Why does the majority of the public think that having a religion is a qualifying factor when running for office? Historically, we can tell that the majority is not always right. It is quite understandable to think that having a religion gives one a sense of moral objectivity, for as how the Bible could be seen as a book of guidelines that everyone should live by. But the key word, in reference to governing, is "everyone." If you are governing with the influence that everyone should have the same religion as yourself, does it not interfer with free will? Or would one even act on that influence? We have seen American Presidents act on their religious beliefs, in the past. And we still see the effects of that kind of leadership today. Should the public be more aware of this posible threat, if it should be called one?
Roger Williams, a Babtist minister and founder of Providence, Rhode Island, once wrote:
"A pagan or anti-Christian pilot may be as skillful to carry the ship to its desired port as any Christian mariner or pilot in the world, and may perform that work with as much safety and speed..."
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/ReligionGoodGovernment.htm
Basically saying that you do not need to be a christian to be a good leader, or visa-versa. If this is true, would it matter if any political canidate had any affiliation to any religious organization at all? Not unless you take into account our first amendment. In the First Amendment to the Constitution, it reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof..."
This controversial line puts to death any government intervention in religious actions in homes, churches, or the public. But does it not also limit religion's influence in our government? If our government cannot establish, or interfer with, religion, does it not stand to reason that religion should not be able to establish, or interfer with, government? Take gay marriage for example. For something so innocuous, why would any state or federal Government feel like it should be banned? Because religion tells their leaders so. Or Abortion! A choice that should be left up to the mother and her doctor
must somehow involve an irrelevant third party who is completely against it because religion tells them so. If religion can influence Government leaders to go against some of the basic American ideals, what else could that influence do?
And what about Nonbelievers? Meet Pete Stark! Democrat senator from California and the only congressman to openly admitt to being an atheist! He is effectively the atheists Harvy Milk. Without religion, or a god, Pete Stark has free range to make his own choices without having to rely on religion for guidence, or blame god for his mistakes. He is also free of the many hypocrasies that many religious politicians fall under! If more political canidates took up being atheist, how would our political process change? or would it? The only way to find out is to vote for your local atheist into office! End legislation from the pulpit!
thnx to mccainisthrough.
there is still no seperation that is why homosexuals cant be married is because its against the fucking religon
Herox1997 1 month ago
@Herox1997 No, the battle is for the state to recognize gay marriage, not to force churches to marry gay couples.
Zlibservacratican 1 month ago
The Muslim Growth Rate in Europe US and Canada - world is changing is a Video to look at for one thing. I do not want our world to be like Pakistan or the middle east!!! What is your take on this??? So stop hating on CHRISTIAN FAITH BECAUSE IT IS MUCH MORE PEACELOVING THAN WHAT IS COMING!
Gades117 1 year ago
@Gades117 You think there is a difference between both of those hatefull cults?
Zlibservacratican 1 year ago 2
amazing vid 5*
livinginoneness9 2 years ago
Thanks :-)
Zlibservacratican 2 years ago