspects to guide or rule over policy making domestically, there must be a non-religious thread to bring it back to the people to sustain separation of powers.
A) I believe that the pope is in this case a religious figure. The pope tries to avoid talking about his religion the best he can so people of different religions may listen to him. Although the pope doesn't directly relate to his religion while addressing congress he indirectly relates to it through his views. At one point in his speech the pope talks about the golden rule being that we must preserve life in all stages. By the pope saying this he is saying that he is against abortion because his religion is, so he is indirectly showing his beliefs and the beliefs of his religion.
B) I belive that religion is allowed to play a limited role in the U.S. I believe that it is alright if a politician's beliefs influence certain factors of their decisions such as whether or not they are in favor of abortion. If the politician's beliefs prohibit them from doing their job such as in the case of Kim Davis, I think that's going to far and that shouldn't be allowed
A) The pope acted more so as a diplomat rather that the religious icon he is in his address to both of the houses, this is due to no mention of a religious text, a god or said god's will but rather as his own developed views and idea. The pope him self is a wise and well educated man who is more then qualified to give his opinion on matters while keeping his regards absent of religion.
It is because of this that I disagree with Aidan because the mention of the golden rule and that life is precious is something that many people believe aside from religious faith, many atheists believe that life is precious and the "golden rule" is something we have been taught since kindergarten and is a basis of our society.
B) I believe that as it is written church and state should be seperated. With that said it inevitable for them it interact due to religion being a basis for the morals and beliefs of some politicians but making decisions primarily out of the will of a "God" will offend those who don't believe in the same faith.
Meaghan Koster The Pope acted as a diplomat more than a religious icon. The pope doesn't belong to any specific country, many people from around the world identify with his beliefs, therefore the pope has no right addressing congress about his beliefs about our domestic issues. Our domestic problems with immigration does not involve the pope. The United States as a country also doesn't identify with any religion.
Even though the pope doesn't talk directly about religion, he brought up many important topics that christians believe. This is why I disagree with Travis. Even though some people may agree with some of the Pope's beliefs and don't identify themselves as catholics, that doesn't change the pope's motives. The pope is still addressing congress based on the point of view of him and fellow catholics.
B) I believe that church and state should be seperated. Our country has accepted many different people from many different backrounds throughout history. If we identify ourselves with a certain religious group it may seem like an injustice to the citizens who don' t identify with that specific religion. The United States has always been an accepting place for every immigrant group. If we decided to side with a certain religion it would be changing one of the core beliefs we follow as a nation.
I agree with Meaghan on many of the points she made. Like she said the pope wasn't appealing to congress with his religious beliefs but rather with important things like immigration and human rights. I does have strong opinions about both of these topics saying with should let immigrants into the US because at one point we were all immigrants as well. These opinions are not necessarily about religion at all. This being said it will be interesting to see how his view impact the next election for president. The pope is a very powerful figure and many Christians are going to agree with his views. This means the candidates that are against some of the things he said, like immigration may start to fall in the poll simply because people agree with the pope. Although this speech doesn't immediately seem to sway, it will be interesting to see how it plays out for many of the candidates.
A) The pope acted more as a diplomat because he avoided talking about religion and talked more about issues that he wanted to see get solved and offered him input towards them. Despite being seen as a diplomat in this situation, he effectively used religion when it needed to be brought up and wasn't ashamed to do so
B) Religion should not be used in american diplomacy because despite our enjoyment and encouragement of all types of religion, it has never been used to run the country. If one religion would be used over the other to make laws, that would be showing bias and would go against the ideals of the country
Kris Kaczorowski A) I believed the pope acted as a diplomat rather than a religious icon. The pope wasn't appealing to the US congress as the Pope rather he used his title to get people to listen. He was able to get the people of congress to listen to him because of him being the Pope. However once he started talking to congress, it was clear he wanted to get his views across. He brings up many great points in this speech on things like immigration and human rights. This speech didn't talk much about Christianity itself. He wasn't reading excerpts from the bible and it didn't sound like he was giving a mass to the congress of the United States. His speech was more focused on world problems and fixing world problems. He started the speech quoting the basis of our government "The land of the free and the home of the brave". This opening statement states his intention right away, bettering the United States government and NOT spreading his faith to more Americans. The pope does an smart, interesting thing by using his title as the pope to appeal to congress, but acting as a diplomat and wanting them to focus of specific topics, rather than religion. It will be interesting to what kind of impact this speech will have on future US decisions.
B) Religion shouldn't really play any role in the decisions that are made by our government. This comes down to the fact that we, the US, have an endless number of different religious groups that all believe in different faiths. Trying to come up with laws that benefit ALL groups would be impossible and is why it is typically left out. Integrating religious ideas into the government would also bring another challenge, the fact that bias will indefinitely occur. If a certain politician is say catholic he's going to favor catholic ideas and if another politician is Jewish, he'll favor ideas that benefits people of the Jewish faith. No progress would ever actually be made in the United States government because there would be constant argument and depending on how religious a certain person is, if there is something that will not benefit their religion they'll never agree with it. This is why the Pope appealed to congress as a diplomat. To not start a "religious war" within congress itself.
I think your right in saying religions shouldnt play a role in our goverment. Its intresting that you feel the minority groups will be underepresented but I think its really about what religion has the strongest following and people most williing to donate.
A) The Pope clearly acted as a diplomat avoiding constant referances to the bible and religious theologies. Pope Francis clearly had a understanding that inorder for his speech in front of a Joint congress session to be taking seriously he would have to avoid polerized religious staments that would offend many in the incrediably diverse U.S culture and avoid over use of religious ideologies in a goverment with a fundemtal belief in seperation of church and state. B) Like Kris and many other studants in this chat I believe religious beliefs should have no influenc in a poltician's decsions. This country''s constitution is founded on the idea of seperation of church and state for a reason and it is a concept more important then ever in are very diverse culture. Its almost hard to believe that we have a poltical system in which religious groups often donate the largest amount to campainges, which shows clearly that religious beliefs play a factor in our goverments descions, but this type of poltical system needs to be changed.
I agree that this country was founded on the belief of separation of church and state. However I do not think that religious groups donating to campaigns is so bad. The politicians they fund may have religious views but they still have to abide by the same rules in our constitution. Essentially, a very religious person may come into presidency, but they would ultimately fail at changing America from a secular state.
Rachael Egbert A) I feel as though The Pope acted as more of a diplomat in that he didn't talk about God, or really anything from the bible specifically. He touched upon the issue of immigration, and how it should be viewed in his opinion. He feels that if people want to come to America and try to have a better life for themselves and their family, why shouldn't they be able to. Regardless of race, and country barriers we are all humans, and we should treat each other like brothers and sisters. This is more or a diplomatic standpoint to take than a religious one. He did not bring what the bible says into the situations, and rather gave a point of view to consider when deciding what the immigration laws should be. B) I feel that religion should not have anything to do with the government. America is very diverse, and does not have one prominent religion, but rather the option to practice any. We shouldn't vote for people based on their religion, or make laws based on religion. Laws should be based on people's opinions and morals, and then the majority vote should decide if these opinions should become laws. Politicians should't include their religious beliefs when proposing ideas. A government controlled by religion would go against separation of church and state, which is a firm belief our Constitution was built on.
I would agree with you in the sense that the Pope was more of a diplomat than a religious figure but he did interject some of his beliefs in this speech. When he stated in his speech that all human life should be protected, it was as if he was trying to mention that he has views that go for against abortion.
The pope acted more as a diplomat than a religious icon. His only words that pertain to God was the "God bless America" at the end of his speech. The pope didn't draw his claims from the bible either, making this less of a religious case. If the pope was going to be a more religious icon he would have made some claims that are more traditional Catholic beliefs. However, the pope made mention of the fact that climate change is a real problem and the fact that the US should be more open to immigrants. Despite the popes clear religious attire, his speech was not intended to be taken as a religious icon.
Religion should not play a role in US foreign policy or any part of the government. It's clear that this country promotes religious freedom and allows it's citizens to be whatever religion they so choose. However, there is also a separation of church and state in our country. This means that no religion can hold power in our government. Therefore, religion cannot take any root in government whether people say it should or should not. Having no religion in our government allows the US to try and make the most fair deals and laws since there isn't a big brother religion watching over all new decisions.
