I have no axe to grind with religion, it seems to work very well for some people. The candidates appear to have some religion or the other. They seem to be pretty proud of it. OK.
If the case is that their having a religion is of some sort of value and issue in the election then how is it that their version is off limits? Now let's not go into some bigoted rampage on this, but they've made it important so what does it amount to? Three Republican candidates do not accept evolution, this means that if any of these people are elected, a President of the United States of America will be in denial of basic scientific thought. That would be called superstition. Does that mean that the atomic bomb is magic? The same damn principles of dating and determination of composition are at work in the bomb. That strikes me as a risky proposition.
Now they started this stupid game of faith, so, let's get it out in the open, what does your faith mean exactly? Who gets screwed by your version? What part of the previous 2 millennium do we get to live in? How are we going to maintain the First Amendment under your Presidency? You guys made this an issue and I want to know exactly what it is you propose to do with this oh so important faith of yours.
This is stupid. Exactly what possible difference does their having faith make in governing? Is there some idea that faith or lack there of determines competency in governing? If an agnostic became President the US would fall apart? The loons would run rampant; looting, raping, and pillaging in the absence of a theistic President? Can a person have morals and ethics absent religion? Oh for Pete's sake, this opens an entire can of worms, Romney's Mormonism becomes, in fact, an election issue as does each of the other candidates' religion. They don't want to be measured on the basis of their particular version, but they still want it to be a big deal; sorry, no way. They're not going to tell you just exactly what their version intends so you'll have to look at those versions and make your best guess from its official statements. They're not going to like that. Screw 'em.
2 comments:
This is a sticky subject, and I'm glad to see you wading into it. There's an uncomfortable contradiction that religious conservatives don't want to acknowledge:
1. My religious faith is paramount and guides the decisions I will make; ultimately the Bible is a more authoritative text than the Constitution;
2. It is inappropriate of you to ask me questions about how religions affects the way I will govern because religious views are private.
Religious liberals, it should be noted, at least now (it was different during William Jenning Bryan's days), follow JFK's prescription that as elected officials, the Constitution has sole authority.
Nice post.
Jeff, thanks for the nice comments, I was expecting to get scorched over it.
Post a Comment