As noted in previous posts, my preference for religious moderation and tolerance in the public sphere dovetails with my support for the separation of specific religion and specific government. When the first (and so far only) Catholic President of the USA, John F. Kennedy, presided in the early 1960s, he ruled from a position of religious moderation and tolerance, not as a Catholic. This is the best way to go, and most presidents have adhered to a fairly centrist approach in policy, if not in rhetoric. On the other hand, there's always been a strand of what I consider religious fanaticism throughout the history of the United (and Confederate) States and its colonial precursors. The Puritans and the Ku Klux Klan are more blatant examples, but there have been hundreds of such groups since 1600. We are seeing them today as represented by Tea Party and Republican Party candidates for president, serving in state legislatures, as governors, in the Congress, and so on. Today's religious fanatics, for the most part right wing or conservative Christians, would like to see the USA operating under their dominion, based (usually) on a literal interpretation of the Bible and its "principles." My response is, Nein danke. No thanks. Gong. Next . . .
At the presidential level, check out for instance Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty (evangelicals), and let's not forget the Book of Mormon gentlemen, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr. The latter two come off as more moderate than the former two -- which goes to show how far to the right the Republican Party has moved. Fellow Americans not of their ideological systems, be wary. In this fissured geographical democracy, things are not particularly stable.
Today's Rune: Signals.
4 comments:
Separation of Church and State was one of the most important ideas our founders laid down.
The more fanatical politicians just scare me. Because you know that reason and practicality can be so easily shoved aside by them when their religious emotions are aroused.
Well set out.
I would have said stronger, possibly dangerous things about religion in America.
Turn on the TV any time after midnight and what do you get?
Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer and all the other evangelicals with surprisingly huge audiences of the converted.
Elmer and Ellen Gantry seem to rule.
It would seem to me that to say America (and my Canada)is a secular culture would somehow beg the question.
If I hadn't cracked a book here and there besides the Bible, I swear I would be out there with Benny Hinn, taking Jesus as my personal saviour.
People's need to be led. Beyond reason.
Erik, esse fanatismo só vem provar que a mentalidade do homem não caminhou junto com o "progresso". Ainda tem-se o ranço de tempos antigos.
Como evitar que a Igreja não se intrometa nas decisões do Estado, se a todo momento, o Estado se intromete nas decisões do homem? As leis são provas disso, pois elas deveriam respeitar também as opiniões de foro íntimo de cada um. Pelo menos, democracia é isso!
Mas vamos dizer também que a democracia permite que os vários grupos religiosos se manifestem igualmente - isso é saudável! Cabe a cada um decidir o que é melhor para si.
Boa semana! Beijus,
Erik, this fanaticism just goes to show that the mentality of man did not walk along with the "progress". Still there is the stale ancient times.
Preventing the Church does not meddle in the decisions of the state, all the time, the State intrudes on decisions of the man? The laws are evidence of that, because they should also respect the views of an intimate of each. At least, that's democracy!
But let's also say that democracy allows the various religious groups also expressed - that is healthy! Each one decide what is best for you.
Good week! Beijus,
Post a Comment