Candidates & Religion - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 12:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
Sweetjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've been listening to lots of discussion about the presidential candidates and their religious beliefs and the controversy surrounding some of their individual beliefs. Why do we not hear anything about those of us who do not want to hear about their religious beliefs? Or about how offensive it is that only mainstream christianity is considered acceptable, and that others actually have to explain their beliefs?? When did this start??
Sweetjane is offline  
#2 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 12:48 AM
 
angelpie545's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near water, with a refreshing rain
Posts: 6,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it started right after 9/11 when there seemed to be a bit of a revival as the conservatives took the majority in politics, thereby seizing the opportunity to project USA as a "Christian nation". The majority of US citizens either belong or believe in some form of a Christian God, hence why so many think that the US ought to be a Christian nation. It's rather frightening to me. I myself am a Christian, but I would NEVER want to live in a country with a national religion or a country where the lines between religion and state were blurred. Because of the recent Christian political movement gaining strength, I think some of the candidates feel pressured to express their religious beliefs in order to gain favor with some very powerful conservative groups.

Bethany, crunchy Christian mom to Destiny (11) Deanna (9), and Ethan (2)

angelpie545 is offline  
#3 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 02:31 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelpie545 View Post
I think it started right after 9/11 when there seemed to be a bit of a revival as the conservatives took the majority in politics, thereby seizing the opportunity to project USA as a "Christian nation". The majority of US citizens either belong or believe in some form of a Christian God, hence why so many think that the US ought to be a Christian nation. It's rather frightening to me. I myself am a Christian, but I would NEVER want to live in a country with a national religion or a country where the lines between religion and state were blurred. Because of the recent Christian political movement gaining strength, I think some of the candidates feel pressured to express their religious beliefs in order to gain favor with some very powerful conservative groups.


After 9/11? Are you serious?



In 1960 everyone said JFK couldn't get elected because he was <gasp> Catholic.



You know?






If anything, it's easing up in that Catholics can run for office without it being an issue. The Mormon candidate's religion is apparently still an issue for many. And we won't discuss what happened when a Jew ran.
merpk is offline  
#4 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 12:02 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
What Amy said.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#5 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 01:42 PM
 
angelpie545's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near water, with a refreshing rain
Posts: 6,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
After 9/11? Are you serious?



In 1960 everyone said JFK couldn't get elected because he was <gasp> Catholic.



You know?






If anything, it's easing up in that Catholics can run for office without it being an issue. The Mormon candidate's religion is apparently still an issue for many. And we won't discuss what happened when a Jew ran.
Well you know I just don't see it as being such a *huge* issue as it has been since 9/11? I don't seem to remember faith being a big controversy when Clinton was elected, and then elected again. Of course religion has always played a role in politics, but I've never see it gain such a huge movement until recently. I'm not saying huge religious movement influencing political elections have NEVER happened until now, because there are many times in history will this has occurred, and it will most likely occur again-but at least in the US it seems as though for some voters, religious beliefs matter now more than ever. I'm speaking from since the liberal revolution of the 1960s, of course, and I probably should clarify that. The US was very conservative before the 60s and I don't recall since then the US taking such a turn towards religious conservatism since then, except for maybe a little bit with the Reagan years.

Bethany, crunchy Christian mom to Destiny (11) Deanna (9), and Ethan (2)

angelpie545 is offline  
#6 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 02:28 PM
 
lisalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
After 9/11? Are you serious?



In 1960 everyone said JFK couldn't get elected because he was <gasp> Catholic.



You know?






If anything, it's easing up in that Catholics can run for office without it being an issue. The Mormon candidate's religion is apparently still an issue for many. And we won't discuss what happened when a Jew ran.
I think there's a difference now though. When Kennedy did his speech he talked about his religious beliefs being private and separate from him public life and that's what reassured everyone. I think the republican candidates almost fall over themselves attempting to prove this is supposed to be a Christian nation. So Romney's speech wasn't about how being Mormon was separate from his public life it was about how it wasn't and how it's still close to the beliefs of mainstream Christians. Kennedy couldn't make the speech he made today and get elected at least in certain quarters.
lisalou is offline  
#7 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 04:34 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
I think there's a difference now though. When Kennedy did his speech he talked about his religious beliefs being private and separate from him public life and that's what reassured everyone. I think the republican candidates almost fall over themselves attempting to prove this is supposed to be a Christian nation. So Romney's speech wasn't about how being Mormon was separate from his public life it was about how it wasn't and how it's still close to the beliefs of mainstream Christians. Kennedy couldn't make the speech he made today and get elected at least in certain quarters.


