Would our forefathers have ever thought that being a person of faith was an electability issue?

Question

Whereas being a woman or a ***** would not be electability issues?

Answer 1

Persons of faith is/are not the problem. Bible thumpers are the problem. One has faith & the other pushes his faith on others & makes rules for the entire country by their faith. Not good, as there are all faiths out here. Being a person of color or female, indeed used to be issues of electibility. Fortunately for us, they hopefully are not now.

Answer 2

The issue of faith in government issues was certainly heavily debated amongst our founding fathers in the end they made the decision (despite the arguments from the opposing side) to include a clause that keeps religion and state seperate from each other. Essentially the arguments back then were as they are today, those who are heavily religious felt that the Church (ie. religion, faith) should have a major say when it comes to governance. While others felt that the rights of individuals to choose there own religion and not have there governing body infringe on that right be directive of the nation.
Take a look at the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 which clearly stated that the USA was not founded on the Christian Religion.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html - Article 11.

The issue of "******" specifically slaves was also heavily discussed. Because they were unable to come up with a good compromise the issue was essentially left alone. Leaving the issue to each state to decide. The founding fathers did specify in the Constitution that slaves were to be counted 3/5 in terms of determining the population (and the house representation) of a state. It also stated that a slave which escapes to a "free" state would not be freed.

Answer 3

Some tried to make it that way, but it was usually to rescue an already flagging political career (see Alexander Hamilton and the Christian Constitutional societies).

In truth, the Founders that really matter were either not Christians at all or were Christians that did not mix the church in with politics. Nearly all of them mention in their own diaries how dangerous it is to mix religion and politics. It is even mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

We have proven time and time again that being a woman or being black does not mean you are inferior, so that is not a disqualification. However, being a member of a religious group that might teach it's people that Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammed) comes before your country certainly does.

I think all religions teach their followers that belief in God comes before belief in your country. Most Christians, Jews, Muslims and others that are strong believers in their particular faith (and that's just about ALL of the Republicans) believe this completely, and in my opinion and in the eyes of the Founders given their previous statements, that makes them all unelectable.

But it's OK. Because the rest of the evangelicals can't read or choose not to believe that the Founders did not mean for people to use religion as a political tool EVER. But they don't care, and that means it's OK if one of "them" does precisely that, because "they" are like "you" and you can trust "them" because they believe what you believe in the unknowable.

That makes you not only unelectable, but scary.

Answer 4

A woman or a ***** would not have been electable. Heck, women couldn't even vote til the twentieth century. I don't think that a religion would have been an issue, except that they would really have screamed if they didn't believe in God at all. There were many religions in young America, but I cant recall any Atheist majorities.

Answer 5

A *****? Are you serious?

And yes, especially if that person was a Mormon. Why don't you read some history books and they will tell you exactly what people in the late 18th century and early 19th century (our vaunted forefathers) thought of Mormons. They hated them so much they chased them out of New York and the Midwest and into Utah. They didn't want the Mormons anywhere near them.

Answer 6

Your answer is YES, the still would have.. here goes... and while this defies your logic -- I'm telling you that there's "no time like the present".

Because they wrote the Declaration and Constitution, and essentially led a revolution that changed the course of history.. that they knew everything, and vs. today, have ANY leg-up or advantage over modern ways, modern minds and modern living. You can't reflect back, and say that they were BETTER because they wouldn't have balked at a pious or devote man, etc. etc. -- because if that man was JEWISH you could forget it, buddy. In 2000, Joe Lieberman was selected as a Running Mate - and that would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED in 1780's or 90's or whatever... they wouldn't have known what a MORMON was, at that time (hello?) and of course, I'd bet you a TON that a Roman Catholic (Giuliani) wouldn't ever have been backed for a Party nomination, as in the 1960's people had a problem with JFK...

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner (and serial slave dater, by the way)... which made it easier, living out there in the middle of nowhere at Montecello. I'd say be'd have some problems with a black or woman, back then, especially if they BEAT HIM for the nomination... lol.

Hey, in 1785 the party slogans might have been "White, Wigged, and Wonderful..." -- but, religious tolerance meant many things.. unless they didn't agree. You think a Muslim or a Buddist could have been allowed to even SPEAK at the Continental Congress? (seriously)

Answer 7

Of course. They wanted to keep religious zealots like Romney out of the White House. See Christopher Hitchen's article below.

The founding fathers were DEISTS. They didn't believe as Romney or Bush does, that God intervenes in human events. How can we trust a fool of a President who believes in magic underwear and believes that he is chosen by God?

"Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice.

These easily ascertainable facts are reflected in the way that the U.S. Constitution does not make any mention of a superintendent deity and in the way that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention declined an offer (possibly sarcastic), even from Benjamin Franklin, that they resort to prayer to compose their differences. Romney may throw a big chest and say that God should be "on our currency, in our pledge," and of course on our public land in this magic holiday season, but James Madison did not think that there should be chaplains opening the proceedings of Congress or even appointed as ministers in the U.S. armed forces."

Answer 8

None of the above would be or should be a question of electability. However, those who want to impose their faith on others, should not be allowed to participate in a democracy. Anyway, the Constitution as I understand it, favors separation of Church and state.

Answer 9

Let's see, at the time of our forefathers, Mormonism did NOT exist and blacks and females had no voting rights, much less an ability to be candidates...

Further, the right-winged crying today about Romeny fails to live up to the truth test as Clinton's and Obama's respective minority status are widely-touted topics.

Answer 10

People in general were MORE likely to be divided for religious reasons than they are today.
That divisiveness was the reason the founding fathers saw need to try to keep the government OUT of religious affairs, and vice versa.