Choosing a leader based on their religion

McCain got it started again, with his recent comment how he'd prefer a Christian for president, but it's been in the wind for some years. I am not sure exactly when it began, but you can hear it when you listen-- vote christianist, it whispers, only christianist, it says more loudly. Christianists can save our country. Only they... Many voted for Bush purely based on his espousing his piety.

Why don't I use the word Christian since that's the actual word McCain used? Well because it's not the right word. From what I hear, very little, of what comes from many loudly calling themselves Christians today, relates to what Christ taught.

Actually, that heretic, the original Christ, he'd be their enemy since he didn't condemn the same people they do. He hung out with the wrong crowd. He didn't like public pomposity. He didn't say a word against homosexuals, didn't divide people by class or race (except maybe when he said how hard it would be for the rich to enter heaven). His biggest concern was helping others, healing them, setting them on a healthy life path, teaching them how to see god, teaching them concern for their own morality before they worry about someone else's misdoings, and always warning against religious hypocrisy. Today, he'd have no problem finding the latter among christianist leaders before they condemned him to death again. What McCain apparently wants, given his own political positions on issues, are today's christianists. Christ would sound like a socialist to them or even a communist.

Somehow or other a certain group of people in this country (and for that matter, around the world) have decided one's publicly espoused religion determines everything that matters. It means leaders, from that belief system, will be morally more pure than others. They have found a mantra they can shout toward the heavens-- say the right words, brother.

To many, Christianity is proven by pew warming, public prayer, pious expressions, giving to their own churches to build even bigger monuments to their egos, being against public health care, against government aid to the poor (it's okay if church does it with strings attached), even for wars to spread their religiosity. (For that, they are using a scripture where Christ said his followers would have to take up their swords after he was gone. I personally interpreted that to mean self-defense was okay, not that Crusades were on the menu, but it's being used today to justify preemptive strikes. Conquer a people and they will follow your religion? hmmmmm, I guess it has worked-- for awhile but using power or fear to entrap a people has nothing to do with any spiritual experience.)

Personally, for my voting, I use the same standards for politicians that I would for a person building my house. I want them to agree with the plan I have in mind, use the materials I purchased, be competent in their work, stick to the job they promised in the beginning unless we both agree to a change, not cheat me, and finish the work. What does their religion have to do with being a competent carpenter? Maybe I have seen too many frauds loudly espousing their piety while they cheat everybody around them.

When I vote, I want someone who has similar ideas regarding issues that I do (or as close as I can get), who is competent, communicates well, can work with others, doesn't need to advertise their personal belief system but instead lives it, who doesn't defraud, who doesn't hurt others, and who is not more interested in acquiring personal power or wealth than in helping those around them. I try to vote for someone who sees us all, whatever color or however rich, as humans deserving equally of respect-- until proven otherwise. Religions could teach those kinds of values, but simply espousing any religion doesn't mean someone lives by it.