Why do you vote for people of other religions? Aren't you really hoping they are atheists?

Question

If you really believe candidates are religious, you should believe that they can't separate religion from their political life. The Pope has already given direction to politicians around the world. Does that mean if you are Protestant and pro-choice you can't vote for a Catholic candidate? Southern Baptists believe that women in marriage should obey their husbands. I can see that being written into a few laws.

If you hold religion to be important in your own life, how do you keep it out of your political life? If you can't, does this country go the way of Iraq with Sunni fighting Shiite or Northern Ireland with Protestants fighting Catholics?

It would seem that an atheist, not beholden to any religion, might be the best choice. You can at least be sure that he or she is not trying to ram some religious doctrine down anyone else's throat. And contrary to popular belief, there are some conservative atheists. And they have morality, too. All in all, not a bad choice.

Answer 1

Atheists would make fine politicians (although the ones I know are way too honest for the legal profession), but I personally wouldn't vote for ANYBODY who allowed their personal religious beliefs to affect their job, which is to uphold the CONSTITUTION, NOT the Bible, or any other religious dogma. That INCLUDES any Christian who would support things like posting the Ten Commandments AS WELL AS any Atheist who would recommend posting a sign that says, "There is no God" on taxpayer-funded property. The absence of BOTH is religiously NEUTRAL, as it should be.

A candidate who doesn't understand the difference between PERSONAL and BUSINESS has NO business being in public office. The Pope is not elected by Americans, not a leader to everyone, and his edicts have NO bearing whatsoever on the laws of the United States, no matter how much he or others may fantasize to the contrary. Any politician who doesn't get that needs to be ousted from office immediately.

A Catholic politician has the right to obey the Pope and choose not use birth control and to not have an abortion if she wishes. He/she does NOT have the right to foist his/her personal beliefs on every other American. Those who believe the Bible, that Adam became a living soul when he BREATHED the breath of life through his nostrils, can all make their choice based upon THEIR individual belief. Those who base their decision on the law and science can make their choices accordingly. Roe v. Wade protects women of EVERY religion.

It is ILLEGAL to write religion into laws. The few unconstitutional laws that still exist are being steadily obliterated.

Answer 2

First, religion and politics can be separated. In fact, I haven't been aware of _any_ elected state or federal candidate in this country being coerced by his or her religious authority to do something. I may be ignorant, but in any case, it's _extremely_ rare.

Second, morals and ethics _should_ influence one's politics. Religion is one (very successful) method to understand and promote ethical behavior, so it oughtn't matter if a person's reason for a moral stance is religiously motivated. The distinction ought to be between something proper to the religion, and something proper to humanity as a whole. For instance, it would be religious interference to force all Americans to go to a certain denominational church. But a law defending woman's suffrage rights would not, even though it could be religiously motivated. I think the distinction is that in the one case, the religion is the only authoritative argument, whereas in the other, you can still maintain an argument without sole recourse to religious compunction.

Third, the Pope gives moral indications and advice, but he doesn't interfere with government decisions: an indication is not the same thing as a mandate. Every person ought to follow his conscience when voting and do so as a responsible citizen (not letting some other authority make one's decision for him or her).

Fourth, I don't see how an atheist is necessarily the cool unbiased benevolent arbiter. Atheism is a faith in its own right - you can't prove it. It comes with its own tenants, just like other faiths. Technically there's nothing to prevent an atheist from trying to ram his or her "religious doctrine" down someone else's throat. I'm not saying atheists can't be good politicians, but there is nothing inherent in atheism that makes one a better (i.e. disinterested) political candidate than a theistic candidate.

In my opinion, an atheist (whether radical or conservative) will probably tend towards materialism, which diminishes the dignity of mankind, and moral relativity, which undermines all of ethics and morality. So in that regard, I would actually consider a religious candidate (in general) to be more apt for public office.

Answer 3

Believe it or not, I do agree that politics should be somewhat separate from religious preference. Someone can be a great guy, and a strong believer, but being nice won't necessarily make them a strong leader. You do have to consider the best person for the job.
But I think, when you start talking about issues like abortion (which I consider to be legalised murder) to me, it's just the same as voting to legalise any other killing. What if I said, it's okay to kill anyone who can't vote, cause their votes don't matter anyway. It's the same thing to me.
So yes, morality comes into play. Slavery was done away with in America through political pressure. Civil rights were enacted through political pressure. So morality in the government can be a good thing.
If I saw an atheist who was pro-life, I would consider voting for them.
.

Answer 4

Atheism is a religion. Wisconsin prison inmate Jack Kaufman filed a suit in federal court claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated because the warden had refused to allow him to practice his religion – atheism. In an ironic ruling that is a victory for religious liberty yet will likely be viewed as a setback for those who subscribe to this particular “religious belief”, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kaufman that his rights had been violated since atheism is indeed a “religion”: "[W]hether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), nor must it be a mainstream faith."

Answer 5

I would vote for someone with concern for improving our country if they didn't seem like they would use religion to create laws, because I think that's wrong. Some people are a little religous but see how important seperation of chuch and state is.

Answer 6

... why would people who are not catholic listen to the pope, whatever he may have said? What does it matter what a person's religion is? I don't believe in what the pope does but we both believe that murder and rape are wrong, I'm quite certain he believes they're wrong anyhow, just ebcause we're of different religions doesn't mean we can't agree in real life or in a political way.

Answer 7

Are you trying to tell me George Bush can't separate religion and politics? Ask his advisor Rev. Ted Haggerty.

Answer 8

I vote for who I believe will do the best job.

Answer 9

I would rather have a conservative atheist in office than a liberal Christian or any other faith if that tells you anything.

Answer 10

Muslims get elected before Atheist. Thats what the stats say......