|
We are all, however, simply a conglomeration of our experiences. I share the same fervor you that you, APG, and you, BTD have stated regarding religious influence in governing when it comes to raising my taxes or moving toward socialized health care. I reject the argument that someone who rejects (or pushes for) something because of religious faith is any different than someone who rejects (or pushes for) something for any other reason.
The Constitution says there shall be no religious test in order to hold office. This works both for those who profess a religious faith and those who do not. You cannot be excluded for either. You freely have a right not to vote for someone who has religious ideas that influence them, but they certainly have as much of a right to run and govern in a fashion that they see best for the country.
I don't care the reason for policy decisions. Saying someone who has faith as one guiding factor in their lives should not be elected without saying they will not allow that to influence them or guide them in decisions is bigotry.
I find it interesting that as long as someone agrees with a policy decision, they don't care if it is based on religion. I know many, many religious people who believe that medicine shjould be socialized. If someone says "Jesus was the great healer, and would want us all to be healed. For this reason, if elected, I will push for a national socialized health care system.", would that be OK because that is a policy you agree with?
It isn't the religious influence, it is the policy, and the religious influence is simply the rallying cry of those who dislike the policy, shouting from the mountain tops "separation of church and state", all the while ignoring what I mentioned previously, that there can be no religious test of any kind for someone to hold office. Clearly religious influence is not disallowed in the least - and dare I say religious influence certainly played a large role the founding of this country, and therefore I would argue it is encouraged.
|