I agree with Mike in the sense that the Pope did not intend to use religion to shape his argument. Yes, there were brief religious references, like when the Pope said "God Bless America," but even so, this phrase is used so commonly now by many different individuals. He spoke about many current event issues that are not related to religion, like immigration. So, despite his position, the Pope did not use religion as the driving force of his speech.
The pope acted more as a diplomat than a religious icon. He avoided references to the bible and religion. Rather, he used a worldly view that accepted all people and the human race as a whole. He pointed out the beauty of family life rather than taking sides in the gay marriage debate. The Pope used his pure and insightful view on humanity in order to make statements that can apply to everyone and anyone can take something away from and form themselves to be a better person. The pope did not act like a religious icon in that he did not tell people about heaven and hell, and what they should do to please God. He applied his views to some things, such as the protection of human life at all stages, but he did not mention religion as a reason for that.
I thing religion should be kept out of U.S. domestic policy because not a single religion accepts everyone. There will always be an out group of either non-religious people or those with other beliefs. America is all about accepting everyone, which is why our country offers such great religious freedom to everyone. While people should still suggest ideas rooted in religion to congress, they must be modernized to fit today's constantly changing society rather than only apply to when religion governed all centuries ago.
I believe that the Pope acted more of a diplomat than a religious figure but still showed aspects of being a religious figure. Even though he could be bias in his thoughts due to his religious affiliation, he did a good job in keeping his religious opinions and political views separate. I would say the only time where the Pope's religion did come into play was on his views of all life being protected. His view of abortion can be seen here since most devoted Christians are pro-life. The Pope was able to cover a lot of topics in his speech that most diplomats would cover. From immigration to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, he was able to address each topic with ease. The part where the Pope showed he was being a little bit of a religious figure is when he was being relatable when he was talking about immigration. It showed his compassionate side that sometimes diplomats do not have.
I agree with the other students in that religion should not be a key factor in U.S. domestic policy decision but it does play a key role since a person's religious beliefs influence the way that they think. Religion would cause opinions to be swung but should not be involved in the ultimate decision of the policy.
After listening to the Pope's speech, I believe that he acted more as a diplomat rather than a religious icon. Rarely did his speech touch upon religion or how his beliefs affect his opinions. He used the word "We" in order to appeal to his listeners. This made him sound more like a colleague rather than a powerful religious leader. He spoke about current events, like immigration, put himself on the same level as his listeners by saying that he, along with many others in the room, were descendants of immigrants. Of course, the Pope spoke about some of his beliefs, like the protection of human life "at all stages" (referring to anti-abortion beliefs), but this is also a topic of discussion among many non Catholics or non religious people.
I firmly believe that religion should have no influence on the government of the United States. The United States is widely known for its religious tolerance and freedom, and therefore we have a diverse ethnic population. If the government decided to rule using one religion, then it would be violating our constitutional right of freedom of religion. The founding fathers made sure that freedom of religion was an aspect of the constitution because they knew that it would be best for the country. If religion were incorporated into our government, then our country would not be able to easily adapt to our rapidly evolving world. New technology, new policies, and new ideas are constantly being brought to the table, and if there was a strict tie between any one religion and the U.S. government, our country would suffer and not be able to keep up with our society.
I fully agree with Julianne, the majority religion in our country is Christianity, but we have to respect Americans with other religious beliefs. We have seen time and time again how state religion has led to an oppressive government (Middle East). If we want to be seen as a truly free country, anyone should feel that their religious values are completely separated from government domestic policy.
After listening to the pope’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress and also following his visit to the United States, I realized that the pope can be looked at as a diplomat. When he came to the US, he was acting on behalf of the Vatican City state and Roman Catholic Church. During his speech, the pope did make a reference to Moses, however, almost everything he stated was secular and addressing the issues that face the world today. The most notable being man-made climate change. You could have easily related to the pope's speech even if you were not Catholic.
I feel like it was very appropriate for the pope to visit the United States, as he is a leader of more than 1 billion Catholics and one of the most powerful person in the world. That being though, I feel that domestically, religious influence in government should not exist. Since Christianity is the majority religion here in the US, a lot of people elect leaders that let their Christian values influence decisions. The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so a complete separation of church and state is essential. Many Americans don’t take into consideration that there are small minorities of people who practice Hindu, Buddhism, and Islam. They shouldn’t have to feel like their country has a bias towards Christianity.
I like how what you said about how the pope has the power to act as an effective diplomat because of the huge following he has with his position. In this circumstance he is able to act diplomatically and give his insight on the issues we face a country and is able to help add a little insight on the issues - Artie Stanwise
I would say in this situation the pope acted more as a diplomat staying on very political issues. However you can tell that everything he says is completely genuine. In this way he is able to voice the opinions he wants people to believe in and shares in a way in which no one is questioning the motives he has for sharing his beliefs. However it is impossible not to see the religious stature he has. In this way he does very well by separating his opinions so it is not something to be seen that all Christians should follow, but instead something he believes all people should listen to. It is important to not let religion be the reason for the policies we make, however hearing input from religious people and what they believe is right, can help to make a proper decision.
Furthermore it is important to realize that this country is made up of many different groups of people from different backgrounds and faiths, in which some people may feel very strongly about certain issues that are completely different to the views of another belief. However in American politics itself it is almost impossible to find an issue where there is no debate and strong opinions making it very similar to what you may find from different religions. The most important aspect we will find when incorporating religion is government must find a way to allow religious people to feel as if their views are being respected and when hearing viewpoints based off religious belief, to not show favoritism to one group. (I could not get this to work at first and was going to hand it in on paper but found out I could just use my personal email)
I do not believe that the pope is either a diplomat or a religious figure i believe that the Pope is a philosopher. My reasoning for saying this is because the Pope has a lot of education and life experience and he is an iconic figure of how to live your life. The Pope in the forum stated that he does not fear foreigners because at one point we were all linked to foreigners because of our family backgrounds and because of this we should not fear foreigners. Foreigners come to this great Nation for better opportunities and a better life for their families not for violence or hate. Also, the Pope in his speech mentioned the "Golden rule" the golden rule states: "Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you" The Pope clearly believes in respect and equality. Nobody is better than the next guy because we were all meant to do something in this world therefore we all contribute equally. Because of the Pope's statements i do not believe the Pope acted as a diplomat or as a Religious icon he only solely acted humane.
ReplyDeleteReligion is not a common tool in foreign policy, but it could be a good key to start a dialogue among different cultures and different way of life for diplomatics. I think, indeed, that religious structured power are actors in the global game of the international relations, so churches and organized religions are without any doubt subjects of diplomacy. Therefore religion is a tool - but an unusual tool -, religious structures are actors. Religion could probably be used as an effective foreign policy tool. I just don't think we have the resources to utilize cultural differences and understanding to pull it off.
Please post your name so I can give credit where credit is due
DeleteI must disagree with Alyssa on this first issue because although he acted in a humane manor which I can agree with he cannot cast aside the religious power bestowed upon him. I draw this from the fact that his position as pope not his philosophical or humanitarian ideas allowed him to address congress. This is evident due to the lack of humanitarian speakers who have been able to achieve this session with congress. Thus I can conclude that it is his position as pope as well as the favoring of the catholic church within our government that allowed for him to make this address. I would say that Pope Francis although wishing to make a diplomatic approach is inevitably a religious icon.
DeleteAs for this second issue I must also disagree on the use of religion in international politics and in sparking dialogue among different cultures. In regard to international politics I feel it best that our independent nations not be worked as marionettes by powerful organized religions. In order to make the most efficient and moral decisions on the stage of world politics it is essential to consult logical evidence and scientific fact as opposed to superstitions or religious dogma. I fear the likes of Theocratic nations because of the irrational decisions and threats that they pose upon developed nations. For example Saudi Arabia is an example of a modern theocratic nation, the Saudi people are required to follow and worship Islam this is enforced by their government. The punishment in this nation for apostasy or a renouncing of a religion or belief is death. An extreme punishment for a renunciation of Islam but this isn't all, persons convicted or suspected of blasphemy are subject to inhumane methods of torture in order to get a confession of apostasy or to expose others. These cruel acts of irrational paranoia, execution, and torture are all in the name of religion and therefore some people such as myself are appalled by the use of religion in international politics. Religion is an exceptional topic to spark discussion if you were talking to a religious figure or someone like Richard Dawkins, but in regards to politics religion should not have a foothold on decisions that effect people without or of a different faith.
