"Any public official should have as a top priority the goal of serving God and living a life as a witness for Jesus. All decisions we make in whatever we do should be directed to that ultimate goal.
...
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
56 comments
1) Public officials' top prioriy should be to SERVE THE PUBLIC.
2) Treaty of Tripoli, much? Isn't this why, oh, I don't know, the country was founded?
"Any public official should have as a top priority the goal of serving God "
Congress shall make no law regarding religion. . .
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
Unfortunately for you, your religion isn't legitimate. Government interference will now commence.
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
Uh, tis is scary. In fact, what is the most frightening : the stupidity of your assertion or what are you praising with it ?
""Any public official should have as a top priority the goal of serving God and living a life as a witness for Jesus. All decisions we make in whatever we do should be directed to that ultimate goal"
Religion have nothing to do in politics. In fact, religion have nothing to do with humans being in general.
The good people of Indiana need to initiate a recall. I'd say having that kind of view of the role of government officials borders on treason. What about, y'know, representing the public who elected you? Or do you attribute that entirely to God and feel that you only have to represent that asshat?
So, since you see your religion as the only legitimate religion, you think that there should be no restrictions of the expression of it on public grounds?
And, of course, no other religion, which would be illegitimate, would have the same rights?
Theocracy, anyone?
I'd prefer a public official's top priority to be to serve the public.
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
Slippery slope.
Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions.
Either the government policies and practices aren't religion based, or else they interfere with other peoples' religion. I'd challenge Cheatham to give a for-instance example of his meaningless bullshit statement.
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
Too bad that approach never works. It's funny, these fundies always seem to hate the middle east for being the way it is, yet they fail to realize that without separation of church and state, the US would be just as fucked up as Saudi Arabia and the like are. If you allow religion to influence the government (and come on, who the hell believes that politics isn't being influenced by religion anyway?), it is inevitable that the government will end up interfering with religion. If you are a protestant, and the government is catholic, you will be oppressed. If you are an Anglican, and your government is Mormon, you will be oppressed... and so on and so on. If you disagree with even one teensy little opinion that the government holds, and they find out about it, you can bet your ass that they'll make you suffer. Government + religion = all of your freedoms being stripped away.
These idiots don't get that separation of church and state doesn't just protect atheists, agnostics and non-Christians -- it protects Christians too.
Religionoids are not qualified to run a fucking sewage plant or animal shelter, much less a nation. Any country run by priests and the like exists simply for the priests' pleasure. The citizens/peasants are expected to STFU and grovel.
Jefferson thought Jesus was an exemplary Humanist. He was wise enough to leave it at that.
Any public official should have as a top priority the goal of serving God and living a life as a witness for Jesus.
Since public money pays our public officials I expect their top priority to be serving as a representative of the folks who elected them. Let public officials serve Jehovah and witness for Jesus on their own time and on their own dime.
You like the Mid-East so much, move there and leave the rest of us alone.
I'm going to go ask one of my Live Journal buddies if she voted for this dipshit
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
Last time this was the wide spread case: 470 - 1000 B.C.E. (A.D.).
See also; Dark Ages, Medieval Europe, and the Middle East.
Current instances; Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc.
State Rep. Cheatham, please remove yourself from public office as your lack of knowledge on the proper workings of a secular representative democracy as well as lack of knowledge of basic United States history and it's treaties and legal bills has caused you to betray the public trust by mistaking it for a theocracy.
If you maintain this desire for a theocracy after further education then promptly light yourself on fire.
Thank you.
I know that the whole "You cannot serve two masters" line generally is taken to refer to God and Money as the "two masters." But the setup to that is so generalized, I think it's meant to apply to any two masters, which to me would include God and Country.
So shouldn't a good Christian be staying the hell away from politics?
Wait..
Not only is the man's name "Cheat 'Em" (which, in and of itself is pretty funny, him being a politician and all), but he represents MY state?!
*cries*
Not according to the constitution. No religious test for public office, remember?
Or should those of "other" faiths not be able to serve?
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
I could accept this vice versa. But you see religions don't pay taxes so they should have no public voice whatsoever.
Religion has no place in government.
Countries would all end up the same, stupid laws being made that force you to go to church and read the bible or face going to jail.
I imagine Dave Cheatham to be like, "In jeebus' name we gotta go kill dem muslim rgaheads and take back our oil they stole off us..." or some bollocks close to that
It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
I'm sorry, Mr. Cheatham, but the priests of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have decided that Christianity is not a 'legitimate religion'. Also, His Noodly Inquisition is increasingly concerned by your refusal to wear pirate regalia in the Legislature.
"I'm so sorry - I was so busy serving god that I didn't have time to organise the bridge maintenance that was required - but, hey, don't worry, your husband and small children are now in the arms of Jesus himself, praise the lord... I would like to close this telephone conversation with a few words of prayer..."
Twunt.
fortunately our [the USA's] constitution was written otherwise.
EDIT: While it's fortunate we don't have any sort of faith tests for public office, would it not be prudent to have a test to designate whether one is running on behalf of the country's interests rather than those of his religion?
You know, all of you here are talking about how horrible this senator is, and how ignorant his comments are. I agree with you! But truth be told, that's not the scary part to this. The real injustice is that NO ONE in America has heard of this, and we have to read it off a website like this one. Why aren't remarks like these making waves across the country causing riots?
I think that's the real issue... people can get away with this. But I guarantee you, if any politician says, "Government should not be influenced by religion...," that would be the end of their run for office.
@Nutz
No, because if we did, half of the democratic and all of the republican parties would be voided in politics, and wouldn't that be a goddamned shame?
"Any public official should have as a top priority the goal of serving God and living a life as a witness for Jesus. All decisions we make in whatever we do should be directed to that ultimate goal
first amendment disagrees. The public official is to serve the people regardless of our beliefs if any.
"It is a one-way street. Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions."
As soon as a non Christian does it your lot whines about it. No religion should be affecting government
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.