I disagree. I think the people who wouldn't have voted for him then still wouldn't vote for him. And there are more folks who would willingly vote for him.

The US is, like most countries, a country with many religious people. And a lot of candidates feel they have to play to this audience.


Am thinking that maybe some folks just haven't noticed it before because it wasn't in their reality.

Speaking as a nonChristian, and as someone who has voted very seriously without missing elections (even primaries for midterm useless elections) for close to 30 years now b'H, I can tell you that it's *always* been that way. When you're a minority, you're more conscious of stuff like that, maybe.

IMO the only difference is that now we do have candidates like Giuliani, a divorced pro-choice Catholic ... and Obama, the son of a Muslim ... and yeah, Lieberman The Jew ... so now there will be other candidates who will try and bring out the anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-Jew votes by pandering to the whole "Christian country thing.

IMNSVHO.
merpk is offline  
#8 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 04:43 PM
 
fruitful womb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fort Worth TX
Posts: 2,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
After 9/11? Are you serious?



In 1960 everyone said JFK couldn't get elected because he was <gasp> Catholic.







And we won't discuss what happened when a Jew ran.
I did not know about JFK! Wow.

Which Jew ran?

It doesn't bother me what religion they are... AS LONG AS NO ONE GETS HURT!!!!

:
fruitful womb is offline  
#9 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 04:54 PM
 
AnyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Um, isn't senator Joe Lieberman from CT a Jewish man who ran for president?!!

Religion is ALWAYS an issue. In the republican race, it's a particularly big issue because they don't have race and gender to mix it up a little!!

There is no difference today than there was when Kennedy ran. Lots of hype was made about John Kerry's religion: Too Catholic, not Catholic enough.
AnyMama is offline  
#10 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 04:55 PM
 
lisalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
I disagree. I think the people who wouldn't have voted for him then still wouldn't vote for him. And there are more folks who would willingly vote for him.

The US is, like most countries, a country with many religious people. And a lot of candidates feel they have to play to this audience.


Am thinking that maybe some folks just haven't noticed it before because it wasn't in their reality.

Speaking as a nonChristian, and as someone who has voted very seriously without missing elections (even primaries for midterm useless elections) for close to 30 years now b'H, I can tell you that it's *always* been that way. When you're a minority, you're more conscious of stuff like that, maybe.

IMO the only difference is that now we do have candidates like Giuliani, a divorced pro-choice Catholic ... and Obama, the son of a Muslim ... and yeah, Lieberman The Jew ... so now there will be other candidates who will try and bring out the anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-Jew votes by pandering to the whole "Christian country thing.

IMNSVHO.
I sort of agree with your and sort of don't. I still saw religious tracts talking about how catholics sacrifice babies and worship Mary some 20 years after JFK, so I agree that a hardcore group didn't vote for him regardless of what he said. But I do think there's more of a push now to wear your religion as a badge of honor to a wider group of people to prove how moral you are as a candidate than there was when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. I think it started before 9/11, probably with Reagan. And I completely agree it's all about being a Christian not any other religion. It's more ok to be openly Christian and to talk about God in political speeches as long as it's a Christian God. Does that make sense?
lisalou is offline  
#11 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 05:09 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
.

IMO the only difference is that now we do have candidates like Giuliani, a divorced pro-choice Catholic ... and Obama, the son of a Muslim ... and yeah, Lieberman The Jew ... so now there will be other candidates who will try and bring out the anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-Jew votes by pandering to the whole "Christian country thing.

IMNSVHO.
I totally agree. And I have so little respect for our country as a whole. I can't believe we are such immature ninnies.
orangebird is offline  
#12 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 05:15 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh, and Lisa, I do agree that we are seeing a whole new breed of religiosity after 9-11.

There is a much more open, vocal, push for people to prove how Christian they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelpie
Well you know I just don't see it as being such a *huge* issue as it has been since 9/11? I don't seem to remember faith being a big controversy when Clinton was elected, and then elected again. Of course religion has always played a role in politics, but I've never see it gain such a huge movement until recently. I'm not saying huge religious movement influencing political elections have NEVER happened until now, because there are many times in history will this has occurred, and it will most likely occur again-but at least in the US it seems as though for some voters, religious beliefs matter now more than ever. I'm speaking from since the liberal revolution of the 1960s, of course, and I probably should clarify that. The US was very conservative before the 60s and I don't recall since then the US taking such a turn towards religious conservatism since then, except for maybe a little bit with the Reagan years.
I think it is different since 9-11 too.

I agree with Amy, the stuff existed before, but it has taken on a whole new face since 9-11. Although, CLinton isn't a good example, really, he was the perfect "kind" of Christian, I doubt fuss would be made of his faith before or after 9-11 FWIW.

But you can't deny it is a bit more freakishly serious after 9-11. I mean this is a holy war! We need the right guy in there.
orangebird is offline  
#13 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 06:14 PM
 
Leta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ishpeming, MI
Posts: 3,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm going to go out on a limb here...

I partially base my voting decisions on religion. I would not vote for members of certain religions. For example, would I vote for a Scientologist? No, I cannot think of a circumstance under which that would be a remotely likely scenario. There are certain religions that are very common in the U.S. that I would stay away from in the voting booth because of their policy (not moral) stances on women's rights, same sex relationship equality, and rights of racial/ethnic minorites.

I have voted for a Catholic, a Jew (Conservative), a Muslim (Sunni), and someone who went to both Serbian and Greek Orthodox churches, as well as a handful of the usual, run of the mill, mainline Protestant candidates. I definately would vote for a Buddhist, Wiccan, Pagan, Hindu, Agnostic, or someone who practiced Native American spirituality (if I agreed with his/her policies, of course). So someone certainly does not have to share my religion to get my vote.

Over the years, despite changes in the number of Americans who participate in a weekly temple worship fluctuating, the number of Americans who really, really want a leader with a strong faith in a higher power consistently polls at around 75%. (Check out Pew for poll numbers going back several decades.) So honestly, I think, in some cases, the pols are just giving the people what they say they want. Which is, after all, the nature of democracy.

To go out on a even shakier limb...

To those who haven't already guessed, I am I wildeyed liberal. I consider being called a socialist a compliment. However, I think it is totally okay for people to consider a candidate's religion when voting. I think it's okay for people to vote for someone based on hair or height, too. And as personally abhorrant as I find it, if someone only votes for white Protestant males, well, that's okay, too. It is not in the nature of our democracy to demand reasons behind ballots. We don't quiz our voters while they're standing in line at that high school- "So, did you decide to vote for Hilary based on her health care plan? Yes? Okay, well, don't you care about the war? Isn't that more important?" If we demand reasons behind ballots, we may as well go back to poll taxes and literacy tests, yk?

Trying to turn hearts and minds toward universal healthcare, one post at a time.
Leta is offline  
#14 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 06:26 PM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post

IMO the only difference is that now we do have candidates like Giuliani, a divorced pro-choice Catholic ... and Obama, the son of a Muslim ... and yeah, Lieberman The Jew ... so now there will be other candidates who will try and bring out the anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-Jew votes by pandering to the whole "Christian country thing.
Yeah, pretty much.
CherryBomb is offline  
#15 of 42 Old 12-12-2007, 06:28 PM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't think it's really any different post-9/11. I'm assuming back in the day there was a big air of "vote for the Christians cause the Commies are coming." Now it's just "vote for the Christians cause the Muslims are coming."
CherryBomb is offline  
#16 of 42 Old 12-13-2007, 11:06 AM
 
suzywan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
I totally agree. And I have so little respect for our country as a whole. I can't believe we are such immature ninnies.
Word.

And I thought the big deal with JFK is that the uninformed thought he would take his marching orders from Rome. What some people think Catholics do just boggles the mind.

me, my man, and our boys (1/08 and 3/11)
 

suzywan is online now  
#17 of 42 Old 12-13-2007, 11:28 AM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
I think there's a difference now though. When Kennedy did his speech he talked about his religious beliefs being private and separate from him public life and that's what reassured everyone. I think the republican candidates almost fall over themselves attempting to prove this is supposed to be a Christian nation. So Romney's speech wasn't about how being Mormon was separate from his public life it was about how it wasn't and how it's still close to the beliefs of mainstream Christians. Kennedy couldn't make the speech he made today and get elected at least in certain quarters.
I completely agree. There is a hgue difference now. Kennedy respected the separation of church and state. Romney's was all about getting religion into politics, with the emphasis on how his religion shouldn't worry the fundies.

I also agree with Leta. Religion does play into who I'll vote for. I wouldn't vote for anyone who belongs to a high demand religion, unless I'm absolutely convinced that they won't bring their religion into politics. I also wouldn't vote for people who belong to certain religions because of the views on women, minorites, etc.
EFmom is offline  
#18 of 42 Old 12-13-2007, 11:30 AM
 
witchygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Religion plays a role for me, but mostly how it comes out in the candidates' policies.

I would never vote for Huckabee because he's a Creationist and wants Creationism taught in public schools. His comments on AIDS both 15 years ago and now also leave much to be desired in my book.

