Only his holy underwear knows for sure.
Wow
I agree with one of the many people in this thread, that religion should not be a factor in election. Ofcourse not many people are going to ignore it, and I highly doupt a person without one who runs will get as much support as someone who does have one. Personally at this point I'd put a buddist in office if he promised on his faith that he'd increase education funding and bring the country back out of dept.
Everyone is critical of Hillary, but I think it's slightly sexist, I'm a man and I support her more than anyone else just because her and Bill proved their metal to me. Sure that thing with Bill was out of hand, but the people who brought it up were out of hand. I don't care a damn thing about this guy's eithics or personal life as long as he keeps our country together and out of dept, which no one seems to give him credit for. The fact is even if a pagan runs for president and gives reason for me to trust him with running the country by explaining his views and goals I'd vote for him.
I think the church has had too much influence as is, leave it outside of politics. "Leave it by the door and pick it up on your way out," as they say.
FYI the church arn't the only religions with ethics nor are they the most strict.
Ethics are person to person which is why views will always differ.
By the way some of you might be interested in my thread: Are you asleep?
Check it out I'd like to see some views on some of the points I made.
Except if you're an atheist. Polls indicate that most Americans would never vote for an atheist. The real victims are non-believers, not the god squad.
heh
BuddingAnarchist wrote:Except if you're an atheist. Polls indicate that most Americans would never vote for an atheist. The real victims are non-believers, not the god squad.
I'd vote for him/her in a heartbeat, as long as his head was on strait. See it takes a certain type of person to believe something with no basis, and still look to people who don't believe and respect thier views. Which is why I'm personally a non-deity person. Higher power? Maybe, don't count on it. I have my own ethics and beliefs, however I've only met a few actual god squad people, with ethics that are as strict as mine, and lets not get into my friend who's homosexual and the son of a preacher, not to mention his devout love of god and Christ. Or is the majority of god squad confused?
Also, how is it freedom of religion if the only ones who get into office are part of the god squad? It's surely not equality for all.
Just some brain food...
Aren't most people religious in some way? So just by the law of averages, presidents will usually have some religious belief. I would consider atheism a religion as well, to be accurate.
I also consider some aspects of Mormonism quite puzzling, however, most Mormons are very committed to family, they are patriotic, they are generally moral and honest people, at least as much so as other people. Yes, holy underwear is perhaps a curiosity. However, most Mormons subscribe to the same general philosophy of government and country as I do, at least I believe that to be the case until convinced otherwise, so I have no problem voting for them. I feel the same about Catholics, Methodists, etc.
Whatever a person's belief system, it needs to give rise to that person's commitment to a code of ethics and morality, at least the basics of honesty, commitment, courage, and so forth. As long as that belief system supports the general philosophy and commitment to our form of government, laws, and traditions, and the preservation of the same, I have no problem voting for that person. I see no reason to fear religious belief or have some sort of phobia of the same, as that has pretty much been the norm for elected officials since 1776.
Atheism would bother me, because I believe most people's belief in a higher power motivates them to fear hurting other people. Some atheists might be very good, moral people that care about others, but I suspect most atheists do believe in something even if it is only themselves having some kind of spirituality. Some beliefs would be troublesome to me if I perceived them to gravitate toward a different form of government than our constitution spells out, or if they don't seem particularly loyal to preserving the concept of nationhood, in other words if they had an underlying belief in one world government. I think this philosophy is creeping into the younger generation in greater numbers.
I think its time to revive this thread now that Romney is tied with Giuliani nationwide according to this poll, and also hopes to win early states to bolster his chances.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2007/12/19/giuliani-romney-tied-in-gop-race-new-poll-shows/
I would like to post his speech on religion, because I think it was a magnificent summary of how religion relates to but does not control politics in America. It mirrors my beliefs and I think it is quite balanced and shows an excellent understanding of the issue.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23830
I will also post some of it:
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
I also like this excellent article by Mona Charen this morning:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/mona-charen.html?columnsName=mch
okie wrote:I think its time to revive this thread now that Romney is tied with Giuliani nationwide according to this poll, and also hopes to win early states to bolster his chances.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2007/12/19/giuliani-romney-tied-in-gop-race-new-poll-shows/
I would like to post his speech on religion, because I think it was a magnificent summary of how religion relates to but does not control politics in America. It mirrors my beliefs and I think it is quite balanced and shows an excellent understanding of the issue.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23830
I will also post some of it:
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."
I also like this excellent article by Mona Charen this morning:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/mona-charen.html?columnsName=mch
I think Mona's got a crush on the guy and that's why it's difficult for her to find any weaknesses in him. If he's elected it will be a bunch of more of the same. Although, I think the country would have been in better shape if he'd been president instead of Bush-- which isn't saying much.
I find myself leaning more toward Mitt lately, not because I like him the best--I don't--but because he brings less baggage to the party than any of the others and because he seems to possess the skills necessary to govern effectively. He is savvy, smart, well educated, articulate, and holds the 'correct' position on enough of the issues to be acceptable to at least most conservatives. All things considered, I think he may be the most qualified for the job.
Foxfyre wrote:I find myself leaning more toward Mitt lately, not because I like him the best--I don't--but because he brings less baggage to the party than any of the others and because he seems to possess the skills necessary to govern effectively. He is savvy, smart, well educated, articulate, and holds the 'correct' position on enough of the issues to be acceptable to at least most conservatives. All things considered, I think he may be the most qualified for the job.
He certainly does have the administrative expertise and would be better than Huckabee. I suppose if I were eyeing the Republicans I would take him seriously. Although, he's a bore.
Foxfyre wrote:I find myself leaning more toward Mitt lately, not because I like him the best--I don't--but because he brings less baggage to the party than any of the others and because he seems to possess the skills necessary to govern effectively. He is savvy, smart, well educated, articulate, and holds the 'correct' position on enough of the issues to be acceptable to at least most conservatives. All things considered, I think he may be the most qualified for the job.
I sort of drifted into his camp a few months ago for several reasons, so thanks for your opinion, Foxfyre. I continue to monitor all of this, but mainly when I watched the debates, he seemed to express the most reasonable, balanced, and appropriate view on most issues. And another important factor is his age and energy. It is somewhat assuring to me that the process does work, all the debates and detailed scrutiny of everyone's record, although it seems almost too grueling at times, but the cream does tend to rise to the top, and I believe right now that Romney has what it takes, barring any surprises.
Quote:Okay, so maybe this ought to be in religion-- But, what are your opinions about his being a Mormon and the possibility he would be president. I feel like a total knucklehead because I am not comfortable with it-- so I need to be enlightened.
What does his or any other candidates religion have to do with anything?
I have said it before and I will say it again...any person that worries about a candidates religion is a bigot.
And yes that includes conservatives also.
mysteryman wrote:Quote:Okay, so maybe this ought to be in religion-- But, what are your opinions about his being a Mormon and the possibility he would be president. I feel like a total knucklehead because I am not comfortable with it-- so I need to be enlightened.
What does his or any other candidates religion have to do with anything?
I have said it before and I will say it again...any person that worries about a candidates religion is a bigot.
And yes that includes conservatives also.
I'd say G. Bush's religion has a lot to do with how he runs this country.
I agree, Gala, religion is just another character trait of the candidate, and is obviously something that almost everyone considers. How the voter judges how the religious beliefs affect the way a candidate governs is important as just one of many things to consider, but hopefully the voter can separate reality from any bigotry that he may harbor, I think that is what MM is talking about. I certainly wouldn't vote for Osama Bin Laden, and I think his particular brand of religion is not very appealing. It all depends upon how we view how the religious conviction or moral conviction of a candidate affects that candidate.
I looked up the definition of a bigot and here is one:
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Well, I am intolerant of terrorists, does that make me a bigot? I am intolerant of robbers and murderers, does that make me a bigot? Freedom of thought is pretty precious in this country, so if someone would not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, I don't agree with that but that is their right to do it, although I think they are prejudiced most likely, and possibly a bigot, although that is a strong term. However if people would not vote for a Muslim because of the religion, I would not label them a bigot I don't think, because I think that their politics may indeed be much more affected by their religion, than that of being a Mormon.
okie wrote:However if people would not vote for a Muslim because of the religion, I would not label them a bigot I don't think, because I think that their politics may indeed be much more affected by their religion, than that of being a Mormon.
Well, based on the definition you posted, that person would be a bigot.
Gunga posted something in another thread about how religion shouldn't matter in politics, I asked him if that applied to muslims and he said it did, which surprised me coming from him. I didn't think that many conservatives would agree with that position.
Your hypocrisy does not surprise me here, I think your opinion is more representative of the republican base than his is.
As far as being a Morman....there religion is more strict or as strict as any Muslim's. Rule number 1 for a morman is to use whatever skills or power a person has to advance the morman church/religion. So either a) Romney is not a very devout Morman and a liar or b) he will use his power to advance his church first, country second.
okie wrote:I agree, Gala, religion is just another character trait of the candidate, and is obviously something that almost everyone considers. How the voter judges how the religious beliefs affect the way a candidate governs is important as just one of many things to consider, but hopefully the voter can separate reality from any bigotry that he may harbor, I think that is what MM is talking about. I certainly wouldn't vote for Osama Bin Laden, and I think his particular brand of religion is not very appealing. It all depends upon how we view how the religious conviction or moral conviction of a candidate affects that candidate.
I looked up the definition of a bigot and here is one:
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Well, I am intolerant of terrorists, does that make me a bigot? I am intolerant of robbers and murderers, does that make me a bigot? Freedom of thought is pretty precious in this country, so if someone would not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, I don't agree with that but that is their right to do it, although I think they are prejudiced most likely, and possibly a bigot, although that is a strong term. However if people would not vote for a Muslim because of the religion, I would not label them a bigot I don't think, because I think that their politics may indeed be much more affected by their religion, than that of being a Mormon.
He's a wealthy man who has directed his campaign toward political conservatives. He sang a different tune when he wanted to be guv'ner o' Massachooossetts. I am more comfortable with someone who would align themself with the goals of the Democratic party-- such as health care, poverty, etc. Instead, he's falling all over himself to say he's anti-abortion. What a waste of time.
While I think that any of the Dem candidates would be a better president, Romney has a lot going for himself. No one can deny that he is very intelligent. Moreover, I think he has succeeded in everything he did. For instance, I gather that he was a successful governor.
maporsche wrote:okie wrote:However if people would not vote for a Muslim because of the religion, I would not label them a bigot I don't think, because I think that their politics may indeed be much more affected by their religion, than that of being a Mormon.
Well, based on the definition you posted, that person would be a bigot.
Gunga posted something in another thread about how religion shouldn't matter in politics, I asked him if that applied to muslims and he said it did, which surprised me coming from him. I didn't think that many conservatives would agree with that position.
Your hypocrisy does not surprise me here, I think your opinion is more representative of the republican base than his is.
As far as being a Morman....there religion is more strict or as strict as any Muslim's. Rule number 1 for a morman is to use whatever skills or power a person has to advance the morman church/religion. So either a) Romney is not a very devout Morman and a liar or b) he will use his power to advance his church first, country second.
I see the difference as whether you don't vote for a candidate based on what religion that candidate is, vs not voting for that candidate based on what you judge that candidate's religion may cause him to do in terms of policy. In regard to a Muslim, that person is free to be a Muslim, I don't care, but if being a Muslim causes me to believe he or she will not implement the correct policy toward terrorists or the Middle East, or to other issues, that will influence my vote. I don't think that is bigotry. If someone votes against Romney because of what being a Mormon causes Romney to probably do, and they don't agree with it, thats not bigotry, but if a person agrees with most of Romney's record and policies, but just don't like him because he is a Mormon and therefore won't vote for him then that may be bigotry.
What Leftists love to do is throw the term, bigotry, around when someone merely disagrees with them. That is not bigotry. The term has been highly misused, and I think overused, so I think MM should be careful when throwing the term out, thats all.
maporsche, I challenge you to show the hypocrisy you accuse me of, when you are just as prejudiced in your own opinions. Opinion is not bigotry, in and of itself.
Duh, I don't believe Muslims are as conventional in terms of mainstream American politics, in general. Theres nothing bigoted about that opinion, I just think it is factual.
