Religion seems to play a large role in US politics despite separation of church and state. I have also just read with this whole Romney thing, that something like 30% of the US public indicated they would not vote for him because he is Mormon.
This sounds to me like discrimination, an erroneous generalization; demonstration of support for a false sterotype regarding what ALL Mormon's are suppose to be like. And, evidently contradicts the notion that state and church are separate.
Now, I am not from the US, nor familiar with US politics, and I don’t mean to tread on anyone’s religious beliefs or political stance. I simply wish to understand what people CAN accurately glean from religious affiliation beyond what appears to be only discrimination and false sterotypes.
2007-12-06 16:10:21 · 12 answers · asked by Kynysca 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You can learn he's not fit to lead, whatever the beliefs or affilications. My Arab Grandpa brought me up on what he called "the lessons of the King", learned through generations of being tribal leaders. About the first rule was that a leader is a dead man because he belongs to his people - so he has nothing to lose and can act freely in their best interests. The second rule was that the king cannot afford to believe in anything at all, but must judge everything on the facts as they present themselves, and what will do the greatest good for the greatest number. The third rule was that any belief is likely to be an illusion - and illusions persisted with can become delusions which are like mirages in the desert - misleading and dangerous. Most modern so-called "leaders" lack such training, and that's largely why we're in the trouble we're in. The other part of the problem is those who follow them. Ultimately, we all carry the same responsibilities as "the king", and need the same training!
2007-12-08 22:14:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A candidate's religious affiliation can be indicative on how the country will go on issues of keen interest to particular groups - like abortion, same sex marriage, etc. A good candidate will remind folks that no matter what his own religious convictions, he is in office to represent the people and will not allow his own personal feeling and convictions to influence his policy making.
That is what John Kerry did in the last election - he indicated that as a Catholic he was personally against abortion, but he recognizes that he is a public servant and promised to act according to populous sentiment.
Conversely, George Bush has stated unequivocably that he is anti-Choice and that he would approve any anti-Choice legislation that came his way - then he appointed judges that would be conservative enough to threaten current Pro-Choice legislation. If the public sentiment was with him (which is currently about 50-50), what could anyone say - but he presents it more that it is his conviction and so he will do what he can to further that agenda in American laws. That is dangerous to the separation of Church and State and a nation founded on Freedom of Religion.
Peace!
2007-12-06 16:23:37 · answer #2 · answered by carole 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative. Judgment is an individual determinant contingent on the notions, understandings and conceptual comprehension for and of each. There are no absolute and unchanging separations for church, state, family and the individual. That no single church may rule forever is the separation they are talking about of and for separation for church and state. Democracy is the concept understood to perform that separation function, but its efficiency and consistency for removing a church doctrine from the individual states-person is incredible if not an absolute failure.
2007-12-07 13:44:14 · answer #3 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Religion & Politics do not mix......
Religion seems to come in to Politics when their is real decsions to be made & tend to prolong issues that really need to be dealt with straight away !!!
When something is benafical to all, some religions tend to make waves...
Like Stem Cell research, if they can cure diseases such as MS, Parkinsons, torettes then religon should not come in to it as it would benifit Mankind as a whole....
Human cloning, I can see were they are coming from, why bring Clones on this Earth when we can't look after the ones that are already here.... ???
2007-12-07 10:04:33 · answer #4 · answered by Spanky the monkey !!! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Separation of church and state just means that the Federal Government can not pass a law establishing a national religion. It has nothing to do with the president and his personal religious life.
2007-12-06 16:15:50 · answer #5 · answered by 9_ladydi 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If Christians get voted into office "by playing fair". Is that wrong? - And which one ever played fair. Christians will get more votes because we have similar "political views". - There is no problem with that, the problem is when they then try and change the constitution to meet their personal paradigm. If a Christian governor wants t illegalize abortion and Christians agree, Is that considered the Church running the state?? - Yes because laws are made to protect everyone but also to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
2016-05-21 23:12:11 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Also many people said they won't vote for Obama because he is Muslim. They just infer this because it sounds like Osama. Ignorance and religion...lovely combination.
I don't care what the candidates religion is...unless they ramble on and on about it..which makes me leery.
But sadly you are very right and that makes me sad. Makes me sad because this country was based on getting away from that very thinking...yet here we are with a complete 360 turn and it is starting to drive so much in politics.
2007-12-08 12:43:20 · answer #7 · answered by queen of snarky-yack again 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a good question and actually, the only thing that can be gained by a candidate putting his or her religion out there is one thing: votes. Every candidate puts forth statements on their thoughts on different issues be it: abortion, gay rights, or the War on Iraq. All of these statements are made to gather votes for themselves from different groups of people. By doing this, they hope to gather more votes and win the presidency.
2007-12-06 16:26:54 · answer #8 · answered by locojn_2000 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm an atheist, and I do have a problem with a President that believes in their religious doctrine is more accurate than science. Besides that he is a Mormon he is also a creationist. We have already had one of those in office (George Bush) we really don't need another one. Besides that he is a big fat liar.
2007-12-06 16:26:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
If a candidate is wearing their religion on their sleeve, then it IS relevant. If Romney were Mormon, but downplayed it at every opportunity, then it would not be an issue. But he doesn't.
So he has already brought religion into politics, and deserves the discrimination he receives for it.
2007-12-06 16:14:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