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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How often do you go to church?

Usually 3-5 times a week.

[MrBigglesworth]

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]

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]

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]

...Mormons...

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

[MacroGuru]

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

What the hell are you talking about? :confused:

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not any who were declared atheists though.

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."

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

That is a way too simplistic way of looking at things.
Actually it is in line with the definition as published by Webster.



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.

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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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."

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

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.

"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."

"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."

"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:

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:

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.

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.

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

[ChiMatt]

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.

[BrianD]

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.

I think this is completely wrong. Deciding to not vote for someone strictly on the basis of their religion is intolerant. Not wanting to vote for someone who happens to be a particular religion is one thing, but not wanting to vote for someone because of that religion is intolerant.

[Drake]

Okay, as I look at the poll question again, I missed the "automatic" in "Would A Candidate of the religous group be an automatic rejection for you ?". If you disqualify someone automatically because of their religion (i.e. without hearing their views), then that would, in fact, be intolerant.

[Drake]

dola...

As Mr. B pointed out earlier, however, I'm not attaching any negatives to intolerance in this context. Heck, I'd vote against someone just for being a Yankees fan.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

Why would you not mind if a person of a certain religion was in government, but draw the line at President or Congressman? Why would you put your own glass ceiling if not for prejudice? And isn't automatically disqualifying someone from a position because of their faith the definition of prejudice (pre judge)?

If you don't think that candidate will enforce a religious belief on the general public, then why in the Hell automatically disqualify them?!

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.

You mean like when people voted against JFK because they thought the Pope would give him orders? That reason was dumb then and its dumb today. I mean do you think Joe Libermann would show more favoritism to Isreal in the MidEast Peace Process than Ralph Reed?

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.

No, it's calling it like it is. To say it is non-supporting rather than intolerant sounds like calling a short guy 'vertically challenged'.

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

What absolute bullshit! So if you reject all black people from your job because 'they all steal', does that mean you are tolerant of them, since you don't want to kill them?

You've defined 'tolerance' so narrowly that George Wallace is tolerant under your definition.

[Dutch]

Just to take one off the top:



Here's the quote, in context:



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.


LOL. I finished mowing the grass, got a nice cold beverage (Mountain Dew) sat down at the computer and thought to myself, "Well, let me get my whuppin."

Personally, I am not well versed on organized religions today (or then) and I am not a strong believer in any organized religion, but I do have a strong value system that includes the belief in God. That to me is deism, and I define it loosely as unorganized religion...but certainly not atheism.

Oh well, the bottom line is that I fully support the seperation of church and state regardless of what our founding fathers believed. So that much has stuck wtih us throughout the centuries.

[GrantDawg]

This poll is flawed. There is not one of the religious groups listed that would rule one out for my vote, but that is far cry from the last statement. There are religions out there that would rule people out to me (Satanist, because it shows the individual is immature: and Scientology because of their stance on psychology among other things. There are also cults that would rule people out), but none of these broad categories. I can also see certain groups within the religions listed that would rule them out. Certain sects within all of those categories would be problematic.

So, my answer to the question is yes, there are religious groups that would cause me to automatically reject a candidate, but none of those ones listed.

[Franklinnoble]

FYI - You don't have to be "deist" to dislike organized religion. I'm a Bible-based Christian, and I don't care for organized religion, either.

[Dutch]

FYI - You don't have to be "deist" to dislike organized religion. I'm a Bible-based Christian, and I don't care for organized religion, either.

True. Certainly there are more choices out there than this poll suggests. :)

[Neon_Chaos]

Ah Politics and Religion. Things that NOBODY will ever agree upon completely.

[Solecismic]

LOL. I finished mowing the grass, got a nice cold beverage (Mountain Dew) sat down at the computer and thought to myself, "Well, let me get my whuppin."

Personally, I am not well versed on organized religions today (or then) and I am not a strong believer in any organized religion, but I do have a strong value system that includes the belief in God. That to me is deism, and I define it loosely as unorganized religion...but certainly not atheism.

Oh well, the bottom line is that I fully support the seperation of church and state regardless of what our founding fathers believed. So that much has stuck wtih us throughout the centuries.

I don't understand why so many religious people believe the separation is a bad concept. It offers them protection. Religious belief shifts over time, and if you're in the majority now, there's no guarantee you won't find yourself in the minority later.

Jefferson and Madison fought hard to defeat any attempt by the clergy, and particularly by Thomas Paine, to include any church support in the government budget.

I think you're redefining deism. From everything I've read, this refers to what we'd call a "natural God." They didn't have advanced Doppler weather models, medicine was pretty much a guessing game and if you wanted to crunch a lot of numbers, you needed a good pen and a deep inkwell. There were a lot of unknowns. These people didn't even know what existed past the Mississippi.

It wouldn't have occurred to them to add this to their value systems. Like atheists today, their value systems were personal and had nothing to do with questions like the origin of the universe and the earth.

Basically, what's missing from deism is the concept of worship. To them, worshipping a creator made no sense. Their quotes regarding this issue are crystal clear.

Today, we have religious groups, with plenty of support in government, that seek to remove good scientific research from school textbooks (and not just religious schools) because it contradicts pieces of the Bible. I don't think there's any doubt how the deists of old would regard this effort.

[Dutch]

I don't understand why so many religious people believe the separation is a bad concept. It offers them protection. Religious belief shifts over time, and if you're in the majority now, there's no guarantee you won't find yourself in the minority later.

I agree.

Jefferson and Madison fought hard to defeat any attempt by the clergy, and particularly by Thomas Paine, to include any church support in the government budget.

I think you're redefining deism. From everything I've read, this refers to what we'd call a "natural God." They didn't have advanced Doppler weather models, medicine was pretty much a guessing game and if you wanted to crunch a lot of numbers, you needed a good pen and a deep inkwell. There were a lot of unknowns. These people didn't even know what existed past the Mississippi.

It wouldn't have occurred to them to add this to their value systems. Like atheists today, their value systems were personal and had nothing to do with questions like the origin of the universe and the earth.

Basically, what's missing from deism is the concept of worship. To them, worshipping a creator made no sense. Their quotes regarding this issue are crystal clear.

I'm probably on the same page here. However, I do pray to God. That might just be therapuetic for all I know. But like Chris Rock says, "I pray to God every God-damned day...just in case."

Today, we have religious groups, with plenty of support in government, that seek to remove good scientific research from school textbooks (and not just religious schools) because it contradicts pieces of the Bible. I don't think there's any doubt how the deists of old would regard this effort.

I'm not so sure I believe that movement is very strong. I'm sure it exists, but I don't think it has the momentum that you might think it does. Science is here to stay. My concern, however, is by removing creationism from the public school system will promote home-grown extremism. I have no problem with the public school system discussing the major religious beliefs of our nation in school so that kids don't go home to David Koresh and have no idea about religion outside of what that nimrod tells them. Knowledge is power and the more you know, the more informed decisions in life you can make.

[st.cronin]

I bet I have been to more Mormon services than everybody else that has posted in this thread put together.

[MacroGuru]

I bet I have been to more Mormon services than everybody else that has posted in this thread put together.

I highly doubt that

[st.cronin]

I highly doubt that

Well, except practicing Mormons, possibly. ;)

[MacroGuru]

Well, except former practicing Mormons, possibly. ;)

fixed that.....

[st.cronin]

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.

Re-reading it, I can kind of see your point, but look at Mr.B's first, unprovoked post in this thread, and tell me it's not both trollish and offensive. I was actually trying to give him a way out, but he responded by calling me intolerant. In another thread recently, he called somebody a racist for suggesting that demographics might have something to do with politics. All he does is stir shit up, and yell at people for disagreeing with him. I hope he spends the rest of eternity at sportsdigs.com.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I don't understand why so many religious people believe the separation is a bad concept. It offers them protection. Religious belief shifts over time, and if you're in the majority now, there's no guarantee you won't find yourself in the minority later.


Even worse, your religion may not become a minority and may become intertwined with government for a long period of time. There is no surer way to corrupt its beliefs and principles than the compromises of power. Have a look at the history of catholicism...

[Franklinnoble]

I bet I have been to more Mormon services than everybody else that has posted in this thread put together.

I dunno... when I was a kid, the Boy Scout Troop I was in met at a Mormon church, and most of the kids (and all the Scoutmasters) were Mormon, so I sat through my share of it.

I also went to a lot of Catholic mass as a kid, since I went to Catholic school through 6th grade. I'd say the only major religious service I don't have any exposure to would be muslim.

In my experience, the Bible-based Christian services are the least structured and dogmatic, and also the least likely to hassle you for your money.

[EagleFan]

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


Then why are all religions an automatic rejection for you?

[WVUFAN]

I wouldn't vote for a Muslim for a high office. But I would agree that anyone who bases a vote on what religion the candidate chooses to be a part of is intolerant of that religion. I have no problems admitting I am intolerant towards the Musilim religion.

[ISiddiqui]

I wouldn't vote for a Muslim for a high office. But I would agree that anyone who bases a vote on what religion the candidate chooses to be a part of is intolerant of that religion. I have no problems admitting I am intolerant towards the Musilim religion.

At least you are honest. I prefer that to dishonesty, but I still exercise my right to be intolerant to you ;).

[Dutch]

My biggest problem with Muslims is that I met so many of them in Turkey that it's hard to continue to hate them. Islamic fundamentalists that like to blow up women and children in Baghdad...different story.

[st.cronin]

My biggest problem with Muslims is that I met so many of them in Turkey that it's hard to continue to hate them. Islamic fundamentalists that like to blow up women and children in Baghdad...different story.

And that's a basic problem with the poll - there is no candidate where all you know is their religious affiliation. You always have more information. It's like if you asked "would you be willing to vote for a woman for president" and "would you be willing to vote for Oprah Winfrey for president." Those two questions probably wouldn't get the same answers.

[Kodos]

I voted against all of them just to stick it to the man. :)

As a disclaimer, the votes do not reflect my actual beliefs here. But I am somewhere between and atheist and an agnostic.

I would tend to vote against any candidate who seemed to use his religious beliefs as his main way determine his course of action in all scenarios. Basically, I don't care what your religion is, as long as you don't wear it on your sleeve.

[Warhammer]

I didn't vote because in almost every case it would not be an immediate dismissal unless the candidate was a zealot.

However, I do expect a candidate's belief system to have SOME impact on the way he governs. I expect a Catholic to be Pro-Life, but he might be pro-evolution or creationist. Most evangelical Christians I would expect to be creationists, etc.

That said, out of the religions mentioned, the one I have the lowest tolerance threshold is Muslims.

That said, I think we have gone WAY too far with the "separation of Church and State" doctrine and have to be more open with the way God might be mentioned. Hell, we talk about taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but some of these same people want "America" or "America the Beautiful" the national anthem?