With a simple twist, the will of the majority as influenced by a religion can be sold simply as undue influence by religion -- period -- with nothing being said about how the majority does have the right to its say, nor a thought being given that people do have a right to be influenced by religion as they make government decisions.
Of course, some would say, "No, they do not have the right to be influenced by their religion, as church and state should be separate."
We were discussing the mega million dollar lottery, I and friends, and of course it was noted that Utahns flock to Idaho to participate. My mind flew to a news headline that had referred to the lottery as being the "Utah Lottery," with thought being, so many Utahns buy tickets, it is, in essence, their lottery.
As my friend spoke, all the tax money being lost by not allowing a lottery right here in Utah was mentioned. And, the fact came up that Utah is a rare state to not allow gambling. (Utah and Hawaii are the only states banning it.)
The notion that government should not be dictating what people do with their own lives was touched upon.
Then, the kicker. "Now, go ahead and tell me religion doesn't run this state." Those weren't his exact words, as I cannot remember them, but they are close. He might have said, "You tell me, this isn't a theocracy."
We parted, and I was left to consider it all. It would be much later that I came to think of what would have been the right thing to say. I should have asked, "If it the majority who are against gambling, is it wrong for that majority to be being influenced by their religion?"
Perhaps more thoughts tomorrow, unless I chase off to a different topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment