I'll Just Leave This Here

[AdminAssistant]

Yeah, Fiance is leaning closer and closer towards Ron Paul. I told him I could never vote for him because he's all about small government...except when it comes to healthcare for women. Then he accuses me of being a 'single-issue' voter. Sorry, I can't vote for a politician who wants to know the details of what's going on in my vagina.

[Sleepwalker]

Uh huh. Again, you are taking religion off the table as an issue for people to be 'educated' about. Special pleading.

[Duelist925]

Sleepwalker, I agree with Khel--and I thing religion shouldnt be what people educate themselves about for voting.

Why?

Because IT SHOULDN"T FUCKING MATTER.

They shouldn't be educating themselves about a candidates religion--be it christian, atheist, druidic, pastafarian, discordianism, or worshipper of freaking Corellon Larethian.

As far as politics goes, whatever a persons religion is shouldn't matter, so no, its not something a vote should educate themselves about as far as the people their voting for.

They SHOULD be educating themselves about the candidates stances on the issues they care about, such as economic policies. Not bs over religion.

Maybe then politicians would have to start actually working, rather than pull off bs debates over abortion, gay marriage, or similar tripe that doesnt matter as far as running a country is concerned.

[Kheldarson]

^ What he said.

I'm taking religion off the table because religion doesn't equate in politics. I've only allowed religion to dictate a choice once in my voting. And that's because the candidate was being openly Catholic...yet his stance on a number of issues that weren't in line with the Church he said he supported. How did I judge this? Well, on top of not particularly caring for either he or his opponent, and not really liking where either stood on any issue (frankly the party lines on the real important issues are just too close), that stood out to me as being kind of hypocritical and if he was doing that with his private life, how would he be in public office? So I voted on his opponent.

But, that was only the final deciding factor after realizing that neither candidate really appealed to me on any stance, and I don't abstain from voting just because all the candidates suck ass.

But final point? Do I go and find out what religion the candidates are? No, but if they mention it in a debate, I might remember it later. Should we find out? No. While it might end up being a final straw kind of decision like with my example, it doesn't really matter. It's just a play to the emotions. Voters should be told where candidates stand on policy...and religion is not policy.

[Sleepwalker]

Religion IS policy. You yourself know damn well the catholic church has specific stances on policy, as you dinged a candidate for NOT following the church on them.

That it SHOULDN'T matter fucking well ignores that it DOES. Someone belongs to an organization that supports certain policies and opposes others, that bloody well doesn't get a pass. You can try to magically handwave religious organizations away from consideration, but I am not going to swallow that line of bullshit. That you believe that religion should be exempt does not make religion irrelevant. It just means you are apathetic about it.

Seriously, your argument here is that 'religion isn't policy because I didn't hear the guy bring it up in a debate'. My god, your head must spin every time Obama does something he didn't explicitly spell out in his election campaign.

[Sleepwalker]

Sleepwalker, I agree with Khel--and I thing religion shouldnt be what people educate themselves about for voting.

Why?

Because IT SHOULDN"T FUCKING MATTER.

They shouldn't be educating themselves about a candidates religion--be it christian, atheist, druidic, pastafarian, discordianism, or worshipper of freaking Corellon Larethian.

As far as politics goes, whatever a persons religion is shouldn't matter, so no, its not something a vote should educate themselves about as far as the people their voting for.

They SHOULD be educating themselves about the candidates stances on the issues they care about, such as economic policies. Not bs over religion.

Maybe then politicians would have to start actually working, rather than pull off bs debates over abortion, gay marriage, or similar tripe that doesnt matter as far as running a country is concerned.

This shit IS what people care about. People care about abortion, gay marriage, and RELIGION. That YOU don't care about it does not mean it is not the engine that runs elections.

[HYHYBT]

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.

Stated as if mere laziness were the only possible reason, ever, to discount politicians over one issue.

[Kheldarson]

I've got a book full of poli sci studies somewhere in the shed. I know one article was on single issue voting cuz we had to write about it. I might go try to dig it out.

And no, laziness isn't the only reason. There's apathy, lack of benefits, tradition...there's any number of reasons why any given person may or may not vote and may or may not do any actual research on the candidates.

