we took over the world
anita perry, the wife of GOP presidential hopeful rick perry, recently complained that her husband has been brutalized by rivals because of his faith.

of course, american citizens should be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit.  the freedom of religion is allegedly  guaranteed (and upheld for white christians) by the first amendment.

but when does that freedom meet the reality of someone campaigning to hold the top job in the country? 

it starts when faith is seemingly the only substantial platform on which a presidential candidate wants to run and continues when there is evidence that the candidate's faith will drive policy decisions.
when 2 of the GOP presidential hopefuls are connected to a theology called dominionism, voters should probably take notice. 

in short, dominionism is a philosophy that christians should run the world.  quite literally, those that follow the philosophy believe that christians need to infiltrate the government and control how the world operates.

this article explains it more thoroughly.

what's important is that Bachmann and Perry are both connected to the philosophy and why them being president would be problematic for the land of the free.
a major international financial services firm just released a study that indicates prejudice is damaging economic recovery.

it contends that human capital is important to economies hit by the financial crisis, saying "prejudice, in whatever form – including racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance – irrationally destroys the value of human capital."

why is it, then, that during a time of global economic depression, americans are content with attacking diversity?
authority can be a very valuable thing in many cases.  generally speaking, law enforcement officers work to keep people safe.  doctors work to keep people healthy.  IRS officials work to keep people honest.

people need leadership, direction and help; when those cases arise, authority can be a wonderful thing.

however, authority can also be horrific.  especially when individuals give themselves wholly to an authority that does not truly exist in the most fundamental sense of the word.

authority becomes a problem when we allow institutions to have it.  and it begs the question, why do we continue to give institutions authority when said institution has proven itself incapable of appropriate leadership?
homosexual marriage has, in the past, been a talking point to drive voters to polls in spite of issues that really matter to the country.  bush jr. promised his base on several occasions gay marriage would never be legal in america, even dancing around conversations of constitutional amendments.

without postulating on the psychology of those for/opposed to gay marriage, a logical examination of the issue allows one to draw only one conclusion:
the tennessee state senate passed a bill that allows students to use taxpayer-funded vouchers to choose which school they would like to attend.  initially, the bill is designed to only allow vouchers for students in families who meet certain low-income requirements.

on the surface, allowing parents and students to determine where they want to go to school is a great idea.  there are students who strive to be exceptional, yet are trapped in an unproductive environment because of their geography.

unfortunately, there are problems with the legislation, and they are substantial.

the Tennessee House has passed a proposal that ensures teachers won't be punished for allowing students to critique scientific fact.  on paper, that's exactly how education should work.  interactive learning where students are encouraged to critically think about the information they are presented and do research on subjects in order to create their own deliberate, structured theories open for peer review would be the type of environment that would take american education to the next level.

the problem, unfortunately, is reality doesn't always allow things that look good on paper to be properly executed.