English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In the rest of the developed world, the beliefs or lack thereof of the leader generally don't come into it.

When will the USA accept true seperation of church and state?

2007-04-06 01:12:37 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

17 answers

I'd say around the same time pigs grow wings.

2007-04-06 01:16:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Won't happen with all of the hyper-religious in the US. The US was started by people that wanted to practice religion their way. Now if you don't practice religion "their" way, you won't be president. Only one president wasn't Protestant (John Kennedy) and that's only because his opponent was a crook.

When you say "In the rest of the developed world, the beliefs or lack thereof of the leader generally don't come into it." What about France, Italy, Spain and all of Latin America have only Catholic leaders. The UK has only C of E leaders. The Islamic Countries have only Islamic leaders, Israel has only Jewish leaders. The leaders of all countries reflect the religious and moral beliefs of their people.

Whatever country you're in, when will they have a Jewish or Islamic leader?

2007-04-06 01:21:06 · answer #2 · answered by John S 6 · 0 0

As a Christian I will vote for an Atheist if I believe he is the best leader for this country. Not a problem
Separation of Church and state was invoked to protect religious people from a state sponsored church. Such as the Church of England, or the Catholic Church in France. Where it was the only allowed form of religion by the Government. It was not ever ment to separate all religion from the public in any way.

2007-04-06 01:18:23 · answer #3 · answered by mark g 6 · 1 0

The number of people who are atheist is growing, slowly in the U.S. but rapidly elsewhere. Eventually, there will be enough of us to not just voice our desires but to actually make an impact. Once we start having a voice in Congress, things will begin to change. However, I believe that we must do a better job wiht the way we approach defending ourselves.

First, we must admit that atheism is a religion. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". We believe there is no god. We do not know this statement to be true any more than a Christian knows there is a god. We are acting out of ardent belief. Until we can, as a whole, admit that, we will gain no ground. Besides, there is a major bonus to this. If atheism was to be recognized as a religion, then we would have a multitude of iron-clan support to protect us. The freedom of religion clause would be the backbone of our cause, and we will have turned tide.

Second, we need to stop attacking other people's beliefs. I know that many of us don't, but as long as even one of us does, we will face resistance from all fronts. We cannot afford to tolerate zealots within our ranks. We must agree that our neighbors, beliefs are as valid as ours.

Third, we must organize. Imagine, if we can get the government (and our own people) to admit atheism is a religion. That would mean we could gather and form institutions which would receive tax breaks like other churches. We could form institutes where discussions, not debates, take place; where we could invite others to come and see what we are really about.

Fourth, we need to get involved in our communities. Show people that atheists are not amoral and that we care about others. It would be much more difficult for people to assume we are bad people if we are volunteering to help people on Sundays while the masses are attending church services and worrying about their personal relationships with whichever god they are praying to. They could worry about saving souls, and we could worry about the homeless, battered wives and children, and other community issues.

Fifth, we need to defend ourselves without being defensive. We don't have to justify our beliefs any more than a Mormon does. Treat verbal assaults and demeaning language with patience and respect. Walk away if you need to, but don't engage them in heated debates and screaming matches.

Finally, encourage those who are able enough to run for elections on the local level. Then expand to the city level. Then to the state level, etc.

After awhile, people will begin to care less and less about a candidate's religious beliefs, and they will care more about their actions and character.

2007-04-06 02:00:49 · answer #4 · answered by seattlefan74 5 · 0 0

I promote separation of Church and State... but not a non-spiritual leader... an optimist... a seer of Ideals and Absolutes out-of-reach but desirable... A Leader by example... not lack of sight for the Mysteries of our Universe... a deeply scientific mind with a heart for creativity and wisdom.

can you tell I am an idealist?

2007-04-06 01:18:02 · answer #5 · answered by Invisible_Flags 6 · 0 0

Maybe win Hillary Clinton wins the next presidential election? To be honest, I don't know that the U.S. will ever be ready until the New World Order steps in, offers world peace, gets the treaty signed and the anti-christ takes control of the world! In that case we may be closer than we first thought!

2007-04-06 01:18:47 · answer #6 · answered by Pastor D 2 · 0 1

Well the USA was prepared for a retard for the presidency so why not an Atheist? It's better than a walking and talking idiot.

2007-04-06 01:18:22 · answer #7 · answered by Lynnemarie 6 · 1 0

No. 50% of the inhabitants does no longer even evaluate an atheist candidate with whom they in the different case agreed. it really is the most prejudiced adversarial to position in u . s . of america politically- a concepts in extra of Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, and different minorities. the in simple terms (ONE!) open atheist in antional place of work is Pete Stark, who in simple terms "got here out" this time period after 30+ years in a rock strong secure liberal district even as a mag threatened to out him first. as a way to this date there hasn't ever been a widespread atheist elected to nationwide place of work contained in the U. S..

2016-11-26 22:29:48 · answer #8 · answered by ruple 4 · 0 0

Religion, or lack there of, should not even be a consideration for political office. Someday soon the US will wake up.

2007-04-06 01:30:22 · answer #9 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0 0

If you really want to understand your question, study history. Religion is another tool, a very powerful tool, that the ruling class uses to control the masses.

People are less likely to revolt against their rulers if it's a sin.

2007-04-06 01:23:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Sorry to tell you this, but a majority of our presidents are atheist. God to them, like many other things, is used to influence the believers vote and sway the believers opinion. They turn to God to keep a nation in line. Dont get it twisted, there's more atheists in office than you may ever know. Except of course the ones that worship the God Currency.

2007-04-06 01:18:08 · answer #11 · answered by atlazdrama 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers