Comments on: Religious importance

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:21:48 +0000

Norway’s cabinet of Christian Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives is led by the charismatic Christian Democratic politician, Kjell Magne Bondevik, who is a Lutheran priest. I would say Bondevik is both a religious and political leader. I would classify Norway’s Christian Democrats as a midway solution between Germany’s secular CDU and Finland’s religious KD.

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:13:12 +0000

Later on, another Lutheran theologian, Mikko Juva (1918-2004) led the Liberal Party (from 1965 to 1968). He worked as professor of church history in Helsinki at the time and had a short stint as MP and party leader. Later on, Juva became the archbishop (from 1978 to 1982). In Finland we have experiences of both conservative and liberal theologians in politics.

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:06:44 +0000

It says something about the country in question. A significant proportion of Italians appear to think that successive Popes have been a beneficial influence to that country’s politics, whereas a majority of Italian Catholics would probably like to see their religion as outside of politics.

Especially among Evangelical Americans there is a tendency to see that Evangelical pastors (who do influence US politics) are a force for the good in politics.

In Finland, a portion of the Christian Democrats would probably agree with them. Finland of the interwar era was a society where bishops were highly respected in politics and Kokoomus was seen by many as the party of the Lutheran Church. Theologian Lauri Ingman, two-time prime minister and later archbishop, was the personification of a religious leader who defined the essence of Kokoomus politics:

http://www.answers.com/topic/lauri-ingman

There used to be more priests in Finnish politics, not so much anymore. If one could have access to a poll like this from Finland for a period of the past fifty years, the results could be extremely fascinating. I think it’s too bad if there never has been such a poll in Finland.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:45:19 +0000

What exactly is the POINT of this poll in the first place? Do you think religious leaders should try to influence politics or not? What kind of conclusions can you really draw from answers to a question like that?

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:35:15 +0000

I don’t think I’ve missed out on much for never having met a LaRouche fanatic. I wonder if they’ll find a new leader after LaRouche becomes too old. He’ll probably keep running for President as long as he lives.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:55:05 +0000

Maybe Phil was talking about Lyndon LaRouche as an extremist cult figure. He sort of presents himself in a messianic way, like a secular version of a religious guru.

Exactly. Ever met a LaRouche fanatic? We used to have a few at my college campus. They’d have all these conspiracy theories to tell you about and pamphlets to give out.

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:21:53 +0000

Finnpundit, Pope Pius XII was the man behind Italy’s Christian Democratic Party (DC). Italy’s postwar leader De Gasperi spent the war years in the Vatican library. There was an especially close relationship between religious leadership and politics in the immediate POST-Fascist period. The Church was seen as instrumental in building the democratic (albeit rather corrupt postwar) system in Italy. In Spain the relationship between Church and state was strongest during the Fascist (Franquista) period itself. I don’t think the close physical proximity to Vatican is as important in the case of Italy as is the TIMING of when the Church decided to be seen as politically active.

In Italy, the monarchy was voted out because they were seen as close to the Fascists. In Spain, the monarchy is popular because they are seen as a stabilizing factor that supports the post-Fascist democratic society (just like the Church in Italy).

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:11:39 +0000

Maybe Phil was talking about Lyndon LaRouche as an extremist cult figure. He sort of presents himself in a messianic way, like a secular version of a religious guru.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 05:40:57 +0000

I didn’t know Lyndon LaRouche was especially religious.

By: Hank W.

Hank W. — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:31:20 +0000

Of course Americans believe in God. In their money it reads, in God (the dollar) we trust.

By: Finnpundit

Finnpundit — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:08:23 +0000

The contrast between Spain and Italy is new to me. I’ve always assumed that Spain had comparably close levels of religious feeling to that of the Italians. The difference, in Spain’s case, is probably due to a reaction against Franco’s conservatism, and the fact that Italians are influenced by the close proximity of the seat of the Church.

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:26:00 +0000

Maybe the Aussies over the 100% mark are the new arrivals kept at the government’s refugee detention camps…

By: Antti

Antti — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:13:05 +0000

Man these Aussies must be pretty proud of their religion – the importance percentage adds up to 130%!!!

By: Helsinkian

Helsinkian — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:48:18 +0000

I don’t think Billy Graham’s advisory role was restricted to Republican Presidents only. Maybe he wasn’t as close to Democratic Presidents but Democratic Presidents have actually tended to be Southern Baptists lately. Jimmy Carter’s the one who made it ok to be the President and to be a vocal born again Christian at the same time.

Al Sharpton and Lyndon LaRouche are just as close to the Democratic mainstream as David Duke is to the Republican mainstream. Jesse Jackson is more of a mainstream Democrat, though. Touting your religion kind of goes with running for President.

The reason why people forget that the Democrats have been influenced by religious leaders is that JFK has remained the symbol for the separation of Church and state. John F. Kerry tried to emulate him. He did a great job in the blue states but in the red states he was considered being the worst kind of hypocrite for thinking that his religion is his private business and his public policies do not have to be related to his religion.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:15:23 +0000

Yeah, I would have loved to see Scandinavia’s results as well.

After all, Billy Graham became a sort of unofficial presidential pastor of 20th Century America

People forget that the Democrats have their share of religious political nutjobs too. Reverened Al Sharpton ran for President in 2004. Reverend Jesse Jackson ran in 1996 and 1992.

And in 2000 (and like every other year as well) Lyndon LaRouche, whom I consider a religious whacko but others might disagree