Does a candidate's religion matter more than the issues?

[Sand]

There is one thing that has kind of irked me in the coming election and it pretty much started with Mitt Romney. People are criticizing that he doesn't have a chance because he is a Morman. My view it doesn't matter what your religion is. What matters is where one stands on the issues. With that in mind does a candidate's religion influence your vote more or where does he or she stands on the issues you feel strongly about?

Edited February 15, 2007 by Sand

[kirottu]

You do realise that your poll question is way different from your topic question?

[Sand]

Fixed!

[Gfted1]

IMO, no, it doesnt matter MORE then "the issues" but I do factor it in as I feel it influences the persons actions.

[~Di]

It matters as much as the issues to most voters, I'm afraid. Try to get an atheist elected president. Or a Wiccan. Or a Muslim in this day and age. Hell, some people popped a vein when we had a *gasp!* Jew running for veep!

 

Bottom line, nobody will win the presidency unless they convince this country's Christian majority that they believe basically the same thing said Christians believe. Period. Because most people cannot separate their religion from their politics in their daily lives a hell of a lot of folks do not want their religion separated from their government. Religion has historically been hip deep in governments... still is in many places. That's why our founding fathers were quite skittish about keeping religion out of their brand new government. Too bad extremist Christians have been busy putting it back in over the past few decades... "Under God" and "In God We Trust" comes to mind.

[Gorgon]

Noone says you have to be an actual Christian though, you can be a complete metaphysical fraud, like the current president.

[alanschu]

Someone's religion provides indicators for what they feel about issues, both now and for the future.

[Cantousent]

Noone says you have to be an actual Christian though, you can be a complete metaphysical fraud, like the current president.

 

This seems like a dead end argument. You'd be better off attacking Bush on the basis of his single minded religious outlook rather than saying that he's a religious fraud. By most accounts, he is not.

 

As far as the current hysteria, once again rearing its ugly head, I doubt if the question Sand advances in his initial post hits the mark in the first place. It's clear that folks will take in a variety of factors in choosing a leader. They will undoubtedly find someone alike to them in many ways, only one of which is religion. We have democract and republican Christians in office right now, which I doubt is the outcome of an all powerful Conservative Christian movement. For example, I'm a Christian. Do I go out of my way to make sure the candidate for whom I vote is Christian? No. ...But if people discuss their world view in a politcal forum, I'm going to side with the person whose views are most compatible with my own. Towards that end, whether I actually know the person is a Christian or not, I'm going to side with the candidate with Christian values because those values are mine as well.

 

Of course, admitting your Christian status isn't always the safest course of action on this board. After all, if I say that I would like a candidate who best represents my values, many of which are Christian, I'll soon find that the very idea of Christian values are under attack. ..But not all those values are reserved for Christianity. So, I'd favor the candidate who shares my Christian values, whether he calls them universal values, Jewish values, or even just plain common sense.

 

Which brings me to the question. What question should we ask? I mean, unless you all want to throw red meat to each other, there's probably a real issue under all this that transcends the inane charge that those mean ol' Christians are voting for other Christians.

[Gorgon]

Bush made his career on the Christian right, whom he secretly thinks are crackpots. He is a posterchild for pimping religion to get elected.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Gorgon

[Volourn]

I think it does.

 

Sand, you are a perfect example. You have flat out admitted to hating Chritismas moe than any other religion by far. If it came down to between a Christian and a non Christian who otherwise shared the same basic values over issues, you would likely choose the non Christian. So, yeah, religion does matter because it's part of the person you ar evoting for. Of course, just as importnat if they are a practicing religious person. manyt claim to be a member of x religion; but reallya rne't but grew up as it/bestowed upon them by their parents.

 

For me, personally, I look at the whole picture. I mosta ssureldy won't vote for someone I 'dislike' (though for people I don't know like politicians I arely have the problem); but issues come first.

 

 

[Cantousent]

"Bush made his career on the Christian right, whom he secretly thinks are crackpots."

 

Obviously not a well kept secret.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Cantousent

[Sand]

The problem with that, Volourn, I doubt a Christian would have the same views on the issues that I would consider presidential material. Then again, there might be one but I doubt it. I doubt there is one Christian candidate that would want to give Homosexuals the same and equal rights as Heterosexuals in all things relating to marriage and family.

[alanschu]

I doubt a Christian would have the same views on the issues that I would consider presidential material.

 

In other words, you think religion is important when deciding who to vote for.

[Surreptishus]

Its derailing the topic a bit but I think a more pertinent question is:

 

Does a candidate's gender or race matter more than the issues?

[alanschu]

In that case, I'd say it shouldn't. Though I imagine it does.

