Growing up in a middle class neighborhood, with working class parents, I began my early years buying into the typical American belief structure. In Sunday school we learned about “God” and how much he loves us and how he is always around us, but if we’re bad, he gets mad and we could go to “hell” for certain offenses if we didn’t ask for forgiveness. There was no questioning god at age 6, because our minds were molded so firmly to the ancient belief structure built around Jesus Christ. There was no choice, or availability of options in choosing what to believe. While I grew up, there was god, and nothing else. And there in lies the problem.
America has truly become a religious state, with Jesus Christ leading the nation down a path that was never voted upon, or even thought about by our founding fathers. Obviously Christianity has always dominated politics, which is inevitable considering this country was founded by predominantly Christian settlers. The problem is that voters in this day and age, look at a candidate's religion, over their political ideals or experience. To be an American politician, overall, you must be Christian. While there are other politicians who come from other religious backgrounds, they are an extreme minority. With the direction this country is headed, I doubt we will EVER see an atheist president or even a Muslim president. What about a Jewish president? This country is so obsessed with their leaders believing in the Christian version of god, that no other religious representatives will have a chance to lead.
Atheists in this country are usually painted as evil, socialist, mislead, or all of the above. At what point does somebody's religion have to do with their leadership skills? I have many of the same morals as Christians, I just don't believe in a god. But America will never see an atheist leader, maybe in local government, but never anything large enough to truly matter. Atheists/Agnostics/Non-religious citizens make up a very large minority in this country - about 15%, which is more than African Americans. Why can't those 15% be represented equally? Because America doesn't want non-believers in office, for fear that they will transform this "great" nation into some evil empire of hate and reform. Once again, America is full of shit.
I have a wonderful idea. Voters should focus on the policies, the political ideas, that their candidate is campaigning. Voters should have some intellectual curiosity, and care more about how their candidate will lead the country socially and economically, instead of whether they believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Trust me, your religious freedoms are in no more jeopardy by electing an atheist representative over a religious representative, because I promise you that the majority of atheists in this country have many of the same morals and values as Christians.
As an advocate of freedom, I completely understand that voting is a right, BUT it is also a responsibility. It is the responsibility to all who choose to participate in voting, to make educated and logical decisions based on their political views and how they want their political views represented. Don't vote for George W. Bush because he's extremely religious and don't vote for Barack Obama because he's black. And please do not vote for Donald Trump because you think he's intellegent... because he really isn't.
"Trust me, your religious freedoms are in no more jeopardy by electing an atheist representative over a religious representative, because I promise you that the majority of atheists in this country have many of the same morals and values as Christians"
ReplyDeleteJonathan, You seem to be a pretty bright guy but I would like to honestly challenge you to think a little more thoroughly through the issue of religious liberty.
Put aside the voting issue you have raised here for a bit (which I think is a caricature anyway) and try to see things from an epistemological angle for a bit.
"Tolerance" ultimately is a shell game society plays until a differing set of values is replaced in the public square. One side calls for tolerance until it can become dominant in the public square then it turns intolerant.
When it comes to opposing worldviews which are rooted in differing ethical presuppositions, 100% tolerance is a myth. One set of ethical presuppositions will eventually emerge to dominate the public square and become Law (legislation is primarily ethics applied to Law).
New laws rooted in a differing value system are by nature intolerant of opposing ethical epistemological presuppositions. This is true of Humanist, Marxist, Christian, or Muslim law alike.
I challenge you to honestly read and asses this article which raises this issue in one light:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
(Maggie Gallagher just raises one issue, there are other threats to religious liberty along the same lines we could discuss like parental jurisdiction and rights)
Don't take this as an insult because it is not (my intent is have a discussion with you on the issue) but I honestly think you are a little naive if you think I as a thinking Christian can just sit back and relax because liberal humanists have my best interest in mind.
What say you?
Peace,
Larry Temple
Take note from the article:
ReplyDelete"All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming.
These are not necessarily scholars who oppose gay marriage. Chai Feldblum, for example, is a Georgetown law professor who refers to herself as "part of an inner group of public-intellectual movement leaders committed to advancing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual] equality in this country." Marc Stern is the general counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress. Robin Wilson of the University of Maryland law school is undecided on gay marriage. Jonathan Turley of George Washington law school has supported legalizing not only gay marriage but also polygamy."
after reading your book (comments), i really don't see what point you're trying to make... my point is that America is a religious state, under control by the majority - Christianity. Leadership is not defined by your religion, but your character. If you honestly think that an atheist president or congressman is going to take away your religious freedoms, then you sir are naive.
ReplyDeleteLeadership is irrelevant, I agree a Atheist can be better and worse leaders than others so that's a given.
ReplyDeleteIt's a leaders ideology that worries me. When I say ideology, what I am trying to get you to grapple with is the heart of the epistemological issues between opposing worldviews.
If you carefully and honestly read what I said (just don't react) and the example of what I'm getting at showed in the article I posted, maybe you would "understand".
Though you might disagree, you might be able to see things from a different perspective which might help you understand why religious people legitimately feel their freedoms in this country are threatened more and more. I'm trying to challenge you to at least try to see things from anther's perspective that's all.
Just so you know, I wouldn't necessarily vote for a man just because he claimed to be a Christian (I would have never voted for a man like Mr Huckabee - I detest big government neo-cons)
Atheist, agnostic, or other I would be perfectly happy to vote for a modern Thomas Jefferson who truly understood liberty than some big government Republi-crat or Demi-con.
As other Christians have said in the past I would rather be ruled by a wise Pagan than by a foolish Christian.
PS You don't have to call me "Sir" - Larry is perfectly fine :)
Kindly,
Larry