POL - The role of a candidate's religion in his electibility

[Crapshoot]

From the National Review's Sixers Website:

Poll on Religion and Politics
[John J. Pitney Jr. 07/03 11:16 AM]
A poll by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg has important data on religion and politics:

Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate, and 54% said no to the prospect of a Muslim in the White House. In addition, 21% said they could not vote for an evangelical Christian. Fifteen percent said they would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and 10% were unwilling to cast ballots favoring a Catholic chief executive.

At first glance, it strikes me that the 54% number is amazing for Muslims, as is the 37% for Mormons - then again, I would be curious to see what that number is when broken down by party affiliation (same for Evangilical Christian, Jewish, and Catholic). The general question it raises to me is whether you think the religious beliefs of a candidate are of primary importance in judging his "candidacy", or whether its a subset, but not neccessarily an automatic veto for you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

At first glance, it strikes me that the 54% number is amazing for Muslims,

I was kind of amazed by that too, amazed that it was that low.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

From the National Review's Sixers Website:



At first glance, it strikes me that the 54% number is amazing for Muslims, as is the 37% for Mormons - then again, I would be curious to see what that number is when broken down by party affiliation (same for Evangilical Christian, Jewish, and Catholic). The general question it raises to me is whether you think the religious beliefs of a candidate are of primary importance in judging his "candidacy", or whether its a subset, but not neccessarily an automatic veto for you.

I am, but I am not amazed by the percentage for Mormons, most christian religions do not see them as a christian religion....hence I could see the high percentage, and then there is the annoyance factor of the religion as for missionaries and such that rates up there with the Jehovah's Witnesses

[timmynausea]

Of all of the options, I actually have the hardest time imagining myself voting for a Mormon. Maybe Dale Murphy.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Of all of the options, I actually have the hardest time imagining myself voting for a Mormon. Maybe Dale Murphy.

What about Romney? He hasn't done a bad job in Massachusetts has he? From everything I heard, he has done decent there as Gov....

I actually see him running for presidency here soon....

[Honolulu_Blue]

The odds of seeing a Mormon president are about 100x's greater than the odds of seeing an athiest preisdent. Unforunately, I just can't see an athiest in the White House.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

What about Romney? He hasn't done a bad job in Massachusetts has he? From everything I heard, he has done decent there as Gov....

I actually see him running for presidency here soon....

Interesting point. I was honestly not even aware he was a Mormon.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I was kind of amazed by that too, amazed that it was that low.

I would have guessed 30-35%. Remember, there are a lot of people in this country who are afraid to say anything bad about any Muslim, Muslims in general, or the Islamic religion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Interesting thing about this poll is that the more religious you are, the more intolerant you are, as opposed to the common meme of the intolerant atheist. For example, 37% overall wouldn't vote for a Mormon, and it breaks down like:

28% of those who never/barely attend church say they wouldn't.

35% monthly attendees.

41% weekly.

50% more than once a week.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Interesting thing about this poll is that the more religious you are, the more intolerant you are, as opposed to the common meme of the intolerant atheist. For example, 37% overall wouldn't vote for a Mormon, and it breaks down like:

28% of those who never/barely attend church say they wouldn't.

35% monthly attendees.

41% weekly.

50% more than once a week.

Another way to look at that is that the more a person is interested in religion, the more knowledgable they are of Mormons.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Another way to look at that is that the more a person is interested in religion, the more knowledgable they are of Mormons.

How often do you go to church?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How often do you go to church?

Usually 3-5 times a week.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Usually 3-5 times a week.

