Take candidate’s religion into account
Recently, I’ve been reading a lot of letters wondering why Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney being a Mormon should have anything to do with his qualifications (“Bigotry is behind criticism of Romney,” July 9).
I’ve seen people say that Romney being a Mormon should be irrelevant or that evangelical Christians are being hypocritical since we say that our religious views shouldn’t bar us from office.
These people just don’t have a clue.
I’m a Christian and a Southern Baptist by denomination. My faith is core to who I am and what I believe. Therefore, it only makes sense that I would also want someone who believes like me. Why is that any different than any other reason we vote for candidates?
Why should we automatically exclude someone’s religion as if it’s not a part of who they are? Are these letter writers only voting for a candidate based on two or three issues? Pardon me for basing my vote on the candidate as a whole, religion and all.
However, just because I believe that I shouldn’t be precluded from office because I’m a Christian doesn’t mean that I don’t get to vote against someone who believes differently than me.
Bryant D. Dillard, Lakewood
Religion is, at best, a matter of Faith, a personal and private affair. At worst it is mental masturbation. Whatever it is, it belongs in the privacy of one’s home or in their place of worship and must be kept out of government which belongs equally to people of all faiths and to people of no faith
Posted by Michelle on July 26, 2007 07:06 AMAbsolutely, you don't have to justify why you vote the way you do. If you were a gay communist midget tag team wrestler you would have that same right. I exagerate to make the point but, sometimes one must take the thought to the logical end to make the point.
The problem I have is not with religion per se, but with people who use it as a tactic to debase or otherwise negatively effect those who do not believe in the same doctrine as they do, in the political arena.
I am not sure that if one votes based solely on the religious doctrine they adhere to that the best man for the office would be elected.
I think that people, regardless of their religious beliefs, should vote for the man best honestly and ethically suited for the office. Not the man who just happens to adhere to the same religious doctrine as they do.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 26, 2007 07:09 AMI might vote for someone claiming to be religious- unless they really mean it.
Joking..
Posted by Charles B on July 26, 2007 07:17 AMImagine no religion, nothing to kill or die for
Posted by John Lennon on July 26, 2007 07:29 AMReligion has no place in government or politics. Where it does get involved we have out and out warfare, the Middle East, Ireland, etc… All too easily it will become the one thing a religious candidate follows, and sorry, I don’t want a President loyal to god or his party, I want one loyal to the American people ( case in point, Bush is a religious man thinking he is doing God’s work and screwing the very people he was elected to serve).
Can a religious man serve God and the American people? I don’t think so. Look at Jimmy Carter, as religious and as good a man as you can find…but a poor president.
I don’t want a candidate based on his religious beliefs, I want one based on his honesty and ability to do what he has promised to do for his county, for his people, not his god. Do You want to ‘vote’ for an Ayatollah? A Richileau? A Rasputin? I would be vary wary of anyone wearing their religion on their sleeve ( i.e.Republicans), they have a tendency to attack anyone whose religion is against theirs, as well as to only use that religion when its convenient ( and usually breaking all their religious rules in private). It would also make me wonder who was running my country, the person I elected or the head of his church? Should a good Catholic president follow the will of the people, or the will of the Pope? Keep religion in the churches and in private.
It is the truly ironic thing about America.
We are appalled and very afraid of Islamic extremism. We celebrated the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and it's puritanical laws.
Yet, we haven't learned anything from it. So many people in this country want to have this country rules by the laws of fundamentalist christianity.
They want a christian version of the taliban right here in America and they defty use propaganda and politics to achieve their goals.
I am a spiritual person and do have a very profound faith in God. But I would never use my faith as a measuring stick to judge and deny other people their pursuit of happiness.
FOR SALE: Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, U.S. Senator Obama, and (D-Punjab) U.S. Senator BILLARY. JAX sold us out to Toyota. Rev. Al recently sold us out to Wal-Mart, Vatican, SLC Mormon Church (apologizing), Mexican gov't, ag and construction industries, etc. Sharpton has joined forces ($$$'s) with Wal-Mart to re-energize the recently defeated "INS Shamnesty" legislation.
Obama proposed an amendment to the recently defeated "INS Shamnesty" legislation, which ease employers INS verification of their criminal illegal Mexican employees. BILLARY maybe on to something with this guy. His amendment flies in the face of our need to know who is in this country for national security reasons. Furthermore, criminal illegal Mexicans are stealing jobs from blacks (Denver-15% and NOLA-50% unemployment rates), nullifying our votes (Denver RTD board, 13 whites/2 Latinos), retarding black students' achievements due to their non-English speaking students, resegregating our neighborhoods, stealing federal funded contracts and jobs (T-REX, Fas TRacks, Fitz redevelopment, etc.), organized crime, etc.
