Should A Heavily Religious Person Be Elected?

[HornBuckler]

I Mean, In The Amount Of Different Religions In This Country, Should A Religious Zealot Like Bush Ever be Elected?

Not To Offend Religious Folks, But As A Representation Of The Entire Country Should We Have Such A Pundit For Christianity?

[movonne]

1. NO!!!!!

[HornBuckler]

4. Thank You, Fellow Oregonian - I Agree

[One Taste]

7. agreed

[Brucey]

2. Pretty much every President in the last few decades

has been heavily religious. Clinton and Carter carried bibles. Reagan didn't go to church much, but like Bush* constantly talked about God. It would be very difficult to elect a non-religious President in the US.

[HornBuckler]

3. Non Religious Yes

But Religion Doesn't Need To Rule Your Life..... I mean How Many Christians Do You Know That Are JACK?

[cryofan]

8. Kerry appears to be definitely NON religious

so the trend will die here, hopefully.

[HornBuckler]

11. If You Are Right And I Hope You Are

Kerry's Got My Vote....

Like I Said Before - A Twinkie Full Of Cream Cheese Has My Vote Over Bush.... Not That Kerry Is A Twinkie Mind You...

[distortionmarshall]

12. to the contrary....

.... i think....

i think you have to go back to Carter to find a genuine bible-thumper.... tho the intervening presidents have varied in their religosity, i don't think you find a true bible-thumper til you go back to carter.... i'm certainly no expert tho...

<edit: while plain-old religous-observant is ok for prez, i don't think full-on bible/torah/koran/etc-thumpers need apply>

[HornBuckler]

13. Oh, Don't Get Me Wrong

I Agree - Religion CAN Be A Good Thing, However Nobody Needs A Zealot.. And I Feel Bush Is A Friggin' Zealot...

[Sterling]

33. You mean a real Christian

That is what Carter was. He was not a zealot. Bush is another breed alltogether. He is a "new Christian" one that could give a rats ass for Jesus and his teachings.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. I'll say this.

It isn't should they be elected, but it is more of a they shouldn't be prevented from possibly being elected. They are entitled to their views, and if it appeals to the majority of the American people, then they get elected.

[HornBuckler]

6. Well Said

I Just Don't WANT Or NEED A Religious Zealot Ruling The So Called FREE WORLD.....

[smirkymonkey]

9. No, Never.

n/t

[smirkymonkey]

10. No, Never.

n/t

[Az]

14. A positive attitude about the end of the world

Is generally a bad quality in a world leader.

[frankly_fedup2]

55. I believe the first time I heard . . .

"THE NEW WORLD ORDER,"

was after the first Iraqi slaughter, when Bush 41 was giving his State of the Union Address to the American People. Kinda made my skin crawl at that time.

NOW, we get the son, who claims that he believes God has chosen him to rule at this time.

I dunno about you, but sounds like one of those Antichrist movies to me.

[jor_mama]

63. The connection to "his time to rule"

is that according to the Bible, the leadership of an entity (be it a country, state, etc.) is to be respected, prayed for, etc. The hypocritical thing -- and it just drives me crazy -- is how gaga the church is over Bush, yet they still snicker and say "it's so nice to have a president that actually means what he says about God," etc. Politics aside for a second, if they're reading their Bible, they should have been just as supportive of EVERY president as they are the current one. And if they say "oh, I pray for him," how do you sincerely pray for someone that you in turn ridicule?

[arewethereyet]

15. a pundit ? no. a religious man ? sure, we're had many.

was Carter a problem for you ?

[HornBuckler]

17. Uhhh.., Yeah In A Way

Carter Was GOOD President - Don't Get me Wrong, But Today Is A New World... One In Which, Specifically, Bush Is Using His DOGMA To Alienate Gays...



A Good Bumper Sticker Says "My Karma Just Ran Over Your Dogma"

[arewethereyet]

25. not exactly his dogma

transcript herehttp://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.transcript/index.html

religion is mentioned twice, once representing all religions
"The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

the other in reference to the peculiar relationship of marriage in society
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

he's not saying that its got to be stopped because its a sin. just trying to make sure we don't confuse whats being billed as a societal problem in to a faith problem. this is important so as to avoid forcing people into corners and having to make a choice based on something that they could see as causing them to go to Heck for. We're really better off framing this as a civil issue.

[frankly_fedup2]

16. Just because Bush continues to invoke the name . . .

of God every time he turns around does not mean this man is such a great Christian.

He deserves credit for ridding himself of all of his bad habits however, he still, in my opinion, has a problem with "greed."

Myself, I need all the help and prayer anyone wants to give me.

[HornBuckler]

18. Oh No! I Agree

But One Must Draw A Line In The Sand About Religion.... It's YOUR Beliefs Do NOT Impose Those Beliefs On The Other 270 Million Of Us...

[Az]

19. Its the killing habit I wish he would get rid of

Oh and the destruction of rights, the environment, our economy, and the world in general. If he could ditch those habits I would think higher of him. Ditching a drinking, drug, floozy, habit is nothing compared to the killing habit though.

[HornBuckler]

21. I Agree... But Bush, Do That?

NEVER

[Mad Cow Doc]

20. The constitution says It is OK

The First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" would lead me to believe that a Heavily Religious person would be as suitable as anyone. So often we become so worried about Freedom of Religion that we forget that second part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion, although so many on this forum that supposedly want to eliminate all forms of prejudice and promote tolerance of all views are so intolerant of those who practice a religion.

[HornBuckler]

23. Good Point

However, I Say Above That I Believe That Religion Can be A Good Thing.... But Enforcing Your Religious Beliefs On Others Is NOT

Case In Point : The Gay Marriage Ban

[Mad Cow Doc]

38. ENFORCING??? what ?? I'm happy for them

But if one's religion tells them that a practice is morally wrong do you insist that the religion change to fit the gay lifestyle. Perhaps the gay person could just not go to that church. Gay "marriage" is not about marriage at all but about MONEY. If married folks did not have SS survivor benefits and property transfer rights upon the death of a spouse and Insurance deals for family units then we would not be having this discussion today. When a company spends $10,000/ year for a single persons health care but only 12,000/yr for a "Married" couple then 13,000/yr for a Family the Gay couple certainly wants in on that special treatment. What I want to know is WHY have they been screwing the single guy on his policy!!!

[TankLV]

22. At this particular time, with that idiot occupying OUR WH, HELL NO!

During Carter's term - wouldn't have cared either way.

[leftofthedial]

24. no

they should be euthanized

[camero]

26. No

Church and state should be seperate. That doesn't exclude the devout but it does exclude the zealous.

[Mad Cow Doc]

29. Who Decides?

And Who decides who is zealous and who is just devout? You? Feeling a little more tolerant of other's views yet? No? I didn't think you would be either. Most here only see one side of every issue.

[camero]

31. Kennedy was Catholic

Carter was religious. Both were good Presidents. Who's just seeing one side? Sounds like it's you.

A little common sense when voting never hurt anyone.

Edit: Oh, and I should mention, Clinton was Baptist. Any questions?

[HornBuckler]

32. I'll Answer Your Question

Although I may Be Baiting The Trap... I Decide, You Are DAMN Right I Decide.... Just As We All Decide Who Is A Zealot And Who Isn't. Bush Is A Zealot (Talking About Hearing Gods Ways And Purpose And God's Hand Controlling His Decisions) As A Human, With Independent Thought, I feel He Is A Friggin' Zealot.

Yeah, We All Decide Who's A Zealot And Who Isn't... Maybe Bush Is Not A Religiuous Fundamentalist To You, But He Sure As Hell Is To Me And Most People On This Glorious Site.

[Mad Cow Doc]

42. Yes we VOTE !!!

That is how we decide in a civilized society. WE VOTE!! The ZEALOT couldn't get elected if the country decides they are too far or ("Talking About Hearing Gods Ways And Purpose And God's Hand Controlling His Decisions") out as you so eloquently put it, but maybe the devout can. No trap bait required????

[frankly_fedup2]

52. So Pat Robertson would fit into your description of the

Zealot because, and I'm paraphrasing here (actually from Andy Rooney on 60 minutes), he said that Robertson claimed that God talked to him and told him that Bush would be reelected. Rooney's response was, (sic) "So if Bush is not reelected, does that mean Pat Robertson will become an atheist?"

Good point.

(He was also talking about The Passion, but I'm not getting into that here. It's all over everywhere else on the board).

[MrSlayer]

27. No! I'd rather my leader be smart enough to recognize

the ridiculousness of organized religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Well, any leader who tried to make that BS claim

Would of course never get elected to dogcatcher. Unlike you, most Ameicans like organized religion.

[seabeyond]

28. if he gets the vote

yup. that is america

[Sterling]

30. No never again

Sorry they have fucked up the planet enough already.