Well then thanks for proving my point

[st.cronin]

Of course, because everybody that goes to church as often as I do thinks exactly like I do. And, of course, thinking that Mormons have beliefs which are incompatible with the values that our country requires from it's leaders makes me "intolerant." You are so right about all of that. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Of course, because everybody that goes to church as often as I do thinks exactly like I do. And, of course, thinking that Mormons have beliefs which are incompatible with the values that our country requires from it's leaders makes me "intolerant." You are so right about all of that. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Not voting for someone based strictly on their religion is the definition of intolerance for that religion. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is left open to debate, however. I mean, I would be intolerant of a child molestor or a serial killer being elected president. You seem to be taking intolerance as being bad no matter what, which isn't my intention. I was just saying that overall, the poll seems to show that atheists are more tolerant than religious people when it comes to voting patterns and the religion of candidates.

[aran]

I would not vote for an evangelical christian. That's the only one that rubs me the wrong way enough. Something about their mindset really dissettles me. Well... Regardless of what religion the evagelist is trying to spread, i would not vote for them.

[sabotai]

Obligatory "this won't end well." post. Carry on.

[CraigSca]

Of course atheists are more tolerant of a candidate's religious position - that's by default. I would also venture to say that a Republican is less likely to vote for a Democrat because of his "intolerance" of the Democrat's political party. If you have no opinion whatsoever, it doesn't matter who you vote for. If you don't believe in God, what does religion matter - they're all wrong, right?

[Drake]

I'd take slight issue with the use of "intolerance" here, Mr. B. One can be tolerant of other views without actively supporting them. In my thinking, a vote implies active support of a candidate's views.

Now, I don't think a person's religion should be the sole criteria upon which one decides whether or not to vote for someone, but then again, neither should his or her party affiliation.

[Dutch]

I don't care what religion a person is.

[Greyroofoo]

as long as the person keeps his religion and politiks seperate, I don't care what religion the person is.

[Drake]

I'm not sure how one goes about keeping their religion and politics separate, not if their religion means anything to them.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Another way to look at that is that the more a person is interested in religion, the more knowledgable they are of Mormons.

[BrianD]

Can you really separate the two? Your religious background is going to have an effect on your beliefs and your politics. I would think that anyone who claims their religion doesn't affect their politics is being dishonest.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

...Mormons...

I don't trust any religion where they meet in secret Lodges and wear funny hats.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't trust any religion where they meet in secret Lodges and wear funny hats.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Drake]

I was making a joke about Masons (as in Freemasons). Apparently it wasn't as funny in print as it was in my head.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Drake

I was making a joke about Masons (as in Freemasons). Apparently it wasn't as funny in print as it was in my head.

Sorry, you quoted the mormon statement, I was just wondering what you meant there, I understand the Mason statement though....:cheesy:

Now my background.....

I was born and raised catholic and converted to LDS (mormon) when I was 18 because of all stupid things, a girl....

However, I made a point to study the faith, and read a lot into it...it takes a bit to do it...some of the beliefs and stuff I found out made me go....what the hell did I do.....

Basically, if you look at it, I am mormon.....but I am WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY not practicing......

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can you really separate the two? Your religious background is going to have an effect on your beliefs and your politics. I would think that anyone who claims their religion doesn't affect their politics is being dishonest.

Yes you can.

For example, lets say drinking alcohol was against your religion. A candidate who could seperate politiks from religious beliefs wouldn't try prohibition again. (Even if it wouldn't be socially unpopular)

The person just has to recognize that not everyone has to follow their beliefs.

Note that I was drunk while I wrote this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'd take slight issue with the use of "intolerance" here, Mr. B. One can be tolerant of other views without actively supporting them. In my thinking, a vote implies active support of a candidate's views.

Now, I don't think a person's religion should be the sole criteria upon which one decides whether or not to vote for someone, but then again, neither should his or her party affiliation.

I think 'intolerance' is the proper terminology here. No one, today, thinks (or should think really) that by voting for a Catholic you are supporting their beliefs. By not voting for someone based on their religious background is being intolerant to that religion. At the very least you believe everyone of a certain religion believes the religious beliefs should be made law (ie, every member of a religion which is against drinking does not naturally support prohibition).

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The odds of seeing a Mormon president are about 100x's greater than the odds of seeing an athiest preisdent. Unforunately, I just can't see an athiest in the White House.

