“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” –the United States Constitution.
That seems pretty clear-cut to me; pretty transparent. It seems amazingly obvious that there is a clear secularity in American government, and that the separation of church and state should be just as guaranteed as our right to free speech. However, every day in the media, we see a quite different picture as politicians (especially the conservative ones) talk about God and Christianity like it’s a prerequisite to power.
First of all, I challenge that. Obama, for example, has been rumored to be a Muslim, a Christian, and even an atheist. While he is, indeed, a Christian, the ambiguity surrounding his religious background is exactly what every politician should have. Religion being involved in government is completely asinine- the Teabaggers that prate on about getting God and creationism back into our schools need to be reminded of the Dark Ages- where religion truly had a monopoly on education, and we actually went backwards. Since the beginning, the United States has been (on paper) completely secular- here is an excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” Looks like we aren’t a “Christian nation” after all.
On the polar opposite of what I believe should be the model for government, we have people like Rick Perry. A prayer rally to fix the country? Really? I ask everyone, including right-wingers (the ones that can read), wouldn’t you rather have someone in power that decided to try and use their abilities to fix the country, instead of praying to a mystical sky man? I honestly don’t understand the obsession in America with beliefs that have been debunked again and again. The definition of insanity, after all, is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I’ve considered simply counting the number of times politicians drop the “G” word in their speeches and voting against whoever uses it more. I’m completely fed up with such a flagrant violation of the secularity of our wonderful country.
And to those who plan to bring up the pledge of allegiance, or how “In God We Trust” is on our money, well, those things weren’t true seventy years ago. The pledge was originally written with “under God” omitted, and “E Pluribus Unum” (One from many is a loose definition; the explicit definition is, “From many; one”) was the original statement to be on our money. Both of the changes that are in place now are also violations of the secularity of America. In fact, the only time religious symbols (per the United States Supreme Court) or activities are even permissible on public grounds is when they serve some sort of historical purpose. Even the crosses used for headstones in veteran cemeteries are under debate, and rightfully so.
I’m an atheist. And proud to be. I take my ethical system from beliefs that have been critically reasoned out, and not from a ridiculous view of religious deontology that is both outdated and childish. I don’t need authority to tell me what is right and threaten punishment.
I welcome people- ALL people, politicians too –to worship who/whatever they wish. That’s fine. They can be a “God-fearing Christian” or observant Muslim, or Hindi, or a worshiper of the Papa New Guinean mud-god, Pikkiwoki, who is, incidentally, promising a pg and as many coconuts as you can carry. I am tolerant and open-minded when it comes to personal beliefs. All I ask, and it’s quite simple, really, is that they keep it out of the public eye, because government endorsement of a religion is illegal. How would you feel if a politician came to the podium wearing red and white Nike shoes, Nike socks, white Nike shorts, a Nike polo, and an Oregon Ducks jersey (they’re sponsored by Nike)? I’m guessing the country would scream corporate endorsement, and guess that Nike had his ear and he had ulterior motives.
A politician’s first duty lies toward the well-being of his/her country. When they use “God” to garnish votes, it now becomes toward that specific group of people. Religion has a place. That place is the philosophy classroom, or the church- not the science classroom, not the ethics classroom, and certainly not the political world.
“I don’t need authority to tell me what is right and threaten punishment.”
Oh, so you don’t believe in government either, then?
This comment is sort of childish, don’t you think? Not to mention an invalid analogy fallacy.
Government exists for many reasons other than criminal punishment. Not only that, but I said that my own personal ethics don’t need authority to tell me what to do.
Are you telling me that if both religion and government disappeared suddenly, you’d go on a killing and raping spree? I hope not.
Criminal punishment by general societal consensus is fine- and isn’t that our judicial system? That is far removed from claiming something is wrong because some crazy guy said he talked to a superior being.
piss off. there is nothing wrong with anything he said. i live in texas and i know the problems with Perry’s religious indoctrination into the political spectrum, he has a major God complex and it is a major problem.
(Since apparently it didn’t post the first time)
As much as I agree with your sentiments, that this is truly a nation of no religion (though it could also be argued that this is a nation of ALL religions) I feel the way it is stated here is rather offensive. It is claimed that the author respects personal religion yet the comment “praying to a mystical sky man” doesn’t promote that kind of understanding. Some people on the right are also rather decent, they simply have different political ideals, to make the comment of “(those that can read)” if anything will drive them away.
I find if you want to try to convert/convince someone towards your own beliefs a system of demeaning and ridiculing isn’t truly the best way, that’s the way many fundemental Christians (not all by any means, I know a few that are truly nice and follow their religion) take. It is a turn off to their ideals and a person is likely to reject them simply because of the attitude. Instead speak of love, acceptance, and a willingness to understand another; it goes a long way I find.