Presidential candidates and religion

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

ucatchtrout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
1,461
Likes
47
Points
48
Whats your view of a candidates religious preferences?

Will you vote for someone because your church tells you to?
Or because they are prochoice or not?
Or because they are catholic or jewish or muslim or not?

How do you see their religious preferences affecting their role as president?

We are by law supposed to have separation between church and state.

How important is that? Would you support a candidate that believes in the rapture or that he or she will talk to Jesus in their lifetime?
 
Religion has pretty close to zero effect of my vote. The only way I will take it into consideration is if the candidate bases his/her policies on their religious beliefs.
 
The principle of separation of church and state is very important. A candidate can do or think anything he/she wants in their private time, and many will tell you that their religious covictions give them strngth and focus. However, attempts to establish a state-sponsored religion, favoring one religion over another, or just promoting religious programs over non-religious ones is a major problem. There is a great organization called "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," which is run by a pastor named Barry Lynn.

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

It is incredible what some of our officials try to get away with. For example, here is a recent headline fromt heir site:

The ACLU of the National Capital Area, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit today challenging the District of Columbia’s plan to grant more than $12 million in public property and cash to the Central Union Mission, a religious homeless shelter.

The Mission conditions shelter for the homeless on participation in Christian religious activity, including mandatory attendance at nightly church services. Its director has stated, “We are in the business of converting people to Christ. That’s what we do.” The Mission only employs Christians and requires volunteers to declare their church affiliation.

You have politicians trying to favor one religion over another, trying to force through intelligent design into the classroom, judges stating that they believe that our nation was formed on the basis of Christianity, etc.

How about this:


http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=9851

President George W. Bush has some advice for state legislators: If your state constitution has provisions barring taxpayer support of religious schools and other ministries, they ought to be removed.

In an April 24 appeal at the White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools in Washington, D.C., Bush urged state lawmakers to join his drive to support religious schools.

“State and local governments can help,” he said. “Today, more than 30 state constitutions include so-called Blaine amendments, which prohibit public support of religious schools.

“These amendments,” Bush charged, “have their roots in 19th-century anti-Catholic bigotry – and today the legacy of discrimination continues to harm low-income students of many faiths and many backgrounds. And so state lawmakers, if they’re concerned about quality education for children, and if they’re concerned about these schools closing, they ought to remove the Blaine amendments.”

Bush’s proposal shouldn’t be surprising. Throughout his administration, the president has advocated for tax aid to “faith-based” schools and other social services. But the attack on state constitutional provisions barring aid to religion seems to be a first for him.

The White House summit was, of course, a sympathetic audience. Populated largely with advocates of religious and other private schools, the crowd burst into applause at Bush’s remarks.

Bush also drew cheers when he lamented the decline in the number of religious schools in the nation’s urban areas and promised to work for additional federal support for religious education. He touted his “Pell Grants for Kids” that would appropriate $300 million for tuition vouchers for 75,000 low-income students now attending “troubled” public schools.

“To me,” he said, “this is a good way to help strengthen the [private] schools that I was talking about that are losing. I mean, one way to make sure you don’t lose schools is you have people that are able to afford the education – sustain the cash flow of these valuable American assets.”


or this:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=9779#cs11


A state legislator in Oklahoma has sparked controversy with her insistence that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation and for asserting that gay people are more dangerous than terrorists.

State Rep. Sally Kern sparked outrage after a Jan. 10 speech she made about Christianity and politics began circulating on the Web. During the speech, Kern outlined her belief that the United States was founded to be a Christian nation and said the country is collapsing because we have abandoned those principles.

“What made us great,” said Kern, “is that we were a nation founded on Christian principles. Okay, that’s just the bottom line. If you go to the primary sources and read our Founding Fathers, what they had to say, they gave preferential treatment to Christianity.

“So what’s destroying this nation?” Kern continued. “The fact that we’re leaving the roots upon which we were founded. We are crumbling from within because of the bankruptcy that we have in the moral fiber of this nation and leaving the principles of our Founding Fathers.”

Kern insisted that Christianity should have preference over other faiths.

“You know, we have this dumb idea now days,” she continued, “that tolerance means that everything is equal. Well, everything is not equal. We see that in many areas of our lives. You know, all things are not equal. All religions are not equal.”

Later in the speech, Kern attacked public schools, public libraries and the teaching of evolution. But it was her remarks about gays that attracted the most attention.

Hinting at a conspiracy, Kern said, “You know gays are infiltrating city councils. Did you know, Eureka Springs, anybody been there to the Passion Play? Have you heard that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays? OK. There are some others, Pittsburgh, Pa., Takoma [Park], Maryland, Kensington, Md., in Vermont, Oregon, West Palm Beach, Fla., and a lot of other places in Florida.

