Religion and presidential candidates

[Mercedes Benzene]

In the news today!:

Recent polls show that a majority of people polled would not be willing to vote for [potential] U.S. 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney ®, because he is a Mormon.

This is important because he is one of the foremost potential candidates for president ® in the 2008 elections.

What do you guys think? Please answer the poll truthfully (no one will see your answers), and also, what do you think about this Mitt Romney "situation"?

Thanks!

[TheBigDog]

This is a really bizarre poll. How about this instead...

 

You are having a family picnic. Another family will be joining you on the picnic. Which ethnicity would you prefer that family to be?

 

I guess the fact that Mr. Romney practices any religion would already disqualify him for many of the regulars here (unless his practice of religion is an acceptable lie to woo the needed stupid voters). There is no religion that on its own wold bias me from a candidate. Although in evaluating a candidate their religious practice can be information about the quality of their character that helps me to make my decision.

 

Bill

[Freddy]

Being from MA I am aware of Governor Romney's religious bias in his politics. Of all the Christian denominations he is a devout Mormon. However, that is not the real reason why Romney should not be president. Before entering politics Romney was a venture capitalist. Romney bought up companies, dismembered them, and sold them off putting thousands out of work making huge profits for himself and his investors. As for being governor of the most liberal state in the union he is a figurehead. Lately he is out of state endlessly campaigning for president. No matter, he is not needed at home. He vetoes many lines of many bills only to have the Democratic controlled legislature override almost all of them. The fact is the senate president and the speaker of the house run Massachusetts. The last four governors of MA have been Republicans and not one of them had a clue. Remember the Big Dig folks? Gov. Weld said it could be done for $ 3 billion, Gov. Cellucii said it was "On budget and on time", Gov. Swift tried to blame the Turnpike Authority, and Gov. Romney is trying to control the board as I type this. Well, it cost $ 15 billion and it leaks like a siv. What the governors should have done was watch the contractors who did shoddy work and overcharged the taxpayers. If you are going to vote Republican vote McCain!

[Mercedes Benzene]

However, that is not the real reason why Romney should not be president. Before entering politics Romney was a venture capitalist. Romney bought up companies, dismembered them, and sold them off putting thousands out of work making huge profits for himself and his investors.

 

Mhmmm. Good point.

[HydrogenBond]

That sounds like Romney acts more like an aetheist than a religious person. Mass is a demoncratic liberal state that is platform agenda orienatated. That makes it hard for anyone not with the "program" to function effectively. The irony is that Mass voters usually pick Republican govenors because the Democratic candidates are usually considered less than perfect money managers; better spenders than investors.

[Panjandrum]

Religiousity and ruthless capitalism seem to go hand in hand. Which is odd, since I dont think Mormons or Evangelicals hold Calvinist views, which would be the only logical christian postion from which to support capitalism, or indeed any form of exploitation. I guess theyre just so damn sure the God loves them that nothing they do can jepordise their ticket to Godland. Theyre in a state of Grace, like a medieval crusader, or the Pope.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I could not care less which religion a candidate is. As long as the believe in the separation of church and state, I'm cool.

 

When they start trying to legislate their religion. It's uncool.

 

[sarcasm]

Except Mormons. I anybody else who wears funny underwear. God invented boxer shorts for wholesome people to wear, so wear 'em

[/sarcasm]

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

Can any politician truly be devoutly religious? I'm apolitical because I believe that as a christian I should have nothing to do with the political affairs of a world that is "lying in the power of the wicked one."

 

Thus I wouldn't choose anyone over any other one.

 

BD, I think her questions was well stated. Many people don't mind having dinner and sharing time with others of different religions and ethnicities, but prefer to have someone of the same mind rule them from the government.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't think a person's religion has anything to do with their ability as president. Although it may have a positive inhibitng influence on behavior. If one is an atheiest, they are under a looser set of moral standards since they have nobody beyond themselves to account to. As president, an aethiest would be as high is humanly possible without the inhibition of a spiritual conscience. They just have to stay within the laws or create laws that expend their boundries and anything goes. That is why I would be more concerned with a nonreligious president. He can lie, cheat, steal, commit adultry, seeks his own gain, conspire, etc., with noone but the press or the opposing party to keep him in check.

[Erasmus00]

Personally, it depends not so much on a person's religion as to how they bring it into their politics. A devout Christian who believes they cannot legislate morality is more likely to get my vote then an atheist who opposes stem cell research.

-Will

[Edella]

If one is an atheiest, they are under a looser set of moral standards since they have nobody beyond themselves to account to... He can lie, cheat, steal, commit adultry, seeks his own gain, conspire, etc., with noone but the press or the opposing party to keep him in check.

 

Atheists hear this a lot ,and frankly I get tired of it. Supporting evidence?

 

...it depends not so much on a person's religion as to how they bring it into their politics.

Exactly.

[TheFaithfulStone]

If one is an atheiest, they are under a looser set of moral standards since they have nobody beyond themselves to account to. As president, an aethiest would be as high is humanly possible without the inhibition of a spiritual conscience.

 

Yeah? Well, I've been missing out then. I've never done any of the things on your list.

 

And besides, none of our Christian presidents (all 42 of them) would do those kinds of things!

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

IIf one is an atheiest, they are under a looser set of moral standards since they have nobody beyond themselves to account to. As president, an aethiest would be as high is humanly possible without the inhibition of a spiritual conscience. They just have to stay within the laws or create laws that expend their boundries and anything goes. That is why I would be more concerned with a nonreligious president. He can lie, cheat, steal, commit adultry, seeks his own gain, conspire, etc., with noone but the press or the opposing party to keep him in check.

This statement is a blatant generalization, and while somewhat acceptable as a personal point of view, has no place on a science forum.

[Mercedes Benzene]

This statement is a blatant generalization, and while somewhat acceptable as a personal point of view, has no place on a science forum.

 

Mhmmm.

[ronthepon]

It is very unfortunate that the question asked on this poll is notb totally invalid.

 

People are sometimes, like, selected on the basis of religion, its a very unfortunate thing.

[paigetheoracle]

It is the person I'd vote for, not the religion. If I was American I'd never have voted for an idiot like George Bush - not because he was a Christian but because he isn't a competent person to be in power: It's not what you believe but what you do with those beliefs, that is important. Watching the college where he was supposedly educated I'd call the whole bunch hypocrites not Christians (Hypocrisy is a religion in itself, which houses those claiming to belong to all other religions but who only worship at the church of self interest and can't see passed the ends of their own noses: Not Christians, not Muslims, not Mormons, not Jews, not Hindus (You get the drift?) but short sighted materialists and self glorifiers whatever they call themselves (hangers on, wannabes, followers, the blind leading the blind - sorry for the overemphasis but I want to hammer my point home, that the enemy isn't religion or political ideology but short sighted and cowardly gain over the bodies and lives of others). Given the choice I would have voted for Rudi Gulliani, not GW because I saw him as a practical man (engineer/scientist of the soul) not an idiot with a box of matches in an explosives factory (humour is never politically correct but it's always more accurate and effective in calling a spade a spade).

[Mercedes Benzene]

It's certainly true that presidential candidates should be chosen based on their values and not their religion, but unfortunately it is not always that way.

As humans, we have certain stereotypes and generalizations that become embedded in our subconsciouses. That's why I wanted to see what people thought when it came to religion and the presidency.