[stevedeshazer]

34. Define "heavily religious"

I can't answer otherwise.

[HornBuckler]

35. Ok Fair Enough Woody

Heavily Religious Means This : So In To Religion That The Elected Feels Obligated To Refledct His/Her (uhhh) Beliefs Upon The Society He/She (uhhh) Governs...

[stevedeshazer]

46. Sounds like you're defining an extremist

If so, of course not. I don't wish to be governed by evangelists.

On the other hand, we should not restrict officeholders by religion, either.

[Sterling]

36. Check this out..

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml

[HornBuckler]

37. Great Link

Thanks!

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. I'll take a Carter over a $hrub any day, AND

I'll also take a person of any other spiritual path provided I see my own values reflected in him/her.

I do NOT ... EVER... vote for a person who is simply wearing a Cross on his/her lapel.

That doesn't cut it for me.

Will vote for an athiest who lives out my beliefs before I would vote for a Christian who denies them.

[jmags]

40. Not according to John Leland, a Baptist preacher and

close friend of Madison and Jefferson. He gives one of my favorite quotes on the matter on July 4, 1802:



"Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it."

Does that ring true or what?

[HornBuckler]

41. Holy Crap

No Pun Intended... Yes, Brilliant.

[GreenPartyVoter]

43. *lol* takes half damage? *g*

Funny. But only to gamers. *g*

[HornBuckler]

50. Are There Any Other?

[Silverhair]

44. Shouldn't that be for the PEOPLE to decide, with their votes? n/t

[BiggJawn]

45. No. People's Exhibit Nr. One: John Ashcroft.

Sure....He PROMISED that he wouldn't let his personal beliefs get tangled up with enforcement of our nation's laws. and what have we gotten? Hookers in N'orleans gone after, a comedian who owns a "glass company" in prison, Ken Lay still roaming free, and where, oh where is Osama Bin-forgotten?

And $8,000 burkhas for 2 WPA-era staues, "daily devotionals" in the offices (uh, on MY dime, Johnnie?)

And on and on and on....

[leesa]

47. Only to their church governance board

If they are incapable of separating their personal beliefs from the will of the country and the law of the country then they have no place in civil government

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. Not a freakin evangelical wear your religion on your

sleeve kind of person. No. As alot of people have said, many presidents have been deeply religious. I don't think that's a bad thing. I do however think it's dangerous to put the country in the hands of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. The Constitution says

that "no religious test shall be required for public office."

Presumably, that means that you can't legally require officeholders to be either religious or non-religious.

Beyond that, it's up to the voters.

[I AM SPARTACUS]

51. I think a heavilyreligious person should be elected Pope.

In the US, I think elected officials are more-or-less supposed to represent all of their constituencies. If their religious beliefs interfere with that, they should stand aside.

[bif]

53. He/she shouldn't steal an election either1

Like ol' Shrubbie. Not that he's truly religious. It's just a big front. The friggin' drunk.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Should a heavily atheist person ever be elected?

I mean, what with most Americans being religious and all...

[Az]

56. No worries there

Atheism is a death sentence in American politics. There is no one open atheist sitting in an elected office.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Based on some of the comments I see here

That is unsurprising.

[Az]

62. Gosh

Wonder why the atheists are so upset? I mean they get tolerated in this society. Whats their beef? Its not like we lock them up or anything. We let them remain free. Its not like we try to force them to swear allegiance to god or anything. All this freedom and they gripe about not having a voice? Whine whine whine.

Atheists don't need to be embraced by society. They are obviously so set against it that they deserve to be left outside it. They don't play well with well meaning Christians who are simply telling them the truth that they are going to burn in hell. Its their own fault really. They don't see the love in being told they are pawns of satan.

They have no reason to be angry. Just because their children are foolish enough to not play along with peer pressure and join prayer circles at public school. They set themself up. And really, whats the big deal with a few words like "Under God". Their kids won't stand out as long as they say it. Its no big deal. They bring it on themself.

Maybe George Bush Sr was right. Maybe they don't deserve to be citizens. I mean with their attitudes and all maybe we should just round them all up and send them back to where ever it is they came from.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Or maybe they should try the tolerance they seek for themselves

The atheists here fall into two camps. That is one and I support many of their aims. The other group is in-your-face anti-religious. To hell with them even if they don't believe in it.

It might surprise you, but most people in the U.S. are religious. You have a right to be so OR not. However, we have Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM it.