My understanding is that the pope wished to address congress in a purely diplomatic fashion in which I can respect for a man in his position. However Pope Francis's philosophical ideas are only able to reach congress due to his religious position, and to my understanding of our Deist founding father's ideals, this is against what they believed for our nation. Names idealized in our country such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and even George Washington were more Deist than Christian and thus founded our nation on a belief that our government should not be ruled by any mega powerful religion. But the ties of Christianity were seeded into our lives due to the actions of one man whose name and ideals have been demonized in this nation, none other than Joseph Stalin. The action of Stalin that allowed for the bleeding of religion into our government was his dogmatic belief in Marxism and thus Marx's saying "Religion is the opium of the people" lead him to suppress and weed out religious influence in the USSR, becoming an Atheist state. Due to the Cold War tensions president Dwight D. Eisenhower adopted the phrase "In God we Trust" as a motto for the united states to get at Stalin. Due to Eisenhower's actions people are quick to demonize Atheism just as they demonized Stalin. Yet Atheism was not his fault, rather it was his dogmatic belief in Marxism which ironically is more similar to a dogmatic belief in the Quran, Bible, Torah, or any other religious scriptures. Now if we look at modern day when the USSR is dissolved and science and education are respected and valued, one might ask why we still use such things or perhaps why religion has any place in government at all? My answer to this is that it doesn't, and my thoughts on this address by the pope regardless of his message is that he violates our fundamental ideals as a nation to be so favored among our leaders. His address to congress provides no more than a philosophical insight to controversies from only his perspective, which in fact differ from the thoughts of the church as a whole. This address would be better served if a leading scientist or a civil rights leader addressed these issues, rather than a religious icon to state his opinions on these issues that carry no more weight than any other seventy eight year old.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with you that Pope Francis was able to talk to Congress because of his religious position, I feel that, his position had nothing to do with what he was saying. The Pope was talking to Congress about issues regarding the country and the world, not regarding religion. I feel that he was acting in a diplomatic way because of the division between church and state. Yes, what he said was from his perspective. Anyone else talking to congress would also be talking from their perspective. What people say when regarding what they believe, is their perspective. Saying that his opinions don't 'Carry any weight" because he is a religious figure isn't true because anyone talking about the topics he discussed, is saying their opinions, which aren't based on facts anyway. anyone talking to congress or just talking about the issues in general, no matter their age or position, is only offering opinions.
DeletePost your answers here and respond to the comments from the student above you
ReplyDeleteI believe that in this speech that the Pope acted as both a diplomat and a religious icon. When talking to leaders of a country, you will talk in a diplomatic way, but also he tied in his religious beliefs because that is part of his identity. Even though religious figures will give their opinions that are grounded in their beliefs, there is no reason that the citizens should not listen and contemplate what they are saying because many times, especially in Pope Francis' case, they are very intelligent.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Constitution states that America does not have an established religion, the founders of this country were Christian, which could have impacted how our nation was founded. I agree with the first person who commented in that religion could be a useful tool, but I believe that it would not be completely effective. We have to be respectful of other religions, but religion could also be a dividing factor.
I think your point about respecting religions is really important. In Saudi Arabia, the theocratic state seems to prohibit development in all sectors of life. In order to run a diverse country with foreign trade, it is inappropriate to force all citizens to comply to one set of religious doctrines. However, religion does play a role in forming morals - something all politicians should have. Nonetheless, freedom of religion cannot be respected in a theocracy.
DeleteIn order to discuss the first question, I feel it necessary to define "diplomat". The term refers to one who represents another country abroad. While other definitions have arisen over time, I cannot view the Pope as a diplomat in this situation. His advice has little pertinence to the country he represents - the Vatican City. He discusses the issues of immigration, abortion, the death penalty, and the environment without much relation to his own country. The Pope simply issues his own platform as a religious leader. While he only mentions God on several occasions (including "God bless America"), he acts as a religious leader who attempts to use God's word to guide the politicians.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a secular state; thus we should not use religious doctrine as law or create a religious police to enforce doctrines. However, each politician should possess their own religious beliefs that shape their values. The values of politicians and those who they represent are the forces that should shape legislation. If said influences happen to be religious, there is no problem. If a politician wants to defund Planned Parenthood because their religious beliefs view abortions as unethical, religion is playing an appropriate role in politics. As long as a theocracy is not formed, American politics should be influenced by religion. The Pope's speech seemed to respect America's secular government while still trying to use religion to guide our lawmakers.
I like that you clarified the meaning of the term "diplomat" in order to demonstrate why the term does not pertain to the Pope in this situation. I agree with Mark in that although the Pope speaks of issues regarding immigration, abortion, the death penalty and the environment, he does so without referencing his own country. Therefore, the Pope did not act as a diplomat.
DeleteSimilar to what my other classmates have said, I believe that the Pope acted more as a religious icon rather than a diplomat. Although he only referenced "God" a limited amount of times, like Mark said, the Pope's point of view on all issues is based primarily on his religious beliefs and values. Pope Francis is a religious icon regardless where he goes and what he speaks about. Although he did not necessarily refer back to his religion repeatedly throughout his speech, it is obvious that his values and opinions are based on his religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBeing that the United States is a secular state, religion should not play a role in U.S. domestic policy decisions. The reason why it is vital for the government to make decisions in the first place is due to controversial view points and opinions, if religion is then a factor that determines these decisions it would create further controversy. I agree with Laura in that we should respect other people's religion but we should not have to compromise our own beliefs for the government to make decisions in bias of a different religion.
I agree that the Pope regardless of where and what he speaks about, he is still a religious figure. After all he is the Pope. Throughout the speech, he does not push the issue with the use of religion, but it is true that the values and opinions that he has are resulted from his religious beliefs, too. It is also important that the government stays as a secular state because decisions affected by religion would cause bias decisions which would create more conflicts.
DeleteIn agreement with what many other have said, the Pope acted more as a religious figure because he did not represent a country abroad. In this case he did not represent the Vatican City. In his speech, he discusses the issues of the environment, abortion, the death penalty, and immigration. In agreement with what Mark had said, the Pope had rarely said anything pertaining to God except for the fact when he said "God Bless America." Though his choice of words were still directed towards politicians in a more religious manner to guide them in their decisions.
ReplyDeleteSince the United States is a secular state I believe that religions should not play a role in domestic policy decisions. This is because it is important for the government to make decisions solely for the purpose of making better decisions that are unaffected by religion. If religion were a factor in decision making, there would be a lot more disputes over what should be done. I agree with Lilly in the fact that religion could compromise their own beliefs to make bias decisions in government.
I agree with your opinion that religion would be a bad idea to mix with government. Because it is the Pope it is hard for us not to consider him as a religious figure but I agree he tried to stay away from religious words because of where he was and tried to stick with political issues.
DeleteAlthough it is hard to not say the Pope is being a religious figure speaking to congress he clearly tried to keep religion out of his speech. He spoke only to address issues even though he was not speaking of a country. Pope Francis' main concern was about current issues that he believed in.
ReplyDeleteI also think religion should have very little place in politics. We have a separation of church and state for a good reason. There are so many religions out there it would throw the government into chaos. This question of course would be easier to answer if everyone was one religion but because we are not it brings into question how much our religion will change our views. The people of the US don't like religion being a part of our politics especially because it was believed that a catholic president would listen only to the pope and not the people. The separation works now and if it works than we wouldn't want to change it.
I agree with Mark concerning that the Popes main concern was about current issues that he believed in which demonstrates his diplomatic point of view rather than his religious point of view.
DeleteThe Pope acted as both a religious icon and a diplomat depending on a persons point of view. When the Pope was talking about immigration he came across more as a diplomat if your view point is from the liberal left. When he was talking about abortion and pro life that appeals more so to conservatives since it is more so a religious icon. Even though he did not concern everything he was saying about God and did not mention him in his speech an abundance of times, Pope Francis still enforces his values through his religious beliefs.
DeleteI feel as if government and religion should be two separate things, therefore religion should play no role in US domestic policy. I believe in separation of church and state likewise to what Mark said. If we did not have separation of church and state our country would not be where it is today since there would not be multiple opinions and you would have to listen to everything the church says.
DeleteI agree that with Gabriella on the fact that if religion were to be a prominent piece in our government we wouldn't be able to reform as much as we have, due to the fact that there wouldn't be a diversity of opinions but instead a set one. With this there would be no development to our country and we would remain a stagnant nation.
