Religion in politics is just irresponsible
August 1, 2005
“…The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” – From a treaty with Tripoli, written by George Washington in 1796 and ratified by Congress in 1797.
A great many of the founders of our nation either viewed Christianity with disdain, or truly believed religion has no place in government. Benjamin Franklin was a deist. For those of you who do not know, deism is “Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.” Why?
Because this country is a country of freedom – of religion and from religion. If you choose to be Buddhist, you have certain ethics and morals. If you choose to be Christian, your morals differ from those of the Buddhist. Does that make those morals any more right or wrong – just because you have a different religion? No! And that is what our Founding Fathers were trying to say.
This nation is a haven to peoples of all religions and nationalities, and bringing religion into the government not only isn’t right, it’s not professional. The representatives of the people – Congress – are supposed to represent them. Bringing a religion into the system is not representing them; it’s pretty much tantamount to spitting in their faces.
The point is, many of the Christian morals are atrocious to a great many who inhabit this nation. Murder, rape, incest, needless violence – these are not morals that are only prevalent in Christianity.
Almost every religion represented in the United States – including satanism, a religion with a cardinal rule “you should never hurt little children, ever” – believes in these things. They, of course, should not be stricken from our law books. But highly controversial religious matters such as homosexual marriage, suicide and abortion – these, no one can seem to agree on, and therefore, should be taken care of at a personal level, rather than a national level.
Recommended Stories For You
Bringing your religion, as opposed to your moral fortitude, into politics is just irresponsible and unprofessional when you can walk down the corridors of any building and find no less than 10 religions represented, from varying sects of Christianity, to satanism (which is more of a non-religion, actually), to Buddhism, to any of the new-age religions in practice today. Each are just as valid as the next.
How can any of the politicians claim to be representing the people properly if they continue dragging religion into it? Keep it to the things we all agree on – murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, incest is wrong, hitting people is wrong. We all pretty much agree on that. Keep it simple, folks. And stop talking about how this religion is founded on Christian beliefs. Poor Benjamin Franklin must be rolling in his grave.
Take probabilities out of news reports
I know of three words which should be stricken from news reporting. The three words are, “may,” “might” and “could.” Agreeably, there are probably more, but the three listed above are, to me, especially irritating.
Take the following examples of what may, might or could be reported:
1. The world may end today.
2. Judges and/or politicians might do what’s right simply because it’s the right thing to do.
3. The writer of this letter could win a jackpot.
Admittedly, all three “may, might or could” happen, but the likelihood is slim and none.
Give me reporting of the news those things that have happened or are currently happening. Let my imagination make up the mays, mights and coulds.
Prescription costs skyrocketing – why?
Much has been said regarding the huge expense which medicine has become to, among others, our senior citizens. Perhaps it is time to ask the manufacturers and pharmacists why the price of some medications escalates out of proportion. Is it because the Food and Drug Administration is turning a blind eye to the fact that a segment of our society is taking full advantage of its ability to gouge the public?
Case in point: Four years ago, when I lived in Escondido, I paid $19.95 for 100 tablets of Levoxyl, which I need for a low-thyroid condition. Today at the local pharmacy, the same number of tablets was $46.99. Fortunately, I can still afford it, if I don’t live too long.
There are many who can’t.
BETTY T. LEE