godofthunder9010
Active member
I was thinking back to the Presidential debates and one of John Kerry's responses to a question about abortion. He explained that he was a devout Catholic and personally against abortion. (His faith is very strongly against it obviously). And yet his reason for supporting Pro Choice and Abortion Rights, completely contrary to his own convictions, is that "I cannot impose those beliefs on another person who may not share my beliefs."
On the whole, I thought it was a pretty confusing approach to the whole matter, but it did get me thinking about the larger picture: How much should a President's (or any other elected official) decisions be influenced by their own beliefs and convictions??
On the one extreme end of the spectrum, we have the undesireable situation where a President of the United States constantly pushes his own religion's agenda. He preaches the dogmas of his faith and does his best to convert all of America.
On the other extreme end of things, we have a Congress that outlaws all discrimination against mass-murderers, drug addicts and/or dealers, rapists and pedofiles because they decide these are "valid lifestyle choices" They make the statement that such Biblical nonsense as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" violates the separation of Church and State and has no business being written into law.
Obviously there is a certain level of morals that we want to keep, but at the same time we don't want it to get out of hand. So what are everyone's thoughts? Where do we draw the line?
On the whole, I thought it was a pretty confusing approach to the whole matter, but it did get me thinking about the larger picture: How much should a President's (or any other elected official) decisions be influenced by their own beliefs and convictions??
On the one extreme end of the spectrum, we have the undesireable situation where a President of the United States constantly pushes his own religion's agenda. He preaches the dogmas of his faith and does his best to convert all of America.
On the other extreme end of things, we have a Congress that outlaws all discrimination against mass-murderers, drug addicts and/or dealers, rapists and pedofiles because they decide these are "valid lifestyle choices" They make the statement that such Biblical nonsense as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" violates the separation of Church and State and has no business being written into law.
Obviously there is a certain level of morals that we want to keep, but at the same time we don't want it to get out of hand. So what are everyone's thoughts? Where do we draw the line?