The Religion Debate
My previous post was responded to thus:
Paul: I respect your views and do totally believe in the separation of Church and State. Religion has done many terrible things and I wouldn't ever condone what they have done. But regretfully many wars have been started by men who wanted power. Religion serves a purpose for many. Regretfully, many think their faith is the best. I don't agree with that at all. Each have much good and I would never criticize nor judge another's faith. John Kennedy spoke in front of Baptists and made it very clear that he separated his faith from what he would do governing.
Here's my response:
No doubt that religion serves some purpose for many, and has contributed to many people leading moral lives. I do often wonder though whether what is served is often an escape from living in and engaging with this world, and indeed a denial of this world, in search of some other world that may or may not exist.
I don't want to debate the purpose religion may serve for some people. What I do want to debate is the hypocrisy and intolerance I see from would-be leaders that have put forth a litmus test of faith and proclamations that this must be a religious nation to lead the fight for liberty and freedom, both here and around the world.
What I want to debate is whether we are a nation of human beings that have values that transcend religion and are based on the morality, ethics and need for cooperation and what that means in terms of the political life of the country.
Unfortunately, times have changed radically since JFK. He needed to convince a nation that the role of church and state were distinct and that his personal church (religion) had nothing to do with the functioning of the state. Now, we're faced with people that bring their religion into the running of the state, make claims that there is no state and no freedom without religion, use their religion to guide public policy for the state and have visions of a one religion state in this country.
This is what I find reprehensible and unacceptable and worthy of debate.
Paul: I respect your views and do totally believe in the separation of Church and State. Religion has done many terrible things and I wouldn't ever condone what they have done. But regretfully many wars have been started by men who wanted power. Religion serves a purpose for many. Regretfully, many think their faith is the best. I don't agree with that at all. Each have much good and I would never criticize nor judge another's faith. John Kennedy spoke in front of Baptists and made it very clear that he separated his faith from what he would do governing.
Here's my response:
No doubt that religion serves some purpose for many, and has contributed to many people leading moral lives. I do often wonder though whether what is served is often an escape from living in and engaging with this world, and indeed a denial of this world, in search of some other world that may or may not exist.
I don't want to debate the purpose religion may serve for some people. What I do want to debate is the hypocrisy and intolerance I see from would-be leaders that have put forth a litmus test of faith and proclamations that this must be a religious nation to lead the fight for liberty and freedom, both here and around the world.
What I want to debate is whether we are a nation of human beings that have values that transcend religion and are based on the morality, ethics and need for cooperation and what that means in terms of the political life of the country.
Unfortunately, times have changed radically since JFK. He needed to convince a nation that the role of church and state were distinct and that his personal church (religion) had nothing to do with the functioning of the state. Now, we're faced with people that bring their religion into the running of the state, make claims that there is no state and no freedom without religion, use their religion to guide public policy for the state and have visions of a one religion state in this country.
This is what I find reprehensible and unacceptable and worthy of debate.
posted by Paul Salinger at 11:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home