Does a candidate's faith, matter?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
An opinion article inspired me to write this thread. Though I only agree with about 50% of the blog.

www.washingontonpo st.com

The author makes a point of saying that a candidate's religion does matter, that if elected, it is ok for the candidate to make faith based decisions.

More then once, when a politician has campainged, their religion came under fire. President Obama was accussed of being a closet Muslim because his father was. Then it was the wacky church he went too. Bachmann,Palin and Perry came under fire for their conservative Christianity. Romney for being Mormon.

Religion will drive people to vote, people who simply vote based on shared beliefs. Though this is a horrible way to vote, IMO. Just because a candidate touts it, doesn't mean they mean it. It can be used as a political tool. But people eat it up.

Some people have a strongly held belief in the seperation of church and state, why should the religion of a politician matter? Those decisions should be based on what is best for the citizens, not based on faith. Politics and religion should not be mixed.

I am not saying that candidates and politicians can't be religious, but like for every citizen, it is a private matter.

The question comes up, would Americans ever elect an athiest?

I would like to hear sane, justified and mature opinions on this.




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I have to wonder if a truly faithful religious candidate would be able to tell the difference between what's best for all Americans as opposed to what their faith says is best for all.
edit on 19-10-2011 by userid1 because: clarity



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Why would it matter? They're all a bunch of liars anyway.

Sure they're all "christian"... Yea, yea, we know how "christian" they really are...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BellaMente
 


I agree with you...except for RP everyone up there last night has the morals of a rat....



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
It sucks that if a candidate says he is atheist he would surely lose the votes of the majority. I bet if a atheist candidate becomes a president, the choices he makes would be simple and to the point. Nonetheless everyone gets controlled by whoever is actually in charge and whatever their faith is....



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I totally agree! As a independent voter and atheist I hate when I hear these discussions. I have no issue if you want to practice religion, but PLEASE... keep it out of politics. People should vote for the candidate that they believe represent them on the issues that matter most... religion should not matter.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Well of course not Ron Paul!

I don't even include him when I talk about the other politicians because he can not be grouped in with those corrupt lying fakers!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Well... I'm sure it matters to the voters if they are some extremist or fringe religion. I doubt someone that openly worships Satan would get elected. But I don't doubt many who secretly worship him have been elected in the past.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I do because it is an issue today particularly due to the various lobbyists on behalf of their country, business interests and politics. Typical of this is Oliver Letwin in the UK. He is the adviser to David Cameron, His religion is listed as Jewish and he supports a number of Jewish institutions and if you look at the government's attitude to Israel plus the number of other dual Jewish passport holders in our Parliament ,as a Brit I can't honestly put my hand on my heart and say, I can't honestly believe this group would put the UK before Israel. In fact the support this country gives regardless of Israel's policies is astounding to many here.

I also am not keen on Muslim MP's simply because I think its naive to think that they automatically share Western values and also there is the agenda of trying to get Sharia law introduced into this country. We already have small exclusively Muslim areas and most of the terrorists we do catch are home-grown, which is disturbing.

Only recently has Christian fundamentalism arisen and in the UK its not strong, but when you think of the influence in the past and the way people of other or ancient beliefs have been treated by the supposedly benevolent Christian church but if one remembers history such as the witch burnings it could revert back to its as intolerance of the past were it to regain power.

I won't go into the Hindi, Buddist and Seik religions because they don't have a history of terrorism and have implanted themselves without intrusion into our society.

I believe that religion is a private thing and should in no way influence how one regards one's loyalty to one's country and I do believe in religious tolerance. However tax payers here are expected to picl up the bills for a number of separate religious schools, which breeds children whom have been 'set apart' and probably who only mix with their own religion. So one cannot say here that someone hasn't lobbied for these separate faith schools consequently I think religion should be shut off at the door of politics and kept well away from them.

That's my view, I don't expect people to necessarily agree with me, but it is how I feel about this subject. I also think that when religion is taught in school, we should start pre bible and explain where Genesis really comes from.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


To me, Santorum answered this question perfectly in the debate last night.

The only thing that matters about one's faith, is that they have one. I don't care what flavor of religion it is, so long as they have a religion, and they make decisions based off a moral code that we can agree with. I could never trust someone to make the right decisions if they had no faith whatsoever, and I could never trust someone that seems fanatical about their faith.

The perfect candidate needs to be intelligent, educated, and spiritual, and we need to be able to predict how they will respond in certain circumstances based off their declared morality.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 
Hi Nixie


While I am personally a strong believer and would like to see biblical christianity generally accepted by society, this cannot be politicized. As long as said atheist was the best candidate for office in line with the founding intent and needs of the united States, I would support them as such (and if any believers choose to get wrapped up about this, remember that Christ himself said his kingdom is not of this world and that as comes to the faith, we wrestle in the spiritual realm, not with flesh and blood).

The founders already cinched this issue up well enough, in my opinion - article 6 of the US constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


The founding intent of the US goes well enough with my christian faith anyway - liberty for one to determine their own life without being impeded in such, as long as they likewise don't impede with the liberty of others. Too bad we don't HAVE this on a good many fronts today, but it is indeed the roots of christianity - don't judge, condemn, or interfere with others as you have your own faults; to their own master does everyone stand and fall; etc.

I also believe this spiritual matter is not so cut-and-dried as a good many christians choose to see it - Christ said only few find the way and that many 'believers' will be disavowed in that day, and that only those who do the will of our Father in heaven will be approved - and I've seen some non-christians who respond most excellently to the law of god as written on their hearts, regardless of their conscious acknowledgement of their faith in (I believe) response to mis-representation or lack of knowledge of the true message.

Take care.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
NONE of out Leaders are Christian!!!! To believe that makes you willfully ignorant, unless you subscribe to their philosophy of Christianity....I am not a religious guy, but a True Christian would not send hundreds of thousands of boys to their slaughter for material items, and wealth of a nation.....

They would do the Christian thing (which is not Christian, but simply the RIGHT thing to do, and that is to work for peace)

Political Christians are wolves preying on the idiots who 'believe" anything they are told.

Does anyone really think Clinton (catching blow jobs on the side breaking a basic commandment / adultry) is a Christian?

Does anyone really think Bush is a Christian (alcoholic/coke abuser, bird flicking prankster, sending masses off to die under a lie)

Does anyone really think Obama is a Christian (after multiple Muslim slips, lieing on the campaign trail, mass homosexual accusations, serious doubts about his past based on lies)

Is everyone really that dumb??? I do think so!!!

I do NOT want a Christian in the White House. i want morans and ethics, I want accountability, and religion and morals do not fit together in the real world.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


To me, Santorum answered this question perfectly in the debate last night.

The only thing that matters about one's faith, is that they have one. I don't care what flavor of religion it is, so long as they have a religion, and they make decisions based off a moral code that we can agree with. I could never trust someone to make the right decisions if they had no faith whatsoever, and I could never trust someone that seems fanatical about their faith.

The perfect candidate needs to be intelligent, educated, and spiritual, and we need to be able to predict how they will respond in certain circumstances based off their declared morality.


FYI...Religion does not = Morals/Ethics. To believe so is weak. What is so wrong about simply having a clear and decisive "moral compass"....Why do we so quickly believe someone who "believes in...." I don't believe for a second that a person who makes their decisions based on what a voice in their head tells them to do, is wiser...i actually believe that to go around bragging that God talks to you, is a public display of insanity.

Rick Santorum is a nutter BTW, and a joke at best, in my opinion..because of his extremist belifs anyway.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MentalGiant
 


This debate might be too long for this thread, but to me, there is no such thing as a moral compass without a belief in a higher being, or a spiritual connection. A "true atheist" that believes a person is a cosmic accident, and the physical existence is solitary and finite, cannot possibly have a moral compass. In my opinion of course.

I don't think one has to subscribe to any particular religion, but they do have to believe in some pervasive spirituality that connects all living things and exists beyond our physical representation in this body.

Why would any living being, thinking it only had a limited time of existence and nothing more, limit itself to the laws of civilization? It should be strictly the law of the jungle for such a person. Consume and experience as much as possible in the limited time allotted. Pro-create for the species (and fun) as much as possible. Take what you can without regard for civility.

I cannot reconcile that there would be people that would truly believe they have nothing whatsoever after this physical existence, and then still willingly choose to work a mundane job, commit to one woman, follow the laws of society, and make very few waves. It seems illogical to me.

ETA:
And God doesn't "talk" to me, but it does communicate. God isn't a personified being, and it is beyond comprehension by a person, and the biggest mistakes all religions make is in trying to define God in a way the people can understand. That is a major short-coming of religion. We cannot understand.

