Originally posted by ODC:
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
You are appalled that our leaders might fall back upon their faith and moral center when making decisions? I really have no problem with that. There is a BIG difference between "blind idealogy" (I assume that you mean living in a theocracy) and in choosing leaders with character and conviction. If the foundation of a man's character is an outspoken faith in God, so be it.

FWIW, many so called Christians do not even attempt to live in the example of Christ, so I can see where a lot of people develop such ideas while observing some of the idiots in our governenment.



'Character and conviction' might be misleading here. It implies somebody who will do whatever he believes is right. What he believes is right ultimately stems from his moral and ethical code. For most of us, that comes from religion.

That is not what an elected leader should do.

I am born, baptized a catholic, and will die one -- but I hold very, very, very little in weight with the church for their stances on many issues.

It is *my* religion, not the church's.



Then what should an elected leader, in our republican system, do? What they beleive to be wrong??? God help us all, then.

IMO, we are arguing the nuances of Religion with-a-capital-R and religion as faith. Faith, or the lack thereof, is a personal choice. It will guide your convictions. People will know you from your deeds. However, Religion is politicized, organized, and at times corrupt. I do NOT want leaders bowing to the wishes of Jerry Falwell or the Pope anymore than you do.

But I have no problem voting for a man (or woman) of strong Christian (or Jewish, or TRUE Islamic) principals. I will vote for them before someone that swings in the breeze from day to day (and we have some "Christians" in our governemnt that better fit that description!).

former owner, 95 SE MTX 02 Ford Explorer