Candidates and Their Religious Beliefs: Do they influence your vote?

how is a christian more likely to serve the interests than a secular humanist, buddhist, pantheist, or unitarian universalist?

all of the above speak of being moral...



i wholeheartedly agree. especially with the percentage of non-christians rising, this needs to be taken into account.



also another good point.



but their intimate details are kind of pointless to look at. the only things that really matter in the political realm are integrity, honesty, and policy.



and voting that way exposes the critical flaw of democracy, sometimes people vote based on stupid things instead of on who would be the best person for the job

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Knowing the more intimate details of a polotitions life alow us to beter see thing like honosty, and integrity.
If the cheat on there wife, then that tells us a lot about him/her.

Also there is no such flaw in democracy, the point is that the majority of the peoples voices are heard. If more people want a president just because he is Cristian, Jew, or Hindu, well TS for you for being in the minority.

not really, the more intimate stuff doesn't really have to do with much



actually, it doesn't. marital infidelity happens for many reasons. maybe the politician is in a psychologically abusive relationship and wishes to break free of it, maybe it's a physically abusive relationship, maybe they're not faithful, etc...
but none of that would actually have to do with governing a nation

an adulterer wouldn't necessarily make a bad leader.



actually, the point of democracy is that the people would supposedly elect the best possible leaders that best serve their interests
in theory



then hooray for tyranny by democracy. seriously, i don't want a politician's religion to enter into the discussion when we're in a secular nation
i repeat, secular


and you didn't justify your ridiculous statement that a christian would best serve the interests of the people...
are you going to get on that or just drop the point?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Actually I agree that a person of any religion that has a positive message would make a fine leader.
And as I said in my original statement, I do not want the actual beliefs governing this country. The only positive about the religion is the same as above, the morals one gets from a belief.
Finally as for the intimate details bit. We will have to agree to disagree because I just can't see that you made any valid point.

ah, so atheists, agnostics, and the non-religious don't make good leaders?



alrighty



...but morality doesn't stem from religion
the myth that it does has been debunked repeatedly on this site and in many other places.

I'd like to say no but, I could see where it could be relevant. Hasn't happened to me yet that I'm aware of though. If I (however subjectively) saw a persons beliefs in X as unreasonable I may have issues with trusting their judgements in other areas relevant to their elected duties.





Sure, why not? If it's an honest conviction and not just pandering I would expect any reasonable person to act according to their convictions. It is in this regard that I'd say a persons religious view is relevant to their elected duties. If their religion requires them to hold a certain position (abortion, death-penalty, civil/equal rights, etc.) then I would expect them to act accordingly and I would, of course, take such things into consideration while choosing whom I vote for.





Seems to be the case so far. It's supposed to be a representative government, so the numbers are to their favor. I, as a Christian, would vote for a non-Christian and/or atheist if I thought they were the best (wo)man for the job. Why not? I'm not interested in a church-sponsored state nor vice-verso. I believe an open, liberal, secular society is the best way to go. Maybe, it's even the Christian thing to do.




Biased. Understandably so, imho. People tend to vote for representatives whom best match their views and beliefs.





If it is relevant to how they will do their jobs then, yes. When it's just irrelevant pandering and/or scare-mongering then, no. I just trust my BS filter.



Yes. Again, I trust my BS filter.




Your signature indicates that you're Christian but not what your political positions are. Ain't that the point?

...can you show me any evidence that atheists have more easily corruptible morals than theists as leaders?





again, can you provide evidence of this?
i've seen "good religious upbringing" provide people with hatred and intolerance, as well as the ignorant notion that morality stems from religion



...we're not arguing over the dictionary definition of religion...and that's the logical fallacy of the argument from authority.
all in all, a very weak argument

how about you actually demonstrate how atheism doesn't provide morality instead of just showing me a line from a dictionary?

Now that many others have had a chance to answer, I'll throw in my two cents.



Yes they do. If the candidates are very similar in the political issues they support but the differing factor is one is a strong Christian while other is not, I will choose the Christian. All things else being as even as possible and in agreement with what is politically important to me, then religion will be the deciding factor.



It doesn't bother me one bit. Anyone has the right to choose their political candidate for whatever reason they wish. It is their personal decision. They can base it on politics, religion, or the candidate's eye color for all I care. It's their vote.



Yes. That just seems obvious.



It could be biased but again, if religion is an important issue to people, and it is, then it would seem the majority would desire a candidate that jives with their own religious views. And since Christianity is still the majority religion in the United States, it makes sense.



It should be a private issue and it should never be used against someone in a debate. Ever. However, it would make me wonder why anyone would put their career above their love of their god or try to purposely keep it hush hush.



