"America is a Christian Nation, founded on Christian principles!" an argument quite frequently used when pointing out that we should be against a presidential candidate.
But where does that argument go when it comes to actually supporting a candidate?
It's gone.
Why?
Because it's a farce.
It's a ploy. A manipulation, to use those with the weakest of intellect and the strongest of conviction by tricking them into mistakenly applying to their devotion to God to that of their political choice.
It's just not applicable.
It's an argument that can be used to be against, but never for any serious presidential contender.
Why?
Because politicians aren't pastors. They don't honestly give a flying fig about your particular religion. They never have, nor should they.
That this country was founded on morals and principals common to a faith is only incidental, and the language designed to ensure freedom OF religion, is primarily incorporated to ensure freedom FROM religion.
If you want to achieve spiritual causes use spiritual means, but political means will only achieve political causes.
Consider Judas and his confusion. Lest we forget, politics was the path to the cross.
That said though, while church and state may be somewhat separable, it is a laughable notion that religion and politics are separable. You cannot possibly think that the moral fiber of a person's being is separable from that person and that it won't play a major factor in influencing their moral compass and decision making.
The issue then becomes, can logical reasoning beyond a particular religious view be used to support that stance as being for the good of those outside that religion? Is it applicable as being for the greater good?
And more to the point, what is it that outside of religion is actually swaying that stance?
The bottom line?
Personal gain?
Is there an underlying motive behind the agenda disguised as greater good?
As I have always said, while in theory it may be possible for one to be both a Christian and a politician, the success of one area usually comes at the sacrifice of the other.
It would seem that one of the issues that people in general, regardless of religious view, or lack there of, seem to take a common stance on is the importance of telling the truth.
Well let me say, until recently I would have thought that to be the case. With this election though it seems that it is more important to many people that they hear what they want in order to believe what they want even at the expense of the truth.
Honestly, I have no idea how that seems to have become the case, specially among those who want to profess their concern for the preservation of truth.
My experience of yesterday rings true today however, as I have found that the least effective way of getting some one to pull their head out the sand is to simply tell them their head is in the sand. Generally it only compels them to drive it further in.
I will refrain from making any particular political stance here, although certainly a case could be made.
I will however say that I would rather have a president tell me a truth that I disagree with, rather than one who would tell me lie after lie simply to gain my support and then do as he chooses anyway.
So I will close with this little analogy:
If you encountered a salesman that treated you poorly and gave you poor service, and then also lied about the quality of his product and it's price simply to make make a sale, I would be hard pressed to think that you would give him your business.
No consumer with any experience at all believes that a salesman who would act in this manner before securing their money, would then be apt to have a change of heart later once they actually did have their money.
That's what politicians are, salesmen.
If you can tell me in all sincerity who Jesus would vote for then religion might make a valid argument, until then though it's off the table...for me at least.
d(-_-)b
But where does that argument go when it comes to actually supporting a candidate?
It's gone.
Why?
Because it's a farce.
It's a ploy. A manipulation, to use those with the weakest of intellect and the strongest of conviction by tricking them into mistakenly applying to their devotion to God to that of their political choice.
It's just not applicable.
It's an argument that can be used to be against, but never for any serious presidential contender.
Why?
Because politicians aren't pastors. They don't honestly give a flying fig about your particular religion. They never have, nor should they.
That this country was founded on morals and principals common to a faith is only incidental, and the language designed to ensure freedom OF religion, is primarily incorporated to ensure freedom FROM religion.
If you want to achieve spiritual causes use spiritual means, but political means will only achieve political causes.
Consider Judas and his confusion. Lest we forget, politics was the path to the cross.
That said though, while church and state may be somewhat separable, it is a laughable notion that religion and politics are separable. You cannot possibly think that the moral fiber of a person's being is separable from that person and that it won't play a major factor in influencing their moral compass and decision making.
The issue then becomes, can logical reasoning beyond a particular religious view be used to support that stance as being for the good of those outside that religion? Is it applicable as being for the greater good?
And more to the point, what is it that outside of religion is actually swaying that stance?
The bottom line?
Personal gain?
Is there an underlying motive behind the agenda disguised as greater good?
As I have always said, while in theory it may be possible for one to be both a Christian and a politician, the success of one area usually comes at the sacrifice of the other.
It would seem that one of the issues that people in general, regardless of religious view, or lack there of, seem to take a common stance on is the importance of telling the truth.
Well let me say, until recently I would have thought that to be the case. With this election though it seems that it is more important to many people that they hear what they want in order to believe what they want even at the expense of the truth.
Honestly, I have no idea how that seems to have become the case, specially among those who want to profess their concern for the preservation of truth.
My experience of yesterday rings true today however, as I have found that the least effective way of getting some one to pull their head out the sand is to simply tell them their head is in the sand. Generally it only compels them to drive it further in.
I will refrain from making any particular political stance here, although certainly a case could be made.
I will however say that I would rather have a president tell me a truth that I disagree with, rather than one who would tell me lie after lie simply to gain my support and then do as he chooses anyway.
So I will close with this little analogy:
If you encountered a salesman that treated you poorly and gave you poor service, and then also lied about the quality of his product and it's price simply to make make a sale, I would be hard pressed to think that you would give him your business.
No consumer with any experience at all believes that a salesman who would act in this manner before securing their money, would then be apt to have a change of heart later once they actually did have their money.
That's what politicians are, salesmen.
If you can tell me in all sincerity who Jesus would vote for then religion might make a valid argument, until then though it's off the table...for me at least.
d(-_-)b
You are so right on the money, that America was founded by monotheists does not mean she is a Christian nation. A simple glance at the constitution makes that point very clear. Neither is America a Godless nation as many other people like to say, those with equally small minds and far more diabolical intentions… those who are trying to control the masses and take away their freedom.
ReplyDeleteThat having been said, I would like to posit a question: Does freedom FROM religion mean that one is forbidden from expressing a religious point of view if he has the desire to serve the people of this great nation? As I witness my fellow travelers on this wheel we call life I see many people castigated simply for having a religious point of view. People are called simple minded or foolish or far worse for the simple crime of having faith and wanting to A) share that faith and B) serve the public in the best way they know how.
Deliberate lies are another story. Deliberate lies left unchecked by those with the charge of bringing the truth into the light, the Media, are what the real problem is. People lie and politicos are people. I think the problem you are railing against in this eloquent article is a symptom not the disease. I think what you are noticing, what has you so frustrated, is the fact that a politician can lie and not be shamed out of office by those who have the first amendment right (and societal obligation) to tell the truth.
Just a few lies that have been left unchecked that I have noticed:
1. You are racist if you don’t vote for the Dodd Frank act
2. The seas will lower and the land will heal
3. Unemployment will not reach 8% if you pass my stimulus plan
4. This is the recovery summer
5. We don’t have a spending problem we have a revenue problem
6. Rich people don’t pay taxes
I could go on but I am sure I will be thoroughly thrashed for having gone this far. So let the games begin :)
I think your response is spot on.
DeleteNo, freedom from religion simply means at its base, we won't be pushed around by the Church of England. People should be free to practice, or not, their beliefs.
Which also means not pushing that practice on to others.
I've never met a Republican who didn't think I should be a Republican, and the same for any party or religion. It's OK to think you're right and express why, it's not OK if you can't be wrong when you're told why.
I see a lot of lying in this election, everywhere, but people seem to be turning a blind eye to it, so they feel they can justify their choice as right.
Depending on your definition of right, there probably isn't a candidate that meets all criteria.So my other point, don't use your religion to justify the choices. It doesn't make sense any way you look at it.