And, I don't support Santorum, I just like that answer. Ron Paul is the only logical candidate to fix the woes of the US and the World, and he can only be successful with a landslide victory and a majority in Congress.
edit on 19-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by MentalGiant
 


This debate might be too long for this thread, but to me, there is no such thing as a moral compass without a belief in a higher being, or a spiritual connection. A "true atheist" that believes a person is a cosmic accident, and the physical existence is solitary and finite, cannot possibly have a moral compass. In my opinion of course.

I don't think one has to subscribe to any particular religion, but they do have to believe in some pervasive spirituality that connects all living things and exists beyond our physical representation in this body.

Why would any living being, thinking it only had a limited time of existence and nothing more, limit itself to the laws of civilization? It should be strictly the law of the jungle for such a person. Consume and experience as much as possible in the limited time allotted. Pro-create for the species (and fun) as much as possible. Take what you can without regard for civility.

I cannot reconcile that there would be people that would truly believe they have nothing whatsoever after this physical existence, and then still willingly choose to work a mundane job, commit to one woman, follow the laws of society, and make very few waves. It seems illogical to me.

ETA:
And God doesn't "talk" to me, but it does communicate. God isn't a personified being, and it is beyond comprehension by a person, and the biggest mistakes all religions make is in trying to define God in a way the people can understand. That is a major short-coming of religion. We cannot understand.

And, I don't support Santorum, I just like that answer. Ron Paul is the only logical candidate to fix the woes of the US and the World, and he can only be successful with a landslide victory and a majority in Congress.
edit on 19-10-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)


Thank You for the reply. I do somewhat agree with your position, and I understand that underneath your message is subtext indicating who you are as a person. You seem to "have it together, personally". i commend you for that....I just have never heard anyone in politics have that sophisticated of an answer full of clarity and conviction...They just seem to use Religion to their benefit.

BTW...I am not atheist, just not a part of "the big three"... Good Luck.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


[COLOR=GOLD]

YES! because if they hate other religions then..... MANY more youth may be placed into a crosshair related to personal preferences and not the people represented issues...

edit on 10/19/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I disagree with morals being related to religion, or spirituality.

I am not religious, I also do not believe in god.

But, that does not imply that I am without a moral code. I know right and wrong, I don't lie, cheat, steal, or partake in other activities that go against my morals or standards. I don't feel like I need a god, or a book of religion to give me those morals or standards of living.

Common sense, and faith in my own character give me the same morals that one can get from a god. The same people who get their moral codes from religion are the same ones I see violating those moral codes on an almost daily basis and then "repenting" on Sunday without knowing what it means to repent.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by MentalGiant
 



Why would any living being, thinking it only had a limited time of existence and nothing more, limit itself to the laws of civilization? It should be strictly the law of the jungle for such a person. Consume and experience as much as possible in the limited time allotted. Pro-create for the species (and fun) as much as possible. Take what you can without regard for civility.

I cannot reconcile that there would be people that would truly believe they have nothing whatsoever after this physical existence, and then still willingly choose to work a mundane job, commit to one woman, follow the laws of society, and make very few waves. It seems illogical to me.



I do not think there is anything after this mundane existence. I do not need the belief that I will walk on some street of gold to encourage me to do right. The fact that others do, to me, means they in fact have no morals. Those people only behave the way they do so they will have a good "next" life. I agree, that most would probably live their lives differently if they knew for a fact there was nothing but a hole in the ground waiting on them when they die.

I live the way I do for the same reasons I try to teach my children to be good people and to do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do. I don't need a pat on the back, or a promise of something to encourage me to do right. The fact that I have to live with my choices, right now, is all that matters to me.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
A person's faith (spiritual understanding) is critical to their conduct. Especially in terms of serving others, accountability and public expectations.

A person's religious affiliation is unimportant in a non-religious government.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Why not unicorns? Or Flying saucers? I have a hard time believing that anyone who doesn't believe in unicorns or flying saucers can possibly have a moral compass compatible with being the president of the US. To me -- someones lack of belief in unicorns, or flying saucers is an indicator of their basic immorality. How can someone who doesn't believe in unicorns possibly remain faithful to one woman, or work hard at a job, or choose to do the "right thing?"

I hope you see how utterly ridiculous this argument is.






top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join