The following is a series of reasons why in a democracy, one should not elect Christians as leaders or representatives.
1. They are exclusive, and will favour their own over the welfare of all. Minorities like Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other religions, as well as those who lack any religion, will be marginalised.
2. They have no moral sense, and will do whatever anyone in their faith community tells them they should do. They are religious relativists.
3. They try to impose their own views on others by law. They will try to make religious dogma binding on those who don't share their faith. They will "normalise" their own religious beliefs.
4. They are hypocrites, and will say one thing and do another. They will espouse Christ's teachings, and yet do the exact opposite - no fraternising with prostitutes or tax collectors, no care of strangers, no poverty vows for them.
5. The constitution (American or Australian) prohibits the establishment of religion.
6. They will try to impose religious holidays on the social calendar. Secular government must not make religious decisions on behalf of all people.
If we care about our social order, and the freedoms of all citizens and not only the core believers, we should not support the religious for public office. Do not vote for any Christians in the next election.
See how that feels? I have overgeneralised and taken individual cases as the standard. Imagine how non-Christians feel when they are told the same thing...
Stumble It!
Comments
Touche.
Lindsay Cullen (Rev)
Posted by: Lindsay Cullen | March 4, 2007 9:43 PM
Thanks John. I've just had to smack my head against my desk after reading the comments on your link.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | March 4, 2007 10:44 PM
Careful. You might turn into a religious conservative.
Posted by: John Wilkins | March 4, 2007 10:46 PM
...except that Medved was talking about an atheist president, and many non-Christians might sympathise with his reasons (were they also non-atheists); so is it really 'Touche'? E.g. as an agnostic, I too would wonder how an atheist could avoid moral relativism (of some sort), without merely projecting his/her beliefs (or rather, those that attract voters) onto reality in an unjustifiably rigid way. As an agnostic (about God) I could allow that a more (epistemically) virtuous person than myself might know moral truths.
Posted by: Enigman | March 5, 2007 9:26 AM
Atheists are different from non-Christians: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
Posted by: Enigman | March 5, 2007 9:36 AM
You really need to add another.
7. They do not think rationally. Their religion values "Faith" (believing because someone tells you you're supposed to) over rational thought as primary guidance in decision making.
Lynn
Posted by: Lynn | March 5, 2007 1:15 PM
Wow. Well done!
Posted by: Trinifar | March 5, 2007 6:43 PM
You cannot imagine my disappointment upon reading the last line.
Posted by: Diego Portero | March 5, 2007 8:40 PM
So restrict the extension of the term "Christian" to the religious who wear their religion on their sleeve, and you can follow all this exactly... which is in fact what I do.
Posted by: John Wilkins | March 5, 2007 9:19 PM
Oh come on! If some stories made up in the Middle-East thousands of years ago aren't DIRECTLY relevant to Australian politics today, then I don't know what is.
If Jesus was alive today, he would probably be contesting the NSW election for the Liberal Party.
Hey, maybe we should make a constitutional alteration that says anyone who performs verified miracles can run the country - but the miracles can't be "verified" in a private metting in John Howard's office...
Posted by: MIKETRON | March 5, 2007 10:12 PM
On the other hand, Christians (usually) just worship God, unlike politicians who think they are God.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | March 6, 2007 7:48 AM