[Cantousent]

Its derailing the topic a bit but I think a more pertinent question is:

 

Does a candidate's gender or race matter more than the issues?

 

This is a more sensible question because, after all, we have ultimate control over our religion. No matter the circumstances of our birth, we can decide to leave or join a religion. However, candidates, no matter their personal convictions cannot change their gender or race. ...And that issue is not itself cut and dried. For instance, Obama might benefit from his race, being embraced by both white and black Americans. He's a liberal with a message with which many conservatives can agree. So, on one hand, he's a bad candidate for racist trogs. On the other, he represents something I believe many Americans are willing to embrace, a non-white President. So, to bring the whole thing around to the beginning, should candidates benefit from their gender or his race? Clearly they have, but should they?

[metadigital]

It matters as much as the issues to most voters, I'm afraid. Try to get an atheist elected president. Or a Wiccan. Or a Muslim in this day and age. Hell, some people popped a vein when we had a *gasp!* Jew running for veep!

 

Bottom line, nobody will win the presidency unless they convince this country's Christian majority that they believe basically the same thing said Christians believe. Period. Because most people cannot separate their religion from their politics in their daily lives a hell of a lot of folks do not want their religion separated from their government. Religion has historically been hip deep in governments... still is in many places. That's why our founding fathers were quite skittish about keeping religion out of their brand new government. Too bad extremist Christians have been busy putting it back in over the past few decades... "Under God" and "In God We Trust" comes to mind.

Aye, and STILL one of them Roman Catholics got in!

 

Bush made his career on the Christian right, whom he secretly thinks are crackpots. He is a posterchild for pimping religion to get elected.

Where are you getting your "facts"?

 

The problem with that, Volourn, I doubt a Christian would have the same views on the issues that I would consider presidential material. Then again, there might be one but I doubt it. I doubt there is one Christian candidate that would want to give Homosexuals the same and equal rights as Heterosexuals in all things relating to marriage and family.

That is not the case: there are (practising) homosexual BISHOPS in the Christian Church.

[Sand]

There have been some great strides or equal rights for gays and lesbians, meta. I will not deny that, but there is still a lot more that needs to be done to make ensure equal rights for every single American citizen regardless of race, gender, orientation, religion, or socio-economic background.

[metadigital]

But your statement that a Christian politician would have nothing for you to vote for is void.

[Cantousent]

:Cant's shaking his head with an incredulous smile icon:

 

"The problem with that, Volourn, I doubt a Christian would have the same views on the issues that I would consider presidential material. Then again, there might be one but I doubt it. I doubt there is one Christian candidate that would want to give Homosexuals the same and equal rights as Heterosexuals in all things relating to marriage and family."

 

...And so you're using relilgion as the basis for your decision. The underlying (and wrong, by the way) argument is that people who adhere to the tenets of one particular religion will, by the nature of that association, have convictions contrary to your own. I agree. It is your right to base your decision on such a factor. That was my point all along.

 

However, while we're talking of "equal rights" and trying secure such for "every single American citizen," let's address the underlying issue. First of all, are we talking all Christians, or just some. Your comment is indiscrete. It lumps all Christians together. You're good at that, I know. Next, you, and others, have placed the ills you perceive in this country at the feet of the Christian majority. Now, assuming we really do have that Christian majority, haven't those "great strides [for] equal rights for gays and lesbians" been borne forth by the legs of quite a few Christians? You can't have it both ways.

 

Frankly, the whole thread is absurd. It's just another trawl, which is fair enough I guess. ...But let's just call the thread for what it is, another excuse to attack Christianity and Christians indiscriminately.

[Sand]

But your statement that a Christian politician would have nothing for you to vote for is void.

 

That is just one issue. There are a myriad of issues and I would probably end up voting the one, at least the non-presidential elections since my vote matters in those, who matches the closest to my views.

[Sand]

Frankly, the whole thread is absurd. It's just another trawl, which is fair enough I guess. ...But let's just call the thread for what it is, another excuse to attack Christianity and Christians indiscriminately.

 

Um no. There are Christians who I have voted for in the past. I might not agreed with all their views but enough of them that they were acceptable. As I said, I look at the issues that I am concerned with:

 

Equal rights

Immigration

Education

Use of our Military

Scientific Research

Healthcare

 

The candidate I can agree with the most, regardless of religion, gets my vote.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Sand

[Cantousent]

"...I doubt there is one Christian candidate that would want to give Homosexuals the same and equal rights as Heterosexuals in all things relating to marriage and family."

[Walsingham]

Let's try to be as clear headed as possible on this. All candidates should be judged (in a society which guarantees freedom of religion in its constitution) independently of their religion.

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4080.html?rnd=33

 

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

[Cantousent]

Great quote, Walsh.