Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Oh, to Foofie, catholics are christians, whatever varied christians who showed up later have to say on that. Though whether a catholic could be elected now, I dunno.

before I get corrected, I know catholics spell themselves with a capital C, but I'm fairly capital avoidant.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Oh, to Foofie, catholics are christians, whatever varied christians who showed up later have to say on that. Though whether a catholic could be elected now, I dunno.

before I get corrected, I know catholics spell themselves with a capital C, but I'm fairly capital avoidant.

What I said was:
I prefer Presidents that have practiced Capitalism, rather than Protestantism, Catholicism, or Judaism, or some other religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't refer to Christians, but to the two main Christian denominations in the U.S. I didn't include Eastern Orthodox. My apologies to them.

But, there are some real differences beyond theology between Catholicism and Protestantism, in my observations. While both are Christian, and therefore believe in the divinity of Christ, the two churches seem to look at the world somewhat differently, in my opinion. Like Catholicism has a universal outlook towards humanity. I'm not sure Protestantism is as universal? It seems to focus more on a personal relationship with the divine, and one's personal salvation. Perhaps, I'm totally wrong. Just my observation; probably a little, or a lot, myopic.

0 Replies

I (Being a Christian) can't hurt. I mean, the US is still a Christian country after all.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I (Being a Christian) can't hurt. I mean, the US is still a Christian country after all.

I like to define the U.S. as:

1) A Christian country (reflected in the overwhelming majority of people).

2) A Protestant nation (reflected in its focus on economic growth and military strength).

3) A secular society (reflected in that anyone, from any faith, can live comfortably in the U.S., and participate in the economy).

But remember, at one time the U.S. was defined as a "white" country. No one would define it as such today. Not because there are more people of color than white folks, but because defining this country by race is now considered unacceptable. That might mean that defining this country by religion might one day become unacceptable too. Perhaps, not in our lifetimes, but progressive thinking points in that direction.

0 Replies

Mrcolj
"This is why "transparency" and "ethics" will backfire in America"
can you clarify your above statement ?

0 Replies

I see I messed up re who was the thread poster, which was au 1929, and then blatham, asking if it was general to the US - yes, I think you have to be christian to get elected, and probably not catholic or mormon, however those two are designated by whom, much less agnostic or atheist.

0 Replies

If USA is a christian country
then forget about the corporate controlled consume-oriented soup power.
jesus is nothing to do with the criminals .
I mean those christian criminals who wish to disturb the innocent , ignorant world.
I wish not to be a christian of American model.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

But remember, at one time the U.S. was defined as a "white" country.

When was this and who made this definition?

0 Replies

At present...

The President must profess to be Christian

Stupid, but true.

0 Replies

According to Mitt Romney, a president must be religious. And Mitt said a president ought not to be a secularist. And Mitt said, secularism is a religion.

According to blatham, Mitt isn't terribly bright.

0 Replies

Secularism, the new religion. Let us gather the sesames...

I'll gather a person has to be within a certain diaphragm of belief to get approved for office, but

hey, secular, erm, ism? isn't the same as a batch of beliefs. Guy needs an introduction to other folks than he is used to.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

According to Mitt Romney, a president must be religious. And Mitt said a president ought not to be a secularist. And Mitt said, secularism is a religion.

According to blatham, Mitt isn't terribly bright.

Secularism, if not a religion, is akin to one in all its failings.

Being inconsistent in one's rhetoric is not necessarily a sign of dimness - you of all people should appreciate that.

0 Replies

What I find most saddening about US politics is that religion is such a popular topic. What a massive waste of time and energy for a bunch of goobers believing in ghosts!

The whole politicization of religion has been blown way out of proportion. Many many people are now actually taking this whole thing seriously!

What should be happening is that any politician who even mentions spirituality be laughed right off the stage!

Ghosts...........suckers!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

What I find most saddening about US politics is that religion is such a popular topic. What a massive waste of time and energy for a bunch of goobers believing in ghosts!

The whole politicization of religion has been blown way out of proportion. Many many people are now actually taking this whole thing seriously!

What should be happening is that any politician who even mentions spirituality be laughed right off the stage!

Ghosts...........suckers!

What I find saddening is the notion that un-believing is a badge of rationality, and that the cloddish dismissal of spirituality might be seen, by some, as the height of intellectual sophistication.

Anyone who equates spirituality with a belief in ghosts is either quite ignorant or a deliberate provocateur.

Does the depth of your thoughts reach beyond a few inches?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What I find saddening is the notion that un-believing is a badge of rationality and that the cloddish dismissal of spirituality might be seen, by some, as the height of intellectual sophistication.

This is a Straw Man Logical Fallacy given I did not make the claim that "un-believing is a badge of rationality" thus your claim is misleading.

The above is also an Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy given your use of the word "cloddish" consists of replying by attacking the person, rather than by addressing the substance thus the process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the Argumentum Ad Hominem works to change the subject.

The above is also another Straw Man Logical Fallacy given I did not make the claim that "dismissal of spirituality might be seen, by some, as the height of intellectual sophistication" thus your claim is misleading.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Anyone who equates spirituality with a belief in ghosts is either quite ignorant or a deliberate provocateur.

This is Bare Assertion Logical Fallacy given you do not support your claim, thus I challenge you to support it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Does the depth of your thoughts reach beyond a few inches?

This is another Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy but in rhetorical form; you attack the person rather than address the substance, thus the process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the Argumentum Ad Hominem works to change the subject.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Chumly wrote:
What I find most saddening about US politics is that religion is such a popular topic. What a massive waste of time and energy for a bunch of goobers believing in ghosts!

The whole politicization of religion has been blown way out of proportion. Many many people are now actually taking this whole thing seriously!

What should be happening is that any politician who even mentions spirituality be laughed right off the stage!

Ghosts...........suckers!

What I find saddening is the notion that un-believing is a badge of rationality, and that the cloddish dismissal of spirituality might be seen, by some, as the height of intellectual sophistication.

Anyone who equates spirituality with a belief in ghosts is either quite ignorant or a deliberate provocateur.

Does the depth of your thoughts reach beyond a few inches?

Bravo, Finn. I am very happy to find at least one post of yours with which I can wholeheartedly agree. It gives me great reassurance to know that, even with someone with whom I have great differences, I can find some common ground.

0 Replies

Romney takes independence vow
By Joseph Curl

Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president, declared yesterday that he should not have to defend his faith but assured Americans wary of his religion that his church would not run the White House.

Could we get the same reassurance from the Christian candidates.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

According to Mitt Romney, a president must be religious. And Mitt said a president ought not to be a secularist. And Mitt said, secularism is a religion.

According to blatham, Mitt isn't terribly bright.

An obvious contradiction.

I think a President needs to profess a religion, but should be a "closet" secularist in a humanistic way (aka, Secular Humanist), so they can manage the country without the cloud of silly (religious) beliefs affecting his/her decisions.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Romney takes independence vow
By Joseph Curl

Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president, declared yesterday that he should not have to defend his faith but assured Americans wary of his religion that his church would not run the White House.

This is highly hypocritical on Romney's part. How can a man have faith in what he professes to believe if he is unwilling to conduct his life on the basis of that faith? Can he legitimately be a Mormon if he is not willing to act as a Mormon and promote Mormonism should he be elected president? Why should we trust a man who is willing to discount his most heartfelt beliefs for the sake of gaining votes?

How can any man say "my religion is right" if he unwilling to tell everyone else "your religion is wrong"?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

au1929 wrote:
Romney takes independence vow
By Joseph Curl

Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president, declared yesterday that he should not have to defend his faith but assured Americans wary of his religion that his church would not run the White House.

This is highly hypocritical on Romney's part. How can a man have faith in what he professes to believe if he is unwilling to conduct his life on the basis of that faith? Can he legitimately be a Mormon if he is not willing to act as a Mormon and promote Mormonism should he be elected president? Why should we trust a man who is willing to discount his most heartfelt beliefs for the sake of gaining votes?

How can any man say "my religion is right" if he unwilling to tell everyone else "your religion is wrong"?

He is not a mullah. He is able to separate his private religious views, from his position in public office. Is that such a hard concept to understand?

0 Replies

Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know