I think it is dangerous that these candidates who say they will look to their God for answers are being reckless and irresponsible with the Supreme Law of the Land, The Constitution.
2007-06-07 03:49:38 · 19 answers · asked by Rothwyn 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Seriously. Would you want a Christian turned, say, PAGAN, telling you that he will be observing what his "goddess" tells him to do in regards to the law? People are hypocritical and want it a one-way street! "MY" God, (as in the Protestant one, or MAYBE the Catholic one) only but no others!
Yes, this is one of the many reasons why there should be a separation of Church & State.
2007-06-07 03:56:25 · answer #1 · answered by Sangria 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
There is nothing wrong with seeking guidance from somewhere other than Karl Rove. It's not like they did an MTV Cribs and showed you that they had a fake red phone they claim to be connected directly to Jesus. So what if someone believes in a god? Would you rather it be that every person in government is an athiest from now on?
I mean seriously...people need to get over worrying about other people's faith. Atheism, Catholicism, Islam...they're all faiths because they do not come with solid truths. An atheist cannot prove there is no god in much the same way that a Muslim cannot prove that there is one, so who cares?
On top of that, drop the "Separation of Church and State" rhetoric...that applies to the government declaring one religion or faith to be an official one...it has nothing to do with whether or not a presidential candidate believes Jesus or an effin' slice of pizza is god.
Finally...it's just about election time....these people are, have been and always will talk out of their a$$es. Stop believeing everything they say.
2007-06-07 11:15:45 · answer #2 · answered by jdm 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
JFK did not need to pander to the religious radicals because they did not have the numbers then that they have today. The evangelical radicals seem to be more accepted today. If they had opened a creationist museum in JFK's day they would have been laughed off the planet. Today they are laughed at but not so openly. That shows they have some power in high places. Bush is their champion right now. As long as he is on the throne of power they will be a force to pay attention to. It never hurts to hedge one's bet. They have money and most of them do vote. Politicians want both money and votes so they are a great target for the pander bears.
2007-06-07 11:08:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
whether JFK was a religious man or not makes little difference really. back in the day He had to consistently and earnestly play down his catholic upbringing as at least half of the country was freaked over a catholic candidate. it was a first in our nation and the word was that JFK would just be a mouthpiece for the Pope in Rome. now, we have the religious right to worry over. Having God on your side aint half bad, but bringing your version of God, Heaven and which organized religion is the best into Government's living room is scary as "Hell".
2007-06-07 11:01:07 · answer #4 · answered by jujuma2 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A politician may be religious or not, and he may seek answers from anywhere, including his chosen deity.
However, it is a problem when the federal government favors one religion over others - that is what the Constitution warned against. The constitution doesn't say you can't consult your religious leader or deity.
2007-06-07 11:37:23 · answer #5 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is wrong with someone in Politics following their faith? As far as the remarks about "Christian Fundamentalists" running the Republican Party, please explain how. They represent a very small minority.
Jimmy Carter was the first President to proclaim being "Born Again". And initiating "Faith Based Initiatives". Though I didn't care for him as a President, as a person, he was to be admired for his ethics.
Because someone proclaims their faith, does no make them dangerous or "way out there". It served Clinton well to be "Consulted" by Jesse Jackson.
Does that mean that he was run by the "Religious Left". This line of resoning is absurd and truly calls into question those who raise it.
I would first read the letters by our Founding Fathers on Separation of Church and State and you may find their reasoning and intention was exactly the opposite of what is is used for today. Please read your history.
2007-06-07 11:08:47 · answer #6 · answered by Ken C 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The separation principle is a prohibition against the church running the government. God is not the church. I admire those candidates who seek guidance from God.
2007-06-07 10:53:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If they're really Christians then they will support separation of church and state 100%. Whenever the two are mixed, persecution is the result, one way or the other. Those Christians who deny separation haven't studied their bibles carefully enough.
2007-06-07 11:26:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do not like the fact many of them wear their religion on their sleeve. For me, religion should be a personal issue and really has nothing to do with how a road should be constructed, how a war should be fought, the evidence that a thief stole something, or anything else the government typically deals with. It is only something of marginal significance unless you are talking about very emotional and sensational issues and they typically erode freedom.
2007-06-07 11:05:55 · answer #9 · answered by Arbgre555 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
How is asking God for help imbedding religion into government? Are you saying that if you are elected President you lose you right to freely practice your religion? Everyone has a right to pray if they want to.
2007-06-07 11:06:09 · answer #10 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