Sunday, April 17, 2005
Running for Congress: Secularism For Life
Since some people vote for their representatives based on their “moral,” background as opposed to their effectiveness as legislators or policymakers, I figured now was a good time to discuss my views on the place of religion in government. I believe that most people would prefer that those responsible for enacting laws which affect their lives are moral as opposed to amoral. Adhering to principles gives us comfort as part of a populace since we can thus gauge how our rulers are going to act. If a legislator, or President, can portray himself as a follower of a Christian God, that gives us the added support of thinking that such a person answers to the same higher power we do, and makes judgments of policy based with this morality and fear of eternal retribution in the back of his or her mind when he commits that executive order or asks for that filibuster.
Over time, there has been an increasing personalization in religious beliefs, whether to make religion more accessible or to reflect the general intellectual emphasis on individual freedom and equality as a self-evident truth. You’ll notice I use language from the Declaration of Independence, and for good reason, it is this principle on which the United States’ philosophy of governance is founded. Increased personalization, however, as well as fragmentation of religious ideals within the Christian community only emphasize the lack of moral consensus within the realm of religion.
This only reinforces the necessity of preventative measures to separate the realms of governance and religion. For, as legislators, we hold a unique position in society, we can force things on people, be it rules, civic duties, or ideologies. We must not abuse our power by doing such things. Moreover, the American judiciary, which has taken a beating from uninformed idiots in Congress, is in place to prevent the Congress and Executive branch from committing such impositions. Didn’t these people take Civics class? Or are they so obsessed with maintaining popularity through achieving desirable outcomes in matters of national media hysteria that they are willing to destroy our system of government?
After all, moral debate in this country now comes down to a few framed issues. Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Do you support the teaching of Creationism in our classrooms? Should the Ten Commandments be placed on state buildings? The real question however, is which moral codes can effectively be used in governing the United States? How can one be assured that those running the country are good people without forcing their moral standards on all of society?
I generally believe in the ability of people to come to their own moral conclusions about choices they make and the world around them. I believe through allowing as much information and exchange as possible, everyone can at least feel free to live their own lives as they want them. I also believe that the state cannot endorse, even implicitly, any religious or moral dogma over another, and that the United States has a history of adhering to this principle. If you want me to explain my position on any moral issue, I’d be more than happy to.
Over time, there has been an increasing personalization in religious beliefs, whether to make religion more accessible or to reflect the general intellectual emphasis on individual freedom and equality as a self-evident truth. You’ll notice I use language from the Declaration of Independence, and for good reason, it is this principle on which the United States’ philosophy of governance is founded. Increased personalization, however, as well as fragmentation of religious ideals within the Christian community only emphasize the lack of moral consensus within the realm of religion.
This only reinforces the necessity of preventative measures to separate the realms of governance and religion. For, as legislators, we hold a unique position in society, we can force things on people, be it rules, civic duties, or ideologies. We must not abuse our power by doing such things. Moreover, the American judiciary, which has taken a beating from uninformed idiots in Congress, is in place to prevent the Congress and Executive branch from committing such impositions. Didn’t these people take Civics class? Or are they so obsessed with maintaining popularity through achieving desirable outcomes in matters of national media hysteria that they are willing to destroy our system of government?
After all, moral debate in this country now comes down to a few framed issues. Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Do you support the teaching of Creationism in our classrooms? Should the Ten Commandments be placed on state buildings? The real question however, is which moral codes can effectively be used in governing the United States? How can one be assured that those running the country are good people without forcing their moral standards on all of society?
I generally believe in the ability of people to come to their own moral conclusions about choices they make and the world around them. I believe through allowing as much information and exchange as possible, everyone can at least feel free to live their own lives as they want them. I also believe that the state cannot endorse, even implicitly, any religious or moral dogma over another, and that the United States has a history of adhering to this principle. If you want me to explain my position on any moral issue, I’d be more than happy to.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 2:33 AM 
