| Rath said: Religious beliefs of leaders should be personal, they should never try and spread them while in office. |
Your right and wrong.
Your right using your office to spread your religious views is wrong. If he used any of his authority to do so undemocratically it would be wrong. Such as funding only Christian projects and or calling a press conference to publically demand non-Christians convert.
Your wrong about the fact that one should keep his religion to himself. That would impede his abilities to practice it freely something guaranteed by the US Constitution and the very basis of democracy. The man should continue going to church as he always has, worship like he always has and pray as he always has. What he does with his religious beliefs is up to him and keeping it private and hiding it would be to hide who he is.
Again all he did was reference the Bible and say he wished all people would become his brothers and sisters in Christ. He did not do anything wrong, he didn't do anything stupid or insensative or anything of the sort. He practiced his religion in a religious building with other followers of his religion.
Plus isn't saying something like that in a church keeping your religion to yourself? he didn't go out and release a press release, he didn't go on television and say it using his office. he did not pass any Christian law he simply stated a religious fact in the privacy of a religious facility.
He addressed a crowd of fellow believers in his church. Are you saying that a man in office should not be allowed to attend church or talk of his religion in a church? Are you saying a pastor or missionary shouldn't take office because they talk in a church about Christianity?
The basis of this whole debate is the religios rights act and freedom of speach. Its law and its democratic thats all their is to it. Theirs nothing of bad taste it was all done in a respectful and legal manner.
-JC7
"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer
