| Porsche-O-Phile |
12-23-2006 02:59 AM |
Quote:
Originally posted by mikester
I find it scary that an elected official to our government could care one way or the other what someone's religion is.
Last I heard we had freedom of religion and could be any one we choose.
I'm against illegal immgration myself but not against muslims.
I'm also against people who kill other people but I'm still not against muslims.
I'm not against a muslim using a Quran instead of a bible at his swearing in ceremony. After all what difference does it make what he swears on? They guy's a politician - he's probably lying anyway.
I am FOR people being free to worship as they please. I read that a student asked the guy why he didn't have a Quran in his office...he had some hard-line anti muslim answer where the real answer is probably more like the fact that he's not a muslim so why would he? Duh.
Stupid kills but not nearly enough.
|
+1,000
FWIW I'll vote for my congressperson, mayor, governor, president, dog catcher, judge and whomever else based on their qualifications for the job - not on their religious beliefs.
The only exception to that might be that I might NOT vote for someone if I think their religious beliefs are going to factor into or influence their political decision-making unduly (such as might be the case with a RADICAL muslim, a RADICAL christian, a RADICAL jew or a rabid atheist).
People should be able to more-or-less keep their religious beliefs to themselves and allow whatever they believe in to quietly direct their lives and guide their actions. The ones that feel the need to constantly yap about it and how "God speaks to me" or whatever have no business in leadership positions - in fact they probably belong in mental institutions more often than not. If they want to let their spirituality help guide their decisions, fine. If they want to constantly default to the "guidance" of one particular radical element and try to impose it on the rest of us as law, hit the road, Jack.
The biggest enemy to our type of government is those who would seek to radicalize our government or make it more theocratic. Spirituality and the peace it can give one is a wonderful thing - institutionalized religion is generally a bad thing. When institutionalized religious beliefs are mixed with government, the results are ALWAYS bad - history supports this without any doubt. Fortunately our founding fathers saw this potential problem and built in checks against that into our governement (insert discussion about the Doctrine of Separation of Church and State or elected representation here). Usually here in the USA it's the radical xian whack-jobs that are the enemy, but I don't care if it's a radical xian, muslim, jew or whatever - it's got no business in politics which is supposed to be about PUBLIC service, not service to whatever dogma you happen to embrace. Being part of a particular faith is fine, being RADICAL to the point where you allow it to supercede your judgement and the basic premise of the job you're selected to do (public service, listening to your constituency) is not.
While most muslims probably abhor violence, I still think the notion of calling Islam the "religion of peace" is a crock of schit. Same for Christianity. Same for Judeasm. They all have radical nut jobs that pervert the central message and they all have skeletons in their closet. But to simply think that saying "that's not us" is good enough is a joke. Start cracking down on these militants openly. Have the mullahs take a UNITED stance against this kind of crap. Have their peers start standing up against these assclowns instead of passively sitting by, letting themselves be intimidated. Then maybe we'll start believing in your "religion of peace" schit.
|
