Quote:
JerryJohn wrote
Yes. We disagree on this. The more religious people the better off to keep our religious freedom to teach and preach as we believe.
|
Okay. Well, straight off the bat I should say that I don't care about American domestic policy. Just like I don't care about British domestic policy, or Canadian domestic policy. I'm not American, it won't affect me and it's not my country.
I have said this here before. I've also said
things about my political beliefs here (spoiler alert - they're probably
not what you expect).
Having said all of ^ that, I can still empathise and look at the situation from within - much like I can buy in to a movie knowing it's a movie, I can buy in to a situation knowing it's not mine. I also
do care about American foreign policy because that's likely to affect me and my country.
So that was a pretty long spiel just to set-up where I'm coming from, I'll admit it - but no-one has ever accused me of brevity. I type. I type, like, a lot when I post something.
Your point about having more religious people around to ensure religious freedom, maybe I'd be able to get behind if it was a multitude of religions. Even then I probably wouldn't be excited about it, but at least I could get behind your point and I generally support people's right to have their religion even if I disagree with it.
The problem is, though, that's not the case. Right now Trump is filling his cup with people from the religious side of the republicans and that's old white evangelicals.
Pence I understand for the VP because he was seriously lacking in the religious department himself and needed to bolster his religious image to grab the evangelicals for the election. That's all well and good, but now the election's over and he's stuck with the religious extremist in his inner circle.
We don't need to go into what the issues with his views are right this instant as honestly I suspect you would support a lot of them (which in and of itself is worrying enough, but that's not here or there) and it wouldn't hit the point I'm talking on. So we'll swerve for a second.
The reason it's not "helping your religious freedom to teach and preach as [you] believe" is because from everything I know (and I actually know a fair bit), that freedom has never been taken from you - and I suspect you'll want to get further in to that and we will.
Imagine for a second that when elected, Obama turned out to be a Muslim. He surrounded himself with muslim advisors. They directed policy based on their religious beliefs and put them into law.
Would you be happy? Would you be celebrating "The more religious people the better off to keep our religious freedom to teach and preach as we believe"?
Hell, let's not even use that. I don't know which one of the christianities you support but let's say Trump puts someone who is a strong Baptist in charge of, say, education - and now Baptist ideas and beliefs are put in place in the school system. Or protestant, or catholic. Pick one of the ones you're not. Imagine that the teachers are now allowed to preach catholicism to the kids. Or maybe it's Protestantism.
Are you going to be cool with that? That's my problem. Policy directed by religion - and make no mistake, the people he's putting in to power by association are the kinds of people that will make policy directed by their religion - is policy against anyone not of that religion.
And that goes directly against your idea of being able to "keep [your] religious freedom to teach and preach as we believe."
It's all well and good to support "religious" people in power when it's
your religion - but remember that it might no always be the case.