I realize that by bringing this up, especially in conjunction with some of my earlier posts, I may be giving the impression that I'm anti-religious. I'm not. I just don't believe that anyone should be trying to impose their particular religious beliefs on anyone else. I know that this flies in the face of various evangelical movements whose mission is to proselytize and win converts. That's their right, of course, but it is also my right to expect that when told to buzz off, that they will. It is also my right to expect that the government will not espouse any particular religious belief. This does not mean that government officials must divorce their religious beliefs from their public actions. Indeed, I would expect their moral convictions to inform their policy decisions while still abiding by their oaths of office.
However, there is a problem when it is taken too far. Government officials from meter maids to the President must be aware that this is not a theocracy, but a republic. This is where the President runs into problems.
There are increasing reports that he is basing his decisions for items of nation importance, from the invasion of Afghanistan to that of Iraq, on guidance from God. He has related this particular bit of news to foreign leaders like Paul Martin (Canada), Vladimir Putin (Russia), and Palestinian leaders.
This is a definite problem.
As I said earlier, the President's religious beliefs are between him and the Creator, but in this country, he represents us, the citizens of the United States. He is not, to my knowledge, the representative of God on Earth. I'd have expected God to pick someone with a little more moral fiber. There's also the question of what makes him the arbiter of God's word? What kind of arrogance does it take for someone to designate himself God's vicar on Earth?
Posted by Chris at February 9, 2004 12:27 PM