Originally posted by kirksey957
Those in the US know that there is currently a hot political debate going on regarding the approval of judges appointed by President Bush. Republicans have now decided that Democrats are engaging n religious pursecution by not approving ...[text shortened]... senators and congressional members to voice your outrage at this.
I really don't think the religious views are of any importance to the Democrats. Who cares if these judges believe in heaven or hell, in the immaculate conception or the Resurrection. The political views are of course relevant.
Why is a pro-abortion stance regarded as "non-religious" and a pro-life stance as "religious". Why is a stance against euthanasia "religious" and a pro-euthanasia stance "non-religious" or even "rational". If we take a closer look at the euthanasia attorney George Felos, who assisted Michael Schiavo in judicially killing his wife, and the book he wrote "Litigation as Spiritual Practise" I am convinced that this whole dichotomy of "religious" views contra "rational" views is a false one of huge proportions in US politics. Mr. George Felos is a euthanasia advocate and at the same time a real religious New Age nutcase. Also take a look at the statement Ralph Nader made about the Schiavo case together with the author of the award winning book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America", Wesley J. Smith.
It is about time American politics and people are dragged out of the rigid and immobile trenches they have dug themselves into. The two party system is seen as untouchable and very American. If you dare criticise the system as an American citizin you are looked upon as un- American. However, the two party-system is the producer of false dichotomies, that suffocates political and cultural diversity and that poisons and paralyses to a large extent American political life.