It's not hard to imagine at all. There have already been atheists in the White House.

I can't really answer the poll because there isn't an option for my point of view. I wouldn't disqualify a presidential candidate from any religious background. But that doesn't mean it isn't an important issue to me. I would have a hard time supporting any presidential candidate who professes to impose his or her religious beliefs into policy and law.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There have already been atheists in the White House.

Not any who were declared atheists though.

[SirFozzie]

It doesn't affect me, except to a degree, and that would be something like Pat Robertson for Evangelical Christian etcetera

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not any who were declared atheists though.

Originally Posted by James Madison

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Originally Posted by John Adams

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.

Originally Posted by William Howard Taft

I do not believe in the divinity of Christ and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.

I'm not sure all of these men were declared atheists. Certainly not Taft. Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wished to impose religion on the masses.

Today, there's no way Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Taft or Lincoln could even win a primary. That's sad.

What the poll fails to ask, at least as far as I can tell, is whether you could vote for someone who is religious, but doesn't wear it on his sleeve. John Kennedy managed to win the presidency as a Catholic, but he made it clear that he supported the absolute separation and felt any religious beliefs were a private matter.

I don't think Kennedy would stand a chance today, either.

Personally, I'd answer this poll by saying "it depends." Because I couldn't vote for any religious person who, as George Bush does, makes religion a central part of his platform. His dad is the one who made headlines by claiming that he didn't feel atheists should even be considered citizens.

However, there are many people who are Christian but understand the separation. I might vote for McCain should he tack back to the center a little.

The poll probably reflects both traditional biases and the religion of the person being asked. We may be more comfortable that a person of Jewish heritage won't interject religion into his governance because almost half of all Jewish people are atheists. I don't think our country could elect a Jewish president right now, though. Especially not one who is an atheist.

Muslims, on the opposite end of the spectrum, have an image that's clouded by the violent Sharia supporters. So a Muslim candidate would have a very difficult time distancing himself. And Massachusetts is a funny little country. Who would have thunk Romney could get himself into the governor's mansion - a Republican Mormon in Catholic, liberal Massachusetts? That's just wild.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Not voting for someone based strictly on their religion is the definition of intolerance for that religion.

I don't think this is the case at all. Being intolerant is unwilling to grant an equal right to that person. So, not willing to vote for them is not the same as not allowing them to be president. Intolerance for their religion would be trying to ban it, or supporting a law that would ban persons of that religion from being president. Simply not voting for them is not the same thing at all.

There is a huge difference between supporting and tolerating.

[SirFozzie]

Romney got in because he ran the SLC games to show a profit, and the state desperately needed someone to get the economy going again.

Besides, MA has had a bunch of republican govs in a row

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't think this is the case at all. Being intolerant is unwilling to grant an equal right to that person. So, not willing to vote for them is not the same as not allowing them to be president. Intolerance for their religion would be trying to ban it, or supporting a law that would ban persons of that religion from being president. Simply not voting for them is not the same thing at all.

There is a huge difference between supporting and tolerating.

Precisely.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Romney got in because he ran the SLC games to show a profit, and the state desperately needed someone to get the economy going again.

Besides, MA has had a bunch of republican govs in a row

Im not saying he got in because he was Mormon (in fact, he lost the senate bid because he was) I am saying he has become an influential mormon in politics, and has done well at it.

Hatch was decent for a while too, and then he was kidnapped by aliens and had his mind replaced with a tic tac..

Oh, and I thought of another one, that is Mike Leavitt...former head of the EPA and now Secretary of Health and Human Services....

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Not voting for someone based strictly on their religion is the definition of intolerance for that religion. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is left open to debate, however. I mean, I would be intolerant of a child molestor or a serial killer being elected president. You seem to be taking intolerance as being bad no matter what, which isn't my intention. I was just saying that overall, the poll seems to show that atheists are more tolerant than religious people when it comes to voting patterns and the religion of candidates.

If you had wanted to engage in an honest conversation, I would have been happy to engage you, but you come crashing into this thread saying that people who go to church are intolerant. You are a grade A troll and a nimrod and I wish you would never post here again. Goodbye.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you had wanted to engage in an honest conversation, I would have been happy to engage you, but you come crashing into this thread saying that people who go to church are intolerant. You are a grade A troll and a nimrod and I wish you would never post here again. Goodbye.

To be fair, and Biggles does have his trolling moments, you did bait pretty thoroughly with the line "the more a person is interested in religion, the more knowledgable they are of Mormons." That did sound fairly intolerant, whatever your intention.

[Franklinnoble]

Nice to see the hate for evangelicals here. How many Christian suicide bombers have there been in the last 30 years again?

Why not just make "hail satan!" a poll option and get it over with. Heathens.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solcesmic

I'm not sure all of these men were declared atheists.

That's the key, none of them were. Madison, Adams, and Jefferson were seen as Christian (Adams and Jefferson as Unitarians and Madison as an Episcopalian... Jefferson and Madison may also have been seen as Deists, but that was more a product of later life). Taft was also seen as a Unitarian.

It may not seem as much today (based on their very unorthodox views on Jesus and the trinity), but Unitarianism was seen as a Christian belief. It was especially big in New England, especially eminating from Harvard.

Lincoln, OTOH, wasn't particularly active in a church, though he did reference God a lot in his speeches.

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't think this is the case at all. Being intolerant is unwilling to grant an equal right to that person. So, not willing to vote for them is not the same as not allowing them to be president. Intolerance for their religion would be trying to ban it, or supporting a law that would ban persons of that religion from being president. Simply not voting for them is not the same thing at all.

That is a way too simplistic way of looking at things. If you don't vote for someone based on the religious group they belong to, you are not tolerating that belief. You believe that that particular religious belief should not be in government (though others should) and furthermore believe everyone belonging to that religious group shares that belief and will enforce them on the general populace. It isn't merely non-support. Tolerance means treating people equally and giving them equal due, not painting with broad brushes and catagorically being opposed to them attaining a high office. People who voted against JFK because he was Catholic were intolerant, end of story; they weren't tolerant but non-supportive. Hell, that's a PC way of trying to get around being called intolerant.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That is a way too simplistic way of looking at things.

Actually it is in line with the definition as published by Webster.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If you don't vote for someone based on the religious group they belong to, you are not tolerating that belief.

How so? You are implying the voter does not wish for that belief to exist or for others to be able to exercise that belief.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You believe that that particular religious belief should not be in government (though others should) and furthermore believe everyone belonging to that religious group shares that belief and will enforce them on the general populace.

Just because you do not want a candidate of that belief to be your president, congressperson, insert whatever election you want, does not mean you do not believe a candidate of that faith should exist in government. It definitely does not mean that you think that candidate is going to enforce a belief on the general public. One and only one of many alternative reasons a person may not like a faith candidate is the concern they may show favoritism to that faith in international policy.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It isn't merely non-support. People who voted against JFK because he was Catholic were intolerant, end of story; they weren't tolerant but non-supportive. Hell, that's a PC way of trying to get around being called intolerant.

Calling those people intolerant (well maybe one of them was, based on that persons action), is simply a PC way of trying to demean, brow beat, intimidate and otherwise make that person look bad because they do not agree with you. It is using a word that by definition does not apply, but sounds a whole lot worse than legitimate options.

It would not sound as good if you said they don’t agree with that persons faith or they do not support candidates of that faith or they do not like that religion.

If you want an example of intolerance, take a look at the French government’s view on Protestants in the 18th century. Or take a look at the Roman’s view on Catholics prior them becoming tolerant of that religion.