Most definitely. There are many fakers, aware of what has been mentioned above, who will claim to be more devout than they really are.

no, i read it quite well...in fact, i don't think it's actually possible to skim a post that short



actually, all i showed is that you're making inane suppositions.

here's an example:
you said:



so i asked the logical question:




alright: 6th commandment
thou shalt not kill

few properly follow this commandment, and i'm quite sure any presidential candidate would have to completely avoid it.
why?
war
thou shalt not kill
it doesn't say 'thou shalt not kill except when they're trying to kill you'

that's just one example.



...that's a personal attack
and not a very nice comment
most people that know me and my posts wouldn't conceive of putting my comprehension skills or my ability to understand the notions of others into question

i understand your ideas, i just think they're stupid and unfounded.




and all in all it's a weak response, as it is the argument from authority (a logical fallacy)







...eh...i'm going to have to ask you to actually demonstrate a situation where atheist morality shifts...oh, wait, i will explain how it shifts

how about i explain atheist morality this way
it's founded on reason and logic, when it shifts it shifts because the arguments that it was founded upon before were weak and not true...
so atheist morality changes for the better...

just like how atheists are willing to accept homosexuals marrying because their morality has shifted to realize that there isn't any harm being done, while most christians are still stuck in the dark ages on that one.



...atheist morality isn't ruled by character, it's ruled by reason.

yes, that's why we only have 1 christian church instead of thousands of differing denominations...
oh, wait.

Sorry to engage in the off-topic banter, AshleyD. I'll be brief.








Actually guys, it just a poor English translation. The commandment should read: Thou Shall Not Murder. Murder being defined (Biblically) as the unlawful taking of another human life. We even have laws for it n everything already. I had a scholarly link that I liked on this but can't seem to find it at the moment. Google should work good enough though, I believe.

Just sayin'

PS,

Squiddypuff: Quote Reference and for other manhowdotheydothats - Zedd's Handbook of ATS Links Pretty hard to follow what you're posting.

Regards.

reply to post by Rren

---

rren, i actually know about that, but my point is that most people don't know their religion well enough to make moral decisions based off of it.



and i love it when theists act condescending towards atheists...
i've personally read the book 3 times (3 different variations: coptic, catholic, protestant) and have studied it quite thoroughly



but when you take the bible as a whole you run into that whole "justified genocide" thing and it creates all sorts of conundrums with its contradictions...
but that's a discussion for a different thread

and rren came up with the better defense against the argument...



actually, it was made to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of your own holy book...

as your entire point was deflecting from your inability to make a defense of how theists would make more moral leaders than atheists.



and as i said, you run into contradictions in the bible.



he also said turn the other cheek, quite the straightforward message of pacifism as well...
see, you're taking things that were written at different times and by different schools of though and trying to reconcile them when they weren't meant to be reconciled.







it's a weak response because instead of demonstrating how religion and morality are linked you provided an argument from authority "the dictionary says so"




and that isn't an inherently bad thing. they change because the times and the zeitgeist change

just like theistic morality has changed over the years. christianity is (for the most part) no longer as fervently anti-semitic as it once was, no longer supports slavery, it's no longer against interracial marriage (again, there are exceptions), etc...

the thing is that atheistic morality doesn't take as long to change for the greater good. a good example is the homosexuality issue. the majority of atheists have been supportive of homosexuals, but theistic support is considered to be an exception, not a rule. and even when such support comes, it tends to be with the added "but we don't support you having sex" in there...



this argument is so entirely stupid that i think it's stupidity is actually self-evident.
do i have to point it out?



...the majority of china's population practices traditional chinese religion..



i'm thinking quite clearly here. i'm saying that theistic morality and atheistic morality are pretty much the same...only the theistic morality is more likely to breed racism and other ignorant forms of hatred (historically and in contemporary times)



you're the one arguing that someone's morals are infallible, not i.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Wow just wow.

You pick apart statements into fragmented thoughts to comment on, then you ignore the better points I made and focus on pieces of statements that mean nothing without the whole. You completely ignored the statements I made about leaders who base there morality on logic and reason. You focus whole heartedly on off topic sentiments and derail the conversation. In short; you are not the best debater I have ever met. Though I really must say you would make an excellent politician.

You still fail to grasp that doctrine is unchanging, and that reason and logic are responsible for just as many atrocities as religion, if not more.

I never said morals were infallible. (Just another way that you twist my statements.) In fact my entire argument is that man and morality if flawed and it is better for them to be focused on an unchanging doctrine such as the bible or even the constitution for that matter. If it was possible to actually know that an atheist candidate actually cared for and believed in the constitution that would be another perfect example of a personal belief founded on unchanging doctrine.

