Originally posted by AKIron
Which man do you suppose would be more responsible? The man who believes there is a higher authority to which he must eventually answer or the man who believes he is his own authority and when he dies is absolved of all responsibility?
A man who's morality is based on scriptures written(by man) over 2000 years ago vs a man who's morality is based on his own beliefs(examining & interpreting science/society)..Who is more likely to do more harm than good?
Bad people do bad things..Good people try and do good things.
To get a good person to do a truly wicked thing,that takes religion.
For example.."Mother" Teresa...went around the world as a sort of moral fig-leaf for the Vatican..Preaching to Africans that AIDS is bad,but condoms are worse.Millions who listened and had faith in her words no doubt contracted AIDS and died a horrible death..In the 1990's she was sent (by the vatican) to Ireland to try and stop a constitutional amendment/referendum that would have legalized divorce(she failed).She would rather a woman be stuck in an abusive/alcoholic household than for her to be able to escape.
BTW,in her memoirs(near the end of her life) she declared she had no faith or belief in God.I can give you an exact quote if you like(i will look it up).
If she can't bring herself to believe it,why should anyone else?..Which brings us back to Mitt declaring the President "should be a person of faith"
"Faith" being defined in the dictionary as"the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence or proof"...
So by definition "Faith" is irrational...And so Mitt's statement is both irrational & irresponsible.
