...to vote to impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.
In that world, the only vote that would be satisfactory would be the amoral vote, because casting a vote consistent with a moral view would be an attempt to 'impose their religion's specific teachings on non-believers.'
That strikes me as something of a false dichotomy.
In this world, someone who claims to be Catholic, but doesn't vote Catholic, ought to be exposed as not being Catholic....i.e., kicked out, so the world knows his claims of Catholicity are faked.
posted on 11/30/2003 4:39:24 PM PST
(Living life in a minor key.)
Why is someone a "fake" fill-in-the-blank-religion, if they follow the religion's teachings themselves, but do not believe they should use the force of government to compel non-believers to act in accordance with said religion's teachings? If that makes them "fake" with regard to their religion, then religion is incompatible with the Constitution. It's a mighty slippery slope when government officials start using the power of government to impose religious practices -- just think of the religious police in Saudi Arabia, attacking women with electric cattle prods for letting their ankles show, and arresting people for not attending the several times daily mandatory prayers at the mosque? These nuts surely believe they would be "fake Muslims" if they didn't do these things.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson