by April Warren

Created on: February 03, 2009   Last Updated: February 04, 2009

There is no point in history where personal beliefs did not affect the government. Every opinion you have, every belief, thought, everything you may think to be true, may not be in fact and is actually only truth in your own perspective. This is the reason why many people refer to their outlook as "my beliefs". There is a point where truth and beliefs merge, but others may not see what you see or vice-versa. In any case, the United States was built around beliefs, most of which derived from the Bible. Tolerance of religions in the government is merely the mirror image of Christianity's tolerance of religions. Don't bring me Bloody Mary or other nonsense, because no Christian is the spokesperson of Christianity. If you think someone can get between God and yourself, then God is not in the equation at all. Last time I checked the Pilgrims weren't running from religion, but from a government that made their "religion" forbidden. Is this not what such a question is suggesting? To say that this is a slippery slope is true; I see it very clearly in how our federal government is today, but then so is allowing a politician to be "religious" at all. Are you going to remove them? How about if there are "religious" people in their family? Will you prevent Christians from serving? Why should the "religious" even have to abide by a government that does not see them as equal citizens, that punishes them for being "religious," and a government that does not represent them? It is impossible, impractical and immoral. Government is affected by beliefs, but religion in the U.S. is supposed to be protected from the federal government, not the other way around. The U.S. was not initially built to be so federalized. It was meant to allow many states with their own laws, based on the opinion of the people, put into action using a republican form of government. Republics are representative, and freedoms of speech and assembly are vital to representation. The moment the federal government forbid "religious" organizations, which is simply a large group of people with the same opinion, to voice theirs, either orally or financially, they have violated three distinct laws of our Constitution. States are not so bound, but at least they are more accountable to the people than politicians on the federal plain. Why do you think an organization is not just many people voicing the same thing, but instead a single entity not recognized at all? As I see here and as well as many other discussions,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>