In the US, religion has become a major issue in our political process. Everyone seems focused on promoting their own agenda, and not what is best for our country as a whole.
How do we find a political candidate that will look at our national interests, not exploit other countries, and not buy into any one religions' political agenda?
2007-09-26 05:43:10 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If you are interested, here's another question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aod_4DFMcLpAMIvuoyqkctTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070926082324AA99qPb
2007-09-26 05:46:48 · update #1
Hey folks: Even if I don't agree with you, I do not give thumbs down. Please feel free to state your thoughts and don't worry about what other people think!
2007-09-26 05:53:17 · update #2
USA is an imperial nation. It exists by exploiting the resources of other nations. You can not have a national leader who looks after national interests and does not exploit other nations so long as you intend an empire.If you look at the late Roman Empire you will find alarming parallels. They found themselves stuck with a privileged class controlling the politics, a largely unemployed population and a huge trade deficit. They were unable to resolve their problems. Even the use of Christianity as an attempt to control their population and keep their position backfired on them.
When you see empires conducting public wars for private profit, relying heavily on mercenary armies, and have an undertaxed upper class of political families you know it is in trouble.
It took almost 500 years for the loss of Rome's power to complete, things tend to happen faster now.
Gibbons in his book on the fall of the Roman Empire blames religion for most of the problems. I think the problems were related to economics more and think that Rome becoming religiously fanatical was a reaction to the political and economic problems that they had no answers to.
Nobody seems to have any effective answers yet.
2007-09-26 06:00:27 · answer #1 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think what's "best for the nation" and someones religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. For example, Bush tried to enact change to Social Security in a way that will make it more solvent and stable, but I would hardly say that this plan was straight out of the Bible. At best you could say he's trying to obey the command of taking care of "orphans and widows in their distress" which I would say is hardly disagreeable even to atheists even if they disagree with the motive. People may say religion and politics are a bad mix, but the truth of the matter is that our founding fathers believed that the foundation for all "good" laws presuppose a "Divine Being." Read the Declaration of Independence. True they did not want a "government sactioned" religion, but they also realized that God does play a pivitoal role in the destinies and fortunes of nations. Read the Old Testament. With all that said liberals should give up on the idea that people of all faiths are going to abondon theirs simply because of the increasing secularization for our public institutions. That's right, its not the other way around. It is secular policies that don't work. And since atheists and homosexuals still represent a vast minority in the democratic process should we override the will of the many (religious folk) for the sake of the immoral I mean special interests groups. And yes what a person believes does influence what they will behave like and what they think is important. Remember Fred Thompson doesn't have any major scandles to his name and he is a Christian.
2007-09-26 06:13:14 · answer #2 · answered by vantil23 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not merely a matter of finding a candidate. There are plenty of good candidates this time around, but if your goal is as ambitious as "not exploiting other countries", you're out of luck because it's ingrained in the system.
For that you need a transitional leader, like you describe Evo Morales to be. The last transitional leader we had was FDR and I just don't think we're ready for one right now. People are too comfortable in their situations to call for radical transformation.
2007-09-26 05:50:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Totally agree with andymcj89 on this one. The US is a Christian country. Stats say that 87% of the US consider themselves to be Christian. Compare that to only 40% of Canada who consider themselves to be ANY religion, let alone Christian. In such a religious country, it's very difficult to separate the church from the state. It just isn't going to happen any time soon. I do think that someone with no religious affiliation would run the country much better. How is gay marriage being against the law going to improve my (straight) life? It's not - it will only hurt those who are gay and want to get married. So those sorts of laws go against the constitution and basic human rights; a non-religious leader would see that and allow gay marriage. (Just one example.)
2007-09-26 06:36:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Religion.
2016-05-19 00:55:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think Ron Paul is that kind of candidate, who doesn't put his party affiliation or religious faith before the Constitution.
Of course he doesn't stand a chance, because too many folks want a president who carries their flag and interests into Washington ahead of the interests of the country as a whole.
2007-09-26 05:47:58 · answer #6 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
money my friend, money. take that out of politics, let regular americans run for office, and you might just have a candidate not beholden to those wielding power and influence because of their bank accounts. only, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon...so far, it has never happened in this country's history. george washington was a very rich man indeed and he set the standard. religion as you know, has buckets full of dough and does not hesitate to spend it on politicians...
2007-09-26 05:50:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Finding a good candidate is easy. Getting people to vote for them is the hard part.
Yeah, you give me thumbs down, but I'm not one of the retards who voted for Bush.
2007-09-26 05:48:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Secular Nation = Secular Laws = Secular Leader.
Athiests feel the same about all relgions.
.
2007-09-26 05:46:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Read, comprehend, and follow the Constitution.
2007-09-26 05:47:21 · answer #10 · answered by Mystine G 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