... and here is the UKIP Shipping Forecast: Ukip Shipping Forecast: There Are Warnings Of Gay In Bongo Bongo Land (LISTEN)
It wasn't, it was a question. If someone has a devout belief, should they then be excused from making any decision, whatsoever, where it impacts others? Thats what some seem to be suggesting. For me, the president of France knocking some bird off is far worse in the poor judgement stakes than this idiot believing bumders are flooding the UK (well, with water anyway...). It shows deceit, ignorance of others, lack of respect and care for his partner as well as plain stupid as it gives others a power of blackmail. And at least those who voted the geezer in know where he stands on any religious debate: firmly behind the vicar
If someone is devout and making decisions that impact others then the assumption is probably true that they are imposing their belief system in making judgements. This effectively imposes their belief system onto others that may not be welcome. I would oppose any theist views that take any religious book as the basis for belief being behind logical decisions that impact the society I live in. I would exclude any religious members from the House of Lords for a start. I don't live by any religious books to make my judgements and anyone imposing the edited ramblings of a supposed deity isn't someone who represents me. In a democracy we have to accept the majority might impose opposing political views but when we drift towards religious zealots taking their decisions or having views based on biblical texts I'm way over my limit. The state and religion should be separate with freedom of religion and freedom from religion for lawmaking.
OK: Yes, in my view, someone who doesn't believe in basic science, but instead chooses to pick out passages of more than 2'000 year old text of doubtful and multiple origins in order to justify ludicrous, offensive, outmoded beliefs is in no way fit to be trusted to judge anything at all. As for François Hollande, the guy was clearly an idiot long before he was elected. I watched much of the lead-up to the election in total disbelief that this loser was going to get elected, but he did anyway. His recent activity in no way constitutes a surprise. For the record, he had a long term relationship with Ségolène Royal, his varsity sweetheart, resulting in several kids. But he didn't marry her. He then junked her (these things happen) for Valérie Trierweiler, who seems to be an fairly vindictive, arriviste cow, from what you can make out. He didn't marry her either. She appears to be very attached to the privileges she enjoys as a de facto First Lady (not that such a position exists in France). She was needlessly unpleasant to Ségolène Royal. She has now got the boot. Does anyone care much? No. The only good point about this whole sorry scenario is that had Dominique Strauss Kahn not been arrested in New York over his seedy affair, he would without doubt be president of France today. Now he really is a fully paid up slime ball. Hollande may be a complete twit, but even he isn't so completely raving as the UKIP councillor in question.
Decisions involving people of a multitude of differing faiths and beliefs should always be secular. To believe otherwise is to stamp your belief onto others. Intentionally or otherwise. All forms of government should be secular. To involve any church in governmental decisions and the running of a state is to step back into the middle ages. We will be burning witches soon and hanging monkeys again. Of course there are eminently sensible and intelligent people who hold devout beliefs. (No irony intended but...) Its just that it seems they are in an even smaller majority than those who hold any religious beliefs at all.
So thats most of the western world leaders off your list of able to make a decision then, and all of the eastern ones
UK is secular. Well for the most part. Islams failure to secularise its government is the main reason why they are burdened with corrupt and authoritarian regimes. In fact religion just about buggers everything it comes into contact with. Especially Catholicism and usually quite literally.
All religions – built as they are on the suppression of critical thinking and the valuing of belief without evidence – inherently teach followers not to be swayed by rational debate, and to hold certain beliefs regardless of what other opinion or facts are shown to them. For many Western religious people, these ‘steadfast and untestable’ beliefs go no further than a belief in a creator, however it is no shock that other religious people (especially outside the West) stick staunchly by more than just one basic belief from the holy books. Worryingly these other beliefs often consist not just of an afterlife or some other spiritual happening, but of the murder of non-believers, or prejudicial violence toward other groups. And therein lies one of the principal problems facing the world. (Acks to Robert Johnson)
