Letters: Religious influence in govt. is divisive and dangerous

November 12, 2008 11:00 pm

In response to Brenda Johnston, ("How far do people have to go to be all-inclusive?" Nov. 11), I've heard the argument, "marriage is a sacred thing, reserved for a man and a woman because it says so in the Bible."

The thing with religion is that you need to believe in it for it to apply to you. Why not just be satisfied with your own marriages' sanctity? How is prejudice in any way a Christian philosophy?

Christians have made themselves very separate, not because the rest of the world is evil, but from modern Christianity's self-proclamation of being the only way to enjoy life after death. Prayers should not be taught in public schools, because children are too young. If I hadn't been forced to regurgitate so many prayers at Grace Lutheran, most of them to cancel out all the sin I had created at age 5, I may have been more open-minded to the Christian moral authority. Instead, I spent my teens with a Jesus complex.

Doing away with Christmas break, Easter break, "In God We Trust," and "one nation under God," is not an attack against family values by all us evil atheists, but comes from the fact that we have a separation between church and state, and for a good reason.

Religion divides people, and a government under the influence of religion will make laws in accordance to their individual book of morals; theistic influence in government is dangerous for this main reason: individuals' natural rights over their bodies and minds can be infringed by an irrational religion.

We have all seen Muslim women in their beekeeper suits, and have heard about the 40 virgins one receives for a successful kamikaze strike. Tell me if religion in the wrong hands isn't scary. In order to be all-inclusive, one must be all-inclusive.

Danny Clark

Crescent City