As the 2008 elections rapidly approach, one criteria that can be used in evaluating a current or potential officeholder's suitability for holding that office is their stance on religious freedom. In general, these two principles define the boundaries of where a candidate's position can be on this issue. Both of these principles are polar opposites and have been in conflict with each other throughout human history.
The first principle can be summed up as the following:
Libertarian Principle - Freedom of religion is the inalienable right of each person whether alone or with others to peacefully, openly and freely practice a religion of one's own choosing, or for one to practice no religion at all and for each person to be free from having acts of persecution, forced conversion and the establishment of a universal state church/state religion or militant state atheism inflicted upon them by any part or whole of any local, state, national, continental or world government.
The second principle can be summed up as the following:
Totalitarian Principle - It is moral duty of the enlightened few or the will of the majority to use the machinery of government whether local, state, national, continental or world to compel universal allegiance to the one true faith, to punish the infidels and the heretics who refuse to convert, to intervene in and take sole responsibility for the management of the general public's spiritual lives.
Voters can use these two principles in evaluating the statements, policies and actions of public officials in regards to whether they are moving in the direction of being against or in favor of religious freedom.
