I'm for religious people being part of our government - people with good character make good leaders. No, I don't mean religious in the way of Westboro Baptists or extremist Muslims or abortion clinic bombers. Yes, I know that people with no religion can have good character too.
I'm defiinitely NOT for a theocracy.
I like a nice secular government.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I oppose theocracy. Period.
However, I define theocracy by its older original definition: the church runs the State, or IS the state.
I have no problem with religion being a factor in political debate, or religious people being part of the government and having views/votes influenced by their religious beliefs. If you don't like 'em, don't vote for 'em... but on some level EVERYONE is influenced by what they believe, whether that belief is political, philosophical or religious.
Last edited by Goshin; 10-20-10 at 08:34 PM.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
I advocate a state that stays in the little box it was created in.
'The whole universe is going to die!'
I'm not sure that I can answer this poll the way it is written. I favor a government representing the morals and values of their constituents, regardless of where they get those morals and values.
The separation of Church and State prohibits the US government from either favoring or censoring any specific religion. It does not ban "religious" values from our laws.
I think laws should only be made when they are necessary to protect people or property. And even then, there should be a common sense test to determine if it is something that people really need to be protected from. We should weigh the pros and cons to decide if the law is protecting people from others or themselves and whether or not they need to be protected or if the law is actually working. I think there are a lot of laws that would be overturned if we looked at laws like this.
And I don't think the "will of the majority" should be the be-all, end-all for making a law. I'll use a very improbable, but not completely impossible, example. If someone/a group got together to convince people that water was bad and was able to get laws on the books anywhere in the US that water should be banned from use in that area, would it be okay as long as that was the "will of the majority" for that area? The law is completely stupid and actually puts people in danger of dying (those that can't take care of themselves and/or actually move).
Another one, which might actually be a little more probable, although still not likely. What if the people of an area decided to make a law that prevented a couple from having anyone else live with them if that couple had children? The reasoning for the law was based on research that determined that children are ..% more likely to be abused when someone other than their biological parents lives in the household with them. Would that be okay as long as it was approved by the majority? Would it be right? Would it matter if the research was wrong or questionable? Would they even need the research to back up there law so long as the majority approved of it? (BTW, this is hypothetical. I've never actually heard of such a law, and would absolutely be against it.)
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Can I change my vote, I accidentally vote the same as pbrauer?
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)