Insult to injury, is Ritter, BILLARY, and Bill Gates, "LOVE" of criminal illegal Hindu-Indians. THese "white-collar" slaves are being pimped and exploited to further harm black folks and increas our already staggering social and economic misery-index. It is mind-boggling that Ritter subjected me to his illegals, who decided I couldn't get a federal funded "veep" job at Metro State College. Dataman, Inc. (india-based and owned) is just another example where Ritter is wronfully appropriating federal and state funds. I had a 10 point disabled vet federal preference for this job. I don't recall seeing either BILLARY, Ritter, or Gates, during any of my 3 deployments to Vietnam. Thanks, Groff, Jones, Marshall, and T.Carroll.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandvetbennies on July 26, 2007 08:18 AMMaybe someday you'll want to vote for somebody who wants what's best for the country instead of what's best for you and your beliefs.
Posted by Larry on July 26, 2007 08:25 AMcjc,
Excellent letter. And an excellent way of illustrating the complexity of the problem as well.
The letter writer does, I think, sort of 'give it away" in his last paragraph, where he mentions his own religious position and then remarks: " . . . I would also want someone who BELIEVES like me." (Emphasis added.) This is the real heart of his posting.
His form of religion is, presumably, "right", while Romney's is, presumably, "wrong". Thus, HE is free to criticize; and such criticism is NOT "bigotry". On the other hand, however, those who would look upon a political candidate as being one who should deal with "issues" only - again presumably secular and political "issues" - should not criticize HIS position, since his " . . . faith is core to who I am."
And, those of us who vote for candidates on a basis other than that of first considering their "religious" qualities, " . . . don't have a clue."
This involuted, and convoluted, self-righteousness is typical of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ claque that has, more or less, taken over the Republican Party; and is seeking to tear down the foundations of our Republic, in favor of a benighted regression into superstitious Theocracy.
Article VI, of the Constitution of the United States, very clearly answers the letter writer's pretended grievances concerning not having religion considered as a primary cause for elections: " . . . but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
For the Republican Party, however, the Constitution is considered to be, "just another damned piece of paper." And the letter writer is merely emphasizing this view of our Nation's government; and of the American political process today as it "ought to be" for those who claim to be "Christians".
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 08:41 AMGrouch:
The letter writer said nothing about having an issue with religion not being a primary cause in elections. The point of the letter was merely to illustrate the simple point that if he believes a certain way, it goes without saying that he's going to vote for someone who has the same values and beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with that. The letter writer has every right to vote any way he sees fit for any reason, or to not vote at all if he so chooses. If you or I don't agree with someone's reasoning for casting their vote a particular way, then fine, but that doesn't make them wrong.
40acres:
Relax, man. Democrats are not trying to keep the black man down. Neither are immigrants, here legally or illegally. Ilegal immigrants are trying to get work. It has nothing to do with black people. Democrats are pandering to illegal immigrants to get their votes, and also to appease their base because the left is sympathetic to illegal aliens. Again, nothing to do with black people. There is no conspiracy. The man is not trying to bring you down. Take a deep breath and chill, you're going to hurt yourself.
When I was growing up in Michigan, Romney's father was our Governor. Everyone knew he was Mormon, and believe me, if he had shown any favoritism, it would have been jumped on immediately. Romney revitalized the state and brought it out of a depression.
I don't know if Mitt would or would not be a good President but it would be unfair to disqualify him on the basis of his religion.
Posted by CWW on July 26, 2007 09:22 AMBigotry comes in all forms, and Mr. Dillard in his letter provides a great example of this.
I believe the comment by Larry is excellent, and Thomas expressed in his comments what is wrong with this country, however, Old Grouch by quoting ArticleVI of the Constitution as well as other comments went even further. They are all to be commended for being able to think intellignetly, unlike the letter writer.
Posted by A True American on July 26, 2007 09:29 AM...religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. - James Madison
Posted by Stan B on July 26, 2007 09:34 AMI've said in a previous forum on Romney...
I will not vote against him because he is Mormon.
But I will not vote for him when he uses his faith as some type of character reference for the job of president, which he already has.
Romney may be a mormon by faith, but he is a politician to the bone. He had proven, time and again, that he will say whatever he thinks the majority of voters wnat to hear.
As governor of liberal Massachusetts he knew it was in his best interests to support reproductive freedom and equality for gay couples as far as he could while stilll calling himself "conservative".
As candidate for president, his position on these and other issues has conveniently shifted with the changing demographic of trying to appeal to broader base of GOP voters.