DeleteGabrielle Hartman
ReplyDeleteEven though Pope Francis is a prevalent religious figure he tried to keep the issues he discussed about, "The land of the free and the home of the brave." He rarely referred to religion when talking about the problems America is facing. Although Pope Francis was talking about diplomatic issues he still represents a religious icon. Everything he says comes out with a religious connotation because of the spot he holds within the Catholic church. Considering he visited America in order to give religious sermons, and bring together religious people's it is nearly impossible to not view him as a religious icon. Pope Francis expressed some wonderful ideas that did not relate to religion which simply makes him an intelligent man that has great ideas. Him being a religious figure speaking in a government building does not translate to trying to implement religious ideas in government. Pope Francis an overall religious figure who has several great diplomatic ideas that the United States should try to reform toward.
Pope Francis, a religious icon, expressing great advice for America does not translate to the merge of church and state. There are many important morals that are derived from religion and are un-coincidentally part of our legal system; religion has been an important part of society since the beginning so it is interesting to hear an opinion from the Pope. Considering religion is so variable it should have no place in making political decisions, but that does not mean denying the advice from a great religious speaker. Having the government and religion combined is a recipe for disaster. Especially in a country like America where there are so much diversity. Religion is a personal decision that every single person has the right to have. Religion and the state should remain completely separate because everyone has the right to their own religious freedoms with no interference of the government.
I agree with Gabrielle's comment in that he did not always refer to religion when discussing diplomatic problems, and was not trying to force the government to agree with his views.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that the Pope acted as a diplomat when talking to congress. He only talked about his opinions on issues, not about the religious aspects of them. Yes, I know that his opinions could be influenced by religion or by his position in the religious community, but he didn't address them.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think religion should play any role in U.S. politics. Church and state should be separate. There isn't one religion in the United States that could have an impact on the country, there are many different ones and thus should be kept separate from state and politics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Laurendi
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley in that the Pope acted as more of a diplomat than a religious figure. He did not back up his opinions with religious reasons, so they were his own. I also agree with her in that religion should not play a role in U.S politics. There are many different religions, too many to have all of them represented, so it would not be fair to only represent some and not all.
Adriana Laurendi
ReplyDeleteA) I believe that the Pope acted more as a diplomat than a religious figure when addressing Congress. During this part of his speech, he did not mention religion much but did give his opinions on many issues such as immigration and the death penalty. However, I wonder if his overwhelming religious appeal makes people think that the issues he speaks on all have to do with religion, when sometimes he does not mention religion at all.
B) Religion should not play a role in politics. Although I am a religious person myself, politics and religion should not mix. However, it is very hard to do this because religion often plays a major role in the lives of people who believe in religion. Because of this, many laws are based around peoples religious beliefs, when in reality they should not. In addition, there are so many religions, that it would be hard to incorporate them all into politics. People should be respectful of others who have different religious beliefs than them, or even none at all, and they should not let their religious beliefs interfere with their views on politics.
I understand Adriana's idea that people seem to think he was acting as a religious figure simply because he is the Pope, but I don’t think that the logic behind such thinking is irrational or wrong. Religion is defined as a particular system of faith and worship. A person's religious beliefs pervade many of their opinions, so when the Pope discusses his views on issues such as immigration and family values, it becomes clear that he is speaking as a religious figure rather than a diplomat.
DeleteThe Pope acted as a diplomat and a religious icon. In this video, he presented himself as a diplomat for he was able to address diplomatic matters such as immigration, the environment and abortion without much reference to religion. But, his opinions regarding these issues are influenced from his own religious faith.
ReplyDeleteReligion should not be involved in U.S politics because many people have different beliefs. There would be much commotion if the separation of church and state did not exist. However, it seems that religion will always have some place in politics because politicians will use their religion to support some of their causes.
I agree with Emily that it is difficult to distinguish whether the Pope's address was diplomatic or religious. I share the belief that it was a combination of the two; his religious identity and affiliation influences his diplomatic opinions for America.
DeleteIn his address to Congress, Pope Francis acted as a religious figure rather than as a diplomat. Mark was correct in pointing out that the Pope did not speak on behalf of Vatican City so much as he used his authority as the Pope to influence politicians. His religious beliefs clearly influenced what he was saying. Although the Pope was careful not to specifically reference religion or God many times throughout his speech, his views on immigration, abortion, and marriage are influenced by his status as a Christian leader.
ReplyDeleteIt is imperative that the United States remain a secular nation and maintain the principle of separation of church and state. In this instance, that principle seems to have been violated, as the leader of the Catholic Church addresses the United States Congress and spouts his own views on a variety of issues. If one religion is favored by the government, then that religious organization gains too much influence over American politics. Therefore, religion should not play a role in U.S. domestic policy decisions.
Jamie Lerner
DeleteAlthough my response differs from Juliets, after reading her response I actually do agree with her. I thought because The Pope had never specified his religious beliefs that meant that he was speaking politically only- making him more of a diplomat. His authority comes from being the Pope, and representing a religion rather than a foreign area, meaning he speaks as a religious figure. He never specifies where his opinions come from but his lack of representation of the city and his representation of Cathollic opinions instead mean he clearly does not speak as a diplomat. Thank you Juliet, I recognize and understand the other opinion enough to change my own!
Jake Rosenblum
ReplyDeleteThe Pope in this particular clip appears to be acting as more of diplomat that is fueled by religious intentions. It is well known that the more strict sect of christianity serves as an anti-abortion group, so it is of no surprise that the Pope would speak about the protection of life at all stages (anti-abortion sentiment). Also he serves as a diplomat who supports the opening of our boarders to all that want to come to America. He strikes at the nation's morality appealing to the sense that we are all immigrants.
I personally believe that religion has no place in the government whatsoever. When the founders wrote the constitution they wrote down to keep church separate from state they knew it was best for the country as a whole. Referring back to the Pope's take on immigration being that we all come from different backgrounds and ethnicities there are too many ideas to have any one included in government. There is room for both within the country as long as they are two separate identities. Religion has no place influencing domestic policy decisions because it is destined to lead to inequality.
Jamie Lerner
ReplyDeleteA.The Pope speaks as a diplomat rather than a religious figure. The pope never defines his religious beliefs, but only states his opinions. while these opinions may be common among those who agree with his religion, they are also common among americans who do not identify as religious. He also never claims that his religion is thee reason for his beliefs. He speaks about family, the death penalty, and abortion which are all current issues that America is facing and his opinions fit that of many americans, not only Catholic Americans.
B. Religion should play no part in decisions as the religion(s) of those who make these decisions are not representative of all the religions practiced in the country. The beliefs of one religion may violate the beliefs of another and may not even be the best choice for the country as a whole. It is not fair to use religious beliefs to make decisions in a country where church and state are separated.
Richie Guerriere
DeleteWhile I do agree that the pope never specifically defined his religious beliefs , they are quite apparent due to the nature of his position. However, as mentioned in my post, a diplomat is someone who specifically represents a country, but in this case the Pope does not necessarily represent the values or intentions of the Vatican City, despite how aligned their ideology might be. Finally, I do understand your point about how the issues he spoke about do affect all Americans, and not just Catholic-Americans. Despite this statement, his religious viewpoints certainly due have ties to the values that he shares with the American Politicians. Overall, I can definitely understand and respect your opinion.
Richie Guerriere
ReplyDeleteA) In order to accurately answer this question it is important to understand the definition of a diplomat. A diplomat is an official representing a country abroad. Although Pope Francis gave his political ideology on issues that affect our country today, he is not representing the Vatican City, therefore he should not be considered a diplomat. Despite discussing a wide array of controversial topics, the advice Pope Francis gives comes strictly from that of a religious figure since he does not associate himself with his own country, although rarely saying “god”, Pope Francis uses his religious guidelines to advise the politicians one way or another.
B) If the United States is truly a secular state than religion should have nothing at all to do with politics. Of course, since christianity is still not fully separated from the government there will continue to be politicians who use religion as a guide to their decisions. However, as long as American never turns into a theocracy it is still allowed for politicians to have religion influence the values that shape their ideology. As Mark Fedoronko mentioned above, the Pope’s speech did respect the secular government of America, while still promoting some religious values.
Richie, I agree with your statement. I believe that the pope was using his beliefs in order to sway the opinion of the politicians within Congress. He did not represent Vatican City when addressing Congress, but represented his religion. Thank you for providing a great response that helped define what a diplomat is and also for displaying rather clearly why the pope did not act as one. Thus, I agree one hundred percent with your opinion Richie.
