Are extreme christian fundamentalist groups hindering the governments ability to govern fairly?

Question

I'm doing a persuasive essay in my college english class, i would like some opinions about this. The way i see it, fundamentalist christians are so enamored in their own morality, they are having an effect on the governments ability to govern all US citizens fairly, christian or not, one example is gay marrage, christian fundamentalists strongly disapprove in that, and yet the concept of marrage has been around since before christianity and not all religions ban gay marrage, should non-christians be forced to follow a christian based government? (Only asking for opinions on these facts, no preaching please, preaching will not get you far.)

i do vote, and yes, i have read about and expierienced both sides of this argument. I am smart enough to atleast know both sides of issues i write about.

Answer 1

The marriage of the current Republican Party to the religious right has done more damage to this country than Fat Man and Little Boy did to Japan in 1945. (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

Answer 2

I suppose you could argue that, and in the way you have already. I would argue that what is hindering the government is the government officials, who are out only for their own power. Whatever gets the votes is the image they present. Because the Christian fundamentalists are one of those groups (and probably the most vocal one) they do affect the government (and very rarely in a good way). But if the Christians extremists weren't the ones doing it there are more than enough other groups trying to take over the position.

Answer 3

i think you should argue that, and in the way you've already. i ought to argue that what's hindering the authorities is the authorities officials, who're out only for his or her very personal potential. in spite of receives the votes is the image they present day. because the Christian fundamentalists are one in all those communities (and probably the most vocal one) they do impact the authorities (and extremely hardly ever in an outstanding way). yet when the Christians extremists weren't those doing it there are more beneficial than adequate different communities attempting to take over the placement.

Answer 4

1. I agree with you.

2. What I think you are going to hear is that we have a "majority rules" and/or a "loudest group rules" kind of government. If the Christians are the most organized and most politically irritating, then they are likely to affect change, just like hired lobbyists for any other special interest like oil or tobacco. They are getting together to make sure representatives know their issues, and voting for the people who will support their issues. I guess that's just how the government is set up to run.

The trouble is that now that they are coming more into power, they are changing not only laws and customs, but the actual Constitution. I think if pressed, most conservative Christians would have to agree the Constitution would disagree with things like school vouchers, government prayer, etc. If it were Muslims arguing for prayer in schools, you can bet that Christians would be screaming for separartion of church and state. But as long as their faith is winning, they are not going to argue.

What is hindering the government's ability to govern fairly is arrogance - 'we know better than the Constitution' - and it is not an exclusively Christian trait. Everyone wants it their way.

And at some time or another, under this current Constitution anyway, everyone is going to have to be forced to follow a government or a law or a custom that they don't personally like or approve of. I don't like being forced to follow a war president. I don't like being forced to follow OPEC. I don't like being forced to follow anything, really, but I suppose if I don't like it enough, I and my friends will organize and elect our own people. Maybe the country has gotten too large to function as a democracy.

Answer 5

This should be an interesting essay.

I think that people forget that in fact this country was started by Christians and based on Christian beliefs. The ideas of "separation between church and state" have been morphed from what the Founding Father's believed. They came from a society where your religion was chosen by the King, and the Pope controlled most governments. When they said they wanted freedom of religion, they meant they wanted you to be able to choose whether to be Catholic or Protestant. And when they said they wanted separation of church and state, it was to keep the money of the church from influencing the decisions of the government.

But now, these ideas have been slowly modified to something completely different. Now separation of church and state means that politicians are not allowed to make decisions based on their religious beliefs? Freedom of religion means that you can't practice your religion because some may not agree?

If you are raised in a Christian household, then your morals and what you believe are more than likely centered around that. And when making decisions, those morals and beliefs (whether consciously or not) play a huge role in the choices that you make.

Aside from all this - people in government represent the people who vote for them. And although there is a trend of turning away from Christianity, the truth is that the majority of the country is still predominantely Christian. So it makes sense that the majority is who is represented - that's how our governments works.

Answer 6

Yes. They are the vocal minority and have used threats and intimidation as a way to garner power (and that is the appropriate word) in this country. It is ironic in a country that was supposedly founded because of religious persecution. They call other religions fanatical and off-base, yet it's alright when Pat Robertson says certain people should be killed? I also find it troubling that for "Christians," tolerance and grace are no where to be found.

Answer 7

Even the slightest bit of research would tell you that the "Fundamentalist Christian Right" in America disapproves of the way Bush is presiding over our country.

Good luck with that grade:

Answer 8

Yes, they are, in fact, they're the ones running our government right now. Yes, even the Dems. I claim no party and am not ranting, but look at the state our government, country and system of laws say, they all point toward ultra-conservatism and the religous right. I think government, schools, and laws all should be seperated from religous beliefs. This IS a melting pot country after all and you can't convert everyone.

Answer 9

Good point. Do you vote? I sure hope so. It's true that an atheist has never won a presidential election here, so you could say that politics has always been hand in hand with religion. People want a leader that they can think of as morally just. But what do we get?

Answer 10

That's a tricky question, and so one I like very much ;). The only real recourse they have is their vote. The Evangelical vote is what got Bush elected the second time around. That he used them shamelessly (he knew full well that marriage amendment didn't have a chance in Hades of passing) is rankling many of them these days. To me it seemed right in line with his character, but I must say I think they richly deserved it. Not very nice of me perhaps, but their self-righteousness is a pain in all reasonable people's butts. I think the tide has changed though. Moderates like myself are sick enough of them to get out there and vote for those who actually understand the principle of the separation of church and state. It has become clear that extremist Xtians desire a theocracy, as long as it's Christian that is - and that they label everyone who doesn't agree with them as unrepentent sinners. I believe most reasonable Christians, as well as those of every other religious persuasion, atheists, etc. see the danger they pose to our form of government. Despite their hate-mongering, several national polls have recently shown that general acceptance of gay rights is steadily rising among the general population, for instance.

When our citizens start to become uncomfortable with a religious group's extremism they begin to remember their history lessons and dismiss them as extremist nuts, not giving them credence and keeping an eye on their activities to boot. I think we have entered this phase and that religious extremism has run its course, at least as far as having any influence in our Congress/Senate. Bush now has the checks and balances we desperately needly to put in place, and he cannot wield his religious wand any longer over our laws. The moderates now in place won't stand for it anymore.

Answer 11

I would use in the essay some examples from around the world. Few things in this world are more destructive than religious fundamentalist.