In other threads I’ve stated: “If any politician really believes the story of Joseph Smith in a literal sense, I do not want them as my elected official. It shows me they lack critical thinking and an open mind.” . The articulate Alice in Florida countered, “as far as politicians are concerned, we need to look at what they say and what they do, which is far more relevant than what church they belong to.”
This echoes Dr. King’s famous hope that his children “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”, which is a dream most of us share.
I voted for Patrick based chiefly on the content of his character, but also because I felt an African American governor would be an aid to progress; my pro-Hillary female friends would feel the same way about electing a female president.
Is it possible to separate the content of a candidate’s character from his or her religion each and every time? Do certain inflexible fundamentalist beliefs impede progress? If certain candidates use religious affiliation to gain support from certain religious groups, then is religion not in fair play as a reason to reject a candidate?
I speak not specifically of Romney this time. It is legitimate to argue that Romney has plenty of existing flaws, no reason to drag Joseph Smith into this. However, we are all well versed in Romney criticisms and the conflict of religion and politics is not going away. To paraphrase David from the other thread “Agree or not agree isn’t the point. Religion is going to be talked about a lot, like it or not, so we’d better figure out useful ways to do so.”
The way in which we integrate the dialogues of politics, faith, and reason is an important question for everyone, even for those who believe that a person’s faith is irrelevant to a political dialogue. I, too, have been taught not to discriminate based on faith, but I have yet to hear anyone back up the argument that a candidate’s belief in Joseph Smith, Xenu, Creationism, the Rapture, etc, should not be used to make character judgments on a candidate other than “freedom of religion”. I’m not saying this argument is wrong, I am just not convinced.
My purpose is not to convince you to agree with me about not voting for a `true believer’ of Joseph Smith (or any other fundamentalist). My positions are not set in stone; I want people to disagree with me. My purpose is engagement – I want to provoke an exploration of our collective boundaries dividing informed social investigation/criticism and bigotry, and between free inquiry and hate-fueled bashing.
I have asked quite a few times on BMG, “Am I a bigot?” based on my positions. No one answered yes or no. Perhaps collectively there is no interest in answering this question? Perhaps I am not a bigot? Perhaps people are insecure about answering yes? If you do feel that I am a bigot, show me where I am wrong and help me to be less bigoted.
If we ignore religion as a factor in analyzing a candidate’s character, we ignore this data about the pool from which our elected officials are drawn:
- An AP story reported “25 percent [of Americans] anticipates the second coming of Jesus Christ” occuring in 2007.
- A Princeton/Newsweek poll states that “55 percent of [Americans believe] every word of the Bible is literally accurate” and goes on to say :
“Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools”.
Subscription to such beliefs informs voters as to a candidate’s capacity for ration and reason and, by extension, the content of a candidate’s character. Additionally, it informs voters where the candidate may fall on issues not addressed during a campaign. I am by no means advocating a witch-hunt or religious prohibition. I am not looking to validate or invalidate any religious belief. I am looking to explore the gray area between totally ignoring a candidate’s beliefs and applying bigoted opinions when analyzing a candidate. In what space in the political arena can we apply religious critical inquiry?
Did they vote for Kerry Healey for Governor because she is a woman and will usher in progress?
<
p>
Did they vote for Alan Keyes for President because he is black?
<
p>
Did they even vote for Ed Brooke because HE is black?
<
p>
Or Peg Heckler because SHE is a woman?
<
p>
If they answer no, they are tying to find additional ‘moral’ jsutification for voting according to ideas and party preference.
People use more than one criterion to determine who they are voting for.
…and yet –
<
p>
<
p>
Apparently only religious people are incapable of holding more than one criteria in their mind?
<
p>
The odd think is, I DISAGREE with Romney on choice, stem cell and gay marriage. BUT he is far better than any other GOP on executive ability, decision making, honesty, and attitude towards governing. So I now support him, even thoguh I don’t agree on ‘hot button’ issues. Which really, are NOT the major part of governing, however large they may loom in politics – which is not the same thing.