DeleteI agree with Richie regarding his opinion that the Pope is not acting as a diplomat, and his definition further helps support that the Pope is not trying to represent where he is from in this speech, but that he was asserting his opinions and beliefs that stem from his religion.
DeleteEvan Ryan
ReplyDeleteA) Within his address to Congress, I believe the pope acted as a religious figure and not a diplomat. While invoking various religious beliefs, such as the golden rule, he applied them to current political ideas and voiced his opinion on abortion, the environment, and immigration. While the pope discussed political policies, he showed his opinion, and his opinion is based off his religious beliefs, thus he acted as a religious figure.
B) Within the United States, I believe that religion should stay separate from foreign policy. The founding fathers were very clear about a clear distinction between church and state, and tolerant of other religions. By allowing religion to influence political policies, the United States would almost be sponsoring a certain religion within the government, and that is against what the founding fathers wanted for America.
A) I feel as though the pope acted as a diplomat. He managed to keep the conversation based on secular issues instead of religious ones, and attempted to appeal to American people by talking about immigration. However, he did slip in some statements that one would believe are a result of his religious beliefs, as he makes a pro-life statement about midway through the video.
ReplyDeleteB) I feel religion should stay as far away from policies as possible. On numerous occasions, religion has proven to cause a lot of controversy in its involvement in politics. I believe that, while people should respect one another's beliefs, religion should not at all take such a large role in the development of policies.
I do agree that Pope Francis tried to remain away from religion while speaking to Congress. But I also disagree because as Richie said above, the pope is not representing Vatican City but is speaking on his own views which are influenced by his religion.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA) In his address, Pope Francis is acting as a religious icon rather than a diplomat. While he does not specifically speak about Christianity, many of the issues discussed are shaped by his religious beliefs. For example, Pope Francis speaks on "our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development," which clearly reflects his religious influences due to pro-life and Christianity being closely related.
ReplyDeleteB) I believe religion should stay separate from U.S. domestic policy decisions, but should not be disregarded entirely. While it is not good to have a government mostly controlled by religion, many political views can be influenced by one's religious affiliation and can bring positive idea. However, the government should stay away from decisions which are too heavily based upon religion as the U.S. is representing a plethora of people who have different beliefs.
I agree with joe when he says that pope Francis is acting as more of a religious figure than a diplomat. His views such as the golden rule are all based on his religious beliefs. I also agree with joe that there shouldn't be a lot of religious influence of the government. The U.S isn't a theocracy and shouldn't be treated in that way, but some religious beliefs should be allowed to help the people in government better shape their opinions
DeleteI do agree that religion played a role in shaping the Pope's stance on some of the topics he discussed, but the Pope was very careful to not fully reference any religion. He was applying his positive messages of humanity and unity that he spreads throughout the world through saying things like family life being beautiful, rather than taking wither side in the gay marriage debate.
Delete-Joseph Boroda
A. In this specific video the Pope acted more as a diplomat rather than a religious figure. In his address to congress he spoke of many current issues that have an impact on all people, and not just those of the Catholic faith. He stated his opinions on topics including immigration, abortion, family and the death penalty, but never truly connected it to religion. As Evan stated, his opinions are most likely influenced by his religious beliefs, but I feel his speech was geared more to address current issues America is facing and how the Pope feels about them himself.
ReplyDeleteB. In the United States religion and domestic policy decisions should remain completely separate. As it is known, the U.S. is a melting pot. This melting pot is a mixture of cultures, races and also religion. If every religion cannot be represented, then one religion should not be able to influence the decisions made. The U.S. is known to be a country that greatly values equality therefore religion must remain separated from decisions made by the government.
I agree with Kellyann's idea that he made no reference to religion when discussing the current issues of the United States. I also like how you stated that America is a melting pot of religions and cultures. This definitely supports that church and state should be separate in the diverse American society we live in currently.
DeleteJames Graziano
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video, I was certainly convinced that The Pope acted as a diplomat. He addresses many of his views, such as placing an emphasis on family values, abolition of the death penalty and being against abortion. Being The Pope, many of these ideas are driven by his strong faith in religion, so I can understand why others may say that he speaks as a religious figure. However, I am still convinced that he speaks as a diplomat, which is supported when he talks about the importance of business since it creates jobs and produces wealth. This reference to business is purely diplomatic and has very little to do with religion.
Religion should play no role in US domestic policy decisions. Every country has people that maintain different religious beliefs, so using religion as a reference frame is inappropriate, especially in a diverse country like the United States. Religion as a basis of government in this country currently would lead to much controversy and political turmoil. However, if an aspect of American government happens to coincide with religious values such as human rights, there should not be a problem.
James,
DeleteI do agree that the pope's decisions were not purely driven by religion, but he still made points that sprung from his religious vales. His views on abortion and the death penalty were due to his faith. In addition, the pope does not represent a country which prevents him from being a diplomat. I agree that religion does not belong in the United States government except in the case of valuing human rights, which should be important to everyone.
Allie Castle
ReplyDeleteA) Pope Francis was not acting as a diplomat because he allowed his religious beliefs to form his political opinions. For example, his view on abortion was something that comes straight from the Catholic Church. He is also anti death penalty, which many people are, but he feels this way because of his religious background even though he doesn't necessarily say it. He was focusing on issues a diplomat would focus on such as the environment and immigration policy but many his opinions were shaped by his religious beliefs. In addition, he does not represent a country which doesn't make him a diplomat.
B) Religion and government should be separated, as they have been in the entire history of the united states. People would lose their ability to express their religious beliefs if they have to follow someone else by law. Having laws that are neutral in the realm of religion allows people to practice and do what is right for them. For example, people who are roman Catholic do not have to get abortions, but if someone is in a situation where they need one, they should be allowed to get one.
I completely agree with Allie that government and religion should be separated, as it allows for individual freedoms of religion, and neutral laws show that one religion is not seen as superior to another. I do agree that his diplomatic ideas were shaped by his strong religious values as the Pope, and that he does not represent a country so he can not technically be a diplomat, but in this case I felt that his way of speaking portrayed him as one.
DeleteJake Viache
ReplyDeleteA) In his address to Congress, the Pope acted as more of a diplomat than a religious figure. He states specifically that religion is not perfect from flaws at the beginning, and as he speaks further religion is mentioned very little in any of his topics. His views on the subjects such as immigration may have been influenced by religion, but if he were trying to act as a religious figure he would have specifically mentioned religion more, rather than speaking of current political issues from his viewpoint. He seems to want to appeal to Congress rather than speak of strictly religious views on subjects.
B) Religion should play very little, if any, role in US domestic policy decisions. From all of the varying religions in the world and the US alone, one single religion, such as Christianity, should not be used to determine policies in a country known for freedom of religion. Although everyone will not always agree with politics in the first place, adding an emphasis on religion would make agreements even more difficult.
I agree with Jake's comment that if the Pope wanted to address Congress with more of an emphasis on religion he would have mentioned Christianity more. the Pope probably anted to appeal to more of congress, as he knows that not all of them are catholic.
DeleteIn concerns to whether Pope Francis was acting as a diplomat or a religious figure, I must say he tended to act more as a religious figure. This is because he does not force any views upon us, rather he gives us his holy opinion and advice. His wisdom, denoted the fact that we must concentrate on resolving many problems that are circulating, that we refuse to compromise with. He just merely gives us his advice with his strong religious background obviously taking part in his advice to us.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with religion being associated with government, however, this is not a representation of us using religion in government decisions, this is because the Pope is not preaching versus from the bible instead he is just using his wisdom to further help us. We are jut accepting his advice, it is just another point of view.
A) The Pope clearly asserts several of his religious beliefs throughout the video. In this I believe he represents both a religious icon and a diplomat, but overall he speaks as a religious icon. Specific references to issues regarding abortion and the importance of family are ideals that are associated with his religious values. What he does that makes him seem to be a diplomat as well is that he addresses specific issues going on in America that he views from the standpoint of another country, but the responds with an opinion that could be correlated with his religion.. The Pope is in fact a religious icon anyway, and it would be difficult to argue that he is completely a diplomat because of who he is and what he represents.
