|
To answer the poster's question, for me personally, yes.
I agree that you can't practice a religion and not have it influence your decisions, but I think Bush has been pushing the limit for a while...all the faith-based initiative programs and the financial links to the the fundamentalist Christian groups. Without going into detail about my feelings, because I think they would probably just be a bunch of Bush/right-wing flame bait, I have to say that I'm not sure if the Administration has pushed beyond the fine line of separation of Church and State or not, and frankly that line of separation is always going to be tough to define. All I can say is that Bush, Ashcroft, and a bunch of the other PNAC crew scare the beejesus out of me. I don't really care if they've crossed the line, their affiliations are enough for me to be suspicious of them.
As far as the question of a President with a different set of moral beliefs vs. one without any, I would say that 1. All people have a set of moral beliefs. They have to in order to make decisions in their everyday lives about what they will do and what they won't, and what they think is right and wrong, and 2. I disagree with the idea that I would rather have a fundamentalist, extreme religous person with an openly claimed and defined moral code than say, a moderate hedonist, in office any day. People can quickly become blinded by their "moral" systems if they can't temper them with some tolerance of other views.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
|