posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 08:21 AM
Not to douse these fiery flames of free speech, or otherwise appear to disagree with the strong stances many have taken on behalf of the purity of
politics or the purity of faith.
I want to simply point out that both can be correct, and yes, at the same time.
For the sake of privacy, religion should not be a platform for candidates in an active race or in office. For too long, I was offended and even
driven to atheism by seeing corruption in action coupled with loud declarations of "Jay-sus".
As a young journalist, these kinds of comments, ever, immediately made me suspect the one saying them. Using a public opportunity and wasting it with
words we hear at church or elsewhere, yeah, that's not instilling confidence in MY public servants, and I can't quote it in an article, lol.
Now that my understanding is different, I STILL object to the prostitution of religion by candidates for office, any office, any religion.
As any adherent to any faith knows, actions speak louder than words.
How many are unafraid to be measured this way, since they put themselves out there under different banners of religion? That has little to do with
Which is as it should be, according to this report. Bush telling the French president that Iraq "had to" be invaded is probably the inspiration for
this report. I know that Bush convo with Sirac scared me, I mean, this was a conversation between world leaders. I think that's why the French
released this information, to embarass America into getting this out of political power.
I don't have a problem with that, even though I aspire to be a Christian.
In my faith, no one knows the hour or day after all.
Politics is not the place to play God, or to be His proxy, and a decent man knows that, no matter what he believes religiously.
Good is good, period. Religion in politics asks the voters to be biased, before they even reach the polling place, by subjecting them to floods of
overwhelming ads. It's sickening.
So-called policy is actually just wolves in sheeps' clothing, by the nature of our free and open society.
We all know some exploit it. This kind of separation is what is only sane, knowing that there should be no preferred one.
Any real religion cannot be sanctioned, anyway.
As well, if there were no non-Christian candidates, and suddenly one ran, let's say a Muslim, or a Scientologist, then they would stand a chance to
win, on sheer novelty and social/religious support, rather than being the finest of the bunch, as it should be.
We should have higher standards, and clearing the underbrush is a good first step.
My religion is my business, and if I want to share it, I should and can through my own words, actions, choices and life, as well as how altruistic and
wide my thoughts and motivations are.
Any political hopeful should have a reasonable hope for election if his or her record shows the qualifications that should be there first:
Public service at no profit to oneself, a career of public service, a life that reflects real America, a fair approach to mankind.
Who WOULDN'T want elected officials like this? Some of us pray for them, lol, but then they alienate otherwise like-minded voters, by proclaiming
Everyone is not a Christian, but they all deserve and are guaranteed representation.
The qualified candidate will not rely on catchphrases, but will present legitimate credentials. Evidence of being a fine human being.
There is no monopoly on that. It just needs to be a deliberate demand of us as voters. It needs to be actively said.
Here's our vote, here's who we will give it to. Bring this candidate and we will elect him or her. NO one else. (Go, Alvin Greene!)