This got me to thinking however. Would I rather have a Mormon than a secularist in the Oval Office. Much like Oogway warns in Kung Fu Panda, "One often meets his destiny trying to avoid it".
By trying to get me to dislike Romney for being a Mormon I find that now I have another reason for why a Catholic might vote for Romney (not that I am mind you, but it is a thought).
By trying to get me to dislike Romney for being a Mormon I find that now I have another reason for why a Catholic might vote for Romney (not that I am mind you, but it is a thought).
The reasoning goes like this. A Mormon believes in the supernatural. A Mormon believes in the notion of a Divine Law. A Mormon knows that some things lie beyond them, yet are bound by such things that transcend our complete understanding.
Obviously these are generalities. The theology of Mormonism is "out there" when it comes to the spectrum of religious ideas. But while the Mormon make look in a very different direction than most do, they are at least looking out beyond themselves and see something along the horizon.
Secular atheists have no such orientation. For them law is based "purely" on empirical reasoning and rational analysis. To search outside of the mind for any insight into Man and morality is a fool's errand.
Religion to such a mind is at best a curious superstition to a dangerous mental disease. It regards religion as a relic of the past, and should be regulated to the private sphere. The role of religion in the public sphere is at best minor and at worst non-existent.
Such a mindset has no interest in preserving religious freedom. To say that one has "religious liberty" is akin to saying that one has the right to own a unicorn. That religious ideas should have a say in forming public policy sounds like madness.
This is why a secular mind to me is more dangerous to religious liberty than someone who's theology is may be off in a variety of ways. When a thing is not respected, the right to act on that thing is not respected as well. It only makes sense.
BONUS:
Religion to such a mind is at best a curious superstition to a dangerous mental disease. It regards religion as a relic of the past, and should be regulated to the private sphere. The role of religion in the public sphere is at best minor and at worst non-existent.
Such a mindset has no interest in preserving religious freedom. To say that one has "religious liberty" is akin to saying that one has the right to own a unicorn. That religious ideas should have a say in forming public policy sounds like madness.
This is why a secular mind to me is more dangerous to religious liberty than someone who's theology is may be off in a variety of ways. When a thing is not respected, the right to act on that thing is not respected as well. It only makes sense.
BONUS:
Still better than the actual candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment