by Abby Huff
Never, in the history of America, has there been a president outside the Christian circle. The three main connectors among the 43 presidents are male, caucasian and Christian, with one Catholic, John F. Kennedy. The idea of a non-Christian president should not be such a stretch for the American people, this being a free nation. However, when voters consider a president with no religious affiliation, they turn away from the idea. The voter who has personal beliefs in their own God does not understand the person without a belief in a higher power and cannot accept an atheist, agnostic or other non-believer as a possible candidate. As Longview student Kenny Taylor, said, “I probably would not [vote for an atheist]. A Christian leader has to hold their self to extra authority.”
Looking at the past administrations, are they holding themselves to an extra authority? They have declared their actions to be done for God, but these actions constantly trample the rights of the minorities. The voters and their representatives have banned gay marriage, based primarily on their religion. They have tried to ban abortion, based primarily on their religion. They have halted the stem-cell research movement, based primarily on their religion. Despite the fact that these issues will remain, that no religion will stop people from loving each other, whether it be men and women, women and women or men and men. Religion will also never dissolve the need for abortion, or the improvements in science.
When taking away the rights and liberties guaranteed to all the citizens of the United States, they feel legitimate because of their God. The leader can ask for forgiveness when discriminating against a group, because they did it in the name of God. They can turn to their beliefs, their religious doctrines, and find comfort in mistreating the citizens.
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of Americans are less likely to vote for a non-believer, broken down into political party followers: 44 percent of Republicans believe religious beliefs of the president to be important, while 26 percent of Democrats find the religious status of their leader to be important.
Despite this study, many students at Longview see things differently. Robbie Grant said, “As long as they separate church and state it wouldn’t matter [the president's religious affiliations].” Grant, who calls himself agnostic, points out that he sees the importance of how religion can personally affect him and his beliefs, if it is strongly connected to politics.
Other students say that politics and religion are naturally separated. Sydney Marten said, “It’s not like they are going to force their beliefs on us, so I wouldn’t care. I vote based on their stances.”
Recently, though, religious beliefs have been forced on many people. Those who notice it are the ones not affiliated with any religion. In the 2004 elections, voters witnessed the candidates frequently debating religion. Voters have observed an increase in religion being portrayed in the Bush administration.
Arguments still exist that religion is closely entwined with school district lessons. For instance, Kansas recently banned the teaching of evolution, a scientifically accepted theory. The opposition between evolution and creationism is not one that should be portrayed in our schools because schools are a government institution, and our government and the church are to be separate.
When our representatives blatantly show their religious beliefs and immobilize the progress of students and society, we must reconsider why we vote for a religious representative. The voters need to step back and consider the opposite – having their beliefs destroyed by someone who willingly states that citizens of the United States are not citizens because of their differences.
Atheists are not amoral, self-righteous people. In fact, the opposite is more accurate. I, as an atheist, use reason, logic and empathy to determine what is right and wrong, as do most people. We struggle for equality and recognize the indisputable fact of diversity.
For a country that flaunts all of its freedoms, personal rights and public ability to choose its government, why would an atheist be the line voters draw against a possible candidate? Is it inconceivable to share the same morals, ideals and political stances with an atheist?
December 7, 2007
0 Comments