ReplyDeleteB) I believe religion and domestic policy should not have anything to do with each other. Religion is it's own entity in a sense, and it should not play a role in how a region is governed, especially in the United States, which was brought up to support and give the freedom to people to practice the religion they choose. Since not everyone shares the same beliefs. I feel that associating religion with domestic policy can only cause problems for a government, although it is a prevalent factor in opinion and conversation of the population. Considering how strong people may be to their specific religion that their government may not be appealing to completely, it is hard to say that one should play a role in the other successfully.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Amanda's statement that is difficult to disassociate the Pope with the position that he holds. Even if he is not speaking about religion, the Pope is undeniably a religious figure. However, i disagree with her statement that since the pope spoke about issues such as abortion in his speech, he was acting as a religious icon in that particular moment. Of course, the Pope's views on these topics are based on religion, but i do not think that necessarily means that he was speaking as a religious icon. Many political figures and members of congress are heavily influenced by religion, but expressing their opinions that were shaped by religion does not make them religious figures.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA) I feel that in this matter, the Pope acted more as a diplomat than as a religious icon. He simply expressed his views on various controversial topics and for the most part left religion out of the discussion. Although, as many others pointed out, the Pope's views are heavily influenced by his Catholic faith, this does not mean that he was acting as a religious icon in his speech to congress. He never attempted to push the Christianity or center the discussion around religious topics. The Pope's position as the head of Catholic Church is certainly what gave him the status and credibility to speak in front of Congress, but in the speech itself, he acted more as a diplomat.
ReplyDeleteB) I believe that religion and government should be kept as separate as possible, as the founding fathers intended. The government of the United Stares should absolutely not align itself with a particular religion. That being said, even though the US is a secular nation, it is undeniable that religion plays a large role is shaping people's morals and beliefs. Therefore, this will be reflected in voting and may lead to decisions that seem to go along with particular religion. I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing because this does not represent the government aligning itself with a certain religion, but rather the majority of the nation sharing certain views that (since the US government is designed to reflect the views of its citizens) should be reflected in political decisions.
I agree with Miranda's statement in that the Pope did not necessarily use his religious authority to validate his ideas. Also, despite his obvious bias to the Catholic faith, it did not seem to heavily interfere with his surprisingly progressive thinking. I also believe that government and religion should be kept separate, being that the Separation of Church and State was one of the initial goals of the formation of this country. I also like how she pointed out that the government should govern its people based on their views, not what the leaders believe.
Delete-John Merz
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA) I believe that the pope was acting as a diplomat rather than a religious icon. My reasoning behind this is because he constantly references the golden rule, which is found in many different religions other than roman catholic. Also he avoids many religious points. He speaks of how to act towards others rather than why religion would dictate you to.
ReplyDeleteB) To be honest, at this point it is simply comical that this needs to be a question. America was founded on the beliefs of separation on church and state yet here we are, 2015, and we still have to question the morality of what our fore founders have already decided and agreed upon. But for the sake of this question, religion and government should be kept separate. The laws created in this country should be made to reflect the needs of the many rather than the religious principle behind it.
-Sarah Goklevent (Period 9)
I mostly disagree with Sarah on the first question. I agree that his reference to the Golden Rule is more diplomatic, but his opinions on the issues of immigration, abortion and the death penalty are all heavily shaped by his religious views.
DeleteI agree with Sarah on the second question. Religion should be separate from the government. Law should rather be influenced by logic, reasoning and evidence.
John Merz
ReplyDeleteA) In this scenario, the Pope served as a diplomat. If he were serving as a religious icon, then there would've been more reference to religious beliefs and faith. However, to say that his religious authority had nothing to do with the address would be crazy; he never would've been acknowledged if it were not for his religious high-ranking. Despite the obvious aforementioned fact, his religious views did not seem to interfere with his surprisingly progressive thinking.
B) The Pope, normally, should play little to no role in domestic policy decisions. However, when simply approaching the nation as a diplomat, and not as a religious authority, his words can be recognized with value. When simply restating the ideals of society, and not pushing a religious agenda, the rules of Separation of Church and State are followed. As long as addresses are kept secular, I believe that anyone should have the privilege of expressing their ideas.
I agree with John for the most part. It's not like the pope is trying to establish his opinion as the only correct thing or anything of the sort. He is doing what many other diplomats have done in stating how he feels on issues. While his position as pope obviously connects him to religion quite strongly, he was not using that in any way.
DeleteAs for the other question, while he didn't do any harm and seems like an incredibly smart man, I still don't think it was setting a good precedent allowing a man of his position to address congress.
Courtney Woods
ReplyDelete1) Although Pope Francis wants to present himself in a diplomatic matter, (as would anyone else speaking before Congress), he is seen more as a religious icon. During his speech, he does not necessarily represent the views of the Vatican City but he presents his own personal beliefs. These beliefs are reflected by his religion. He knows that the members of Congress have various religious beliefs, which is why he doesn’t emphasize his own. His political views on issues such as abortion, immigration, and the environment are shaped by the Catholic religion.
2) I don’t think religion should play a big role in US domestic policy decisions because it’s too controversial. As said before, religious beliefs often shape political opinions. While each participant in government may have different religious beliefs, they may have different political ideas on the law, which wouldn’t get anything done concerning the making of decisions. However, I do agree with the fact that religion links to the communication of many people, and it may aid in considering different options and ideas before settling on a decision.
I agree with Courtney in that the Pope was only imparting his own personnel religious beliefs on to congress, exempting him serving a diplomatic role. Although it should be noted that this does not nullify his speech, rather that is up to the listener and how they view the content of what he said. I also agree that religion can distract politics. If the government goes anyway in acting for or against any religion it can inhibit the freedoms of others. The most democratic way would be leaving government out of religion and allowing people to practice how ever they see fit in their personnel lives (so long as it doesn't effect others).
DeleteI agree with Courtney that the Pope's views are shaped by his religion, and he is viewed as religious figure. However, I do think that he kept religion out of his speech. He addressed the Congress, and didn't talk about the Bible, but rather talked about how he feels about political issues. I also agree that religion being involved in government would cause a lot of controversy, since we have so many different religions practiced in America.
DeleteA) Obviously the pope wasn't gonna get up there and just start preaching, so since he didn't I'd say that's pretty good. He was certainly trying to present himself as a diplomat which I definitely give him credit for but he can't hide what he is; a religious figure. Although he did a good job touching upon issues, I still think the fact that he is head of a major religion is a very big factor in all of this, so he can't be seen as simply a diplomat.
ReplyDeleteB) Religion should have absolutely no role in the government whatsoever. But we all know that that will never happen. So I guess it's fine how it is. If it could be less, that'd be better of course, but since it's not showing too many signs of changing, we'll have to deal with it.
I agree that the pope can't really appear as anything less then a religious figure but i think that he was behaving as a diplomat. As for the religious aspect in domestic policy i think that for the most part religion should be kept separate but you have to keep in mind that many people vote in line with there religious beliefs so it is impossible for religion to be kept separate from policy making and realistically it is part of our governmental system for people to individually chose whether or not they wish to involve their religious beliefs in policy making.
DeleteAnne Jordan
ReplyDeleteA) I would say that the pope was behaving as a diplomat because the way he was addressing congress, as apposed to talking solely about religion and issues relating to religion he is speaking about general issues and politics. It is clear that even though he wasn't behaving like a religious icon he is seen as a religious icon by the insane amount of applause after practically every word he said.
B) I think that key factors in religion are typically moral grounds for the common masses such as "thou shall not kill". in the sense of moral leadership i believe we should allow religion to play a role in domestic policy making. I don't think that we should allow all religious aspects to guide or rule over policy making domestically, there must be a non-religious thread to bring it back to the people to sustain separation of powers.
I agree with Anne about how the pope is behaving as a diplomat, He is a religious icon and can't ignore it, but I disagree and think that religion shouldn't be a part of domestic policy making but it shouldn't affect the domestic policy decisions that are made because the US has a seperation of church and state.
DeleteI cant see the Pope acting diplomatically here, although i wouldn't have hoped for him to. My reasoning is that he doesn't seem to be acting on behalf of the Vatican but rather on behalf of his personnel views - views that represent the Catholic church. Quite honestly the Pope has no business being a diplomat and every business being a religious icon. To judge his words on his role rather than his content is the flaw here, not the fact that he is a religious icon. Though it has to be questioned why the Pope was there in this scenario. If he is not a diplomat than he is solely based upon his religious authority which to many people just makes him an average man. Does an average man have any business addressing congress? Congress inviting him to speak in a way implies that congress recognizes his religious authority which really shouldn't have a place in American politics.
