My Actual Homepage - Go here for more info.

I plan to put a graphical banner here eventually...

01 September 2012

Politicians Have Forgotten Their Job!

The job of a politician (in general) should be:

"Represent their constituents within the confines of the Constitution."

You ask any politician what their job is, and they will insist that this is exactly what they are doing, but I contend that they are NOT.

First of all, they fail in representing their constituents.  If you observe their behaviour, you can tell that they are not representing their constituents.  They are only representing the people who actually voted for them.  In my opinion, they are being stupid in adhering to their rabid partisan ways.  Of course, the GOP has an over abundance of stupidity in their adherence to non-negotiable ideological positions.    If you actually try to represent the entire population as opposed to some loudmouthed redneck extremists, you may actually gather more votes as you run for re-election.  Of course, the politicians are too interested in pandering to the most extreme positions of their "base".  This hyper-partisan environment is doing nothing but freezing up anything from happening.  If you look at this particular congress, I bet you could easily imagine them passing a resolution opposing President Obama if he declared kittens as cute.

Secondly, and this is particularly against the GOP, they are absolutely not following the Constitution.  To most politicians, they think their job is to impose their views on the populous, without regard to the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.  They think that because they believe it, it's okay to impose their view, despite the freedom of religion for all citizens, even if it's not christianity.  The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. And maybe that's their point?

No comments: