NationStates Jolt Archive

I belive this should end up a nice discussion so lets begin.

Should religion be somthing you look for when electing some one to a political position. If yes/no please explain.

As for my own personal thoughts I belive no, because religion will effect the person on diffrent issues such as gay marraige and abortion, I belive religion can cut down a persons ability to be a free-thinker and limits them to certain thoughts and idea's.

I don't really care if someone is religious or not when it comes to who I vote for, I care more about where they stand on the issues that are important to me. Now, as far as what I feel about those issues, I try to keep my religion out of it as much as possible. I want to live in a free country, even if that means that some people are going to have the freedom to do things that I think are morally wrong. ;)

Absolutely Not, A persons religion or lack of it should have no bearing on their suitability for public office, their suitability should be based on their views.

If however they wish to play the God card, then they should prepare themselves for any backlash, espescially in the field of clouded judgement or predisposition to a particular group.

another quick question are their any Moslem Hindu or Atheist Senior Politicians in the US( I know we have some in the UK) , I am not too sure they all seem to try and eek out the Religious vote somehow.

As for my own personal thoughts I belive no, because religion will effect the person on diffrent issues such as gay marraige and abortion, I belive religion can cut down a persons ability to be a free-thinker and limits them to certain thoughts and idea's. Ach, parties'll whore themselves out to any position, no matter what their official ideology is.

I wouldn't vote for anyone based on their religion - I'd vote for them based on how much I trust them and their stance on issues. As opposed to the USA, in the UK, being honest about your religion may well be a sign of - well, honesty.

If a person is religious then, for me, there is ultimately a question mark over their powers of judgement and reasoning. Someone like Bush is an extreme example but I'd be very unlikely to vote for anyone of any religious persuasion. I'd rather not see them in positions of power and influence outside their own respective religious establishments.

If you are religious, chances are you will look for candidates who will vote your conscience. Ergo, they will be similar in religion.

The same goes for non-religious people. When religious people are all that are running for office, you choose based on their history of voting or the smooth speeches that you hope aren't 100% lies.

I look for people who hold our freedoms and individual rights sacred. (US) Right now that is mostly the Libertarian Party. :(

If a person is religious then, for me, there is ultimately a question mark over their powers of judgement and reasoning. Someone like Bush is an extreme example but I'd be very unlikely to vote for anyone of any religious persuasion. I'd rather not see them in positions of power and influence outside their own respective religious establishments. So Blair, Kennedy (yes I know he's out now) and Cameron are now out of the question?

Think about it - any ideology puts a question mark over people's powers of judgement and reasoning, be it fascism, socialism, anarchism, whatever.

They can be religious all they want, that's not what I would base my decision on. I would not, however, vote for a person who would mention his/her religion in political speeches, who would make decisions based on his/her religion or who would openly advocate her religion.

I don't care whether a candidate is of any particular religion, or not religious at all. When thinking about politics, I do my best to think in political, not religious terms. The only time I really give a candidate's religion any serious thought is when they use their religion (or, more importantly, the religion of their target audience) to justify doing or espousing something politically that I don't agree with. Even then, it's not that they are religious, it's that they're using religion (theirs or other people's) as a political tool for the purposes of doing something disagreeable politically.

another quick question are their any Moslem Hindu or Atheist Senior Politicians in the US( I know we have some in the UK) , I am not too sure they all seem to try and eek out the Religious vote somehow.

Actually were looking at alot of christians or catholics. Im personally sick of Bush who is using his christianity to gain votes. Now would be a good time for an assasination ^.^.

I belive this should end up a nice discussion so lets begin.

Should religion be somthing you look for when electing some one to a political position. If yes/no please explain.

As for my own personal thoughts I belive no, because religion will effect the person on diffrent issues such as gay marraige and abortion, I belive religion can cut down a persons ability to be a free-thinker and limits them to certain thoughts and idea's.
"Should religion be something you look for when electing someone to a political position?"

Yes, you should look for it, just like you should look for alcoholism, schizophrenia, dementia, and other forms of mental incapacity. Superstitious beliefs should be regarded as a warning sign, not a qualification.

So Blair, Kennedy (yes I know he's out now) and Cameron are now out of the question?

Think about it - any ideology puts a question mark over people's powers of judgement and reasoning, be it fascism, socialism, anarchism, whatever.

You also missed out that if a person is a Rampant extreme atheist (such as myself) I would say that there should/would be a massive huge blinking fluorescent orange with purple stripes question mark above my head, although I would love to be elected, Free mental health places for all delusional people (including religious) :p yes I am a Fundi and I realise that my views are not the same as most others on here, but my fundamentalist attitude has been nurtured by the fires of religious zealots (unfortunately mnot literally)

"Should religion be something you look for when electing someone to a political position?"

Yes, you should look for it, just like you should look for alcoholism, schizophrenia, dementia, and other forms of mental incapacity. Superstitious beliefs should be regarded as a warning sign, not a qualification.

Bottle, you sound like person after my own beer. :D

to be honest it is almost like voting for a politician based on his starsign Numeralogical result Scrabble score or place of birth.

Of course religion matters. Religious morality is the highest form of good in this world. Without the guiding light of the Bible and Church how can we trust any leader to make the right descisions for their people? Without religion, political decisions would just be willy-nilly coin flipping. A political leader who doesn't share a similar allegiance to a higher power isn't a true leader at all.

Of course religion matters. Religious morality is the highest form of good in this world. Without the guiding light of the Bible and Church how can we trust any leader to make the right descisions for their people? Without religion, political decisions would just be willy-nilly coin flipping. A political leader who doesn't share a similar allegiance to a higher power isn't a true leader at all.

Troll, sarcasm or just plain naiv? Hmmm...

Troll, sarcasm or just plain naiv? Hmmm...
I'm going to take "full-blown batshit crazy" for 200, Alex...

I'm going to take "full-blown batshit crazy" for 200, Alex...

Doesn't really strike me as all that different than your or Puddytat's last posts, Bottle. Just on the other side of the coin.

Of course religion matters. Religious morality is the highest form of good in this world. Without the guiding light of the Bible and Church how can we trust any leader to make the right descisions for their people? Without religion, political decisions would just be willy-nilly coin flipping. A political leader who doesn't share a similar allegiance to a higher power isn't a true leader at all.

I couldn't read that without giggling, I raise your bat shit crazy, and go for Delusional/possibly Harmful to self and community

Doesn't really strike me as all that different than your or Puddytat's last posts, Bottle. Just on the other side of the coin.

True... But would you trust either of us in politics, on one hand you have a Religious nutter and the other an Atheist Nutter.

Problem is the Religious nutter would come out better in the polls. Religion has and is always a method of keeping people under control so is perfectly suited politics,

As long as they don't sacrifice logic for mythology then ok.

Religion in politics ruins a government. Their decisions become based on a religious view instead of the well-fare of the people. Having a religious figure in office can lead to "Holy Wars" and battles bent on a religious view and not on issues that help a nations economy.

True... But would you trust either of us in politics, on one hand you have a Religious nutter and the other an Atheist Nutter.

Problem is the Religious nutter would come out better in the polls. Religion has and is always a method of keeping people under control so is perfectly suited politics,

You've got a point there. If either a religious nutter or an atheist nutter was running, I wouldn't trust either enough to vote for them. More to do with the "nutter" part than anything else.

It's sad though, because you're right that the religious nutter (if they belonged to the right religion) would probably come out on top in the polls. In an ideal world, you'd both be laughed out of the running. Or assassinated by a moderate agnostic with a bolt-action rifle.

You've got a point there. If either a religious nutter or an atheist nutter was running, I wouldn't trust either enough to vote for them. More to do with the "nutter" part than anything else.

It's sad though, because you're right that the religious nutter (if they belonged to the right religion) would probably come out on top in the polls. In an ideal world, you'd both be laughed out of the running. Or assassinated by a moderate nutter with a bolt-action rifle.

Grrrrr You Goddamned Allahspit Vishnu sphincter of a moderate freeminded uber tolerant nutter and your pesky bolt action rifles.

If you took a poll, a majority of people in the united states would say their descisions are affected in some way by their belief in a higher power. Why should the president be any different if the people elect him?

Grrrrr You Goddamned Allahspit Vishnu sphincter of a moderate freeminded uber tolerant nutter and your pesky bolt action rifles.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Now, hold still while my friend reloads, please? :p

It doesn't particularly matter that they are religious, or what irrational fear-motivated viral meme they subscribe to - what matters is how they implement that in government. I wouldn't vote for anyone who might use religion instead of logic and reality to govern, or who uses religious justifications for their actions. That kind of thing leads to idiots like the Bush administration, who I've seen in quotes referring derogatorily to the "reality-based crowd."

It doesn't particularly matter that they are religious, or what irrational fear-motivated viral meme they subscribe to - what matters is how they implement that in government. I wouldn't vote for anyone who might use religion instead of logic and reality to govern, or who uses religious justifications for their actions. That kind of thing leads to idiots like the Bush administration, who I've seen in quotes referring derogatorily to the "reality-based crowd."

Why do you automatically assume that religious facts and ideals are somehow below reality. People should be guided by what they know to be true in their heart. That's leadership.

But kudos for knowing what a meme is.

"Should religion be something you look for when electing someone to a political position?"

Yes, you should look for it, just like you should look for alcoholism, schizophrenia, dementia, and other forms of mental incapacity. Superstitious beliefs should be regarded as a warning sign, not a qualification. Go Churchill!

Doesn't really strike me as all that different than your or Puddytat's last posts, Bottle. Just on the other side of the coin. Agreed.

Doesn't really strike me as all that different than your or Puddytat's last posts, Bottle. Just on the other side of the coin.

So, by your logic, people who feel that alcoholism probably interferes with a leader's ability to perform her/his job are "not all that different" from people who believe that all public officials should be alcoholics.

Interesting.

It doesn't particularly matter that they are religious, or what irrational fear-motivated viral meme they subscribe to - what matters is how they implement that in government. I wouldn't vote for anyone who might use religion instead of logic and reality to govern, or who uses religious justifications for their actions. That kind of thing leads to idiots like the Bush administration, who I've seen in quotes referring derogatorily to the "reality-based crowd."

Of course, having a hardcore, bitten-by-Jesus-as-a-child atheist using their hatred of religion instead of logic and reality to govern is no better, wouldn't you agree? That would lead to Stalinist "opiate of the masses" crap.

So, by your logic, people who feel that alcoholism probably interferes with a leader's ability to perform her/his job are "not all that different" from people who believe that all public officials should be alcoholics.

Interesting. If a politician is religious, then it could be the equivalent of having a quiet drinks party with friends and maybe taking a scotch and water to boost their confidence before speeches, rather than being an alcoholic.

If you took a poll, a majority of people in the united states would say their descisions are affected in some way by their belief in a higher power. Why should the president be any different if the people elect him?
The majority of people in America believe that Nick and Jessica's relationship is more important than the Plame scandal. Personally, I think it would be best if those elected to lead us represented the BEST we had to offer, as opposed to the lowest common denominator.

Go Churchill!
Go Kennedy (either the US president that stopped bullets with his head or Lib Dem Charles) wow if you remove alcoholism and general kinkiness we'd only have the fundi's left.

I want my politicians to have lived a bit and to be normal people with normal drives, and honest when required, I also prefer them not to call a spade a manual organic growth medium transportation device (unless they are sir Humphrey Appleton of course)

So, by your logic, people who feel that alcoholism probably interferes with a leader's ability to perform her/his job are "not all that different" from people who believe that all public officials should be alcoholics.

Interesting.

No, you big silly. By my logic, someone who equates religion with alcoholism, schizophrenia or dementia and would treat it the same way is as unfit to govern as someone who believes they were given a mandate by God to reconquer the Holy Land and burn teh witches.

See i belive it should. See if you dont share a commmon religion with your president you may or may not be equaly represented. For instance Im a Muslim but it is legal to drink in America, see if the president was Muslim then he would have at least try to outlaw it.

The majority of people in America believe that Nick and Jessica's relationship is more important than the Plame scandal. Personally, I think it would be best if those elected to lead us represented the BEST we had to offer, as opposed to the lowest common denominator.

Well then move to China. America is a democracy and it is and always will be run by the people. What makes you think your opinion is more relevant than anyone else's? Religion? -Arrogance- has no place in politics.

See i belive it should. See if you dont share a commmon religion with your president you may or may not be equaly represented. For instance Im a Muslim but it is legal to drink in America, see if the president was Muslim then he would have at least try to outlaw it. No, he wouldn't have to. If a Christian became President, would he have to try and outlaw insulting people or moneylending?

The drinking rule is for *Muslims* to follow.

See i belive it should. See if you dont share a commmon religion with your president you may or may not be equaly represented. For instance Im a Muslim but it is legal to drink in America, see if the president was Muslim then he would have at least try to outlaw it.

Exactly, but since the majority of people in America aren't then that law won't be passed.

Well then move to China. America is a democracy and it is and always will be run by the people. What makes you think your opinion is more relevant than anyone else's? Religion? -Arrogance- has no place in politics.

Sadly, arrogance is a one of the driving forces behind politics.

Well then move to China. America is a democracy and it is and always will be run by the people. What makes you think your opinion is more relevant than anyone else's?
Well, there is this pesky thing that involves knowing more about a particular subject than other people.

What makes a computer geek's opinion on computer safety more relevant than some one who doesn't use computers?

What makes a teacher's opinion on what works in a class room more relevant than some one sitting on the schoolboard who has never taught?

What makes a psychologist's opinion on some one more relevant than some one who doesn't have the doctorate?

If a Christian became President, would he have to try and outlaw insulting people or moneylending?

Not necessarily, but if he believes in his ideals and understands that the majority of his nation elected him he will.

Well, there is this pesky thing that involves knowing more about a particular subject than other people.

What makes a computer geek's opinion on computer safety more relevant than some one who doesn't use computers?

What makes a teacher's opinion on what works in a class room more relevant than some one sitting on the schoolboard who has never taught?

What makes a psychologist's opinion on some one more relevant than some one who doesn't have the doctorate?

Exactly, and who knows better what the people want than the people themselves? The laws are applying to them so they should be the only ones choosing what laws pass. The more direct the representation the more perfect the government.

Exactly, and who knows better what the people want than the people themselves? The laws are applying to them so they should be the only ones choosing what laws pass. The more direct the representation the more perfect the government.
My point was that the average American is an idiot. No one should be allowed to vote on shit without passing a competency test on the relevant issue: what the bill is about, the politician's political history and his platform, etc.

Well, there is this pesky thing that involves knowing more about a particular subject than other people.

What makes a computer geek's opinion on computer safety more relevant than some one who doesn't use computers?

What makes a teacher's opinion on what works in a class room more relevant than some one sitting on the schoolboard who has never taught?

What makes a psychologist's opinion on some one more relevant than some one who doesn't have the doctorate?

I'm so glad that this philosophy isn't applied to modern politics. Otherwise, a politician's vote would count for more than the vast majority of people's. I mean, who knows more about the subject of politics than a politician, right?

I don't really care if someone is religious or not when it comes to who I vote for, I care more about where they stand on the issues that are important to me. Now, as far as what I feel about those issues, I try to keep my religion out of it as much as possible. I want to live in a free country, even if that means that some people are going to have the freedom to do things that I think are morally wrong. ;)
Good answer, Ms. Smunkee! I couldn't have said it any better myself. :eek:

My point was that the average American is an idiot. No one should be allowed to vote on shit without passing a competency test on the relevant issue: what the bill is about, the politician's political history and his platform, etc.
This runs counter to most democratic thinking, which posits the "one-person, one-vote" approach. Since everyone, regardless of intellect, knowledge, race, religion, age, sex ( or virtually anything else except having been convicted of a felony ) still has to live with the actions taken by elected officials, why should they not be allowed to vote?

I would not vote/not vote for someone just because he/she is religious, or because of a specific religion he believes in.

But I would definetly not vote for someone who wants to apply religious "laws" into politics, or who is too much into his religion, because religion clouds the ability to think, and very quickly lead to fanatism.

For example, I still support Chavez for all the good he does, but his too many religious speach make me feel very bad. That he is a christian is fine for me, I don't care, but that he's mixing his faith and his political actions upsets me. That's probably the biggest thing I don't like in him. But well, no one is perfect ;)

This runs counter to most democratic thinking, which posits the "one-person, one-vote" approach. Since everyone, regardless of intellect, knowledge, race, religion, age, sex ( or virtually anything else except having been convicted of a felony ) still has to live with the actions taken by elected officials, why should they not be allowed to vote?

Right on, Eut.

Should religion be somthing you look for when electing some one to a political position. If yes/no please explain.

When looking at an election system I think that should be up to the individual voter. If they believe the guiding principles of their religion are the best way to run their country - that is their choice. One of the purposes of Constitutions is to prevent this from getting out of hand (so that the religious will not oppress the nonreligious).

I do however think that seperate religious parties, as found in almost every western country, are a good idea. Not "Rebublican with Christian values" - but simply "Christian".

I *personally* also think that only the persons who do not believe that soldiers will go to a much better place when they die should be allowed to become supreme army commander. I want them to value *this* life more, since that is what they will be ordering the soldiers to put on the line.

I would be more likely to vote for a humble Christian, Jew or Muslim who walks the walk than a nonbeliever... AS LONG AS that person was firmly in favor of the separation of church and state. In my experience, people who walk with God every day bring love, goodness and a greater perspective to everything they do. True moral virtue encourages people to set aside their own inclinations for the benefit of others. We could use more politicians like that.

HOWEVER, people in power who use religion as a justification for achieving their own ends (Bush, Osama, any number of others) are among the worlds greatest evils. That behavior is an abomination. A humble believer would subdue his own will and look for God's. A proud one would assume his having ascended to office constituted God's endorsement, and act however he saw fit. No matter what faith a man like that claimed to have, I would never vote for him.

I can't help but think that the point is really moot considering how unlikely it is for a truly dedicated Christian to succeed in politics. In reality the so called “moral issues” have no more or less political impact then environmentalist policy, it’s all the same.

I can't help but think that the point is really moot considering how unlikely it is for a truly dedicated Christian to succeed in politics.

Despite the multitude of succesful Christian parties in Europe and the rather dominating presence the Vatican held for several centuries in the past ?

religion is not something you should look for in a political leader, but is something you should take into account.

for example, lets say Mr x is part of the y religion. and in the y religion book it says something along the lines of global domination. Mr x should not even be considered for the political job unless of course that is what you want in political leaders.

They can be religious all they want, that's not what I would base my decision on. I would not, however, vote for a person who would mention his/her religion in political speeches, who would make decisions based on his/her religion or who would openly advocate her religion.
I agree. I don't want decisions policy to be influenced by personal religion. Though I don't care all that much if they mention it in their speeches.

Well I`ve been thinking, religion can be a negitive thing when looking for a canidate. Satanism would obvisiously be a bad thing along with some one who has based their religion on a cult of any sort. Mainly religion can be negative and thats it. The only positive religion can give to a canidate for any political position would be to the people of the same religion. As a citizen of the U.S. I belive this is a country where religion would be the worst thing to base opinions, ideas and/or thoughts on. A politcal leader in the U.S. can F* up everything by basing judgement on their religion. George Bush for instance got most of his votes from people of christian religion, I was wonderingis this fair for Kerry? also notice George Bush's approval rating (Looks like the chirstians chose wronge, this religion will die soon, rapist preachers, a nazi pope, and george bush.)