[Az]

69. Perfect people

There were two champions for black civil rights in the sixties. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. One tried to struggle through pacifist means to bring about equality and one fought to stand up against the oppressor. People are not perfect. When they are oppressed they seek ways to fight back against the oppression. A perfect person would know the exact path to freedom. We do not know the exact path to freedom. Some only know the anger oppression brings them. Thus they struggle to fight the powers that would hold them down.

Freedom of religion is meaningless without freedom from religion. Freedom of religion means freedom of the mind. The government cannot impose any thought upon me. It cannot tell me to believe in god. It cannot tell me to worship Allah. It cannot tell me what to think.

You on the other hand have every right to try to convince me of your beliefs. But then you are not an official representation of the government. I welcome a dialog on belief and religion with you as a fellow citizen. It is my government I will not abide telling me what to believe.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. I wildly disagree

Yes, there were two champions for black civil rights in the sixties. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. One was right and one was wrong. I think you know where I land in that debate.

If you want freedom from religion, I suggest you try it somewhere else. In the U.S., most of us ARE religious. It is part and parcel to who we are and what we do. You can't separate it.

No, the government cannot impose thought, but it can't legalize action. And those laws are often based in morality.

You have every right to believe or disbelieve. You have no right to imopse that on the rest of us and make us hide who we are -- much like the French are now trying.

[Az]

79. Perhaps we misunderstand each other

I did try to emphasize that you have every right to be proud of your religious belief. You can hold it up for the world to see. You can tell me about your love for Jesus. You can share you concern that I may burn in hell. It is the government that cannot do this.

I have no desire for you to hide your faith. Wear it as you see fit. I will defend your right to do so. When an atheist or anyone demands freedom from religion it is not demanding that you stop talking about it. It is that they do not want religion shoved down their throat by the government. We do not want to swear oathes to beings we do not believe in. We do not want to have the 10 commandments written into the bill of rights. We wish to live in a land that allows us to pursue freedom of thought without official indoctrination of a religious creed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. I'm not so sure

Look at France. There they demand complete obedience and hiding all religious symbols in public schools. THAT is freedom FROM religion. I won't have it.

So, give me some examples of what you would change from today.

[Az]

84. I agree

France went too far with their sweep of religion from the public square. Students should be allowed to practice their beleifs as they see fit. This slides into the old strawman that prayer is not allowed in school. It always has been and always will be there. It is when the government steps in and endorses a religious view that the trouble starts.

[Spentastic]

61. Well who's in a better position to govern

Those who belive that all religions are equal

or the one that believes theirs is the truth?

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Depends on the person

Many atheists here clearly believe all religions are equal -- equally bad. I wouldn't EVER vote for such a candidate.

[Spentastic]

66. Bad?

I fear you mis-understand some people. As you say depends on the person. I think atheists are entirely right to demand that religion does not intrude on policy making.

Look at gay marriage for reasons why.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Religion ALWAYS intrudes on policy making

What non-religious folks does want to grasp is that religion is part of who we are. In my case, it's just as much a part of me as being African-American. That means it influences every action I take. Every vote I cast and every belief I hold.

If atheists don't like that, too bad.

[Spentastic]

71. Yeah!

Well I'll ignore how you feel too. I'm a bit of a racist bigot at heart. One day I hope to acheive high office. YThose beliefs will inform the way I vote etc.

I hope you don't mind. It's part of what I am.

:eyes:

If you can't leave your religion out of your politics you shouldn't be making decisions that affect others that don't share your beliefs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. You won't be the first

To either ignore how I feel or be a racist bigot at heart. So?

Yes, you are entitled to those beliefs. And you are also entitled to high office.

Sorry, but MOST of us have religious beliefs. They are who we are. If you can't accept that, then you are in for a life full of disappointment.

[Spentastic]

75. Yes I am

Life constantly disappoints me. Mainly due to people claiming to know what's good for everyone.

If religious beliefs define who you are you CANNOT guarantee separation of church and state. As such you are unfit for public office.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. The same is true of atheists and agnostics

It is part and parcel to who they are.

Humans are imperfect. Wow, what a shocker.

[Spentastic]

81. Yes it is

But does their lack of belief affect their ability to govern those who believe differently in a secular state.

That was the question. Does someone "heavily religious" have the ability to make secular decisions? The answer by definition is "no".

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Someone heavily secular can't govern the religious either

He or she won't grasp our needs or concerns.

So, no one is qualified. We are all imperfect. Life goes on.

