Quote:
Originally Posted by molson
The Constitution is the check on all of this, you can't be in conflict with that whatever the reason, religious or otherwise. But if the voters vote for an overt Christian, why can't he act like a Christian in office (whatever that means).
When has any politician put their religious views ahead of the Constitution? Are you talking about abortion? Is being pro-life bad for a politician if it's motivated by religion? That seems un-American.
Hypothetical from a state level - If "the people" are religious, and are pro-life because of that religion, should the politican they elect ignore that just because it's a religious view? Are "the people" not entitled to a politican that is pro-life because once any leader gets in office, they shouldn't have religious beliefs anymore?
|
I'm ambivalently pro-choice at best, so it has nothing to do with the abortion issue.
Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.
It isn't about acting like a Christian, but about compelling someone else to live under the tenets of my religious beliefs. Like I said, I don't really care whether someone's a Mormon, a snakehandler, a Pentecostal or whatever. As a mainline Christian they all seem extreme to me, but I'm sure my religious beliefs can seem wishy-washy to them. So long as my beliefs don't hinder them and vice-versa everything works fine. If I tried to ban speaking in tongues or a Mormon inserted founding beliefs into an American History text that's too far.