>>[snip]
>>>Once you start pushing people more and more into a state religion, you get closer and closer to a theocracy. I came from a Catholic country. Although a very open society it still irked me that non-Catholics are restricted in some civic actions and posts. For example to be president (in many countries in South America), you have to be Catholic. It says so in their Constitution.
>>
>>That triggers me: Although it's not in the constitution of the U.S., the reality is that it is currently (currently?) impossible to become president of the States without at least expressing a deep religeous attitude and willingness to thank God in public on many occasions. This is a huge problem for the States, 1) because it works as a preselection mechanism that actually shuts out a lot of talented candidates, and 2) because certain people in foreign countries have an argument if they object to the 'God is on our side' claim.
>
>That's a fairly recent development, though. I think it'll change back eventually to where a candidate's religious behavior is not terribly relevant.
Has there ever been a U.S. presdent who was not religious and nevertheless was chosen? Do you think there will ever be a U.S. presdent who is not religious?
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.