Presidential Candidates Religion -Issue or no?

[Ray]

Do you take into consideration the religion of Presidential candidates when making your selection?

I know that some had a problem with JFK's. Now I hear a some grumblings about Mitt Romney.

I've never taken religion into account when I've voted, never considered it. Now that I'm LDS (since 2000) and hear some say their only issue with Romney is his religion, it causes me to pause.

I've voted dem, republican and indie...And if I decide to vote for Romney it certainly won't be because he is LDS.

What says everyone?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I don't consider the religion of a candidate. That being said, often times a candidates religious values reflect on his take (and votes) on various issues. So maybe in a backhanded way, I do occasionally.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Personaly, I do.
Sean

 

[MA-Caver]

Unless he's an avowed Satan worshiper I have no issues with how he worships the God upon which the Constitution was based.

 

[heretic888]

Unless he's an avowed Satan worshiper I have no issues with how he worships the God upon which the Constitution was based.

Oh, was there a deist running for office??

 

[CoryKS]

Yes, I do. But then, I consider socialism to be a religion. So yeah, I definitely factor that in.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Unless he's an avowed Satan worshiper I have no issues with how he worships the God upon which the Constitution was based.

How about a Scientologist, Branch Dividian survivor, Hail Bop, Et Cetera?
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

Any politician whose religious belief rules out evolution will never get my vote. There were three who so indicated during one of the recent debates.

• Senator Sam Brownback
• Governor Mike Huckabee
• Representative Tom Tancredo

 

[Touch Of Death]

Any politician whose religious belief rules out evolution will never get my vote. There were three who so indicated during one of the recent debates.

• Senator Sam Brownback
• Governor Mike Huckabee
• Representative Tom Tancredo

Not my pet peeves, but I hear you.
Sean

 

[MA-Caver]

How about a Scientologist, Branch Dividian survivor, Hail Bop, Et Cetera?
Sean

Heh... as if they'd get on the ticket in the first place. But who knows? Maybe they'll do a lot better job of listening to the people than their predecessors. But not likely.

But we still gotta get rid of the two-party monopoly and start having more than at least five or six parties running... problem is only the two party monopoly seems to be able to afford what it takes to campaign for presidency or any political office. That sucks the root big time. Something went wrong sometime with the electoral process. I'm guessing it had to be right around the industrial revolution where big companies and their big money backed the guy who'd help them the most.
There should be a constitutional amendment that reads something like: Where as by the process of election that no candidate's campaign funding should exceed the amount of the poorest candidate.

 

[michaeledward]

MA-Caver

The issue of money goes directly to buying air time on television stations. Broadcast networks are given license to use our airwaves. Those licenses must be renewed every five years. EDIT - license renewals for the use of our airwaves is once every eight years.

I believe the process should be changed so that the broadcast television and radio must provide two hours of prime time discussion and debate, each night for one month prior to a federal election, and one hour of prime time discussion and debate for two weeks prior to any federal primary election. (and primaries in all states should not begin until May of the election year - maybe June).

This should eliminate the need for purchasing commercials - which in turn should eliminate the need to raise so much cash - which in turn should give some of the power of the political process back to the citizenry.

 

[Blindside]

I don't but then I don't believe in a god or gods, and the differences between most of the mainstream religions with regard to social morality are fairly small, so they are all equally deluded in my eyes. I know generally what to expect from the mainstream religions, if someone from an oddball cult was running, I'd have to do further investigation.

Lamont

 

[Makalakumu]

This thread inspired this thread.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Do you take into consideration the religion of Presidential candidates when making your selection?

Nope

 

[Andrew Green]

I'd have to say it depends on the nature of the beliefs.

I would have a problem with a political leader making decissions based on religious belief, especially if it involved ignoring science or reason. Or a leader that went to war based on religious belief, that would be a really big no.

 

[Ping898]

As long of he/she is not a satanist and does not preach again other religions, I don't have an issue with whatever religion is practiced...Besides I know too many people who call themselves good moral christians who scared the hell out of me to think religion should be a deciding factor....

 

[tellner]

Unless he's an avowed Satan worshiper I have no issues with how he worships the God upon which the Constitution was based.

Let's leave aside for a moment that the Constitution was in no way whatsoever based on Christianity, the Bible, Protestantism, or G-d. We could discuss it, but the evidence on one side is tediously complete. The stuff on the other is wishful thinking and (not to put too fine a point on it) lies told by people who want their religion to rule rather than law and democratic institutions.

Take a look at the Constitution itself. It states (Article VI) that "no religious test shall be used for any position of public trust". That isn't an ammendment. It's one of the foundations of the original document. What I'm worried about when the President-elect raises his right hand is that he will "will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to quote directly. Personal spiritual beliefs mean nothing, less than nothing compared to his or her determination to carry out that solemn Oath.

