2007-12-06 02:46:11 · 24 answers · asked by Mkath 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Yes, because of the separation of church & state, & the fact that you know a Bible thumper is not going to stop just because he is more visible & in a power position. We don't need prechers or reverends, or priests, or elders, we don't need whatever Muslim 'elders' or whatever they are called either. We need a strongly spiritual person who won't apply any of their own religion on the US. You know...that country that was based on religious freedom & diversity??
I won't vote for anyone thumping their Bible, or Koran. I will vote for one who has proven to NOT involve their religion in their government positions. Because they know they have MANY religions in their area of concern. Just in this area alone, there are many different sects of Christianity, Catholics, Jewish, & there is an Islamic group as well. Try to be someone pushing their own religion to a diverse group like that. We will all vote with solidarity against them, except maybe for the group he belongs to. Which is a sad state of affairs as well.
2007-12-06 03:01:34 · answer #1 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
I am an atheist and candidates like Mike Huckabee terrify me. He is a man that has never claimed he would keep his faith out of the office. I do not have any problem with a religious president, but I am scared of a man that puts the Bible above the will of the people. The founding fathers added the little part about separation of church and state into the Constitution for a reason. For some ungodly reason, people today think we can skip little parts of the Constitution. That is a dangerous thing to start doing. The Constitution was written out of necessity. The founding fathers were able to look ahead and see the dangers of incorporating religion into government. The Constitution is an amazing document and we have to pay attention to it. That's the reason Ron Paul should be elected president.
2007-12-06 03:36:34 · answer #2 · answered by Porkchop Jones 4 · 2⤊ 5⤋
It depends on how they are talking about God. If they are relating to the public their personal religious beliefs, whatever that may be, then that is fine. I believe the public has a right to know this information because it will affect how he/she leads the country. How would you feel if a candidate stayed silent on the issue of religion then after getting elected revealed that they are a member of Scientology, Unification Church (Moonies), Aryan Nation Church (neonazi racists) or some other way out of mainstream religion or cult? People have a right to know who they are electing, especially because many religions will try to infiltrate politics and then legislate their religious beliefs to force them on the rest of the country. So if they start talking about God like they are God's personal mouthpiece and God tells him to force everyone to do ____, then yes I would be worried. That is an insult to God as well as He says "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's".
2007-12-06 03:28:22 · answer #3 · answered by kallista 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It does not make me uncomfortable, however I believe that ones personal religious beliefs have no founding on if the candidate will make a proficient leader.
2007-12-06 04:02:06 · answer #4 · answered by m_bram@att.net 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Not at all. I prefer candidates who believe in something. Their beliefs do not necessarily need to parallel mine however they do need to have a fixed moral compass from which to make rational decisions. Once you can take a look at that compass then you can make a somewhat rational decision about weather a candidate is fit to fill the hot seat. Someone who is driven bu the winds of public opinion has absolutely no business sitting down next to the guy carrying the nuclear launch codes.
2007-12-06 02:51:49 · answer #5 · answered by Coasty 7 · 6⤊ 6⤋
It makes me uncomfortable when they do not talk about God.
2007-12-06 03:05:46 · answer #6 · answered by Calvin 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Yes because he/she is a public figure that is NOT suppose to have biases. ANd when they talk about religion they are showing their biases. Its a public position that represent/serve a huge diverse group of people. Religion and politics should not be mixed like that. Of course one's morality and ethics is based on one's beliefs and religion but in a position like presidential candidate they are not suppose to display their religious preference, they supposebly are there to serve everyone's interest.
2007-12-06 02:57:27 · answer #7 · answered by 2legit2quit 5 · 4⤊ 6⤋
No. When Mitt Romney gave his speech, he stated that we cannot have freedom without religion and religion without freedom. I loved how he spoke.
2007-12-06 04:20:45 · answer #8 · answered by Mike 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No.
Better to talk ABOUT Him than try to act like Him.
2007-12-06 19:56:02 · answer #9 · answered by Eyes 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Not at all.
82% of the country beleives in god. Why would it make us uncomfortable that our president be religious?
2007-12-06 02:48:39 · answer #10 · answered by jskmarden 4 · 8⤊ 6⤋