By using the word intolerant, you are trying to compare people who did not vote for JFK because he was Catholic to Romans who killed people because they were Catholic. The first does not like Catholics and won’t vote for them, but are tolerant. The second are intolerant as they will not let them practice their faith, by outlawing it, taxing it and killing those who practice

Of course on that last one (JFK / Roman comparison), I may be implying something you don't mean.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't think this is the case at all. Being intolerant is unwilling to grant an equal right to that person. So, not willing to vote for them is not the same as not allowing them to be president. Intolerance for their religion would be trying to ban it, or supporting a law that would ban persons of that religion from being president. Simply not voting for them is not the same thing at all.

There is a huge difference between supporting and tolerating.

Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED

st.cronin is obviously unwilling to endure voting for a Mormon. Therefore, he is intolerant of them, at least as far as voting patterns, which is all I said.

If the question was, 'would you vote for someone of this religion that wanted to legislate their beliefs', then I would agree with you, it would not be intolerance if you said you wouldn't vote for them. However, the question is only, 'would you ever vote for someone of this religion'. And to automatically disqualify someone just because of their religion demonstrates intolerance of that religion.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

If you had wanted to engage in an honest conversation, I would have been happy to engage you, but you come crashing into this thread saying that people who go to church are intolerant. You are a grade A troll and a nimrod and I wish you would never post here again. Goodbye.

The more religious you are, the more likely you are to not vote for someone just because their religion differs from yours. I'd call that intolerance, but if that word offends you I'll call it pumpkin pie from now on to protect your delicate sensibilities.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The odds of seeing a Mormon president are about 100x's greater than the odds of seeing an athiest preisdent. Unforunately, I just can't see an athiest in the White House.

And just think, who better for the progression of the human race...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Nice to see the hate for evangelicals here. How many Christian suicide bombers have there been in the last 30 years again?

Why not just make "hail satan!" a poll option and get it over with. Heathens.

I once saw a Born Again (along with Kirk Cameron) prove the existence of God (as well as disprove evolution) with a banana.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'm not sure all of these men were declared atheists. Certainly not Taft.

I don't think it's possible to read one quote or a hundred quotes from 200 years ago and get a direct meaning. All of these men were more than likely no where's near atheism. But regardless, so far as I can tell, from then all the way until now with President Bush, I cannot recall a story of a single citizen that felt the need to leave our nation because of religious intolerance that was dictated from the Presidency. Certainly not a group of people, at least, if it has happened, I am unaware.

In any event, before we change the wiki to show these guys were atheist.

Originally Posted by James Madison - Inauguration Speech

"From the weight and magnitude now belonging to it I should be compelled to shrink if I had less reliance on the support of an enlightened and generous people, and felt less deeply a conviction that the war with a powerful nation, which forms so prominent a feature in our situation, is stamped with that justice which invites the smiles of Heaven on the means of conducting it to a successful termination."

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson - 1st Inauguration

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

Originally Posted by William H Taft - Inauguration

"I invoke the considerate sympathy and support of my fellow-citizens and the aid of the Almighty God in the discharge of my responsible duties."

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln - 2nd Inauguration

"Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Originally Posted by John Adams - His final words before death

"Oh, yes; it is the glorious Fourth of July. It is a great day. It is a good day. God bless it. God bless you all."

[Solecismic]

Just to take one off the top:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Here's the quote, in context:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me (as President) will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

It's strange that a quote in a rather aggressive letter written to a member of the clergy (Jefferson was responding to attacks from religious groups) becomes the argument that he was religious.

Jefferson certainly had a lot of disdain for organized religion. Like many from that time period, he referred to the unknown as the work of God. It was more a figure of speech than an belief system.

In that way, we'd consider him a deist. But certainly not religious in any way we'd recognize.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Originally Posted by James Madison

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

[ChiMatt]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Nice to see the hate for evangelicals here. How many Christian suicide bombers have there been in the last 30 years again?

Why not just make "hail satan!" a poll option and get it over with. Heathens.

No, but members have bombed abortion clinics, killed abortion doctors, and were picketing military funerals as a way to protest homosexuality.

There will always be extremists in any religion and I don't think the religion should be judged on those minority exteremes.