[Duelist925]

This shit IS what people care about. People care about abortion, gay marriage, and RELIGION. That YOU don't care about it does not mean it is not the engine that runs elections.

Ok, thats a fair point.

My point, however, is that is SHOULDNT. People shouldnt care about a politicians religion. Careing about a politicians religion is like caring about your plumbers sexuality. For a politician, it wont affect how they do their job.

Frankly, I HATE the bs I see on tv whenever I flip to a political debate. So much shit is there that shouldnt be.

So no, people should not educate themselves about the politicians religion. Im not giving religion a pass with this--Im saying people are fuckwits for carring about this shit when it comes to who they think should run a country/county/state/whatever.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think it's a bit silly to claim that religion has no effect on policy. Religion does provide something in the worldview, and that's something that will effect policy.

But it's not something you can blanket. Even if you know you're dealing with a devout, evangelical, Baptist Christian, Fred Clark will not give you the same devout, Evangelical, Baptist Christian that Rick Perry will.

I think you should consider religion when selecting a candidate, but only as far as their religion influences their politics. Just saying "I want a Christian" can give you, well, Fred Clark or Rick Perry.

That someone other than a Christian starts several steps behind is a shame, but that's hardly Christianity's fault.

Really, every person interprets their faith differently. So you should consider religion, yes. But you shouldn't consider a religion a single, monolithic thing.

[Sleepwalker]

Religion is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality ends with you and whomever you want to bang. Religion prescribes and proscribes a huge range of actions.

[Panacea]

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?

For the Presidentcy? While every President has technically been a Christian, many have not been overly religious and certainly did not wear it on their sleeves like candidates do now.

Read up on the Jefferson Bible for some interesting insights as to what Jefferson really thought about Christianity.

Kennedy was not considered a mainstream Christian and his Catholic faith was considered a liability until he was actually elected (Catholics were the old Mormons in politics).

Joe Leiberman, who ran for VP, is a Jew.

Does religion matter? Only to Republicans, and only since Ronald Reagan popularized it because he used it so effectively to bring social conservatives into the party and energize what had previously been a mostly fiscal club.

Do you have to be a Christian to become President. Currently yes, though I suspect Democratic voters and even independant voters care less and less about this.

If you're a Republican, you have to wear your religion on your sleeve and what flavor matters tremendously. Mitt Romney would be more popular than he is if he were a mainstream Christian.

Religion is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality ends with you and whomever you want to bang. Religion prescribes and proscribes a huge range of actions.

Not quite Religion sets a system of moral values that believers must practice consistently. You may or may not agree with the values . . . but you cannot criticize someone who adheres to their beliefs consistently.

My problem with religion in politics is the politicians seldom adhere to the values they claim to espouse, and want to force those values on non-believers. I respect someone who is, for example, a Jehovah's Witness even though I don't care for their beliefs, if that person consistently sticks to their principles. It's when they turn those values into a political weapon that I get turned off.

Religion belongs in church, not in the state house.

[Sleepwalker]

Of course I can criticize people who adhere to their beliefs constantly. Religion is not some magic wand that makes your actions ok.

[Hyena Dandy]

Religion is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality ends with you and whomever you want to bang. Religion prescribes and proscribes a huge range of actions.

Wh-huh?

Who are you replying to there?

Is that to me?

Because... Yes, I guess?

But what I was saying is that religion isn't monolithic. And I presented an example of two people who come from (and adhere to) the same religious tradition as an example of that.

Religions form a good part of someone's world-view, yes. However, how someone interprets their religion is just as important as what religion they have chosen to go with.

Religion will effect how you interact with someone. But everyone will choose to interpret their faiths in a slightly different way. So rather than just learning 'Is this candidate Christian/Jewish/What have you' you need to figure out what being Christian/Jewish/What have you means to THEM.

[Panacea]

Of course I can criticize people who adhere to their beliefs constantly. Religion is not some magic wand that makes your actions ok.

I didn't say it does. But I have more respect for people who have a stated set of values and stick to them, than those who have no values at all or who don't adhere to the values they claim to believe in.

Religion provides a framework, a good one as the Golden Rule runs through many religious philosophies. If someone claims to adhere to a set of values through religion, but doesn't really, the fault is in the person not the faith.