It is ironic that the good doctor is supportive of the religious right even though he does not share their religious philosophy. This is one more example of his dovetailing of views that I have described earlier. He cannot bring himself to oppose the largest group within his beloved, rightist party.
I am a firm believer in religious freedom and hold the First Amendment in high regard. That doesn’t prevent me from taking one’s religious views into account when casting my vote. In fact, the religious right has made a point of this for the past thirty years and I don’t fault them for it.
I am comfortable when political candidates hold mainstream religious views. I don’t necessarily agree with them but I am not threatened by their philosophy, as they are politically secular (just like the country they live in). This is not the case with fundamentalists, evangelicals and/or anyone else who is hoping for the “end days” in their lifetime.
I have low regard for the world view of those that would accept ritualistic, public blessings “against all forms of witchcraft”. I am not comfortable if they really believe that Jonah lived in a whale, Methuselah lived to be 969, or that Genesis describes the actual beginning of life. I prefer a more rational outlook in my leaders. Armageddon could well be self fulfilling and I’d rather not have a “true believer” in control of our awesome military capabilities. Had Pat Robertson (R) been elected president I honestly believe that he would have done his best to help bring Jesus back for a second visit.
The religious right is very supportive of the State of Israel as the existence of the Jewish State is a prerequisite for the second coming. The union of the evangelicals and Jews is particularly ironic when you consider that the fundamentalists believe that their friends will ultimately burn in hell since they have not accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.
The bible thumpers are not as fond of the first amendment as I am. They try to define it as narrowly as possible. They try to declare our country a Christian one, even though the constitution makes no reference to Christianity. They’d like us to fund their schools and convey the imprimatur of government on their cherished beliefs. To this day, houses of worship do not pay property taxes though they benefit from the services funded by same. They have a very good gig going and they’d like to make it better.
Are my views unreasonable in this regard? I think not. I’d merely rather vote for people that share my views regarding whale-living, lifespans and evolution. I don’t blame the fundamentalists for supporting those with a common creed. I’d simply like to point out their views out so that the rest of us can take them into account when casting our ballots. This is a winning issue, with legs, for the good guys.
1 comment:
It is ironic that the good doctor is supportive of the religious right even though he does not share their religious philosophy. This is one more example of his dovetailing of views that I have described earlier. He cannot bring himself to oppose the largest group within his beloved, rightist party.
I am a firm believer in religious freedom and hold the First Amendment in high regard. That doesn’t prevent me from taking one’s religious views into account when casting my vote. In fact, the religious right has made a point of this for the past thirty years and I don’t fault them for it.
I am comfortable when political candidates hold mainstream religious views. I don’t necessarily agree with them but I am not threatened by their philosophy, as they are politically secular (just like the country they live in). This is not the case with fundamentalists, evangelicals and/or anyone else who is hoping for the “end days” in their lifetime.
I have low regard for the world view of those that would accept ritualistic, public blessings “against all forms of witchcraft”. I am not comfortable if they really believe that Jonah lived in a whale, Methuselah lived to be 969, or that Genesis describes the actual beginning of life. I prefer a more rational outlook in my leaders. Armageddon could well be self fulfilling and I’d rather not have a “true believer” in control of our awesome military capabilities. Had Pat Robertson (R) been elected president I honestly believe that he would have done his best to help bring Jesus back for a second visit.
The religious right is very supportive of the State of Israel as the existence of the Jewish State is a prerequisite for the second coming. The union of the evangelicals and Jews is particularly ironic when you consider that the fundamentalists believe that their friends will ultimately burn in hell since they have not accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.
The bible thumpers are not as fond of the first amendment as I am. They try to define it as narrowly as possible. They try to declare our country a Christian one, even though the constitution makes no reference to Christianity. They’d like us to fund their schools and convey the imprimatur of government on their cherished beliefs. To this day, houses of worship do not pay property taxes though they benefit from the services funded by same. They have a very good gig going and they’d like to make it better.
Are my views unreasonable in this regard? I think not. I’d merely rather vote for people that share my views regarding whale-living, lifespans and evolution. I don’t blame the fundamentalists for supporting those with a common creed. I’d simply like to point out their views out so that the rest of us can take them into account when casting our ballots. This is a winning issue, with legs, for the good guys.
Post a Comment