The man may be "religious", but his lack of personal integrity on his stands on issues makes me question just how "faithful" he is.
Posted by Thomas on July 26, 2007 10:43 AMThomas:
If you're looking for a candidate that does not play politics and change positions based on what is in his own best interest as far as winning elections, don't bother voting because you're never gonna find one in any party.
Belief in faith initiative is religion's mandate as with ultimate initiatives as 9/11 and Bush's attack on Iraq because God ordered both fanatics to kill humans. Romney is in the same caste as Bush as all Republican Presidential aspirants except for Ron Paul.
Deicide Corner: A woman who fears the Lord is to be praised: For all you do his bloods for you.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of Freethought today) on July 26, 2007 11:44 AMI think that everybody wants to vote for someone "who believes like me". I want to vote for someone who has liberal beliefs; then, there are those poor souls who want to vote for someone with conservative beliefs.
But I really don't know how to articulate where to draw the line between those beliefs I would take into the ballot box and those I would not. It's sort of like pornography and not knowing how to define it but knowing it when you see it.
While I shy away from using the word "religious" in connection with my own beliefs, I do consider that my belief in the need and importance of lending a hand to children and the less fortunate is a spiritual as well as a political belief, and one I would take into the ballot box.
And yet there is the important question of what I would do with that belief in the ballot box. I would certainly favor a candidate who had a similar belief. But not a candidate who wanted to in some way try to require such a belief.
Anyhow, I've gotten myself about as confused as I want to be this morning, so I'll close. All I have to say is that for me it is a difficult issue to talk about in simplistic or precise terms.
I agree with the letter writer whole-heartedly. I certainly would never vote for a fundamentalist of any religion, they are the ignorant scum of the earth.
Posted by on July 26, 2007 12:22 PMYou have to love it though, folks fighting over "I`m a better Christian then him".
Posted by Sharon B. on July 26, 2007 01:02 PMI'm reminded of the story of the politician, way back when, who was giving a stump speech from the little stage on the back of a train's caboose. He'd about finished promising and was going inside when a loud voice asked, "yeah but how do you feel about abortion?". The politician hesitated a moment, and then shouted back, just before going back inside, "Sir, I believe about it just like you do".
Posted by Truth on July 26, 2007 01:07 PMYou have to love it though, folks fighting over "I`m a better Christian then him".
Posted by Sharon B. on July 26, 2007 01:02 PM
It's just proof, Sharon, that religion in the modern world, especially in the U.S., is little more than a status symbol.
We've passed the days of "my god is more powerful than your god" and have now sunk to the depths that you noted..."I'm more or a better christian than you are".
It's not about spirituality anymore.
You don't have to get dressed to the nines and go to church every Sunday to be close to God...but there are just way too many people who will judge you harshly if you don't. That's what we've become.
Posted by Thomas on July 26, 2007 01:11 PMDoes anybody remember when John F. Kennedy was running for president? He was a Irish Catholic and the questions about that flew hot and heavy in every media outlet there was. The Republican party tried to use that fact to influence voters by employing scare tactics like, will he allow the Pope to influence his decision making process, will seperation of church and state become a thing of the past, will he try to fund catholic schools through the federal budget and even, will he try to make Catholicism the state religion. It is also my belief if Kennedy were a repulican the democrates would have pulled the same stunts. Both parties are oh so capable of using the same dirty tricks and scare tactics in the quest for the heady power and control of high political office.
But, those were different times; politics, while just as dirty in the inside, was more polite and even genteel on the outside because the public would only stand so much bad taste from their politicians. If they stepped over the bounds of public acceptance it was not thought of as a minor mistake, it was a direct reflection on the character of the man.
It was that fact and, of course, the unlimited funds available to Kennedy which allowed him to underplay his catholic background untill it became for all intents and purposes a non issue and proceed to present his brilliantly thought out campaign as the modern, progressive and young thinking candidate.
Today is not then, today the gloves are off. If a politician is running for any office in City, County or United States government these days he can count on the press or the opposition finding out how much he burped as a baby. And if he makes the mistake of publically saying what his religion is, automatically that will become the core issue of his campaign. I think any politician who makes that fundemental mistake doesn't have the sense to run a dog pound never mind this country. The first rule of politics is, don't out anything about yourself, let the press and/or your political enemies do it for you, that way you, if you have done your homework and put all the cards on your supporters table, are prepared with well thoughtout answers and, more importantly, can claim that the opposition is making an issue out of something that has nothing to do with what it takes to do the job. This will also get you, believe it or not, additional sympathy votes. In other words never give the opposition anything.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 26, 2007 01:51 PMI do take a candidates religion into account. I will never vote for a mohammedan.
