All Comments (2)

Yes sir, I agree with you about this issue. These are only some further possible suggestions:

1) If faith issues become part of the greater public life, then--like all other debatable things--they should be subjected to similar scrutiny and all the processes that insure fairness and equality.

2) No crying "foul" if questions from non-believers seem inappropriate, including the freedom to question the sanity of a faith-bearing candidate or proposition. This would be especially important if the proposition would seen to be harmful, as in the limiting of teaching of best science knowledge, or advocating that certain public health measures are really conspiratorial or unhealthy (ie Catholic preists telling AIDS-ridden populations that condoms are laced with the HIV virus, or Muslim clerics suggesting that Polio vaccine is designed by Westerners to poison the recipient...)

3) As folks influence the democratic process with their faith, then it should be legal to challenge these issues in the courts of the land regarding "faith based initiatives," and to even suggest that religions should cease to be tax-exempt entities except where they rigorously prove their public services outside of the context of their own church buildings...

4) Where faith influences public policy, there should be burden of proof regarding any premise, hypothesis, or suggestion of efficacy, placed upon that premise prior to its being funded by public moneys, or turned into public policy. Processes should be in place, like any other agency or business process model within democracy, to show that results are forthcoming and positive. There should be a way to get rid of the faith-based policy if it is ineffective.

In such a context, I'd say it's great. Anything that helps the human endeavor is welcome in my book.

Rev. Salguero,

"For me, the paradox is simple: people of faith should feel free to influence the democratic process. This is true of any group, not just people of faith, but also atheists, agnostics, and any other group that has the same democratic freedom. The paradox is not complicated."

I think the paradox is more complicated than you make it out to be.

How does a religion like Christianity, which says that their God is the only true God, and which holds a vast majority in this country, influence the democratic process WITHOUT harming the rights of smaller religious groups?

I agree with you that any person is going to be guided by their religious beliefs, but I think that anyone that enters public service needs to make a distinction between what they believe in, and what they will attempt to legislate. To believe that you are a member of the one true religion is one thing. To create legislation that says that only your beliefs should be honored is quite another.

I have read several threads on this matter here, and that seems to be what many of the members of smaller religious groups seem to be most intent on. Believe what you will, as long as it doesn't impact my ability to believe what I do.