In fact, excessive piety may disqualify a person for the office. Someone who places religious convictions above the law or says that a "higher imperative" supersedes the legal responsibilities of the office is unfit for the job and has sworn an oath falsely. If he or she hands over any portion of the decision making to an external religious authority be it the Pope, an Ayatollah, James Dobson, the LDS Council of Apostles or the Dalai Lama that person is forsworn. One of the most enraging things I ever heard from the Supreme Court was Clarence "Uncle" Thomas saying that the Bible was his supreme authority when deciding legal matters. His only authorities can be the written law and legal precedent with the Constitution trumping them all. Anything else is a violation of the office.

Jimmy Carter is certainly a committed Christian. I disagree with many of his religious beliefs, but he never let them come between himself and the duties of the office as he saw them. George W. Bush claims to be a committed Christian. He holds the Constitution in utter contempt calling it "that damned piece of paper" and using his office to make his religious beliefs (or those of his Masters in the Reconstructionist/Dominionist Right) supplant the law. In both cases the character of the two men is what is important. The particular sect or cult to which they belong is at best secondary.

John Kennedy ran into Protestant anti-Catholicism. The real issues were American Protestant distrust of the Roman Church and a better founded worry that he would bow to ecclesiastical pressure when making exercising his powers of office. It seems that those fears were unfounded. If Mitt Romney can stop flip-flopping, waffling and repositioning long enough for us to figure out exactly what he believes - other than that he believes he wants to be President - it would make some sense to examine his record and see how much if at all he will defer to the LDS Church in matters of policy. The same can be said of the various evangelical Protestant groups and megachurches and the more conventionally Protestant candidates.

Frankly, the only one who doesn't bother me is Obama. He's had some Muslim education. And no, the Republican Lie Machine is true to form; it wasn't at an Islamist madrassa. He is a Christian. In other words he's read more than one book and has a tad more objectivity than most of the candidates when it comes to religion. Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. I'm a Jew. It wouldn't make me any more likely to vote for the opportunistic lying son of a *****.

 

[tellner]

As long of he/she is not a satanist and does not preach again other religions,

What's wrong with Satanists? I've met a few and a number of Settites and other LHPers. They're a tad egotistical (it's part of their religion after all). But most of them have been scrupulously ethical and law-abiding. As long as they will obey and uphold the Law and do their best to faithfully execute the duties of the office it doesn't matter.

As for preaching against other religions, consider George H. Bush who said that Jews and atheists were not citizens. Or George W. who supports theocratic usurpation of Constitutional government. Or any number of other Bible-believing Christians who gleefully disobey the commandment "Thou shalt not use the Lord thy G-d like unto a political football." At least the CoS LaVeyite Satanists don't claim any authority other than their own Will. It's a bit more honest and less dangerous than those who claim infallibility based on personal revelation and an accomodating crew of ministers.

Besides, the basic Satanic creed of "Hurray for me" and "Everyone is entitled to just as big a chunk as they can tear off" is in infinitely greater harmony with current American orthodoxy than the radical preachings of Yeshu ben Miriam carpenter cum rabbi. Care for the poor? Making peace? Generosity? Compassion for the sick? Mercy? These have diddly-jack to do with what has replaced America.

 

[Ping898]

What's wrong with Satanists? I've met a few and a number of Settites and other LHPers. They're a tad egotistical (it's part of their religion after all). But most of them have been scrupulously ethical and law-abiding. As long as they will obey and uphold the Law and do their best to faithfully execute the duties of the office it doesn't matter.

As for preaching against other religions, consider George H. Bush who said that Jews and atheists were not citizens. Or George W. who supports theocratic usurpation of Constitutional government. Or any number of other Bible-believing Christians who gleefully disobey the commandment "Thou shalt not use the Lord thy G-d like unto a political football." At least the CoS LaVeyite Satanists don't claim any authority other than their own Will. It's a bit more honest and less dangerous than those who claim infallibility based on personal revelation and an accomodating crew of ministers.

Besides, the basic Satanic creed of "Hurray for me" and "Everyone is entitled to just as big a chunk as they can tear off" is in infinitely greater harmony with current American orthodoxy than the radical preachings of Yeshu ben Miriam carpenter cum rabbi. Care for the poor? Making peace? Generosity? Compassion for the sick? Mercy? These have diddly-jack to do with what has replaced America.

Well from what I understand about Satanists, their view of the world is unreconsialable (even that even a word?) to mine and I never voted for Bush....so no issues there...

 

[Ray]

I'd like to thank everyone who has responed thus far. You are a group of wise, thoughtful and reasonable people.

If Mitt Romney can stop flip-flopping, waffling and repositioning long enough for us to figure out exactly what he believes - other than that he believes he wants to be President

Now, see, that makes sense to me that someone would evaluate a candidate in that vein...based upon his record.

- it would make some sense to examine his record and see how much if at all he will defer to the LDS Church in matters of policy. The same can be said of the various evangelical Protestant groups and megachurches and the more conventionally Protestant candidates.

And by extension of the first statment, this becomes a resonable thing to inquire into for any candidate that belongs to an organization.

Anyway, thanks again to y'all.