Posted by Truth on July 26, 2007 04:01 PM"I do take a candidates religion into account. I will never vote for a mohammedan.
Posted by Truth on July 26, 2007 04:01 PM"
Gee whiz, yet another poster who wishes so badly that he was me that he posts in my name. Let me know your address and I'll autograph one of my dirty socks and send it to you.
Posted by Truth on July 26, 2007 06:29 PMJust imagine having an intelligent, well read, experienced person for president.
Also imaging a candidate of moderate stature and not very good looking.
All I want right now is the money they all spend on looking pretty.
Thomas, I always think that there is an inverse relationship between obvious public morality and private behavior.
I wouldn`t mind a religious person in office if they take their advice from people and not God.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 26, 2007 08:15 PMSharon B,
" I always think that there is an inverse relationship between obvious public morality and private behavior".
I agree, If what the best presidents we've ever had did in private, had been exposed to the public, this country would not of survived. Why people require one who attains the lofty office of President of the United States of America to, of a sudden, adopt sainthood, I will never know. What's even less understandable, is when their human imperfectives are exposed, the public rises up in surprise and indignation that the president could have deceived them so.
I agree the public has the right to hold all politicians to a higher standard because they hold our future, so to speak, in their hands. That said, we also have to recognize that they are, after all, human beings just like us and subject to the errors in judgement we all experience.
I think, baring felonious actions, crimes of moral turpitude or greed and corruption, it would be in the publics best interests to not know the extent of their personal indulges. Why should things they do that have absolutely no effect on their ability to get the job they were elected to do done, be held up as reason to question their ability to do the job they were elected to do.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 27, 2007 03:50 AMMy impression is that when a president misbehaves in his private life, people aren't reacting to the misbehavior so much as to their opinion of the president's policies. Thus, while most people criticized Clinton to one degree or another, the ones who really got after him were those who really hated him well before Monica. The reason he retained much of his popularity through it all was not because people condoned his private actions but because they favored his public policies.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 07:59 AMI have used this name long before I ever came here. As far as truth goes, I don't see your name on it. I tell the truth. I would never vote for a mohammedan.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 08:33 AMShow me your underwear, Mitt.
"Where's the beef?"
"You're fired."
Et al.
Interesting: Truth thought his was in copywrite. Must not forget: Christians save their most vicious attacks for each other.
In the end, it all comes down to the simple matter of what some call the "politics of religion".
There are those for whom a religious 'litmus test" determines the value of a candidate for political office. Among the questions most commonly found as part of this "litmus test" are:
1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you support the Supreme Court Decision in Roe vs. Wade?
To just list 2 of the most prominent.
These, as well as the rest of the "litmus test" approach to political candidates, are RELIGIOUS questions. The first is very obviously so, asking as it does for a "belief". The second is, perhaps, less obvious. But the "right answer" depends upon the RELIGIOUS idea of the "morality of abortion"; and reflects the underlying set of superstitions that are at root of the belief system of the questioner.
The letter writer has clearly indicated that, for him, this kind of RELIGIOUS particularity - i.e., the "right answers" to the "litmus test" - is more important than anything else when voting for a POLITICAL office. And, further, he has also clearly indicated that those who would not apply a RELIGIOUS test - i.e., those who would vote on the basis of secular political issues, of concern to the Nation as a whole - "don't have a clue". Which is to say, these voters do not engage in HIS kind of religious politics for the benefit of superstition, ignorance, and stupidity.
The letter writer clearly draws the lines - i.e., RELIGIOUS belief first vs. mere "clueless" issue oriented political ability and capability. And he wraps his position in the usual sniveling, whining, sanctiphonious lament that not immediately accepting HIS position is, somehow, "abusing", or "persecuting", or otherwise challenging "christian" belief/thought/superiority/values/etc. While at one and the same time insisting that his own abuse - and the abuse of others of his ilk - of someone else's religion, "is NOT bigotry".
Pick out any auditorium, or store front, on any street corner in the United States, and go in on a Sunday morning to hear the Elmer Gantry bang the Book and bellow the message. It's all the same - the politics of religion.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 10:27 AMSo the guy believes in fairy stories and some questionable myths, or maybe he just says he does because people seem happier with that.
The question to me isn’t really the religious beliefs he holds, but how those influence his decisions and understanding in the public sphere.
Does it make him compassionate and respectful, or does it make him cut funding for anything that doesn’t fit with a view that the planet is 6,000 years old?