[Spentastic]

85. I disagree

The secular being has no truth to offer. They can undersatnd that others have beliefs that require consideration. A heavily relgious person believes that they know the truth and therefore cannot.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. I disagree

Their truth is that ours doesn't exist or is wrong. We all have truths and beliefs.

Again, I can guarantee I would never vote for a radical atheist or agnostic.

[Forkboy]

59. Reagan already served

[sunnynair]

60. Religion

Religion is a kind of dope that man gets addicted to.
I am still trying to figure out whether God created Man or Man created God ????

[kodi]

67. no, i want an atheist who believes only in temporal matters.

if a religious person is elected we have to question whether his/her actions are based on their own belief in personal salvation overriding their sworn oath to defend the nation to the best of his/her abilities.

in other words. a religious person will always be questioned as to whether he/she is doing God's will or the will of the people of the nation.

the two are not the same.

[Skittles]

70. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

religious zealots are freaking nutcases.

[Blue_Chill]

73. Bush isn't heavily religious

I really wish people would stop helping him spread that lie.

[Spentastic]

76. That's a very good point

Someone should quiz Bush about his knowledge of the bible.

I'd be willing to bet he's not too well informed.

[stopthegop]

77. the US constitutions forbids any religious test..

and that's what you're suggesting...and who gets to define 'religious' and 'extreme'

[JasonBerry]

83. Belief and Hypocrisy at DU

I am not a Christian. HOWEVER. I am always so stunned by the rabid anti-religious bigotry I see on DU. The atheist vanguard here is "fundamentalist" in their beliefs and they fail to see the hypocrisy of professing non-belief, but then being SO SURE - and pompous - in their own.

I can choose not to believe, but respect those who do and appreciate how their faith helps govern their lives. It's a belief system - that's all. We all have a belief system whether it's rooted in a historical religious faith - or not. I have a major problem with extremists in BOTH camps.

1. If you don't believe than you are not worthy.

2. I you ARE a believer, you are a "nutcase", "stupid", (fill in the blank)

For a community that is so big on tolerance, I have a hard time with the total LACK of tolerance for the Christian faith. It fits the dictionary definition of religious bigotry and it is shameful. It is also in way too much abundance here at DU these days. It makes the cry for multi-culturalism and tolerance nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

[Blue_Chill]

89. I agree 100%

This thread is a insulting but it's the status quo here. It's stating that my beliefs make me unacceptable to lead while their own are perfect. It's bigotry plain and simple. No different then Falwell saying atheists are unfit to hold office.

[Az]

90. Would you vote for

Someone that promised to take the world into the final days. Someone that proposed a plan to bring the world to an end based on their religious beliefs? I would defend their right to run, but I would seriously doubt their ability to win.

The question is not whether someone who is religious should be allowed to run. It is a question about whether someone with religious views that may be a threat to our rights or our very lives is a good candidate. If you believe that the only rights we have are those based on the bible then I would expect that to be a factor in whether you get elected or not. Run on the religion and it is a factor.

[Blue_Chill]

91. Sharpton is more religious then Bush

this thread asks if heavily religious people are fit to hold office. By doing so it implies that no religion makes one better qualified which is of course bigotry. Now you come in here and add issues in a lame attempt to defend the bigotted statement.

If your problems are with issues or percieved threats then address that. Don't go off blaming faith every chance you get.

[G_j]

87. well, it can be dangerous

Religion comes with dogma. If that person has made a clear distinction in their minds and embraces their responsibility to NOT bring that dogma into the office, a religious person need not be automatically disqualified. It takes the maturity to understand what democracy is all about. People like Bush actualy depise Democracy because it gets in their way.

I'd would feel a lot safer with a person who thinks of themselves as "spiritual" because that does not imply a belief in a particular dogma. There is no place for religious dogma in a free and healthy democracy.

[arrogantatheist1000]

88. I agree G_j

I agree G_j. Someone who is a fundee can't seperate their religion and politics. As one poster said its part of who they are.

I agree though that someone who believes we may have a higher power, but doesn't try to enforce their religious beliefs in anyway would be fine.

If a heavily religious person gets in and doesn't try to enforce their beliefs, they must be from a strange and currently unknown religion. I know religious people always claim their church is different, but at the same time are terrified of islam spreading for example.

Its easy to judge others, harder to judge yourself. (me included)

[G_j]

92. yup

I would say it would take a conscious & deliberate declipline for "heavily religious" person to keep the dogmatic aspects of their religion out of decsion making. In fact I think that person would need to have a sincere 'belief' that these things should be kept apart.

Welcome to DU! :toast: :hi: