The last two words are the problem with your point.

 

Would you expect a person's faith to be the driving force of their life?

The last two words are the problem with your point.

 

Why?

 

What if he wasn't a Christian?

Would you like our religious leaders to be consulted on decisions in this country? If yes, how would you decide which religions get a say?

 

 

I consult mine (prayer) evertime I vote!

On this day in 1646, Massachusetts Puritans put Roger Scott on trial for falling asleep in church. If church and state aren't separate, couldn't laws like this be put in place? And who makes the laws? Which church? Christian...okay, which branch? Because I'm guessing Baptists, Methodist, Church of Christ, Pentecostal probably would all have their opinions on what the law should say.

 

Bottom line, there is "division" in the country today because some want separation and some don't. But if you put church and state together, I believe there would be even more division, more arguing, more saber-rattling and eventually a religious war.

If a person has a faith it is supposed to be the driving force of their life.

 

If they are willing to disregard what is supposed to be the driving force of their life, that speaks on the integrity of them as individuals.

 

If they are willing to disregard what should be the driving force of their lives, how could you trust them to not disregard what the voters want or what is best for this country when needed.

 

They have already done it with their faith, why would their commitment to the voters be more important than their faith.

 

If a politician will not stand true to their faith, it speaks of the integrity of them.

If a person has a faith it is supposed to be the driving force of their life.

 

If they are willing to disregard what is supposed to be the driving force of their life, that speaks on the integrity of them as individuals.

 

If they are willing to disregard what should be the driving force of their lives, how could you trust them to not disregard what the voters want or what is best for this country when needed.

 

They have already done it with their faith, why would their commitment to the voters be more important than their faith.

 

If a politician will not stand true to their faith, it speaks of the integrity of them.

 

So if we elect a Muslim as President or a Mormon, you want their faith to drive their policy?

So if we elect a Muslim as President or a Mormon, you want their faith to drive their policy?

The PC answer is yes. It shows that they are a person of integrity, trustworthiness, and like puppies.

 

The real answer...HELL NO!

So if we elect a Muslim as President or a Mormon, you want their faith to drive their policy?

 

Silly man! You know that you only have integrity and faith if you're a Christian, and notably one of the non-Catholic persuasion. Otherwise, you're nothing but an amoral heathen!:lol:

The PC answer is yes. It shows that they are a person of integrity, trustworthiness, and like puppies.

 

The real answer...HELL NO!

:notworthy:

The state should in no way interfere with practicing religions that otherwise, break no laws of this country. Exceptions should be considered when they do not follow the letter of the law, but no one is harmed.

 

Public officials should have a right to their religous beliefs and the practice thereof. You cannot separate one from their beliefs.

 

No, we should not have a theocratic state. Which theocracy would it be?

The PC answer is yes. It shows that they are a person of integrity, trustworthiness, and like puppies.

 

The real answer...HELL NO!

 

...but he/she could still be a good President.

So if we elect a Muslim as President or a Mormon, you want their faith to drive their policy?

 

I would expect their faith to drive their decision making. Why wouldn't I?

Silly man! You know that you only have integrity and faith if you're a Christian, and notably one of the non-Catholic persuasion. Otherwise, you're nothing but an amoral heathen!:lol:

 

Wow!!!!

Yes, there needs to be separation of church and state. For instance, of course not all tax paying citizens are of the same faith, but their tax dollars could possibly be geared toward one religion, say in public education, if not for the separation clause in the constitution.

One interesting point from a rural perspective. Churches are not encourage or allowed to have an active role in school. Until there is a tragedy and counselors are needed to talk to the kids. Then they are the first to be called.