A Response To: "Religion bating, the elite media declared open season on the President and his supporters (Joe Scarborough)"
Hmmm...can you say fight hyperbole with hyperbole?
Read This First: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368832/#041108a
---------------
The point, you seemed to have missed, is that it's been made clear by many evangelical leaders that they expect payback for their "delivery of victory". This means they want to legislate their faith and this is simply antithetical to the American way of life. Personal faith of some sort is essential to a good life, but Christian faith is only one of many and it isn't even the majority faith in the world anymore. Furthermore, its fundamental structures run counter to many other belief systems in the world and challenge the very social and scientific constructs that made us a modern nation state.
So, I ask you, is it more acceptable to condone bigotry, irrational thought and simplistic reasoning just because it stems from a traditional faith or religion?
Our founding fathers separated Church and State for a reason. The reason is that the governing of man on the worldly plane is inherently a fuzzy proposition as no one belief or faith can accurately capture the collective faith of a nation. Fundamentalist faith, which makes up most of the evangelical community, does not allow for diversity of opinion or vision - hence, the description fundamentalist. In order for them to be right, someone must be wrong. It's this inability to see other points of view outside the context of their faith or ideology (a trait shared with our current and future President as well) that runs counter to American ideals of governance by the laws of man, tolerance and justice for all, and inclusion or at least consideration.
If we are to allow governance on faith, than whose faith shall we choose?
If the "Church" decides to become a political entity - which it has by preaching political affinity on the pulpit and actively lobbying the government, than it will ultimately become the target of political rhetoric and rightly so. It does not get a "is nothing sacred" free pass once it steps beyond the sacred into the arena of the politics of man.
If you are asking me to vote for a man who will make the laws of this nation, than I want a man who does it on sound reason, not just faith or ideology. If you try to convince me that your faith or ideology is reasonable, and it clearly is not, than I see no reason why you shouldn't be made aware of the logical fallacies of your reasoning not to mention the rampant hypocrisy.
Senator Bob Kerry said it best over the weekend (I'm paraphrasing here...), "The federal government shouldn't tell the church how to preach the faith and the church shouldn't tell the government how to govern man."
Hmmm...can you say fight hyperbole with hyperbole?
Read This First: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368832/#041108a
---------------
The point, you seemed to have missed, is that it's been made clear by many evangelical leaders that they expect payback for their "delivery of victory". This means they want to legislate their faith and this is simply antithetical to the American way of life. Personal faith of some sort is essential to a good life, but Christian faith is only one of many and it isn't even the majority faith in the world anymore. Furthermore, its fundamental structures run counter to many other belief systems in the world and challenge the very social and scientific constructs that made us a modern nation state.
So, I ask you, is it more acceptable to condone bigotry, irrational thought and simplistic reasoning just because it stems from a traditional faith or religion?
Our founding fathers separated Church and State for a reason. The reason is that the governing of man on the worldly plane is inherently a fuzzy proposition as no one belief or faith can accurately capture the collective faith of a nation. Fundamentalist faith, which makes up most of the evangelical community, does not allow for diversity of opinion or vision - hence, the description fundamentalist. In order for them to be right, someone must be wrong. It's this inability to see other points of view outside the context of their faith or ideology (a trait shared with our current and future President as well) that runs counter to American ideals of governance by the laws of man, tolerance and justice for all, and inclusion or at least consideration.
If we are to allow governance on faith, than whose faith shall we choose?
If the "Church" decides to become a political entity - which it has by preaching political affinity on the pulpit and actively lobbying the government, than it will ultimately become the target of political rhetoric and rightly so. It does not get a "is nothing sacred" free pass once it steps beyond the sacred into the arena of the politics of man.
If you are asking me to vote for a man who will make the laws of this nation, than I want a man who does it on sound reason, not just faith or ideology. If you try to convince me that your faith or ideology is reasonable, and it clearly is not, than I see no reason why you shouldn't be made aware of the logical fallacies of your reasoning not to mention the rampant hypocrisy.
Senator Bob Kerry said it best over the weekend (I'm paraphrasing here...), "The federal government shouldn't tell the church how to preach the faith and the church shouldn't tell the government how to govern man."
posted by Mike at 1:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home