A few thoughts.
There are only two types of crimes, really. Malum in se (crimes that are wrong in and of themselves), e.g. murder and rape - things that even if there were no law prohibiting them, all would know that they are wrong; and malum prohibitum, things that are wrong because society disallows them, they are prohibited acts. Religion should inform and guide the former. It should have no say whatsoever in the latter.
I understand the need in human beings to believe in something larger than themselves, some overarching purpose and guidance for the world. That's great. But a nation composed of such divergent belief systems as America should never be governed upon the basis of one of those systems. Think on this: if you're an Episcopalian, you're not too likely to be happy in a Catholic theocracy. Nor are you likely to get on at all well as a Catholic in a Muslim theocracy.
I note in this thread a number of people equating religion with morals. Tell me: do you think the priests who molested children were moral people? How about the Rev. Fred Phelps, who openly promotes violence against gays? What about those Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and murder the doctors who work there? Are these really moral acts? The list goes on. Religion and its observance are no guarantee of moral behavior, just as lack of religion or failure to observe it is no guarantee of a lack of morals.
And for those who like to crow about 70-odd percent of America being Christian, I will paraphrase a wonderful quote I heard one day. "In a democracy, the many have as much right to suppress the one as the one has to suppress, if he could, the many."
Be religious all you like. But govern as a man, and be brave enough to set your faith aside when considering what's best for America.
__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!
|