bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 religious beliefs are fair game in politics...I look forward to the day when atheists are in the majority and common sense rules politics rather than sky pixies and magic underwear... Yes, I can't wait for the Second Coming of Joseph Stalin. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 His character and record likely held far more sway than his different religion. He would most certainly have lost votes as an atheist. ??? So much for "his character and record," if atheism alone would have lost him votes. Odd that you've offered, accidentally or otherwise, the two clauses as if in opposition. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
dre Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 So do you agree? Do you think a candidate's religious beliefs should be a major factor in elections/campaigns? I dont know about a "major factor" but these things speak to a persons judgement so they certainly shouldnt be off-limits. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
segnosaur Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 As for why do I assume the principles aren't well known... how about a poll in the U.S. that showed more than half of all people admitted they knew "very little/not very much" about Mormonism. So how many of those people do you think cared enough to find out more? Actually I think its more indicative of apathy. If someone came to me on the street and asked "what do you think of the difference between Lutherens and Methodists" I'd say "I don't know." More importantly, I wouldn't care to know. In the same study I referenced, most people considered Mormonism to be just another "branch of christianity". If Joe Average citizen imagines mormons having the same basic beliefs he's not likely to delve deeper. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 ??? So much for "his character and record," if atheism alone would have lost him votes. Odd that you've offered, accidentally or otherwise, the two clauses as if in opposition. Yes, it is my opinion that any candidate declared as an atheist would face far more obstacles than a "Mormon". This is the political reality in America today. I am not asking you to agree with it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Actually I think its more indicative of apathy. Right. As in "I don't care." Notice that they weren't apathetic about his tax records. Normally when someone is apathetic about something, it doesn't affect their vote. In the same study I referenced, most people considered Mormonism to be just another "branch of christianity". If Joe Average citizen imagines mormons having the same basic beliefs he's not likely to delve deeper. He would if he cared; if it made a difference one way or the other. Quote
kimmy Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Anybody skeptical about how seriously Mitt Romney takes Mormon doctrine ought to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE Should a candidate's beliefs be open for discussion during a campaign? Clearly there are some pretty wacky Mormon beliefs, but is it really any wackier than other religions? I say no. And most of the earth's population believes in some form of religion or another. I don't think these beliefs make one inherently unfit for office, and I don't think they need to be a topic of campaign discussion for the most part. Where I do think religious beliefs need to be discussed is when they directly impact policy. One example might congressman Paul Broun, who declared that he believes that evolution and the Big Bang are "lies straight from the pits of Hell." That might not be a big policy issue, except that Broun serves on the House Committee for Science and Technology. Another example of religious beliefs that make somebody unsuitable for office would be some End Times Prophecy kook who believes that the return of Jesus could be brought about by provoking a war between Israel and Iran. If that was somebody's religious belief, I'd want to know about it before he got elected, and I'd feel very justified in discriminating against him because of that religious belief. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bleeding heart Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Yes, it is my opinion that any candidate declared as an atheist would face far more obstacles than a "Mormon". This is the political reality in America today. I am not asking you to agree with it. I don't disagree with it at all. I didn't know if you were offering a personal judgement on atheism, or (as you've clarified) reportage about general public ignorance. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 ....In the same study I referenced, most people considered Mormonism to be just another "branch of christianity". If Joe Average citizen imagines mormons having the same basic beliefs he's not likely to delve deeper. Why should he/she? Many Americans know some Mormons and find them to be just like any other American. There was a time when polygamy was an issue...still is in Canada. I lived many years in western states and the concept of "Mormonism" is not strange or unusual compared to many others. Frankly, Christians who tempt fate with venomous snakes seem far more odd, but that's just me. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
segnosaur Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 I believe the other poster was trying to argue "should we give military authority to someone who's religous beliefs supercede the needs of the country." So do you agree? Do you think a candidate's religious beliefs should be a major factor in elections/campaigns? There's no easy answer for that. It depends on the candidate, what religion they are supposedly an adherent to, their past record, and the postion they are being voted into. Quote
segnosaur Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Re: why most dont' know much about mormonism... Actually I think its more indicative of apathy. Right. As in "I don't care." Once again, they probably don't care because they think its similar enough to their own religion. Why bother going through the effort to look up some minute differences separating one religion from another? The issue is what would happen if, instead of people assuming "Oh they're just like other protestants" they start learning about magic underwear and other Mormon concepts. There is a difference between "I don't care about the issue at all" and "I have made (incorrect) assumptions and don't care to change them". Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 ... If that was somebody's religious belief, I'd want to know about it before he got elected, and I'd feel very justified in discriminating against him because of that religious belief. Right, and the beauty is that another voter may choose this candidate for having the identical belief. Isn't democracy grand? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
segnosaur Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 ....In the same study I referenced, most people considered Mormonism to be just another "branch of christianity". If Joe Average citizen imagines mormons having the same basic beliefs he's not likely to delve deeper. Why should he/she? Are you being intentionally dense? Once again... let me explain... it does not matter whether people should care about the differences. The issue is will some people change their vote if they know about the differences. People like you and American woman keep jumping up and down and shaking your fist in rage shouting "people shouldn't care!" But the results of the 1960s election shows that people can care about religious differences. The first ammendment was still in force back then. Yet Nixon managed to increase the protestant vote. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 (edited) People like you and American woman keep jumping up and down and shaking your fist in rage shouting "people shouldn't care!" But the results of the 1960s election shows that people can care about religious differences. The first ammendment was still in force back then. Yet Nixon managed to increase the protestant vote. Really?? I'm jumping up and down shaking my fist in rage shouting people shouldn't care? Good Lord. And ....the 60's?? Are you serious? You think Obama would have been elected in the 60's? Edited November 12, 2012 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Are you being intentionally dense? Once again... let me explain... it does not matter whether people should care about the differences. The issue is will some people change their vote if they know about the differences. No need to get nasty....I have already answered in the negative. Is that OK with you? People like you and American woman keep jumping up and down and shaking your fist in rage shouting "people shouldn't care!" But the results of the 1960s election shows that people can care about religious differences. The first ammendment was still in force back then. Yet Nixon managed to increase the protestant vote. Sir, if you will scroll back a bit you will find that I made reference to the 1960 election long before you did. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
segnosaur Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Right, and the beauty is that another voter may choose this candidate for having the identical belief. Isn't democracy grand? The problem is that Mormons make up such a small part of the U.S. demographics that there are very few addtional votes Romey could have obtained. Compare that to the 1960s election... Kennedy lost support among protestants. But catholics make up a very big part of the U.S. demographics and he was able to make up the difference in bringing in more catholic voters. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Really?? I'm jumping up and down shaking my fist in rage shouting people shouldn't care? Good Lord. And ....the 60's?? Are you serious? You think Obama would have been elected in the 60's? Seems that not only don't they like opposing views, but suddenly they are experts on the American electorate because of Google. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kimmy Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Yes, it is my opinion that any candidate declared as an atheist would face far more obstacles than a "Mormon". This is the political reality in America today. I am not asking you to agree with it. Pete Stark, the only atheist in congress, was defeated last Tuesday. His opponent Eric Swalwell, another Democrat, attacked him for declining to vote in support of reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto, and used it to ask voters if they trust Stark to represent their values. Seems like a pretty scummy way of bringing Stark's (lack of) religious faith into the election. People mostly have agreed that candidates' religious beliefs should be respected if they're Christians or Jews, and now Mormons apparently... but not everybody gets the same respect. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 The problem is that Mormons make up such a small part of the U.S. demographics that there are very few addtional votes Romey could have obtained. Irrelevant.....member kimmy's comment was the more general case unrelated to "Mormons". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Pete Stark, the only atheist in congress, was defeated last Tuesday. Only declared atheist...there is a difference. People mostly have agreed that candidates' religious beliefs should be respected if they're Christians or Jews, and now Mormons apparently... but not everybody gets the same respect. Correct....atheists face an uphill climb in the USA....and I'll bet it's no picnic in Canada either. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kimmy Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Irrelevant.....member kimmy's comment was the more general case unrelated to "Mormons". The comment was really just related to the idea that there could be situations where discussing a politician's religious beliefs is entirely justifiable. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 The comment was really just related to the idea that there could be situations where discussing a politician's religious beliefs is entirely justifiable. And that's fine, but it is a risky proposition depending on the office and voting district. I didn't think you were focusing on "Mormons". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 Pete Stark, the only atheist in congress, was defeated last Tuesday. His opponent Eric Swalwell, another Democrat, attacked him for declining to vote in support of reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto, and used it to ask voters if they trust Stark to represent their values. Seems like a pretty scummy way of bringing Stark's (lack of) religious faith into the election. People mostly have agreed that candidates' religious beliefs should be respected if they're Christians or Jews, and now Mormons apparently... but not everybody gets the same respect. -k The sad ironic truth in all of that is that "In God We Trust" was only adopted in 1956 to replace "e pluribus unum." The latter was far more inclusive. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 E. Pluribus Unum remained on the Great Seal of the United States for many years after 1956. It was not replaced by the new motto. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 12, 2012 Report Posted November 12, 2012 E pluribus unum was and continues to be the unofficial motto of the US. The official motto is In God We Trust, as of 1956. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.