I would never vote for any pro-life Christian candidate as what other civil liberties would they take away from women. Same goes for gay rights.

Mitt Romney, I could care less that he is a Mormon. The fact that he is a complete opportunist who did very little for my state as governor despite what his ads say prevents me from voting for him, besides his pro-life/anti-gay rights stance.

So yeah, if one could truly follow the separation of Church and State, then fine. But so many can't.

Come ponder with me about food!
witchygrrl is offline  
#19 of 42 Old 12-13-2007, 03:26 PM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 9,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
People care about candidates' religious beliefs because they (erroneously IMO) use certain religious beliefs as proxies for certain policy positions.

I think we need more religiously traditional yet politically liberal (you know... like me) people running for office. I loved the way John Kerry responded to criticism against him that he was not "Catholic enough" because he didn't want to impose his personal religious beliefs into law. He affirmed his Catholic beliefs while at the same time affirming his commitment to personal and religious freedom. We need more people like that, breaking up the false dichotomy that political and religious orientation need to be the same thing.
Brigianna is offline  
#20 of 42 Old 12-13-2007, 04:10 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Unfortunely, some religious organizations like the Catholic church, play into this by blackmailing politicians with religious consequences if they don't try to get the church's position made into law. That certainly makes me less likely to vote for candidates with those religious affiliations.
EFmom is offline  
#21 of 42 Old 12-14-2007, 05:21 PM
 
tanya1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I will admit that I take into account someone's religious background when I think about a presidential candidate as I do with other attributes. I want to see the whole person, not just fractions. As a Christian, would I vote for a Jew? Yes. A Muslim? Maybe, I need to see more candidates though.

Now let's say that there are two candidates running with the same issues that I agree with. However, the difference is in religion. One is a Christian/Jew/Muslim and the other is an Atheist/Agnostic. IMVHO, I would vote for the Christian/Jew/Muslim as I am also a religious person. It would be just something else that I have in common with that person.
tanya1976 is offline  
#22 of 42 Old 12-14-2007, 06:35 PM
 
moonshoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya1976 View Post

Now let's say that there are two candidates running with the same issues that I agree with. However, the difference is in religion. One is a Christian/Jew/Muslim and the other is an Atheist/Agnostic. IMVHO, I would vote for the Christian/Jew/Muslim as I am also a religious person. It would be just something else that I have in common with that person.
I'm the opposite.

I'm Catholic, but I would be more likely to vote for an atheist/agnostic because I think they would be more likely to have a critical eye with many issues and less likely to be led by their religious beliefs. Therefore it would be less likely their particular beliefs would be imposed on the majority, KWIM?

Catherinepraying.gif traditional Catholic mama to bikenew.gifjammin.gifdiaper.gif wife to an amazing man.selectivevax.gifnocirc.giffamilybed1.gif

moonshoes is offline  
#23 of 42 Old 12-14-2007, 07:53 PM
 
mamabadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have never encountered a candidate whose religious beliefs were similar to my own, so that has not been an issue. I would take religion into consideration when voting, if I thought it would affect the candidate's political decisions, even if they would not affect me directly. For example, I would hesitate to vote for a Christian who felt that his religion should be imposed on others or that non-Christians or non-believers should be treated as lesser in any way. By the same token, I would not want to vote for an atheist who thought that religious belief indicated stupidity, and wanted to limit people's freedom of belief or worship on principle.
mamabadger is offline  
#24 of 42 Old 12-14-2007, 10:21 PM
 
tanya1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonshoes View Post
I'm the opposite.

I'm Catholic, but I would be more likely to vote for an atheist/agnostic because I think they would be more likely to have a critical eye with many issues and less likely to be led by their religious beliefs. Therefore it would be less likely their particular beliefs would be imposed on the majority, KWIM?
I can see that viewpoint. However, would she (wishful thinking) or he be capable of keeping her/his viewpoints to the wayside with the acknowlegement that her/his constituents are majority religious (of all religions)?
tanya1976 is offline  
#25 of 42 Old 12-14-2007, 11:06 PM
 
CherryBomb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
I would take religion into consideration when voting, if I thought it would affect the candidate's political decisions, even if they would not affect me directly. For example, I would hesitate to vote for a Christian who felt that his religion should be imposed on others or that non-Christians or non-believers should be treated as lesser in any way. By the same token, I would not want to vote for an atheist who thought that religious belief indicated stupidity, and wanted to limit people's freedom of belief or worship on principle.
:
CherryBomb is offline  
#26 of 42 Old 12-14-2007, 11:31 PM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya1976 View Post
I can see that viewpoint. However, would she (wishful thinking) or he be capable of keeping her/his viewpoints to the wayside with the acknowlegement that her/his constituents are majority religious (of all religions)?
Why would that matter in a secular government? I'm looking for some examples here of how that might play out. I guess because I can't think of an example myself.