Does his belief in a spirit in the sky make him more careful about how he treats others and staying faithful to his wife, or does it make him hesitant to fund drugs that may interfere with the spirits plans, or sending robotic space exploration vehicles out in case one hits the spirit in the eye?
My biggest concern would be with what he does and doesn’t do rather than what he might believe.
I think these last two posts pretty much sum it up.
We need a card carrying agnostic whose symbol is a giant question mark, when it comes to religion and God.
Bango, did you know a skink is a little animal?
Posted by Sharon B. on July 27, 2007 02:08 PMGrimes: "Interesting: Truth thought his was in copywrite. Must not forget: Christians save their most vicious attacks for each other."
Grimes, you really need to have the doctor check your medications to see if that is the cause of your delusions. It could even have something to do with your fetish for men's underwear.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 04:16 PMMy God Truth! Don't you get my drift? I'm thinking that: "Show me your underwear, Mitt," could become an aphorism of sorts. It is merely jest. Jest, Truth, jest: No harm intended. I didn't intend to malign you; I simply thought it was jestful that you thought someone was posturing as you ~~~ sort of like Jehovah posturing as Jesus Christ or Allah posturing as Jehovah to which these dudes confess. Chill out, Truth.
Deicide Corner: “One of the worst sexists was the revered sage Confucius. This respected religious leader said, 'One hundred women are not worth a single testicle.'” -- Meg Bowman, Why We Burn: Sexism Exorcised
Posted by Richard Grimes, deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of Freethought Today on July 28, 2007 12:00 PMSharon, yes thanks.
Various families of rather attractive lizards of genus Eumeces, Eulamprus, Eqernia, Scincella.
Wonderful critters really and do a good job of sorting out pests. ;)
I think I have a crush on Old Grouch.
Posted by Sue DohNim on July 29, 2007 06:51 AMWell, Grimes, if you really were just likening me to Jesus Christ or Allah, then I apologize and congratulate on your excellent judgment. By the way, I'm throwing an extra virgin into the mix just for you. But I do want to check her out first myself.
More seriously, I did get a bit carried away, didn't I? There are times when I fail to let being prudent get in the way of a chance to be sarcastic.
Posted by Truth on July 29, 2007 10:17 AMOn the subject of Old Grouch: why does his name appear in blue while the rest of us are a horrible red? I can't believe that it is to make my job of finding his posts easier... that would be like TOTALLY wierd. hahaha....
Anyway... on to the subject of the letter writer. I wonder if Bryant Dillard would have been written this if a strong (and frighteningly good looking) Muslim were running for president? (I point out the 'good-looking part because studies have proven that many people vote according to LOOKS alone!!! Oh the fear in my heart now!)
Posted by Sue DohNim on July 29, 2007 12:19 PMOn the subject of Old Grouch: why does his name appear in blue while the rest of us are a horrible red? I can't believe that it is to make my job of finding his posts easier... that would be like TOTALLY wierd. hahaha....
Anyway... on to the subject of the letter writer. I wonder if Bryant Dillard would have written this if a strong (and frighteningly good looking) Muslim were running for president? (I point out the 'good-looking part because studies have proven that many people vote according to LOOKS alone!!! Oh the fear in my heart now!)
Posted by Sue DohNim on July 29, 2007 12:20 PMSue DohNim,
Those of us who fill out the little posting blank of "Web address" come out in blue, which indicates a hyperlink to the website for those who want to use it.
Some of these are personal websites; and some are websites that serve as blogs and/or informational postings, etc., for groups, of which the addressee is a member, or supporter, or whatever. Not all the blue posting signatures go through. Some come up with the, "This page cannot be displayed" notice, while others bring up another form of "error notice". This seems to depend on the settings of one's browser, as well as on the accuracy of the "Web address" as posted.
There have been times when - for reasons beyond me, since I'm not much of a computer "nerd" - when my screen name has come up in red, with no hyperlink; and times when it hasn't shown up at all. The causes for this are beyond me, though I usually check to see that the little identification boxes are filled, and the "Remember your personal info?" circle has the correct dot in the"Yes" part.
Thanks for the earlier notice, and appreciation.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 29, 2007 02:50 PMAnxiious to try Old Grouch M.O. in the Web address I'll enter only entering a secular Amen can decipher it:
Deicide Corner: “. . . it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many.”
-- Ron Reagan (1958-), speech on stem cell research, Democratic National Convention, July 27, 2004
Mr. Grimes,
If you like what you see when you manage to get to the site, drop an email address into the Guest Book; and I will try to make aggrangements to send you a disc of materials that have either been on the site, or are results of further "inspiration".
Posted by Old Grouch on July 30, 2007 02:18 PM