Electing religious leaders to our greater society’s posts is a clear affront to the public’s personal freedoms. This truth appears to be public understanding, even among religious Americans.
Even though it could be done we should not present the harbingers of our own personal beliefs into public politics where they would undoubtedly press it unfairly upon others.
Another publicly held understanding contradicts this principle; the right to vote along religiously defined lines. Nay say to electing priests but electing God fearing Christian men because they believe in the Bible and intend to pass pro-Christian belief oriented laws is fine. But what is the difference between this man and the priest?
For starters the politicians Christians did elect flake out on issues that stick their necks out too far. Was that what the religious right voted for? Why settle for these charlatans, why beat around the Bush? Either stop concerning yourself with the moral implications of electing ministers and just do it, or stop deriving your votes from a religious affiliation. Just don’t do both because it is hypocritical and ineffective.
Bla bla bla. Easier to write but no jokes, no feign, no jabs, no satire nor hidden intents. It?s like rebuilding a town without any wood. No, wait, that was a dumb analogy. But Matt Fritch, will school really be better without these things?
General engineering senior