Fundamentalist is now a four-letter word
When our forefathers first settled in the Americas, the idea of separation of church and state was conceived in order to protect the church from the government. They had struggled through a millennium of government-controlled religion, and wanted a country where their faith could be practiced without governmental interference. The constitution reads, "? but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?" It does not require that politicians denounce their faith for the sake of remaining neutral. Even the thought of having a neutral politician, or person for that matter, is absolutely absurd. Politicians, believe it or not, are people; people who hold to values and personal experience just as much as anyone else. Politician's religious beliefs and non-beliefs are as important, or even more important to them as their political beliefs. Religious and political beliefs can be easily compared; everyone has them. So why try and separate them completely? Asking for neutral politicians is asking for pluralistic leaders, pluralism is, without a doubt, another religion. It is a religion where all religions are right, unless you actually believe in that religion. All of this ideology is veiled under the façade of tolerance, which is resonating with a culture of young people all over America.
The pluralist view of tolerance that we are indoctrinated with by MTV and public schools, teaches us to tolerate other religions to the point where their beliefs are just as suitable as anyone else's beliefs. This is a stark contradict ...