…show me where Romney had “ability, decision making, honesty, and attitude towards governing” when he was Governor.
<
p>
He “solved” a 3 point whatever billion dollar decifit by inflating it by a billion, using about a billion in state “raining day” reserves, then he raises fees by about $750 million and slashed local aid and gutted state agencies. Heck, that’s pretty easy.
<
p>
For about one year Romney was engaged in his job. Then he saw how a stupid frat boy could be President and figured he could to. From there Romney’s “honesty and attitude toward governing” changed. He’s changed his positions on so many issues that there is a little fibbing going on and his more than 200 days out-of-the-state in ’06 highlights his “attitude toward governing.”
Here’s something you definitely need to read.
<
p>
I’m trying to understand the notion that you believe it’s okay, for example, to vote for a woman because she’s a woman, but “repulsed” by the idea of NOT voting for a candidate because of gender.
<
p>
If you vote for a woman because she’s a woman, which you’re cool with, aren’t you effectively NOT voting for the man different because of his gender, which repulses you?
[This is a fascinating question, no?]
<
p>
<
p>
I’m struggling to understand this, too. I currently cannot articulate why this OK. And I don’t expect anyone to give me a free pass on this – at its basic level, this statement (and the opening remarks from the post) appear to be racially, sexually, gender, and religously biased and wrong-headed.
<
p>
I would be willing to wager most BMGers have simmilar feelings to my opening remarks. I don’t feel comfortable openly admiting that one attractive trait of Deval’s candidacy was the fact that he was an African American, and I feel intellectually bankrupt being incapable of articulating why that is OK but not voting for a candidate because of race is repulsive. However, I would be less than honest if I did not disclose such information.
<
p>
We can pretend that no one here uses race/gender/sexuality/religion as, at minimum, one criterion by which s/he chooses the best candidate. Many of us can continue to carry the ‘dirty little secret’ that we (in part) voted for Deval because he is Black and Barney and Jarrett because they are gay, saving face and avoiding backlash. Or, this issue can be put forth and kicked around, and perhaps minds (mine?) will be changed.
For those who are still reading this thread:
<
p>
If yes, can you explain why ithat is OK but not voting for someone based on race/gender/sexuality/relgion is wrong? Or are you like me and can’t explain?
If yes, why are race/gender/sexuality/relgion not even the slightest influence in your decision for whom to cast your vote? Are those of us in the firsst category wrong and why?
Contests, that is, not ethnic groups. I’ll admit that if somebody belongs to a group underrepresented in our legislative bodies (and that’s how men and women are different in this context), it gives them a very slight edge in my head. Figure 5 out of 100 points. I do vote based on those categories at times, but to “even up” the numbers and ensure adequate representation within our political classes.
<
p>
This doesn’t usually come up as that 5 point edge is dwarfed by 40-point differences in ideology or party. One place it can is a really down-ballot race such as regional school committee and town snowplow-repair chief or what have you. In those cases, I’ve in the past voted for women over men for reasons listed above. That said, many other times I don’t vote at all, because I don’t know who I’m voting for.
<
p>
Secondly, I’ll readily cop that religious extremists weird me out. Within the US, it often turns out to be a born-again Christian who wants to use the power of the state to spread their beliefs, whether through public-funded Bible distribution (aka faith-based charity) or bringing along Armageddon though a clusterfock of a Middle Eastern policy. If I saw many Muslim or Jewish extremists on my ballot, I’d do the same.
…because, like you said “5 point edge is dwarfed by 40-point differences in ideology or party”. It’s not as if I was struggling to decide between Deval and Kerry and Deval’s race was the decider.
<
p>
I agree what you say about extremists. But the extremity of a candidate’s religious beliefs isn’t always obvious. In 2000 I, like many Americans, perceived Bush’s religious devotion to be much more moderate. I was even under the impression that he wouldn’t try to reshape Roe v. Wade in any way (perhaps there is a little `shame on me’ for buying it in play here). But I now don’t trust Bush on abortion/conception rights.
