Explosive question???

Question

Should a candidates religious preference be a weathervane to whether or not you will vote for him? Why won't people believe him when he swears to the oath of office on a bible? Does he 'have' to be a slave to his religion or can't you believe he will uphold the constitution even if it goes against his religious beliefs. There are examples presently in government of people who profess to be religous and regularly break their vows.

Answer 1

Let's keep things SIMPLE yet TRUTHFUL:

No, a candidate's religious preference should NOT be a weathervane to whether or not a voter will vote for him; sadly, for some it will.

But the IDEAS, VISION, and POLICIES of the candidate SHOULD act as a weathervane for whether a voter will vote for a candidate. These ideas/visions/policies don't necessarily match up with "religious preference"; they may or may not. And the ideas/vision weathervane should be measured by actual Congressional votes, Gubernatorial signings into law or veteos of bills, or other "executive experience" (e.g. CEO of a major conglomerate).

Now, for some REAL LIFE examples:

A person may have a "Catholic" religious preference but, despite this, advocate "choice" in abortion. Regretably, these types of people will make "laws" (such as those in California where it's a crime to break/eat a Condor egg, yet not a crime to harm a Human baby/fetus) that do not match up with their religious preference. Even if your religion said it was okay to harm a fetus, a person who recognized our rights come from God will not allow this (consistent with "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights: LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). In other words, what rights we have from God, government nor majority can EVER take away).

Answer 2

Now if a candidate said "My faith is a private matter and I'd prefer to keep it that way," I'd respect that. But we have several candidates who have made their religion a fundamental part of their campaign. Most of teh Republicans are vying to be declared the "truer Christian," and they all declare that because of their religion they support discrimination against gays and oppose a woman's right to choose. Some of them want to bring back school prayer, and some think we should display the ten commandments in public buildings. In those circumstances, I think a candidate has to expect lots of questions about what exactly they believe and how it will effect the way they do their job.

Answer 3

I am more interested in whether a candidate will uphold the promises he/she make while campaigning when in office. From the lot of the candidates available now I can't see even one that I trust to keep their word.

Answer 4

I normally vote for the one caught in the least amount of lies. In case of a tie I vote for the one who made the most promises. I wouldn't believe them if they swore on a stack of Bibles. They all lie. There is no such thing as an honest politician. They wouldn't get elected.

Answer 5

Religion plays an increased role in this election, especially as there are groups of voters who do see religion as one of the most important aspects of a candidate.

Religion really should be a personal issue.

Answer 6

This question is a hot topic because of Romney.

Sorry but if you believe in Mormonism, I have a big problem with your deductive reasoning skills. There is absolutely no way I want you to be the 'leader of the free world.'

Answer 7

If you're speaking of the "Mormon" candidate, I think that it would do a lot of harm to have him in office.

Based on the "religion" (which, if you look up the definitions of a "cult" and compare them to the practices and beliefs of the Mormon faith it = "cult" status, not religion.), I think it would matter.

They have VERY strict and taboo beliefs that could potentially devastate our country and the way that it is run - causing a lot of problems for ALL, and potentially "rewiring" the American freedoms as we know them.

I'm not sure of the candidate's name (as he won't be who I vote for, therefore I never paid any attention), but watching him speak out on this very issue, he had made it VERY well known that his faith comes FIRST, and that he "will do for this country as his faith asks."

COMPLETELY innapropriate, considering that he'd be the one running the nation...

Politics and religion should be kept seperate, and in this candidate's opinion, they should be kept together, and "feed" off of one another in making decisions.

Our country is a country of FREEDOM, not conformity to one religious set of beliefs - and if he'd have it his way, we'd all be made to follow the Mormon rules.

Now, if you had a Mormon candidate who DIDN'T think that his/her religion should factor into the decisions made for our country, then I wouldn't be opposed.

I dont' like the idea of my future being based on someone else's religious belief's, however, and therefore believe that it DOES matter on both the person (and their attitude towards this very matter) and their religion.

Answer 8

Don't ever mix the two. Politics is Evil and the Bible is for the good. Crossing the two, it's the way we live unfortunately.

Answer 9

For instance: I will vote for Mitt Romney, if he makes the nomination, even though he is a Morman and I am not. It makes no difference to me. I believe he would run the Country in a way that is true to the spirit of our forefathers. A different religion than my own (Presbyterian) is not important unless it is Islamic (I know that isn't p.c.), but for obvious reasons I could not vote for anyone of Islamic roots.

Answer 10

I am not an Atheist, but I am also not a Christian, and I really don't have much use for the bible. I guess you could call me New Age, with a bit of Pagan thrown in for good measure! So, I too would rather that he swear on the constitution. *sm*