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

[Tale]

Yes and no. I don't believe that religion should have a serious impact, however if an atheist even ran I would have to vote for him. That would be incredibly ballsy.

[Dark_Raven]

I would vote for an atheist. No votes for christians, jews or muslims, for sure.

[Purgatorio]

Unfortunately they are often one and the same. My choices depend on who they are, what the parties policies are, and how the person will toe the party line. That said I would not vote Liberal, what you Americans call Right.... Which is somewhat confusing because the Liberal Party is not liberal. Unless your rich. Because the have links to Christian affiliated groups such as anti-abortionists, and weirdos that want to ban video games.

So, no.

It depends.

Yes, if I don't like how their religion shapes their views, it does matter.

I have not voted in this poll.

[DeathScepter]

did someone say Jack Thompson?

 

 

I do think that he and Uwe Boll have a hidden deadly alliance to banned video games.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do believe that there is a conspiracy to destroy the video game indursty.

[Pop]

When JFK was running for president, a lot of people thought he would lose because he was a catholic, and there was even some libel being thrown around that he would be the first president to ever swear allegiance to something other than the country he was running (in this case, the papacy) but the sky didn't fall when he got elected and the pope didn't run the government.

 

I don't give much of a **** where somebody is on Sunday morning, or if they pray five times a day, or refuse to eat pork. I do give a **** if they bend the law such that such things were required of the populace. I would also give a **** if they bent the law such that such things were prohibited. In the modern nation-state the law is God, and the law's chosen people are those who obey it. So long as an elected official recognizes this, I cannot object to his holding office on the grounds of his religion.

 

Furthermore, atheists are just as capable of bad judgement and horrendous wrongdoing as any other group. Atheist Russia under Stalin or China under Mao were just as terrible as any unified Christian or Muslim or Jewish state could be. I would not support an atheist candidate because of his atheism. I would support him on his policies.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Pop

[Tale]

Furthermore, atheists are just as capable of bad judgement and horrendous wrongdoing as any other group. Atheist Russia under Stalin or China under Mao were just as terrible as any unified Christian or Muslim or Jewish state could be. I would not support an atheist candidate because of his atheism. I would support him on his policies.

You should support him for his giant cajones. They'd have to be to even think he had a chance in this country.

[Walsingham]

I do think it's a little daft to support a guy for his religious beliefs or lack of them. It seems to be symptomatic of our five second attention spans that we are constantly looking for some 'easy' decision maker on who we vote for arther than expressing our views, educating ourselves, and making informed decisions. Which, again is really the fault of the media for being so lazy.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. To have a man in office who makes decisions not based on rational thought supported by a thorough understanding of the consequences, but by superstitious belief, is to severely compromise democracy.

 

 

To let religion influence the electorial proccess is equally bad because it also runs against the principles of democracy in the worst possible way. You dont let companies threaten or punish employees who dont vote like the management wants them to, but its tolerated when a preacher tells his audience that a vote for a liberal is a vote for satan.

[Sand]

I fully agree with Kaftan that separation of church and state needs to be maintained for this is suppose to be a democracy, not a theocracy. So a candidate that can lead this country, without his or her religious bias, if any, with a rational scular mind would probably be more fair minded than say one that imposes his or her religious beliefs to binding laws and policies.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

Just curious Sand. In the context of American politics and bearing in mind the text of the 1st amendment, particularly the establishment clause, what does "seperation of church and state" mean to you? I suspect we will have very different definitions.

[Sand]

Separation of church and state means that church and state are to be separated in all things to a point that it doesn't impose on the other.

 

Such as the government has the duty to make sure all citizens are equal under secular law, but individual churches and church organizations can be discriminating if they so will. It means the government will not give funds or assets to churches or church organizations while at the same time not impose taxes on them as well. The church will not seek to influence laws and policies of the government that seeks to put them in favor or discriminate those who do not follow said church.

 

Basically, keep religion in the churchs and out of the state house and areas controlled by the state while at the same time keep the state out of the churches' affairs and their individual policies.

 

For example, The Boy Scouts of America is an organization that is closely affiliated with churches in their respective communities. Within their own private organization they can discriminate against those who do not fit their standards. However by doing so, and imposing their religious beliefs that effects their policies the state is obligated not to support them with additional funds nor provide free services for that organization.

[metadigital]

I would vote for an atheist. No votes for christians, jews or muslims, for sure.

Reverse bigot, much?

 

Regarding the untenable farce of politicians having to be "of faith":

On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

...

But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free of the stain even of legal persecution. Penalties for opinion, or at least for its expression, still exist by law; and their enforcement is not, even in these times, so unexampled as to make it at all incredible that they may some day be revived in full force. ... [A]t the Old Bailey, two persons, on two separate occassions,† were rejected as jurymen, and one of them grossly insulted by the judge and one of the counsel, because they honestly declared that they had no theological belief; and a third, a foreigner,‡ for the same reason, was denied justice against a thief. This refusal of redress took place in virtue of the legal doctrine, that no person can be allowed to give evidence in a court of justice, who does not profess to believe in a God (any god is sufficient) and in a future state; which is equivalent to declaring such persons outlaws ... who may not only be robbed and assaulted with impunity ... but any one else may be robbed or assaulted with impunity, if the proof of the fact relies on their evidence. The assumption on which this is grounded, is that the oath is worthless, of a person who does not believe in a future state; a proposition that betokens much ignorance of history in those who assent to it (since it is historically true that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of distinguished integrity and honour); and would be maintained by no one who had the smallest conception how many of the persons in the greatest repute with the world, both for virtues and for attainments, are well known, at least to their intimates, to be unbelievers. The rule, besides, is suicidal, and cuts away its own foundation. Under pretense that atheists must be liars it admits testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie and rejects those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed, rather than affirm a falsehood. A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity, that the qualification for undergoing it, is the being clearly proved not to deserve it.

