When Pythagoras said the earth was round, he was slandered by the greeks and the early christian church. They said that god made the earth flat.
When Nicolaus Copernicus said the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth, he was called crazy by the Church. They said god made earth the divine center of the universe.
When Galileo published and proved Copernicus' theory, the vatican burned his work, threatened him with death, and put him in prison. They said he was wrong and that he was condemned by god.
When modern day scientist proved that the earth was much much older than the church had taught. They were told that they were wrong.
The christians have constantly over time pushed away fact and science and then accepted them by changing their bible and the teachings of their god.
Wouldn't if be safe to assume that political choices should never be made by religious belief since religious belief seems to be nothing more then a blind following? That they should be made with freedom of choice and morals considered. So, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone (religious or not) who makes decisions on what's best for the people and not the religion? In that sense, it rules out all presidential candidates except for Ron Paul (who is very religious, he just doesn't base vote off of it) and some democrats. So, it seems that the most intellegent choice for president (when it comes to whats right for the people) is outlined. I guess the bottom line is, if you're religious, don't base your vote on your religion. Base it on what is best for the country in a whole (consider poor, rich, different creed, sex, color, origins). As a patriot, who would you vote for? Selfishly for yourself, or for the well being of all citizens?
2007-08-16
13:46:53
·
16 answers
·
asked by
jpferrierjr
4
in
Politics