In this article Newt Gingrich accuses Obama of being anti-religious. I do not believe religion has a place in government decision making. Religion should be a very personal thing and anti-religious is too broad if you are arguing in favor of a religious government. Details about separation of church and state aside, if a government is religious based or encouraging then which religion does it pick to support? Some might say just support all religions but, you can’t. Even leaving human nature out of the picture many religions by their nature are conflicting. Should the president support Christians or Muslims? Pagans or Hindus? Buddhists or Jainists? One will always be more supported than the other and it is my humble opinion that the U.S. government should keep its fingers out of it.
Religulous hits the nail on the head (it leaves something to be desired as an actual documentary) when talking about monumental decisions being made by people under the influence of religion in my humble opinion. I believe this is a good example of how to do things. The idea behind making this comment looks to me as if good ole Newt wants some people represented and not others. These sentiments are better expressed by Catherine.
-(catherinemacivor.com)- “Now bear in mind that President Obama had Rick Warren give a prayer at his inauguration and has pentecostal members in his office of faith based initiatives as well. The real issue is that Gingrich wants only some people there and he doesn’t believe gays should be represented.
Keep on stirring the fear mongering pot Newt. Maybe you and O’Reilly can team up.”
What do you think?
