Obama's re-election will bring on Armageddon!

So, a christian guy posted a link to the following gem on facebook  (yeah I know people like that!):

http://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/how-i-absorbed-three-punches-and-stood-up-anyway/

To spare you the necessity of reading this... fine piece of poetry, here's the executive summary: A fundamentalist christian complains about Obama's re-election, because to this guy (I suppose; could be a girl of course), Obama stands for infanticide and perversion and, well, everything evil and anti-christian on the planet.

Amazingly, this is not an isolated case. There seems to be a whole pot of christian anti-Obama soup boiling over right now. Obama got re-elected, therefore the end-times are near.

Yeah sure.

I won't even go into the tiny detail that the other guy, what-was-his-name-again, probably wouldn't have lived up to the high hopes that some christians seem to have placed on him. Not in a world that is only ruled by politicians to a small degree, and mostly governed by business interests. (Shouldn't we actually be TOGETHER in despising this? Us liberal-minded folks and the christians, I mean?) I won't bitch about how ridiculous it is to see gay marriage as the epitome of "perversion". (Hey, I used to be into bdsm, remember? I can teach you a lesson or two about anal, if you like.)

Instead, let me focus on only one interesting fact: People like that seem to think that it is the function of a state, and by extension its representatives, to cater to the morals of one specific group. I contend that those folks simply haven't understood the role of the state.

See, the role of the state is not to decide, for example, whom I am allowed to love, or what we do with each other in the bedroom. That is a moral problem that different groups can and will and should solve according to their specific beliefs. The state's role is to provide the bare minimum of boundaries for our social behaviour. And the guideline for those boundaries cannot be taken from the morals of one specific group - even if that group be the large majority - but only from the plain and simple question of how to keep people from hurting each other.

If the state rules that abortions can be performed until the n'th week of pregnancy, then this is not a statement to the effect that abortion is a-ok or morally justified. All it means is that the governing body is of the opinion that this is the best way to reduce suffering as much as possible.

This is, of course, debatable. And we should indeed debate it, again and again. And the debate will never be over. But the basis for the debate is not christian mores; nor buddhist mores or "tantric mores" (whatever that might entail), or satanist or hindu or ancient greek or communist mores... but simply the reduction of suffering.

That is because, as far as I can see, the reduction of suffering is the one formula that all religions, and every worldview that is at least somewhat sane, can agree on. So it is guaranteed to be valid for practically all citizens of any given state.

Anything else would really just be favoritism.

Oh, and, since we're at it, Romans 13:1 clearly states that "everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Folks, your own bible tells you that Obama's re-election was god's will. So what's the fuss about?