I mean obviously a not religious politician should be polite of believers, just as those who are already in offices who are believers are respectful (we hope) when talking about/to those of different faiths. So what kinds of things are you thinking of?
orangebird is offline  
#27 of 42 Old 12-15-2007, 12:11 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 9,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post
I have never encountered a candidate whose religious beliefs were similar to my own, so that has not been an issue. I would take religion into consideration when voting, if I thought it would affect the candidate's political decisions, even if they would not affect me directly. For example, I would hesitate to vote for a Christian who felt that his religion should be imposed on others or that non-Christians or non-believers should be treated as lesser in any way. By the same token, I would not want to vote for an atheist who thought that religious belief indicated stupidity, and wanted to limit people's freedom of belief or worship on principle.
ITA... but those are policy issues. Whether I support or oppose a candidates policy views (i.e. views on how he intends to perform his job duties), I don't care whether his views are informed by religion, science, culture, ideology, or what the rice crispies told him that morning--I either agree with them or I don't, and that's the basis of my vote. I don't even know the religious affiliation of my preferred presidential candidate. I know that I like his stance on the issues. The rest is pretty irrelevant to me.
Brigianna is offline  
#28 of 42 Old 12-16-2007, 02:39 AM
 
tanya1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 754
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
Why would that matter in a secular government? I'm looking for some examples here of how that might play out. I guess because I can't think of an example myself.

I mean obviously a not religious politician should be polite of believers, just as those who are already in offices who are believers are respectful (we hope) when talking about/to those of different faiths. So what kinds of things are you thinking of?

In all honesty, I don't know. I don't have an example just yet It would be interesting to see how it would play out, though.
tanya1976 is offline  
#29 of 42 Old 12-16-2007, 09:58 AM
 
holyhelianthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: the Southern California desert
Posts: 11,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
ITA... but those are policy issues. Whether I support or oppose a candidates policy views (i.e. views on how he intends to perform his job duties), I don't care whether his views are informed by religion, science, culture, ideology, or what the rice crispies told him that morning--I either agree with them or I don't, and that's the basis of my vote. I don't even know the religious affiliation of my preferred presidential candidate. I know that I like his stance on the issues. The rest is pretty irrelevant to me.
exactly. i could really care less as to what a candidates religious views are. and if i just happen to agree with their religious views (ie- Mitt Romney) that doesn't mean i am going to be ok with there being a blurring of the line between church and state. i enjoy my religious freedoms and would like to give others that courtesy as well.

Maggie, blissfully married mama of 5 little ladies on my own little path. homeschool.gif gd.gifRainbow.gif
holyhelianthus is offline  
#30 of 42 Old 12-16-2007, 12:36 PM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 9,522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tanya1976 View Post
I will admit that I take into account someone's religious background when I think about a presidential candidate as I do with other attributes. I want to see the whole person, not just fractions. As a Christian, would I vote for a Jew? Yes. A Muslim? Maybe, I need to see more candidates though.

Now let's say that there are two candidates running with the same issues that I agree with. However, the difference is in religion. One is a Christian/Jew/Muslim and the other is an Atheist/Agnostic. IMVHO, I would vote for the Christian/Jew/Muslim as I am also a religious person. It would be just something else that I have in common with that person.
I think I would too, but not for the same reason.

In my personal experience (personal experience, y'all) people who are spiritually traditionalist but politically liberal/pro-civil-liberties (like me over in the corner here, endangered species, believed by many to be imaginary) are more likely to be serious about personal freedom, even to engage in activities with which they disagree, than the more secular or spiritually-liberal type of people. I.e., they actually believe in not imposing their personal beliefs through government, instead of simply giving lip service to it.

There are many "liberals" who will give all the rhetoric about freedom of choice, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you have to criminalize it, keep the government out of our bodies/homes, etc.--unless you want to do something nastygrossbadwrong (doesn't matter what... fill in nastygrossbadwrong thing of your choice). People who actually do have things they disagree with, yet do not wish to criminalize, seem much more walking the walk, so to speak.

Of course, there are many many exceptions. I would not ever make candidates' personal views or religious beliefs a deciding factor... but I do wonder, when they give speeches about just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you have to criminalize it... do they really mean it? Do they really even have anything they disagree with but don't want to criminalize? And when they come across a lifestyle with which they do disagree (say... mine), will they go with their rhetorical beliefs, or their gut revulsion?
Brigianna is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off