“You know, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation,” Kern went on. “Matter of fact, studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat even, that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat, OK.”

Religious Right groups quickly rallied to Kern’s side. More than 1,500 people attended a rally on her behalf at the state Capitol in Oklahoma City. Concerned Women for America and other Religious Right groups are touting Kern as their hero, despite her heated and divisive rhetoric. A virulently anti-gay group, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, is so proud of Kern it posted the full text of her speech online.

I just picked those out at random after spending about three minutes on their site. It has taken me longer to write this post. The extent of this sort of stuff is shocking.
 
Last edited:
Al Gore and GW Bush couldn't try hard enough to outdo each other about using govt. funds to help religious organizations provide services to the communities where appropriate. It was a major item for discussion during the debates.

Ironically, the churches don't really want this kind of funding because they don't want the govt. meddling in their affairs as they meddle in everything else.

As for the question posed in post #1, it doesn't bother me in the least if a candidate is religious or what his/her religion is.
 
A politician's religious beliefs don't bother me. They can be any religion, or atheist/agnostic, and it wouldn't affect my appraisal of them as politicians.

Separation of church and state is extremely important to me. Making policy based on religious belief is a huge negative to me, I support all efforts to remove religious presences in government-owned/run facilities and use of tax-payer money for religious efforts.
 
It's disappointing that all major candidates for office appear to believe that it is a necessity to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeve. As far as I can tell, McCain is the least of these; the furthest he will go to pander to the religious right is to tell a story about someone' ELSE'S religious beliefs (the guard who prays next to him in the POW camp).

Part of the problem, of course, is the interference that major religions are causing in issues such as homosexuality and teaching in the schools. If someone wants to pray, great. Go ahead and pray. Just don't tell me what I can or can't do, don't try to influence what I think or what I believe.
 
It's disappointing that all major candidates for office appear to believe that it is a necessity to wear their religious beliefs on their sleeve. As far as I can tell, McCain is the least of these; the furthest he will go to pander to the religious right is to tell a story about someone' ELSE'S religious beliefs (the guard who prays next to him in the POW camp).

I think his selection of Palin was a pander to the religious right. But I agree that he's the lowest-key about his own beliefs.

I think that so far in the US' history, religion is a big deal and you can't be elected without being an avowed Christian. It was considered a big moment when a non-Protestant (JFK) was elected, and he was still a Christian.

I think any candidate who said that he/she wasn't a Christian would currently stand no chance of being elected. When that "barrier" is broken, I think a Jew would stand the best chance of breaking it. A Muslim or Hindu is eons from having a chance. I'm not sure how far off an atheist is from being acceptable.

I'd love to see a Buddhist President!
 
I think the republicans would have loved Bobby Jindal as VP candidate.
 
I think the republicans would have loved Bobby Jindal as VP candidate.

Aside from any serious scandals (which is possible, since it is Louisiana), Bobby Jindal is going to run for President at some point, probably in 2012 or 2016.

As much as Republicans would've loved him to be McCain's VP pick, he became Governor in January. It wouldn't have worked.

But if Rush Limbaugh calls you the next Ronald Reagan, you must be doing something right.

As for the question, I couldn't care less whether Obama was a Muslim or a Christian, or whether McCain was Catholic or Baptist. I vote based on ideology and who I think is the best candidate.
 
Religion plays no role in my decision either.

It's sad that it does to a lot of people around the world though.
 
If a candidate is overly religious and talks about it in such a way that it will impact their policy decisions, I can not support them. This is one of many reasons the 2000 election disgusted me.
 
I think the republicans would have loved Bobby Jindal as VP candidate.

Only because in his VP debate he could have said to Joe Biden, "I know you think I must work at a convenience store..."
 
Religion has no part of being a factor in a country that practices freedom of religion. Unfortunately though a persons faith is a huge factor to a very large number of people in the US, the ones who tend to look down their noses at less than their moral equivalents (which is of course hypocrisy at it's finest).
 
A politician's religious beliefs don't bother me. They can be any religion, or atheist/agnostic, and it wouldn't affect my appraisal of them as politicians.

Separation of church and state is extremely important to me. Making policy based on religious belief is a huge negative to me, I support all efforts to remove religious presences in government-owned/run facilities and use of tax-payer money for religious efforts.


How bout Pentacostal? She is a member of a cult.

[video=youtube;naXqE4dTxPA]
 
Last edited:
In 1960 they made a big deal about kennedy being a Catholic......a number of interviewers asked if elected would he be taking orders from the pope.

In 2000 they made a big deal about Leiberman not only being a Jew, but being an orthodox Jew.... a number of interviewers asked him whether his allegiance was to Israel or to the US.....

The Jewish religion and the Catholic religion are far more mainstream than the Pentacostals.... and the branch that Palin belongs to is pretty freaky.

I wonder when someone is going to ask her about it. They should.
 
In 1960 they made a big deal about kennedy being a Catholic......a number of interviewers asked if elected would he be taking orders from the pope.

In 2000 they made a big deal about Leiberman not only being a Jew, but being an orthodox Jew.... a number of interviewers asked him whether his allegiance was to Israel or to the US.....

The Jewish religion and the Catholic religion are far more mainstream than the Pentacostals.... and the branch that Palin belongs to is pretty freaky.

I wonder when someone is going to ask her about it. They should.

That is because the "mainstream" media/powerbrokers is/was filled with protestant denominations that dislike Catholics and Jews.
 
Ohh a witch hunter!!! Is that a far cry from an Exorcist? BTW the little clips of that church and her speaking kinda freak me out, they scream "AMWAY DIAMOND MEMBER!!!" Ironically that's they way I see too many of the modern era Christian Churches.
 
Article VI of the US Constitution reads in part, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
 
Article VI of the US Constitution reads in part, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


True.

However there are churches who tell their members what to do and who to vote for.

I wouldn't want someone who was under that kind of control by their church to have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

Did you see that guy who cast the witches spells out of Palin? He could easily become a 21st century Rasputin.
 
I'd prefer to have an athiest in office, but since that won't happen any time soon I'll go for someone who won't make drastic policy changes based on made up reasons. It's kind of silly, actually.

Luckily, I don't think this will have a huge effect on America. The biggest cause I could see coming to light is abortion and that, while justified by some religious support, seems primarily as a morality issue, which I'm fine with.
 
True.

However there are churches who tell their members what to do and who to vote for.

I wouldn't want someone who was under that kind of control by their church to have their finger on the nuclear trigger.

Did you see that guy who cast the witches spells out of Palin? He could easily become a 21st century Rasputin.

As religious as W claims to be, Jimmy Carter was way more so. Nobody feared his finger on the nuclear trigger.

In all the times you've heard her speak, interviewed, etc., has she sounded like a religious zealot bible thumper type?

From what I've seen of her record as Governor, she's pushed nothing at all that could be considered any breach of separation of church and state.
 
In all the times you've heard her speak, interviewed, etc., has she sounded like a religious zealot bible thumper type?

oh yeah. look at the videos of her in church. and those are tame compared to some of the other ones on youtube.
 
oh yeah. look at the videos of her in church. and those are tame compared to some of the other ones on youtube.

Look at videos of Obama's church. I don't hold that against him, though a major bunch of hooey's been made over it.
 
When I was a Lad I had the pleasure of seeing Buck Williams present his testimonial at a church. Outside of thet moment I never knew nor cared that he was a religious man. With that said I neither gained nor lost respect for him.
 
Look at videos of Obama's church. I don't hold that against him, though a major bunch of hooey's been made over it.


I knew somebody was going to mention that..... but he has distanced himself from those guys, and never got up on stage and spewed their rhetoric. he even said that his pastor went way too far with things.

those palin videos are only 2 months old.
 
In 1960 they made a big deal about kennedy being a Catholic......a number of interviewers asked if elected would he be taking orders from the pope.

In 2000 they made a big deal about Leiberman not only being a Jew, but being an orthodox Jew.... a number of interviewers asked him whether his allegiance was to Israel or to the US.....

The Jewish religion and the Catholic religion are far more mainstream than the Pentacostals.... and the branch that Palin belongs to is pretty freaky.

I wonder when someone is going to ask her about it. They should.

I would disagree that a "big deal" was made about Lieberman being a Jew. It was brought up in a "look at how enlightened we've become" identity politics sort of way.
 
I knew somebody was going to mention that..... but he has distanced himself from those guys, and never got up on stage and spewed their rhetoric. he even said that his pastor went way too far with things.

those palin videos are only 2 months old.

So what? I don't care if Obama distanced himself or not. In fact, I think it was a bad thing to throw his Pastor under the bus like he did. As I see it, Minstrel and I might be associated here on this site with polar opposite views, but we're still friends; it doesn't make me a believer in his politics.

And I don't care what religion people are or what they do in their church (aside from illegally telling people who to vote for). It's what they do and say in the TV interviews, from the podium in the public square, etc.

Like I said, Carter was the most religious president in my lifetime, yet that had nothing to do with policy.
 
I would disagree that a "big deal" was made about Lieberman being a Jew. It was brought up in a "look at how enlightened we've become" identity politics sort of way.

Lieberman being a Jew was a big deal to Jewish people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top