 

† George Jacob Holyoake, 17 August 1857; Edward Truelove, July 1857

‡ Baron de Gleichen, Malborough-street Police Court, 4 August 1857

It's odd that the country built on the US Constitution has such a warped conception of religion and state.

[Dark_Raven]

Why not? What comes around goes around.

 

OMG! An Atheist on the ballot? We can't have a heathen in government!

 

Or better yet a Pagan.

 

*Gasp* A Pagan for president? We can't have a witch the White House! They are servents of the Devil!

Edited February 17, 2007 by Dark_Raven

[LadyCrimson]

To the original question, no, it doesn't personally matter to me, as long as their issue stances and past political actions/history doesn't conflict with what I believe in. There are all kinds of variations and belief-flexibility to stated religions. While religious beliefs - or any belief system - may influence actions, it's not rational to judge an individuals potential for that alone.

[Cantousent]

Why not? What comes around goes around.

 

Other than mandatory alcohol consumption at the polls, I can't think of a better way to form public policy.

[alanschu]

Why not? What comes around goes around.

 

Other than mandatory alcohol consumption at the polls, I can't think of a better way to form public policy.

 

 

Forgive me, but I laughed out loud at that comment. Not "hehehehe" style, but "bwahahaha" style. I think I'm giddy.

[Walsingham]

I think manadatory alcohol consumption is a terrible idea. Given the power of big business in the States you'd all be forced to drink budweiser *euch*

[Sand]

What? Not Samual Addams? That's unpatriotic!

[metadigital]

Why not? What comes around goes around.

 

OMG! An Atheist on the ballot? We can't have a heathen in government!

 

Or better yet a Pagan.

 

*Gasp* A Pagan for president? We can't have a witch the White House! They are servents of the Devil!

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

If you are suggesting that demonstrating bigotry is a good way to prevent it in the future, I would tell you to be careful of exploding in a self-contradictory ball of hypocrisy.

[Sand]

Its the US, land of the hipocrisy. It fits in quite well.

[Colrom]

Of course it matters.

 

A persons religious beliefs or disbeliefs determine quite a bit of what they will do - especially in difficult circumstances.

 

However, it is often quite difficult to determine what a persons religious beliefs really are.

 

People often enough lie about such things - perhaps even to themselves.

 

Probably the easiest way to judge is to see what they have done in the past.

 

For example, while I will leave it to God to know what George Bush believes and what he thinks he believes, based on his statements and actions I would never consider him to be a follower of Christ's teachings. He seems more like an unwitting deciple of Satan so far as I can tell. I think Chavez had him pegged.

 

So I would never vote for him - not for any position.

[Colrom]

On the other hand, I would be quite willing to vote for a person claiming to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddist, or Atheist who seemed to me, based on their actions, to have essentially the same values as Christ promoted.

 

I have no interest in establishing religious hegemony - which is rightly forbidden in the US - so which church they attend is not necessarilly important.

 

Although, if they appear to be subject to influence by lunatics that would be a negative.

[Colrom]

The fundamental idiocy of this topic is that issues and religion are completely intertwined.

[Guard Dog]

Separation of church and state means that church and state are to be separated in all things to a point that it doesn't impose on the other.

 

Such as the government has the duty to make sure all citizens are equal under secular law, but individual churches and church organizations can be discriminating if they so will. It means the government will not give funds or assets to churches or church organizations while at the same time not impose taxes on them as well. The church will not seek to influence laws and policies of the government that seeks to put them in favor or discriminate those who do not follow said church.

 

Basically, keep religion in the churchs and out of the state house and areas controlled by the state while at the same time keep the state out of the churches' affairs and their individual policies.

 

For example, The Boy Scouts of America is an organization that is closely affiliated with churches in their respective communities. Within their own private organization they can discriminate against those who do not fit their standards. However by doing so, and imposing their religious beliefs that effects their policies the state is obligated not to support them with additional funds nor provide free services for that organization.

 

As expected, I completely disagree with you. The first part of the first amendment (also known as the "establishment clause") states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The way I read that is that the US Government cannot make a law that says "You must be Christian". It does not prevent the government (or it's agencies like schools, police, etc) from allowing VOLUNTARY religious observances such a moment of silence, or a prayer before a meal, nor does it prohibit the display of any religious monuments (such as the 10 Commandments as in the Montgomery AL. case). Nor does it prohibit a public servant from relying on his religious beliefs in a decision making process. Heck, Minnesota elected a devout Muslim to Congress last year and he took his oath on a Qua ran. As you will recall, I said he had every right to do so based on the 1st Amendment. None of these things "forces" anyone to comply with anything. That is all the Establishment Clause is designed to do.

 

As for your example, the Boy Scouts are a private organization and also a 501c charity. I'm positive they do not receive a penny from any level of government. Their issue was access to public facilities. Allowing them to meet in a Community Center does not mean everyone must join the Scouts nor does it imply endorsement of anything the Scouts stand for. If (to steal a line from South Park) the Gay Scouts wanted to meet there, more power to them. If the state prevented one and not the other then you have a case. Technically by denying them access the state has violated the Assembly Clause which states or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

 

The same with the 10 commandments monument. If a Muslim group was prevented from putting up a monument next to it (all of these things have been paid for privately by the way) then there would be a case and I would be the first to point out the injustice. But the law cannot (or should not) be construed to prevent private religious expressions in public.

 

This country was founded on the most basic of Libertarian principles: "Live and Let Live". It bothers me to see the religious right insisting on my compliance to it's world view. It is equally wrong to see the anti-religious left perverting the constitution to force it's world view on me.

[DeathScepter]

But Which one would you rather live under?