Why do people have a problem with a conservative, former minister or a devout Morman becoming president?

Question

Some are screaming "separation of church and state". It's funny that a few years ago when the Reverend Al Sharpton was running for president no one had a problem with a minister running for the office. Or when the Reverend Jackson ran for president no one had a problem with a minister running for the office. Can anyone show me in the Constitution where it says that a minister can't run for president? Explain how this situation would violate the establishment clause.

Look, the president has NO POWER to pass laws, that's Congress' job. You can't tell me that Congress would allow the president to eforce Levitical Law. It wouldn't happen. Supporting "faith based initiatives" doesn't violate the 1st Amendment, as long as it doesn't favor one (denomination or religion) above the others.

The establishment clause was put into the first amendment for the following reason. Each of the original 13 colonies had a dominant religion. None of them wanted the federal government to favor one over the other 12 (ie the Church of England).
Are you saying that I, as a Christian, have no right to like representation in the federal government? What difference does it make if the person elected president is a former minister, a devout Morman or an Athiest as long as that person is ELECTED.

Chi Guy, Not everything revolves around "The Evil Bush". Neither Huckabee nor Romney are espousing Pres. Bush's policies verbatum. They agree with some and disagree with others, Like most conservatives by the way. I know there are some on the far right that don't like Romney because he's a Morman, but the majority of answer posted here aren't from the far right. They are from the religiophobic left who are against any religion. And that's fine with me. You know as well as I do that the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with this.

Answer 1

They are afraid, and want people to believe that Republican or conservative=fanaticism, and there is a complete bias of these people on the fact that in these cases when the candidate is one of these things, the person is a Republican. Or, throughout history, anyone who is not in the party that was in with the times

There is nothing saying that a former religious leader, conservative, or a Mormon, can't run for president, there is mostly just fear of this person in political campaigns, and using fallacy is often seen as an "easy way out" of true debate
The real law that these people are trying to cite, to a sloppy and inconsistent extent with "Church and State" is the First Amendment, which states that no law can be passed making one religion favored above another, or creating an official state religion. "Separation of Church and State" actually only showed up in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, and not the Constitution was where the phrase "Separation of Church and State" came from, and he addressed the fact that he would not do what the new French government was doing: Try to force atheism on the nation. He disqualified himself from being considered an authority on our nation's constitution because he was living in France when the Constitution was being written.

Look up the Constitution online, in full transcript, here at:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

These people are not relying on the constitution: they are relying on common fallacies and attempts to tell others that in this political competition for office, they have a moral high ground, and can set some false premise, when their own logic seems a little sloppy or a knowledge of our nation's laws doesn't seem to be there at the moment.

Anyone, minister, mormon, conservative, or even anyone in this nation who meets all of the requirements for the presidency can run for president, if they are willing to uphold the constitution as written, including the real text of the First Amendment. Study the Constitution for yourself, and have questions for those who so easily claim to know our nation's laws!

Answer 2

No one had a problem with Jackson or Sharpton because they were and aare loudmouths, no more--not serious presidential candidates. Inshort, irrelevant.

Romney and Huckabee are another matter--both are viable candidates. But the criticism is coming from two different sources--and you have not made the distinction. It is not a matter of "sepration of church and state"--and nobody (sensible) on either end of the political spectrum has said otherwise.

In the case of Romney the criticism is rooted in the right-wing's well known religious bigotry and hatred for anyone who does not conform to the political ideology that they offer as a substitute for real Christianity. It would not matter if Romney were Catholic, Jewish, Muslim--or a Zoroastrian, for that matter. He is an "other" and so to be atacked.

With Huckabee, the criticism is rooted in a different--but equally straightforward--source. He is a religious fanatic and an admitted bigot. The American people have had 7 years of that kind of unAmerican BS in the White House and are not going to elect another religious dictator, especially one who is even worse than Bush (assuming tht's possible.

Answer 3

I have several problems with it. One, I fear those who would place their faith in a Deity that has not been proved to exist. Science, rationality, and reality are what is needed in a leader, not the belief of Santa clause and the Easter bunny. Also, it would be naive to think that a truly "religious" man would not seek out the counsel of his pastor or whatever to help him with tough decisions, Then by default you have a religious organization running the country. Religion and a host of other things should be left behind our front doors when we leave, and for those who can't or won't, well, they get what they deserve in the end. Besides I do not think anyone who proclaims the aforementioned is stable enough to be a political leader, (like the ones you mentioned). Anyway, it is not a violation of anything except common sense.

Answer 4

The founding fathers worked very hard to make a secular government, which keeps the government out of our religious practices and choices. Since both Huckabee and Romney are putting their religious practices front and center, it makes me nervous that they will be a preacher first rather than a civil servant.

Remember, every president since the inception of our country has been Christian. Problem is Huckabee and Romney seem to be debating the 'I-am-more-Christian-than-you' argument just to pander for their votes.

Answer 5

I think most people don't care what your religion is but when someone running for public office has such devout beliefs in his own brand of religion, which by it's nature is a vehicle for conformity and control, it does not play well with moderates, or those who think of religion as more of a private thing.

You are right, there is no law against anyone running for office who is very religious.

Answer 6

Running for president and being a minister only presents a problem if your from a certain ethnic back round. It's acceptable in all other cases though. also the media has an agenda and they favor the left. do you think it would be a big deal if those same two candidates were running for the democratic nomination. you wouldn't see it more than once on the evening news!!

Answer 7

I think it is more to do with the Bush legacy than anything else. It appears that liberals are defending Romney's right to choose a religion without persecution from the far right who refuse to accept him due to his religion.

Liberals are cool in that they defend the rights of a person that they typically do not care to see become the next president.

Answer 8

Good point. When Hillary came out claiming her faith is what saved her marriage and to this day, when she speaks about her religious upbringing, the dems don't even seem to notice the "G" word.

Answer 9

JESSE JACKSON, AL SHARPTON, ARE THE BIGGEST IDIOTS OUT THERE THEY CALL THEMSELF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BUT CAUSE TROUBLE ON THE SIDELINES.THAT;S WHY PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SO CALLED PREACHERS RUNNING FOR POLITICAL OFFICE.THEY MAY TRY TO FORCE THEIR WAY OF THINKING ON THE PEOPLE.SHARPTON AND JACKSON ARE BOTH RACIST AS WELL.SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.AND THAT;S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.KEEP RELIGION IN YOUR HOME AND DON;T PUSH IT ON OTHERS.

Answer 10

Give me a break. You and I both know that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson didn't have a chance in hell of winning.