Was it appropriate to ask about their favotite bible verse at the democratic debate?

Question

If there is a seperation of church and state why is this relevent

Answer 1

No it was not appropriate and they should not have answered. A candidates favorite Bible verse is meaningless to me. It does not tell me anything about their current political platform. Unfortunately there are some people in this country who let their religious beliefs influence their political beliefs and they do care what the candidates so called favorite Bible verse is.

Answer 2

It is appropriate and relevant because we have these democrat politicians who now find it stylist to pretend to have some Christian values (and still support gay marriage or abortion) in the hopes of fooling a few of the less aware Christians.

Imagine Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden walking in a church, the roof would fly off.

Answer 3

Seperation of Church and State, lie that it is, it's actually no State Sponsored Religion but I digress, has nothing to do with this. It was a politcal debate. Many people vote with their ideals and beliefs as a guiding point. Asking a candidate what their favorite Bible passage is can show voters a great deal of insight into another person. Just like asking what's their favorite tv show, movie, or book.

Answer 4

Of course it would be highly relevant and appropriate, particularly as far as the American government official below was concerned, having said to aboriginal American Indian chiefs who desired that their youth be trained in the American educational system... He relayed to them, "Congress... will look on them as on their own children." That is, we would train their children as if they were our own. He then commended the chiefs for their decision:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention."

What students would learn in American schools "above all" was "the religion of Jesus Christ (Christianity).”

The name of this American politician was… President George Washington.

What has become known as the “separation of church and state” is a corruption of Thomas Jefferson’s words in a personal letter to the governor of Massachusetts. This phrase is not in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights. The original context of this phrase was addressing the predominantly Catholic Massachusetts constituency’s desire to establish Catholicism as the official “state religion” of their state. Jefferson, a Constitutional proponent of “freedom of religion” knew this was antithetical to the First Amendment and would show religious favor towards one specific religion, so he admonished the Massachusetts governor that there should be a “separation of church and state”, literally meaning a “separation of one recognized state religion (church) and a U.S. state (Massachusetts)”. Modern Liberal Deconstructionists have twisted this statement to be all-sweeping and applied to the general separation of all religious matters (specifically Christian-targeted) from the whole of government, an atrocity of its original intent, corrupting it into the “separation of church FROM state”. The Founding Fathers would have never allowed such a distortion to take hold in the Republic. It is entirely contradictory to the original U.S. experience and mind set.

Answer 5

The secularists would love the chance to take away all mention of God! But my Christian ancestors fought in just about every war America had for my chance to put God back into the government as originally intended! I think for most Christians there is NO separation of church and state! I think it was appropriate and I commend the one who asked this question! Good for you, Rajin Cajin! May the Lord bless you! The secularists want to take away the rights my Christian ancestors fought for! I say.....NO WAY! Pretty soon they will take away our right to worship with their phony hate crime legislation! This is where a clergyman can be arrested for preaching about the consequences of sin! You guys are going too far now! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Answer 6

It's inappropriate because we are supposed to have a secular government with no official religion according to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

I think the idea is that we need to pick a candidate based on his or her character, and that their knowledge of religion somehow shows their character. But as we've seen, religiosity is totally irrelevant to how someone will act when in office. We have a president who invokes God and makes biblical references in every speech. He probably does this more than any other president we have ever had, and he will go down in history as the worst president ever.

The media chooses what is newsworthy and what is not. A candidate's knowledge of the bible, or whether they go to church should be of no more interest than the breed of dog they own or the color of their cat.

Answer 7

Eh, I'd say it's relevant because reading the bible does not make someone Christian. I have several atheist friends that have read the bible. What's wrong with being well read and understanding someone else's point of views and belief system?

Answer 8

There must be separation of church and state so that both entities will not influence each other. Church must be involved only on religious matters and the state must not adopt policies to favor any religious group.

Answer 9

Politicians never miss a chance to pander to the feebs.

Answer 10

Because there are still 90% of Americans who are Christian. I know that disterbs you but we have the right to be represtented! Sorry, today is not the day you are going to take my rights away!