I'll Just Leave This Here

[Hyena Dandy]

i dont remember hearing in american politics that religion is a requirement, but maybe i'm wrong.
if the people insist on voting on politicians with religious backgrounds, then the problem is with the people not the politician.
just random

Or the religion.

[siead_lietrathua]

Or the religion.

um, no. the us could be a country of pastafarians that only insisted on voting for other pastafarians. it would still be the people not the religion that is the issue. people want to vote for others from the same little niche they fit in.

[Mytical]

^^ well said. The institution is also stacked heavily in favor of those with money, or with those who have friends with money. Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. Now tell me, how many actual elections has religion come up? So, tell me if it doesn't come up in the vast majority of elections, how do you KNOW that only christians win?

[siead_lietrathua]

i see it come up as either a background for a person, or in the generic god bless americas they all parrot out. *shrug*
there are very few that slap people in the face with it and most are not overly liked.

[Andara Bledin]

Religion absolutely comes up. Maybe not in the ways some people expect, but how can anyone deny religion is a factor to the voting populace when Bachman had an ad stating she was "biblically qualified" to be president? Obviously it matters to enough people that her campaign thought that would help her chances.

And, no, it's not the system or the religion at fault; it's the idiots with the votes who won't accept someone different, and it's the fault of the assholes who won't vote at all allowing those idiots to speak for them.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

um, no. the us could be a country of pastafarians that only insisted on voting for other pastafarians. it would still be the people not the religion that is the issue. people want to vote for others from the same little niche they fit in.

Is exactly what I said?

You said'blame the people,not the politicians' and I was continuing that sentence (blame the people,not the politicians or the religion)

[siead_lietrathua]

ohh i misunderstood, my apologies Hyena Dandy.

[HYHYBT]

Religion absolutely comes up. Maybe not in the ways some people expect, but how can anyone deny religion is a factor to the voting populace when Bachman had an ad stating she was "biblically qualified" to be president? Obviously it matters to enough people that her campaign thought that would help her chances.

Her chances were so poor already by the time she came up with that that it was obviously a desperation move; nothing really useful for judging unless it had worked.

As for what voters will accept... I don't recall anyone further from Christianity than a Mormon running for office, much less one who wouldn't be considered far-fringe regardless of religion (including lack thereof.)

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, one of the more recent Libertarian's vying for President was a practicing Druid.

Oh, wait, did you actually mean someone who had a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Because there has not been a single non christian president of the united states? Your arguments have been all over the map first. From, 'well, you can always lie' to 'well, noone is going to ask' to 'well, PROVE that christians are voted for for their christianity'.

Methinks you have no problem with this particular discrimination, and don't want to acknowledge it only because it might lead to DOING something about said discrimination.

So far we have circled around to the problem being with people who...*gasp* act on their religious beliefs, which has been my assertion all along. Religion is a false belief that impacts my life.

[Kheldarson]

Religion is a belief upon which people act. Don't bring false into it. The issue is that everybody has a chance to vote upon whatever they believe in. You don't like how a person's voting record is? Don't vote for them.

The unfortunate thing is that the media and people are idiots who'd rather do the easy thing than actually research the topics to make an informed decision. You want to change something to get better elections? Focus on that instead of ranting about how religion is evil and affects you because people vote the easy way. Make sure the people around you are spending their time researching the candidates so they don't just vote the easy way. That'll be a step towards fixing the political system in the long run.

[HYHYBT]

Actually, one of the more recent Libertarian's vying for President was a practicing Druid.

Oh, wait, did you actually mean someone who had a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

The latter... but that doesn't show they have no chance *because* of being a Druid; Libertarian candidates don't have a chance anyway.

Has there been anyone who would be considered a viable candidate in every other way except for being other than Christian?

[Sleepwalker]

Khel: ...like researching the validity of the religious litmus test? It's funny about how you say I should encourage people to vote based on facts, as long as those facts don't have to do with religion. It isn't about what is easy, it is about what is right. I don't care if people spend years meditating on how god hate fags, to enshrine that belief in law because of their false religion is wrong.

HY: Next you'll be wanting me to prove that blacks and women are actually smart enough to compete with white men by showing how there was totes a woman who could have played Einstein's role in WW2 era physics.

[Sleepwalker]

Khel: You are implying that people vote for religious candidates without endorsing their actual positions. Religious leaders tend to espouse the bigotry of their religions, be it anti marriage laws or attacks on contraception rights. It is not just a tshirt.

[Kheldarson]

Hm...and we seem to have a polar audience over a couple of issues: homosexuality and abortion. I wonder what the politicians (who have no real desire to fix the system we're in or interest in tackling the really tough problems there's no insta-fix for) are going to address as a safe area to talk about which allows them to espouse views their target audience agrees with yet will never get fixed during their current tenancy.

I'm thinking gay marriage and abortion, how about you?

Politicians espouse views that they think their voters will vote for. If they know that their voters will vote for them because of a religious view, then that's what they'll bring up. If they don't, then it's not a topic.

I think Bradbury described it best with Fahrenheit 451 where the wife is indicating she'll vote the popular party because he's prettier and the other party should do better next time. People vote this way all the time. That's the only thing I'm implying. My poli sci prof called it single-issue voting. People choose one item in a list that they care about and vote that way no matter what else a candidate stands for. Because it's easier. The fact that the more popular topics to care about happen to be religiously charged is almost a side factor. They're still easier to debate and decided on then, say, what's your economic policy?

So, again, religion is not the issue. Educating the voting population is.