ReplyDeleteI tend to disagree with Ethan because the Pope is the diplomat for the Catholic Church. He is the head of a worldwide, highly influencing organization that has many followers around the world and in the US. He is a representative for people, and if you could compare the Catholic Church to an interest group, he is the representative for an interest group: the Catholic people. When he goes to Congress, he is using his power as a religious authority, but acting as a diplomat or one of the many world leaders because he is.
ReplyDeleteA. The pope acted as a diplomat than a religious icon. He did recognize that he is currently a huge religious icon. He attempted to avoid religion most likely because the United States has a separation of church and state. Even though he attempted to be purely a diplomat, he could't just avoid the fact that he is an enormous religious icon, so he was forced to touch on a few religious points.
ReplyDeleteB. Religion should not play a role in the United States domestic policy. Separation of church and state should be preserved. Religion should not play a role in domestic policy decision making such as capital punishment and abortion. Yes, religion sways the choices of politicians on both of those policies, but truly it shouldn't have an effect on the final decisions that are made.
I agree that the pope used religion as little as possible to maintain his status as a diplomat. but because of his status in the catholic church, not mentioning religion was an impossibility. But because he used so little of religious speak, his argument was more effective
Delete-Dante Gargiulo
A. Pope Francis, in front of the joint session of Congress, acted as a diplomat. He had platforms and ideas that represented a large group of people, many in the US and even more outside of the US. The Catholic Church, whether people like it or not is not just a religious authority, but a world influencer because of its expanse of followers. The Pope, in the specific situation is acting as a representative for the Church and Vatican. He is addressing issues that are important to the US government and the Church alike, and trying to create solutions or change people's minds, therefore acting as a diplomat.
ReplyDeleteB. Religion should not really take any role in the creation of US domestic policy, unless it is in a policy about religious equality. The founding fathers and Constitution both clearly stated this country's need for separation of state and church as a main facet of the nation. Of course in such a diverse nation the government has to deal with issues that do have religious and moral grounds that impact policy because it does have to do very personally with the people of the US, but people making the laws and enforcing them should not be heavily influenced by religion while making policy, but rather morals. It should not be God or the Pope guiding politicians and lawmakers, but the guidance of the American people, and what is right to do for man and the people of the US.
Anne Jordan
ReplyDeleteA) I would say that the pope was behaving as a diplomat because the way he was addressing congress, as apposed to talking solely about religion and issues relating to religion he is speaking about general issues and politics. It is clear that even though he wasn't behaving like a religious icon he is seen as a religious icon by the insane amount of applause after practically every word he said.
B) I think that key factors in religion are typically moral grounds for the common masses such as "thou shall not kill". in the sense of moral leadership i believe we should allow religion to play a role in domestic policy making. I don't think that we should allow all religious aspects to guide or rule over policy making domestically, there must be a non-religious thread to bring it back to the people to sustain separation of powers.
A) I believe that the pope is in this case a religious figure. The pope tries to avoid talking about his religion the best he can so people of different religions may listen to him. Although the pope doesn't directly relate to his religion while addressing congress he indirectly relates to it through his views. At one point in his speech the pope talks about the golden rule being that we must preserve life in all stages. By the pope saying this he is saying that he is against abortion because his religion is, so he is indirectly showing his beliefs and the beliefs of his religion.
ReplyDeleteB) I belive that religion is allowed to play a limited role in the U.S. I believe that it is alright if a politician's beliefs influence certain factors of their decisions such as whether or not they are in favor of abortion. If the politician's beliefs prohibit them from doing their job such as in the case of Kim Davis, I think that's going to far and that shouldn't be allowed
-aidan smith
Travis Paradiso
ReplyDeleteA) The pope acted more so as a diplomat rather that the religious icon he is in his address to both of the houses, this is due to no mention of a religious text, a god or said god's will but rather as his own developed views and idea. The pope him self is a wise and well educated man who is more then qualified to give his opinion on matters while keeping his regards absent of religion.
It is because of this that I disagree with Aidan because the mention of the golden rule and that life is precious is something that many people believe aside from religious faith, many atheists believe that life is precious and the "golden rule" is something we have been taught since kindergarten and is a basis of our society.
B) I believe that as it is written church and state should be seperated. With that said it inevitable for them it interact due to religion being a basis for the morals and beliefs of some politicians but making decisions primarily out of the will of a "God" will offend those who don't believe in the same faith.
Meaghan Koster
ReplyDeleteThe Pope acted as a diplomat more than a religious icon. The pope doesn't belong to any specific country, many people from around the world identify with his beliefs, therefore the pope has no right addressing congress about his beliefs about our domestic issues. Our domestic problems with immigration does not involve the pope. The United States as a country also doesn't identify with any religion.
Even though the pope doesn't talk directly about religion, he brought up many important topics that christians believe. This is why I disagree with Travis. Even though some people may agree with some of the Pope's beliefs and don't identify themselves as catholics, that doesn't change the pope's motives. The pope is still addressing congress based on the point of view of him and fellow catholics.
B) I believe that church and state should be seperated. Our country has accepted many different people from many different backrounds throughout history. If we identify ourselves with a certain religious group it may seem like an injustice to the citizens who don' t identify with that specific religion. The United States has always been an accepting place for every immigrant group. If we decided to side with a certain religion it would be changing one of the core beliefs we follow as a nation.
I agree with Meaghan on many of the points she made. Like she said the pope wasn't appealing to congress with his religious beliefs but rather with important things like immigration and human rights. I does have strong opinions about both of these topics saying with should let immigrants into the US because at one point we were all immigrants as well. These opinions are not necessarily about religion at all. This being said it will be interesting to see how his view impact the next election for president. The pope is a very powerful figure and many Christians are going to agree with his views. This means the candidates that are against some of the things he said, like immigration may start to fall in the poll simply because people agree with the pope. Although this speech doesn't immediately seem to sway, it will be interesting to see how it plays out for many of the candidates.
DeleteA) The pope acted more as a diplomat because he avoided talking about religion and talked more about issues that he wanted to see get solved and offered him input towards them. Despite being seen as a diplomat in this situation, he effectively used religion when it needed to be brought up and wasn't ashamed to do so
ReplyDeleteB) Religion should not be used in american diplomacy because despite our enjoyment and encouragement of all types of religion, it has never been used to run the country. If one religion would be used over the other to make laws, that would be showing bias and would go against the ideals of the country
Kris Kaczorowski
ReplyDeleteA) I believed the pope acted as a diplomat rather than a religious icon. The pope wasn't appealing to the US congress as the Pope rather he used his title to get people to listen. He was able to get the people of congress to listen to him because of him being the Pope. However once he started talking to congress, it was clear he wanted to get his views across. He brings up many great points in this speech on things like immigration and human rights. This speech didn't talk much about Christianity itself. He wasn't reading excerpts from the bible and it didn't sound like he was giving a mass to the congress of the United States. His speech was more focused on world problems and fixing world problems. He started the speech quoting the basis of our government "The land of the free and the home of the brave". This opening statement states his intention right away, bettering the United States government and NOT spreading his faith to more Americans. The pope does an smart, interesting thing by using his title as the pope to appeal to congress, but acting as a diplomat and wanting them to focus of specific topics, rather than religion. It will be interesting to what kind of impact this speech will have on future US decisions.
B) Religion shouldn't really play any role in the decisions that are made by our government. This comes down to the fact that we, the US, have an endless number of different religious groups that all believe in different faiths. Trying to come up with laws that benefit ALL groups would be impossible and is why it is typically left out. Integrating religious ideas into the government would also bring another challenge, the fact that bias will indefinitely occur. If a certain politician is say catholic he's going to favor catholic ideas and if another politician is Jewish, he'll favor ideas that benefits people of the Jewish faith. No progress would ever actually be made in the United States government because there would be constant argument and depending on how religious a certain person is, if there is something that will not benefit their religion they'll never agree with it. This is why the Pope appealed to congress as a diplomat. To not start a "religious war" within congress itself.
I think your right in saying religions shouldnt play a role in our goverment. Its intresting that you feel the minority groups will be underepresented but I think its really about what religion has the strongest following and people most williing to donate.
DeleteA) The Pope clearly acted as a diplomat avoiding constant referances to the bible and religious theologies. Pope Francis clearly had a understanding that inorder for his speech in front of a Joint congress session to be taking seriously he would have to avoid polerized religious staments that would offend many in the incrediably diverse U.S culture and avoid over use of religious ideologies in a goverment with a fundemtal belief in seperation of church and state.
