neutrality

I do not believe in religious neutrality.

In the last several years, it has become a popular phrase to: "accept all religions". In fact, Senator Obama just said it the other day (or so the news tells me). Specifically, he was saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, and that we need to accept "all religions".

Ironically, technically speaking, I do not believe were were ever an entirely Christian nation. Even in the beginning, there were certainly non-Christians. Is he talking about a majority? That cant be it, because we still certainly have a majority of the United States that at least professes to be followers of Christianity.

I believe the point he was getting at is that the minority of non-Christians are rising, and that their religions (or anti-religions) need to have the same equal playing ground as Christianity has.

And this is where I get off that bus. Putting my own personal belief in Christianity aside, and speaking purely philosophically, with regard to theological structures... it is impossible to respect all religions at once, unless of course one takes a stance to ignore them all.

I am a complete supporter in a strict separation of church and state, or at least an attempt for the United States to take a position of ignoring all religious institutions. To me, it makes total sense for a president to choose to reject any and all dabblings in religious institutions. (This of course would necessarily have to include both your deistic religions, those that believe in a God or spirit world, such as Christianity and Islam... as well as your anti/non deistic religions, including atheism and secular humanism)

However, the absolute worst thing that a presidential candidate can do would be to attempt to respect all world religions at once. Not only does this have sever theological ramifications, but philosophically and psy/sociologically this borders on a necessary schizophrenia. As wonderfully beautiful as "accepting of all religions" may sound, it simply is not possible.

In its purest form, a "religion" is a nonnegotiable Truth statement about the world, its parameters, and the very reason for life and existence. It is not an opinion, but a fact in the eyes of its believers. For a president to be accepting of "all contradicting facts" is complete non-sense. In my opinion, a leader of this country should either accept one truth statement, and make decisions from its base while being respectful to those that do not agree (though not to their belief because it directly contradicts his own). Or, he must take a position to not meddle at all in a truth statement at all, which would make for an ironically hilarious method of operation as a leader of a nation, who is constantly required to make pseudo-moral decisions.

It is pure insanity for the leader of the United States of America to say that he accepts everyone's contradicting statements about the truth of existence. Even worse, that he would then try and incorporate all of their positions on public policy.