What does someone's religious beleifs have to do with running for president?

Question

I saw that Mitt Romney (former governer of Massachusetts) is having to put up with crap about running for president due to his religious beliefs. But in reality, people aren't supposed to bring their religious beliefs into politics anyway. So what are people so worried about? If someone like Mitt Romney was going to bring their religious beliefs into politics, then gay marriages wouldn't be legal in Massachusetts.

Answer 1

It has nothing to do with it...

It's the Republican religious fundamentalists wingnuts who are driving the whole thing. If they had their way, they'd have a constitutional amendment saying that all presidents and elected officials must swear they are christians and attend ONLY the "right" churches. We'd all be required to attend church (only the RIGHT one though), women would be relegated back to the kitchen and they'd stone adulterers (women only, or course, because they are the "wicked" vessel that tempts those good christian males).

That's who elected our current screwball....because too many of us sat on our butts and didn't go out and vote...so the fundies and Bush got the Oval Office..and it's been a christian agenda since then. Look up how many evangelicals he has appointed to positions of power in his administration - somewhere aroung 400!!!.. That is outrageous.....

Let's hope that ALL Americans do their duty as citizens and get to the polls this time to keep those morons out of our government.

Answer 2

Religion is always going to be part of the fabric of politics, so people do pay attention to it.

Bush culled a lot of pull from the evangelicals and conservative christians who used a lot of grass root campaigning for him. He has returned the favor by backing a lot of "faith-based" initiatives as president and other matters favored by the religious base that he sought when running for office.

Keep in mind that he Goodling, an attorney from a third-tier law school (faith-based law school Regents) somehow became a power/influence peddler at the Department of Justice despite no prosecutorial, management, or legal experience for the position. We would have never known had Gonzales and his cronies not screwed up their agenda enough to gain public notoriety.

This is not an indictment of Bush, just an example. The religious vote is a huge voting bloc for any president , they all know it...and all seem to find a reason to be seen attending some type of religious service, etc.

Running for any office involves fulfilling the agendas of your supporters...and religious groups have agendas much like corporations do.

I think the concern about Romney has been his "shifting" positions on things like gay marraige, and abortion, etc. He seems to move with the trends of the larger voting bloc. he needed to be more liberal to become a Mass governor, but apparently had some "epiphanies" that have shifted him back to the right, despite being a lifelong Mormon with an unequivocal position on the very issues he has wavered.

Answer 3

It's because Evengelical Christians make up a huge portion of the Republican party and they want their religious beliefs to be a part of American politics, which is wrong but it's the way things are. Evengelicals also don't care much for Mormoms, so if Mitt wants to win them over he's got to make them believe one of two things: that his Mormom beliefs will not factor into his political decision-making, or that Mormons and Evangelicals have very similar ideas in the areas of morals, family values, etc. (which is true).

As a side note, I'm not Mormom but live in Utah and am familiar with the culture and also a lot of the beliefs, and not one of them thinks the Garden of Eden is in Wisconsin (although a few do believe it was in Missouri).

Answer 4

His religious beliefs (and all other candidates for the most part) become an issue because the themselves candidate makes it an issue.

I don't think that the gays in Massachusetts have Romney to think:
"In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts," Romney wrote of the amendment, which has not passed. Same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts after a 2003 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court." - http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/12/08/romneys_94_remarks_on_same_sex_marriage_could_haunt_him/

Answer 5

Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with what kind of President they would be. Unfortunately there seems to be a majority of Americas that put great value on this aspect of a person. I don't know why. Even Jack Kennedy had to put up with grave doubts from people because he was catholic and people thought he would do the Pope's bidding. Now we have Romney and he is putting up with similar things about his religion and it just isn't right. I think Romney would make a very good President and have no problem with his beliefs as long as it does not impact his job - upholding the constitution and standing up for America in everyway.

Answer 6

We do need to concern ourselves with zealots, so it does matter a little. Should it be scrutinized? - never. I think it is appropriate to ask what a person may affiliate themselves with, they can also refuse to answer. Overall they questions should end there. Nothing that someone of a faith other than yours says to you will convince you of much of anything unless you are looking to convert. Religion can be a large part of a personality - and it is important to know that their ideology alone will not determine their decision making. Banning gay marriage is a decision made in personal ideology. I can not think of any justification to do this that would not be considered a personal preference. There is no true detriment to gay marriage in society and banning it is an impediment to the liberties of all of us. Why not ban inter-racial or foreign marriages? It is very strange to me that same sex marriage is banned at all - these are eligible people who want to certify a legal relationship in their state - what is wrong about this??? If politicians didn't interject their personal preferences in policy, we would be much freer than we currently are - for better or worse.

Answer 7

Before our current president took office, I would have said that religion made no difference. But, here's a quote from "W": "God tells us there's good and evil, but can't tell me to put troops in Iraq; that's for me to figure out within the context of good and evil." A president should base a decision to go to war not on his personal religious beliefs about good and evil, but rather about the interests of the USA as a nation. It's clear that our president has made huge mistakes, and damaged our country and its principles based largely on his own religious beliefs. The more religious a candidate, the less qualified he is to be president in my opinion, and it makes no difference which religion he uses.

Answer 8

It shouldn't make any difference, but it does to the Republicans. Getting the Republican nomination is all about deciding who is the most right-wing, and -- wrong though it may be -- they've chosen to make religion an important part of that. That's in conflict with the First Amendment, but they don't care. That's why I stopped voting for Republicans. They're more concerned with remaking the country in their misguided image than they are with upholding the Constitution.

[edit]
Thank you, outta here, for having the courage to really tell it like it is. I agree that we need to encourage all intelligent and responsible people to get out and vote, because if they don't the kooks will win.

Answer 9

Most voters don't care a whole lot about the religions of the candidates but the money for their campaigns come from independent people and organizations, including religious organizations. In order to get that money they must pander those groups.

Answer 10

The true and correct answer is that there is no legal impediment to any person of any faith or lack thereof that would bar that person from serving. The actual answer is that voters will vote for a wide variety of reasons, not all of them rational, and may vote against someone whose political policies they agree with due to disagreement on religion.