ReplyDeleteB) Like Kris and many other studants in this chat I believe religious beliefs should have no influenc in a poltician's decsions. This country''s constitution is founded on the idea of seperation of church and state for a reason and it is a concept more important then ever in are very diverse culture. Its almost hard to believe that we have a poltical system in which religious groups often donate the largest amount to campainges, which shows clearly that religious beliefs play a factor in our goverments descions, but this type of poltical system needs to be changed.
I agree that this country was founded on the belief of separation of church and state. However I do not think that religious groups donating to campaigns is so bad. The politicians they fund may have religious views but they still have to abide by the same rules in our constitution. Essentially, a very religious person may come into presidency, but they would ultimately fail at changing America from a secular state.
DeleteRachael Egbert
ReplyDeleteA) I feel as though The Pope acted as more of a diplomat in that he didn't talk about God, or really anything from the bible specifically. He touched upon the issue of immigration, and how it should be viewed in his opinion. He feels that if people want to come to America and try to have a better life for themselves and their family, why shouldn't they be able to. Regardless of race, and country barriers we are all humans, and we should treat each other like brothers and sisters. This is more or a diplomatic standpoint to take than a religious one. He did not bring what the bible says into the situations, and rather gave a point of view to consider when deciding what the immigration laws should be.
B) I feel that religion should not have anything to do with the government. America is very diverse, and does not have one prominent religion, but rather the option to practice any. We shouldn't vote for people based on their religion, or make laws based on religion. Laws should be based on people's opinions and morals, and then the majority vote should decide if these opinions should become laws. Politicians should't include their religious beliefs when proposing ideas. A government controlled by religion would go against separation of church and state, which is a firm belief our Constitution was built on.
I would agree with you in the sense that the Pope was more of a diplomat than a religious figure but he did interject some of his beliefs in this speech. When he stated in his speech that all human life should be protected, it was as if he was trying to mention that he has views that go for against abortion.
DeleteThe pope acted more as a diplomat than a religious icon. His only words that pertain to God was the "God bless America" at the end of his speech. The pope didn't draw his claims from the bible either, making this less of a religious case. If the pope was going to be a more religious icon he would have made some claims that are more traditional Catholic beliefs. However, the pope made mention of the fact that climate change is a real problem and the fact that the US should be more open to immigrants. Despite the popes clear religious attire, his speech was not intended to be taken as a religious icon.
ReplyDeleteReligion should not play a role in US foreign policy or any part of the government. It's clear that this country promotes religious freedom and allows it's citizens to be whatever religion they so choose. However, there is also a separation of church and state in our country. This means that no religion can hold power in our government. Therefore, religion cannot take any root in government whether people say it should or should not. Having no religion in our government allows the US to try and make the most fair deals and laws since there isn't a big brother religion watching over all new decisions.
I agree with Mike in the sense that the Pope did not intend to use religion to shape his argument. Yes, there were brief religious references, like when the Pope said "God Bless America," but even so, this phrase is used so commonly now by many different individuals. He spoke about many current event issues that are not related to religion, like immigration. So, despite his position, the Pope did not use religion as the driving force of his speech.
DeleteJoseph Boroda
ReplyDeleteThe pope acted more as a diplomat than a religious icon. He avoided references to the bible and religion. Rather, he used a worldly view that accepted all people and the human race as a whole. He pointed out the beauty of family life rather than taking sides in the gay marriage debate. The Pope used his pure and insightful view on humanity in order to make statements that can apply to everyone and anyone can take something away from and form themselves to be a better person. The pope did not act like a religious icon in that he did not tell people about heaven and hell, and what they should do to please God. He applied his views to some things, such as the protection of human life at all stages, but he did not mention religion as a reason for that.
I thing religion should be kept out of U.S. domestic policy because not a single religion accepts everyone. There will always be an out group of either non-religious people or those with other beliefs. America is all about accepting everyone, which is why our country offers such great religious freedom to everyone. While people should still suggest ideas rooted in religion to congress, they must be modernized to fit today's constantly changing society rather than only apply to when religion governed all centuries ago.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Pope acted more of a diplomat than a religious figure but still showed aspects of being a religious figure. Even though he could be bias in his thoughts due to his religious affiliation, he did a good job in keeping his religious opinions and political views separate. I would say the only time where the Pope's religion did come into play was on his views of all life being protected. His view of abortion can be seen here since most devoted Christians are pro-life. The Pope was able to cover a lot of topics in his speech that most diplomats would cover. From immigration to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, he was able to address each topic with ease. The part where the Pope showed he was being a little bit of a religious figure is when he was being relatable when he was talking about immigration. It showed his compassionate side that sometimes diplomats do not have.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other students in that religion should not be a key factor in U.S. domestic policy decision but it does play a key role since a person's religious beliefs influence the way that they think. Religion would cause opinions to be swung but should not be involved in the ultimate decision of the policy.
After listening to the Pope's speech, I believe that he acted more as a diplomat rather than a religious icon. Rarely did his speech touch upon religion or how his beliefs affect his opinions. He used the word "We" in order to appeal to his listeners. This made him sound more like a colleague rather than a powerful religious leader. He spoke about current events, like immigration, put himself on the same level as his listeners by saying that he, along with many others in the room, were descendants of immigrants. Of course, the Pope spoke about some of his beliefs, like the protection of human life "at all stages" (referring to anti-abortion beliefs), but this is also a topic of discussion among many non Catholics or non religious people.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that religion should have no influence on the government of the United States. The United States is widely known for its religious tolerance and freedom, and therefore we have a diverse ethnic population. If the government decided to rule using one religion, then it would be violating our constitutional right of freedom of religion. The founding fathers made sure that freedom of religion was an aspect of the constitution because they knew that it would be best for the country. If religion were incorporated into our government, then our country would not be able to easily adapt to our rapidly evolving world. New technology, new policies, and new ideas are constantly being brought to the table, and if there was a strict tie between any one religion and the U.S. government, our country would suffer and not be able to keep up with our society.
I fully agree with Julianne, the majority religion in our country is Christianity, but we have to respect Americans with other religious beliefs. We have seen time and time again how state religion has led to an oppressive government (Middle East). If we want to be seen as a truly free country, anyone should feel that their religious values are completely separated from government domestic policy.
DeleteAfter listening to the pope’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress and also following his visit to the United States, I realized that the pope can be looked at as a diplomat. When he came to the US, he was acting on behalf of the Vatican City state and Roman Catholic Church. During his speech, the pope did make a reference to Moses, however, almost everything he stated was secular and addressing the issues that face the world today. The most notable being man-made climate change. You could have easily related to the pope's speech even if you were not Catholic.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it was very appropriate for the pope to visit the United States, as he is a leader of more than 1 billion Catholics and one of the most powerful person in the world. That being though, I feel that domestically, religious influence in government should not exist. Since Christianity is the majority religion here in the US, a lot of people elect leaders that let their Christian values influence decisions. The US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so a complete separation of church and state is essential. Many Americans don’t take into consideration that there are small minorities of people who practice Hindu, Buddhism, and Islam. They shouldn’t have to feel like their country has a bias towards Christianity.
-Nick Von Rosk
I like how what you said about how the pope has the power to act as an effective diplomat because of the huge following he has with his position. In this circumstance he is able to act diplomatically and give his insight on the issues we face a country and is able to help add a little insight on the issues - Artie Stanwise
DeleteI would say in this situation the pope acted more as a diplomat staying on very political issues. However you can tell that everything he says is completely genuine. In this way he is able to voice the opinions he wants people to believe in and shares in a way in which no one is questioning the motives he has for sharing his beliefs. However it is impossible not to see the religious stature he has. In this way he does very well by separating his opinions so it is not something to be seen that all Christians should follow, but instead something he believes all people should listen to. It is important to not let religion be the reason for the policies we make, however hearing input from religious people and what they believe is right, can help to make a proper decision.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore it is important to realize that this country is made up of many different groups of people from different backgrounds and faiths, in which some people may feel very strongly about certain issues that are completely different to the views of another belief. However in American politics itself it is almost impossible to find an issue where there is no debate and strong opinions making it very similar to what you may find from different religions. The most important aspect we will find when incorporating religion is government must find a way to allow religious people to feel as if their views are being respected and when hearing viewpoints based off religious belief, to not show favoritism to one group. (I could not get this to work at first and was going to hand it in on paper but found out I could just use my personal email)
ReplyDeleteTest 1 2 3
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDelete