What religions would we accept in the White House?

Remove all ads!

I like the bit about "Sunday Christians" -- surely a large chunk of the voting public wants their leaders to be devout -- but not TOO devout because their devotion may not dovetail too closely with ours. The U.S. system is supposed to be a light unto the world in terms of the fact that the checks and balances that comprise the system stop any one religion (or other group or philosophy) from hijacking the system. That being the case, a person who comes into office and guides his actions based on his personal belief system should not spell the end of the world, as there are balancing forces in place.

Yet some people act as though the election of a person who dares to say "I'm implementing this policy because my religion teaches it is a good one" would spell the end of all rights for everyone else in the country. I just don't think that's a fair conclusion to make.

Admittedly, it would be better for a person to implement a policy because he has some consensus with a large portion of the population that the policy will be a good one, but I hope you see my point.

And heck, even with that consensus, things can go sideways. Certainly there's a lot of people backing Shrub and his policies (couched as they are in semi-religious language) but the policies are not really that helpful to the world at large, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere ad nauseum .

 

Considering that it's Hilary Clinton, I hope so. I hope the American public can see past the breasts to see that she's not the best candidate for President.

Someday there will be a woman elected to the highest office of the United States, but I just hope it's not Hillary...

 

Well, Who's better? And why? Personally, she's looking better all the time, and her numbers are going up as things progress.

 

As long as the leader does not have any actual religious faith he can belong to whatever group he wants. People who believe in ghosts do not make good leaders.

 

Um ... you think people would vote for Hillary because she has breasts? Like she's some sort fo sex symbol? On election day 2008, Hillary Clinton will be 61 years old - hardly what you would call a "hottie". Of the limited number of photos I have seen of Bill and Hillary in their youth - it appears that even 30 years ago she wasn't much to look at. In fact, I would be more inclined to go the other way - that some people will NOT vote for her because she has breasts.

 

I think Gnarff meant that some people would vote for her just because she's a woman. Some people might want to have a female president no matter what her qualifications were. I do remember that during the French elections when people were asked who they'd vote and why there was a whole bunch who did not care much for Royale's policies but voted for her never the less simply because they thought it would be more important to get a woman in charge for a change.

 

Interesting point of view. To me, while I don't doubt that there will be many people who will vote for her just because she is a woman (although most of the feminists I know would vote Democrat anyway), there also seems like there will be a lot of people who won't vote her just because she is a woman. I am uncertain which group is bigger between those who will vote for her because she is woman and those who won't vote her because she is woman. It's certainly a sword that cuts both ways. Regardless of the relative numbers though, being a woman is a rather small hurdle for Hillary to overcome compared to the number of people who won't for her because she is a Clinton.

 

I think that Obama is a better Candidate than Hillary Clinton, and I also think that Mitt Romney is likely the best candidate that either party could put forth (but I am calling Ron Paul a dark horse).

 

Frankly, I think anyone who argues that we need to expand Guantanamo has no place running for president. Mitt Romney's stances are scary.

 

I think he would be a terrible prez. This conutry can't take another two terms of poor government. Enough is enough of the "Republican agenda".

 

So Chandos, you're saying that you wouldn't vote for Romney based on Romney's politics, right? That I can totally accept. It's the knee jerk "religious people can't be trusted" line that some others put forth that I find reprehensible.

As an aside, some excellent leaders and thinkers in history were very religious ("believed in ghosts", I believe someone said) and so the statement that such people make poor leaders is rather unfounded, I think.

 

Of course religious people can be trusted to be placed in positions of authority - even if said authority is the President of the United States. The only problem comes in when they let religion drive their agenda, or when they let their religion blind them to the facts, which is what some people find troubling with Bush. My favorite comment regarding Bush's beliefs in God came from former New York Governor Mario Cuomo: "I pray to God every night. I think I am like most people in that, when I pray, I think I am talking to God. When George Bush prays, he thinks God is talking to him."

 

That would be correct. Although he has been critical of the way the War in Iraq has been managed by Team Bush, it appears that it would still be business as usual with Romney, or any of the other Repubs for that matter. And the American People have had their fill of the old Republican warcry, "Stay the Course!" Enough is enough.

 

Chandos: A while back, Ragusa sent me some links to some interviews done by people who've studied the foreign situation in the middle east (stemming from the Ron Paul thread). These interviews suggest that the grievances that exist there date back to 1948, meaning that your beloved Democrats have as much responsibility as anyone for allowing these things to continue.

Which should not happen with Mitt Romney. It's written right in the Doctrine and Covenents that the Church has no right to declare law. It also claims that the State has no right to curtail religious observance. If Mitt Romeny does things in harmony with the LDS doctrine, it will likely be what his supporters elect him to do.

 

Gnarff, dont even try to go to the roots of the situation in the Middle East, the entire mess started a lot earlier than 1948. If you want to lay blame tehre are plenty to go around but France, the UK and the US are the big bad culprits who are the engineers behind the horrid situation in the entire region. Sadly it is irrelevent in todays politics to be aware of hte historical background and it is more or less only the invasion and occupation of Iraq that is important for the discussions at hand.

 

Uh....then why are LDS church members lobbying to keep gay marriage illegal if the Doctrine and Covenants forbids it? Why is alcohol illegal, even for non-LDS members, in many cities in Utah? The LDS church is certainly not passing the laws in such instances, but it's rather obvious that the laws are being passed because of the religious beliefs of the law-makers....which is pretty much the same thing. If everyone in Utah was a Unitarian Universalist, Scientologist, or a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (as I am) such laws would never have been passed.

Please not that I am not trying to argue that Romney is in the pocket of the LDS church. I don't think he is. The reasons I think he's nuts have nothing to do with his religion.

Which is scary enough. If Romney does what he says he'll do, he'll be even worse than GW.

@Joaquin: The Palestinians and Jews in the Middle east lived in relative harmony before 1948. The Jews in the Middle East certainly fared a lot better than the Jews in Europe. The real issue is that Germany and, frankly, the whole of Europe and the US (since everyone knew what was going on before the war and did nothing....Abassador Kennedy even went so far as to tell Hitler that we understood his "Jewish policy") did something despicable and to the Jews as, so, in order to make amends, they took the Palestine's land. Palestine was punished for Germany's sins.

[ August 04, 2007, 13:43: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Drew, the fact is that the LDS church says that the Church is not supposed to get involved on an official level in government. Let me tell you, any church leader speaking as a church leader who endorses a candidate over the pulpit will lose his position faster than you can spit.

BUT, that same church leader, speaking in a public venue as a private citizen, is free to encourage his fellow citizens to vote for a candidate. That right is available to every American (and incidentally, Canadian, and I'm betting most other democracies). There may be a fine line in that distinction in the eyes of detractors of the LDS church or religious people in general, but the distinction is there.

As for the alcohol thing in Utah, I was unaware of the situation but it doesn't surprise me -- sounds like a large group of like-minded Mormons worked together and got some by-laws passed. I wonder (and in fact doubt) if those laws would pass a Constitutional challenge. Even if they didn't, I still see nothing wrong with a group of like-minded individuals lobbying for their interests. The Constitution and the rule of law guarantees that the rights of all involved parties will be protected no matter how odd or unpopular those parties' opinions may be.

 

sorry LKD, but how do you get the idea that it is a constitutional right to drink? many areas of the us are dry & have been since ,in some cases, the '40's. the county next to mine is dry while 6 of the 9 towns in the county are wet.this means you can buy alcohol in the town limits of those towns but if your store is 5' outside the town limit you CANT get an alcohol permit. 4 of the towns have only went wet in the last 10 years or so, after being dry since the early 1940's. also one of the towns cant have an ABC store( a package store to sell hard licquer) as it is to close to 3 stores in other cities. the ABC stores in this state are state owned not like S.C. where they are privately owned

 

Exactly. My point is that a devout Mormon isn't going to need the LDS church to tell him how to vote and what types of laws to pass. He's already going to vote and set policy in a manner similar to the dictates of his religion. Romney's own words (and his record, for that matter) already bear this out.

 

That's because the Church teaches the doctrine and expects us to think for ourselfs and live within that doctrine.

Are you telling me that the only people who lack the right to vote according to their own conscience are elected officials?