Not to doubt your word, but the Coptic bible (as the name suggests) is written in Coptic language. Coptic Christianity only exists in Egypt. How did you get a copy? How did you learn a nearly dead and now obscure language? I could be wrong, you might be on the level, just seems fishy.

if your statements cannot hold up on their own, that's your problem, not mine.



because you didn't make a good one. it was an immature and badly thought out point and i didn't feel like picking on you.

in short: "god told me to invade iraq"
end of your argument with only 6 words



i've been asking you to demonstrate how a person with religious morals is greater than one without such.



and i actually pointed out instances where doctrine changed...
the name for things that don't change in a religion are dogma
jesus will always be jesus
allah will always be allah
vishnu will always be vishnu
but what's moral in a religion is subject to change, because doctrine is.

and ha
religion's atrocities outweigh reason and logic's atrocities by a truckload, mainly because you don't get the latter until the mid-20th century
let's see: nazi germany... we'll leave that out, because it's just racism at the end of the day
crusades, jihads, and all that.



i never said you did, i said i didn't. (who's twisting words?)



27 amendments is unchanging?
and i wouldn't base my morality on the bible...but that's an argument for another thread.



...again, 27 amendments.



...you can get a coptic bible in english, i got it from a friend of mine who attended the local coptic church which catered to the egyptian community in my area. they hand them out for free.
it's pretty much the exact same as the other 2, only with 2-3 books in the old testament extra.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Forgive the following way I use quotes. I'm not much of a computer person and I cannot get it down. So I’m doing it my way.

"I never said morals were infallible. (Just another way that you twist my statements.)" (Quote from me)

"i never said you did, i said i didn't. (who's twisting words?)" (Quote from you)

Actually you did. (New statement.)

"you're the one arguing that someone's morals are infallible, not i." (Quote from you.)

From the above I can't help but wonder if your even paying attention to what your typing.



"You completely ignored the statements I made about leaders who base there morality on logic and reason." (Quote from me.)

"because you didn't make a good one. it was an immature and badly thought out point and i didn't feel like picking on you." (Quote from you.)

Admittedly the Bush statement was just to be sarcastic. We all know he has no reasoning power.
However the statement involving red china was a good one. Though some of it's people are religious (now that they have become more relaxed on the bane on religion) the government is openly atheist. They are ruled only by what they see as reasonable and logical. They abuse their people with a police state. Because of over population they put people with low I.Q.s to death, and for the same reason they look the other way while families kill girls in favor of having a boy. (In modern China you can only have two children.)

These are the morals of a nation ruled by reason. I could go on about ruling with reason in south Africa or the soviet union, but I think I've made my point.

Now I'm not saying that a country ruled by reason is always bad, just saying there’s no guarantee it’s going to be any better. What one may see as reasonable others may see as unreasonable. Like any mental faculty, reason and logic change dramatically from person to person.

Now I could definitely see how in a country as overpopulated as china, forced sterilization and weeding out the weak may seem logical. On the other hand would you want to live in a country were the governments morals are based on that logic?

One last thing.
When you said that atheistic morals were less likely to breed racism and hate, I would have to disagree. There are many more reasons to hate and be biased than creed. Just from personal experience, most cases of personal grudges and even all out racism stem from peoples own life experiences and have nothing to do with religion.
Now when you look at the middle east your mind obviously goes to religions dispute. Throughout history though countries have made war for no other reason then they didn't like each other.

How many nations have had grudges with us based purely on our politics, or even just because they didn’t like the fact that we were more advanced.


[edit on 10-3-2008 by Squiddypuff]

You may want to post this video as another thread. But then again you already posted the video here.

I do not care what religion or denomination you are, as long as you keep it seperated from the state. Simple as the way our forefathers saw fit. If you go to war because God told you to...Like our current "president" then I want to out of office and into a mental facility STAT!

my mistake, i must not be paying too much attention.



...no, the government, like the rest of the nation, is primarily made up of those following traditional chinese religion



well, i can't actually say china is doing this in the name of reason and logic...seems more like something like a power issue. abusing the populace is not a product of reasoned morality, it's an absence of morality.



actually, in modern china you can have as many children as you want, but you have to pay a fine for each extra child.



...south africa?
um...that's going to have to be one you pass on, as it isn't a reason and logic thing
the soviet union? that's also not the same.

how about this: can you name a theocratic state with good morals?



and it's obvious that religion doesn't change anything with regard to person to person variations in morality..



here's a kind pointer, provide more structure to your arguments. it'll make your points easier to understand and reply to.

back to point: that's an absence of morality. the state isn't thinking of the morals of any situation with their decisions, they're thinking cost vs benefit.






and if you're reasoned and logical, then bigotry is entirely out of the picture.



...none
that's reductionistic

and grudges would be purely out of the scope of logic and reason...

anyway, my point can be summed up like this:

good people do good things
bad people do bad things
but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.