|
POL - The role of a candidate's religion in his electibility
From the National Review's Sixers Website:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I was kind of amazed by that too, amazed that it was that low. |
Quote:
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 |
Of all of the options, I actually have the hardest time imagining myself voting for a Mormon. Maybe Dale Murphy.
|
Quote:
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.... |
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.
|
Quote:
Interesting point. I was honestly not even aware he was a Mormon. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Another way to look at that is that the more a person is interested in religion, the more knowledgable they are of Mormons. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Usually 3-5 times a week. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Obligatory "this won't end well." post. Carry on.
|
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?
|
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 don't care what religion a person is.
|
as long as the person keeps his religion and politiks seperate, I don't care what religion the person is.
|
I'm not sure how one goes about keeping their religion and politics separate, not if their religion means anything to them.
|
Quote:
:( |
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.
|
Quote:
I don't trust any religion where they meet in secret Lodges and wear funny hats. |
Quote:
What the hell are you talking about? :confused: |
I was making a joke about Masons (as in Freemasons). Apparently it wasn't as funny in print as it was in my head.
|
Quote:
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...... |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Not any who were declared atheists though. |
It doesn't affect me, except to a degree, and that would be something like Pat Robertson for Evangelical Christian etcetera
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
Precisely. |
Quote:
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.... |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And just think, who better for the progression of the human race... |
Quote:
I once saw a Born Again (along with Kirk Cameron) prove the existence of God (as well as disprove evolution) with a banana. |
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Just to take one off the top:
Quote:
Here's the quote, in context: Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.