Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
"Yes, I'm a DEVOUT Catholic, but I will vote yes to allow abortion (against my religion), and I will vote yes to ban those sicko gay marriages (against my religion) and I will vote this way or that way (against my religion)." Well then, dude, you better STOP calling yourself a DEVOUT Catholic, because you aren't one.
|
Because when a individual takes an oath of office, he swears
to god that s/he will fulfill a duty to that office. While s/he can base decisions on the ethics which were instilled by his/her religion, using his/her office to impose his/her religious beliefs on constituents would violate that oath, which would mean bearing false witness which would violate the second and possibly the eight commandments, depending on your interpretation.
If a majority of your community was muslim and the majority of your city council passed an ordinance that all women should wear a burka, would you consider that fair? After all, the council would be following their religious beliefs, attempting to end a practice that offends a majority of the community. Since you would be in the minority, it would be your choice to adhere to the religious beliefs of your elected officials, as well as the "community standard", or move. What would you choose? Would you be happy about it?
"Community standards" and the separation of church and state has never been a black and white game. In reality, it is only possible to regulate the public behavior which most reasonable people across the entire USA would agree was improper. A city council could ban public nudity, but could not successfully ban green shirts without proving to the court that the ban on green shirts was necessary for public order because green shirts were 'gang colors'.
The reason we have all of these levels of courts is so that community standards can be judged by the larger community. This is why all of these stories about school districts incredibly dumb policies usually end with "and they got sued and settled out of court".
James Carter was one of the most morally correct and decent presidents that was ever in the White House, and he did not feel the need to lead domestic or international 'crusades' to convert the heathen to righteousness. Seeing as how the question of who is right and which customs are actually required for God will not be settled until we die, this makes a great deal of sense.
After all, it would be a shame to have to go through life wearing a burka, get to heaven, and find out that since God created man and women naked, he had no problems with nudity.
In the end, I'll leave it to Mr. Jefferson to close.
Quote:
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors;
that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them;
that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove.
Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses.
Thomas Jefferson
|
So, if a (place religion here) politician is elected to serve a largely (place religion here) electorate, and decides that things would function more smoothly if everyone would just act more (place religion here), then f**k him. And I'm not talking bible thumper-approved missionary style f**king. I mean banned in all 50 states, shock a Supreme Court Justice (except Clarence Thomas), make Hugh Hefner blush, style f**king.
