It is absurd that he doesnt realize that it is not possible to impose non-religion on people... But it is in your best interest as a religious person to support the idea of not being forced to abide by the precepts of any religion in government. His logic doesnt begin to make sense. If you can force religion on a non-religious person, what is stopping a religious person to have a religion they dont believe in forced on them? It is the same thing, ultimately, being forced to have your behavior and rights controlled by a religion you do not believe in. If you are a part of the majority religion, it may seem like a good idea, but think about the day when the majority is held by another religion. You wont think it is acceptable then. If you want to apply your religion to the pledge of allegiance or other public ceremonies, you can do that personally, but forcing everyone else to do so, especially according to your personal religion, is not abiding by the separation of church and state. [“Some of my colleagues have said, ‘Oh, we agonize a lot.’ I don’t agonize at all. I look at the text, I look at the history of the text – that’s the answer. It’s not my call.”] Where is he getting his history from? It isnt from a trustworthy source if it supports his belief that the Founders intended for the separation of church and state to mean that everyone must be forced into Christianity.
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 05:07:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015