|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
does Faith Matter? Today on Facebook, I got the following note:
I have to say, it got me thinking. Now, for a bit of context, I'm British. Here, religion is not a big deal. In fact I'm not sure it was mentioned at all at the last general election. Now, Britain is most certainly a secular country, although we are religiously diverse. I think Tony Blair was a Catholic, but religion just doesn't enter into our politics. I admit, I'm guessing, but I think there are two reasons it is so prolific in America. First off, you have a much larger proportion of church-goers. While a majority of the UK population identify themselves as Christian, very very few of those actually attend church regularly. Secondly, your ruling party has an alliance with the Christian Right, a union organised, I am told, by Reagan. But anyway, the question was what role should personal faith play in decision making on a national and global scale. I personally agreed with Ryan - it shouldn't have any effect. My main reason for this is that the President needs to be able to act for the best interests of his country and of the world as a whole. These decisions should be the same regardless of personal faith. I also believe that the personal faith of a leader should not affect the rights of individual citizens to free speech, self-determination and freedom of religion. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Bush's successor would be able to bring about any legislation saying that if you're not Christian you can't vote, but there are certainly ways that they could make it difficult for minorities. I suppose in a way I'm scared of someone with extreme faith. I don't mind that a leader is religious. If their way of thinking about something is to pray, that's fine by me, as long as they DO think, and get advice from experts. But the idea of someone who believes that they are God's hand on Earth, and that what they do is his will, and that he approves of it scares me. That's what Islamic terrorists believe. It gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want. Or, alternatively, to just let anything happen because whatever it is is god's will too. Neither of those are very helpful. A rung or so down the faith ladder and you'll just get someone whose policies are transparently religious - banning things because of that religion's specific views. Gay marriage for example. No matter what it used to be, marriage is no longer a religious union, it's a civil one. Vegas proves that more than anywhere. God help us lest the gays spoil the sanctity of Britney's 48-hour marriage. The problem with modern politics is that people try to create a false dilemma (look it up on Wikipedia) - try to make an issue into an either/or question when there are other options. For instance, there's the "you're either for the war in Iraq, or you hate our troops and support Saddam" myth perpetuated by the media. Here the dilemma is either you let people's faith determine their actions, or you hate Christians. It's not true. A rather surprising number of my friends are Christian. I don't hate Christians, I just feel it's wrong that that faith's morals are used to determine public policy in what is a multicultural society. I don't demand that a leader be atheist, I merely ask that they think, and act in the best interests of their people, not just in the best interests of their religion.
|
