I don’t do politics. I don’t like the lack of respect that exists in some political discourse, and because I live on the far, far left of middle I tend to get bashed for my beliefs. Not fun. I at least keep my mouth shut when I’m thinking negative things about other people’s thought processes.
But something is really bothering me, so I’m going to set aside my misgivings and write about it.
Here it is. Today I read an article in the New York Times Magazine by Geoffrey Wheatcroft titled “Let’s just be friends…”. One of Geoffrey’s points was that while America was supposedly built on the premise of the separation of church and state, Europe actually actually works that way, while in order to get elected in America you have to profess a deep and abiding belief in a Christian God. Considering how many sins have been committed in the name God, by any number of religious people I find it a tad scary that Americans as a people are so closed minded.
I don’t care how spiritual, religious, pious a person is, it doesn’t necessarily made them a good leader or an appropriate person to run the country. That’s not to say that an agnostic or atheist is any better equipped, but come on people, a person’s religion should not be the first thing we look at when deciding if someone is competent to run the country. And I personally don’t think it should be the last thing on the list either. It shouldn’t be on the list at all.
A person’s religion should be a non-issue when deciding on our political leaders. Sure there are a few moral issues on the table every election cycle. But being with religion does not equate to being without morals. And there is so much more, let me say that again, So Much More to running a country than the issues that tend to bog us down. I don’t understand why we think we can legislate morality. Or what right we have to decide what is moral for another human being. But that’s just me.
And where did we ever get the idea that a person with the same moral emparitive as us, or one we believe has a similar moral emperitive, is going to make decisions in our best interest. Or even if that he or she should make decisions that are in our best interest.
But the worse part is, I don’t think most people are as concerned about their moral agendas as they are with getting and keeping more money. They want the candidate who will make them wealthier, so why in the world are we pretending that a great Christian leader is what we want?
Shouldn’t a Christian leader should be asking us to give our money to others instead of hogging it all for ourselves? Are the “Christian” leaders actually Christian? Okay, that question doesn’t matter because when leading a country religion is not the point.
A. No. Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States.”
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Would it be too terribly ironic if I shouted out a great big Pagan-y AMEN?
Hi! (waves from own soapbox)
I agree. I’m a teacher and a Catholic and I’m very state-shall-establish-no-religion to the point that I chafe at the Pledge of Allegiance bit about “under God” not only because it references a christian deity but also because it was a phrase added after the fact which trashes the meter of the poem.
Also I did a speech on prayer in school once and opened with a great quote that I can’t recall the attribution for but it was something to the effect of : Praise the lord and pass the ammunition is not the definition of a christian leader.
A. No. Art. VI, cl. 3 of the Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States.”
That’s in our Constitution. What gets me is that we are so closed minded that we can’t see that a person of a different, or no religious belief can lead effectively. I don’t require that my boss, my friends or my leaders believe the same things I do. And technically, it would be really difficult as I have such an ecclectic hodgepodge of stuff in my head that I doubt it’s replicated anywhere.
Our country is full of religious people. I have no problem with that. But to think that only one religion is fit to rule? I don’t agree. And I that belief is damaging our country.
Understood. I agree that people can be close-minded and that close-mindedness can be can be damaging, I just think it’s a part of human nature that’s tremendously difficult to fight. The government cannot impose a test of religion upon any person in order to be elected, but citizens are entitled to vote in any way they see fit, imposing any number of personal trials on any given candidate and, as a natural side effect, one’s personal moral/ethical/political belief structures always come into play.
Not to get technical, but, well…I’m gonna. It is a misconception that this country was “built on the premise of separation of church and state,” as you said. That particular phrase is derived from a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote regarding the principals of the First Amendment (that the government should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”) The separation of church and state, which so many arguments on both sides of the political divide hang their hats on, has never been a part of the U.S. Constitution. It is not law.
Other than that, I think — just as a basic of human nature — most people tend to think they are correct in whatever their reasoning is, so they vote for whoever is closest in (perceived) thought process to themselves. And, for better or worse, this is a religious country, people having been drawn here over centuries for the constitutionally protected right to practice their religions freely. Therefore, religious people tend to be drawn to other religious people, just as atheists tend to be drawn to atheists.
Damn, this soapbox it high. Sorry. Stepping down now. (Got a ladder?)