Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mana who wrote (748346)	8/27/2006 10:03:46 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Mana and Haqihana: I have no problem with people having deep felt religious beliefs. I have no problem with people in government having, and expressing their beliefs. Every person in this wonderful country has that right and it should be expressed without fear of compulsion or criticism by others.....especially criticism by those who hold the reins of power. This is where Ms. Harris' comments bothered me. If she wishes to be a Senator, one of the 101 most powerful people in the Country (yeah, yeah, I know about all those string-pullers who are supposed to be more powereful, but work with me here..)I would hope that she respects the fact that millions of Americans do not share her specific views of religion. She is unquestionably entitled to those views, and her right to express them.....BUT when she says that voters MUST elect Christians AND that if this is not done, we will legislatae sin...this means to me: 1) She does not believe that non-christians can legislate on key issues. Jews can't do it, maybe Mormons can't do it....certainly agnostics, Moslems, Hindus and buddhists can't be trusted to do it. Basically, only Christians "get it". Anyone else will legislate sin. And therefore only Christians can be trusted with government. 2) If you take the earlier thesis, then her words are a call to arms (rhetorically speaking) for the exclusion of anyone who is not christian, or her type of christian. I wonder how she feels about Catholics? 3) If there is no division of church and state, as she claims, then the church and the state are one? If one, which church fills that role of acting for the State? In her mind, it must be the Christian church I am sure. Are Jews then unable to govern? Should they be allowed in government? If we determine our public policy along christian tenants as the primary, overriding force of decision (rather than one of many tenants) we start to look like those middle-east nations we say we disagree with....where Islamic republics make religion the driving force of social norms. We are not a theocracy. Her words could lead to a feeling that a theocracy (religion driving the purpose of the state) would be a good thing...in fact, the thing the founders intended. And, if her plan were to come to pass with the church and state intimately bound, does anyone think the chilling effect on other religion's observance would not be very real? I am not one of those who thinks nativity scenes shouldn't be in public places, or that a moment of silence in our schools is the end of the world....BUT....that is a way bit short of what Ms. Harris COULD be said to be proposing....church/state merger with decisions of government driven first by church tenants....But what happens if different segments of "the church" see social issues differently? Is gay marriagae a religious or social issue? You might say both, but should the resolution of what "marriage" means (a legal definition, not religious) be determined by what some say the Christian church requires...or by broader social concerns...which might be identical to the religious dictates, but arrived at for different reasons. Anyway, I don't oppose Ms. Harris' beliefs. I do oppose her view that Christians and christian values must be placed in the role of final determenent .. And, if God picks our leaders as she states, why did he give us Clinton? If we come to believe our leaders are divinely appointed, how can be possibly criticize their actions? The divine right of Kings (and Presidents) is something the founders certainly did not want us to emulate. Pomp