- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Saw this in the news:
Quote:Though the United States is a secular state and there’s no informal religious test for office, religion plays an important role in the minds of the American electorate. And voters, in many ways, view their leaders through a religious lens, experts say.
“Religion always remains a significant factor in elections,” said Melissa Deckman, a political science professor at the Washington College. “I think there is a litmus test” for office.
It seems Mitt down plays the religion, seems to try to distance himself, but people see through that. And they judge him accordingly.What do you all think…is religion a big deal for a Presidential Candidate? Would you think a proclaimed Atheist would have a harder time than a Mormon running for office?
Heber13 wrote:What do you all think…is religion a big deal for a Presidential Candidate? Would you think a proclaimed Atheist would have a harder time than a Mormon running for office?
Religion is a HUGE deal for a presidential candidate today in the Red states.Thomas Jefferson would never be elected today because he was a bona-fide atheist by today’s definitions and had an ‘interesting’ personal life. But it is no easier for a mormon — I don’t think that Mitt or Jon will be elected either because they’re the wrong religion.
Jefferson was by all current definitions, an atheist (I know people will say Deist, but he REALLY didn’t believe in anything supernatural). His opposition brought up all the dirt they could on him, and his “atheism” (their words) and affairs with Sally Hemmings figured prominently in the press. Jefferson was wealthier and more connected, and was able to seed dirt articles in the press, outright paying journalists to publish lies. It was a wonderful time.
But to get the nomination in the republican party today, you have to be acceptable to the Religious Right, who are dominated by evangelical Christians and viscerally hate mormons more than atheists or muslims. If you want to get the nomination in the democratic party today, you should not be in a gay-hating religion, and you need to not own slaves and have a slave mistress. Jefferson would flunk both tests, as does Mitt Romney.
Quote:What do you all think…is religion a big deal for a Presidential Candidate? Would you think a proclaimed Atheist would have a harder time than a Mormon running for office?
Yes, and yes – especially if the latter tried to run as a Republican, but even as a Democrat.
Not always a bad mix. Christians have not just been on the religious right, they’ve been on the religious left. Christians were at the forefront of the campaign against negro slavery and for civil rights in the USA. They were also at the forefront of resistance in East Germany, and apartheid era South Africa. Currently I do not think a self proclaimed atheist could be elected president. To many people judge a persons values by their religion. Funny thing is I think the average atheist has just as good if not better values and judgment than the religious, especially the fundamentalists. A few atheists are fundamentalists or at least literalists. SamBee, what is your definition of a “literalist”? Just curious.
Mike from Milton.
Mike wrote:SamBee, what is your definition of a “literalist”?
Just curious.
Mike from Milton.
Richard Dawkins.
Can’t understand metaphor or more subliminal and/or mythic imagery. Must interpret everything in terms of what is on the surface. Such a person almost certainly has no true artistic appreciation either.
If he sees a fable or a parable, he thinks it is actually about hares and tortoises, not about carelessness, arrogance or perseverance.
Not if you’re a Democrat and a Mormon… 😈 Least wise you tell no one your a Democrat in church.
I know everyone is harping on Romney, but Huntsman has down played it beyond Romney. I don’t think a person can not just skip religion, but should own it, not make a big deal out of it, but don’t just ignore it. I think people want to see if a political person will stand by their religion. However, many LDS think that red states will favor an LDS candidate, which in most red states (barring Utah and Idaho) they hate Mormons still, think we are a cult. They are nice to our faces and will tolerate us, but behind our backs whoa boy do the insults fly. (one of the benefits of being inactive for years is people didn’t know I was LDS…and the stuff they say about member is whew…over the top
🙄 :wtf: :wtf: 😯 )The fact that evangelicals can see Newt Gingrich, the serial adulterer, as a kindly grandfather figure, and Mitt Romney, who lives well below his means as the miserly uncle is just sad. People who want a candidate to share their religious values put the separation of church and state at risk, and they do this because they know that their own candidates would use the office to further their own religious agenda, so they suspect everyone else would too. I have a hard time imagining what TSM would or could ever ask a POTUS Romney to do for the church while in office. And certainly Senator Kennedy was more formidable than Thomas S Monson would be.
Newt Gingrich signed a pledge in Iowa last week to continue to keep his marital vows and uphold the standard that marriage is between one man and one woman. He was praised by evangelicals for doing so. A response I read noted that this is actually the fourth marriage pledge he’s signed: the first three being when he got married, with the first two marriages ending due to a long-term affair with his current wife.
😆 😆 😆 😆 Herman Cain said that he didn’t want to run, but he decided to run when God told him he should.
Maybe it was God’s way of exposing a serial adulterer and sexual harrasser. If that’s true, I LOVE God’s sense of humor.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Seriously, you can’t make up stories that are funnier than reality – and there’s a good reason politics and religion are a bad mix at that level.
Only Americans could take politicians with names like Newt and Mitt seriously. 😆 😆 😆 
[img]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfhv1aq1e01qeeqk5o1_500.jpg [/img] 
[img]http://www.homestead.com/~media/elements/Clipart/sports/baseball_mitt.jpg [/img] I see the Newt and the Mitt are rushing ahead… A friend of mine who’s anti-Mormon suggested that voters should check Mitt Romney’s underwear, and that he would not get elected because of his religion. He then pointed out that two of the front runners were a Catholic and a Mormon, which would not necessarily go down well with the Protestant right.
Is your friend stating our President should be decided based on underwear? :wtf: That’s ridiculous…we all know it is based on hair style.They are 2 separate entities and whatever is bound in politics does not always translate to be bound by religion. What I mean is whatever things is accepted in governance does not always stand to be accepted in terms of the church. But tha sort of speaks much about how the church moves and works with what is bound by law.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.