Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Davesta
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Davesta
To discriminate solely against religious people would not only be unfair, but would ultimately be pointless in your attempt to eradicate predetermined ideas from the minds of leaders.
|
Which is very much the case with the West Vs the Middle East / Terrorism.
Problem isn't that Bush is religious, its that his religion deeply influences his politics. Some of the more extreme groups in the US (& don't forget that Bush has procliamed himself a fundamentalist, altho not as gone as the ppl I am about to describe) think Bush has been appointed by god (he didn't win the election) & some believe that the destruction of the middle East will herald the second coming.
|
Well they're obviously a couple of electrical appliances short of a comet store! But the fact that Bush's religious ideas affect his decisions shouldn't be a reason to ban religious people from taking up positions of power. Bush should be able to make decisions without his prejudices or beliefs being involved in the decision making process. It's the fact that he's a bad president that allows his religious beliefs to be such a big part of his decisions, not the fact that he holds those beliefs in the first place. Does that make sense?
|
So - explain how someone deeply religious is able to rule without letting it influence their decisions??
|
They should be able to rule in an impartial way without out allowing their own views/interests/prejudices to have an effect on their decisions. It is effectively the basic role of a leader. It's analogous to the director of a company whose priority is towards the interests of the shareholders. His decisions are made with their interests at hand, not his own. This should be the same for a president. His decisions should reflect what is in the best interest for the country he is leading and the people who live there, they should not reflect his own beliefs or desires.