With political double talk as it is today, has Bush, Ashcroft & Co. sullied the Born Again Christian brand for future candidates who are more scrupulous and intellectually engaging on hot button issues? Or, has the lesson been learned that we must approach all candidates who lean towards a fundamentalist belief set with a critical eye on his or her beliefs?
<
p>
Jimmy Carter made a clean break from the Southern Baptist Convention last year because he thought they were straying away from their purpose – personal faith – and too busy with powertics. I admire him tremendously for doing that. Unfortunately, though, I don’t recall any others in the realm of power following suit. If they did, they didn’t publicize it. A lost, wonderful opportunity.
I actually know little about Carter. Would people here, regardless if you agree or disagree with certain positions, say that Carter is more likely to use ration and reason than faith on making a decision? Meaning, is he more aproachable for a debate on the likes of stem cells, abortion et al and less likely to adop an inflexible ‘bible says so’ type position?
I was lazy earlier. Here’s a link to a story about his letter of departure. Turns out to have been way back in 2000. Seems like only yesterday.
<
p>
An excerpt:
<
p>
Frankly, I think Bush was moderate until Karl Rove found out how many evangelicals stayed home in 2000. That was the prime mover behind Bush’s conversion to wacky Christianity. Regardless, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ, I found that an illuminative statement. First of all, it made clear Bush doesn’t know squat about philosophy, and secondly that Bush was willing to pander to the utmost degree to the “Christian” nutjobs on the right.
<
p>
I did give some thought to voting for Deval because of his race but I ended up voting for Gabrieli (in the primary) because he seemed closer in line with my views (and also because I predicted he would win). race/gender/sexuality/relgion has never been a factor in who I vote for but it did creep into my mind this past election.
<
p>
<
p>
My answer was no, but I will take a stab at it. Just to be crystal clear these are not my beliefs but a guess as to potential reasoning.
<
p>
People feel it’s OK voting for someone based on race/gender/sexuality/relgion because:
<
p>
<
p>
Rather than being a vote of inclusion like above this is a vote for exclusion based of negative bias and is therefore looked down upon.
When I vote, I vote for the person who I believe best represents me and my views. If a candidate is a woman, jewish or gay, I am in fact more likley to vote for that candidate, provided that that they share my progressive beliefs and believe that it is government’s responsibility to provide for and protect its citizens.
So, if for arguments sake I were to say that I, simmilar to what you say, am more likely to vote for a woman, an African American, or a gay person, what does that say about me, a White strait guy?
<
p>
I think you hit on something that I could apply to myself, but I can’t quite say an African American is more representitive of me. Perhaps it is that Deval, as an African American, or Barney Frank as a gay man are representitive of my ideal of a more intergrated society?
My comments will reflect many already given above. I pick my preliminary pool of candidates based on their suitability for the job, how closely their goals for that job agree with my own, and if I think they have a chance of winning.
<
p>
If, after all that, I am lucky enough to have more than one person still in the pot, I generally vote for the minority unless there is some je ne se qua about one of the non-minorities.
<
p>
Why do I do this? Simple – I’m trying to even the odds. Women and other variety of minorities are actively discriminated against in our society, which I have no doubt includes the polls. I use my vote to help change that.
Btw, although I didn;t vote for Romney, I was actually pleased to see that MA would vote in a Mormon governor. Remember, I am an atheist saying this. So why did I see this as a silver lining? First, I thought at the time that Romney ‘s politics would be independent of his religious affiliation. Second, as a non-religious person, it was heartening to see someone elected despite their affiliation with a church that many view with skepticism, derision and loathing. I thouhtt, wow, MA is amazing! Maybe there is hope for atheist lesbians in this world after all! Well, Romney proved me wrong about who he really is, but last Nov. the MA electorate proved me right that my optimism in MA is not misplaced.
As both a devout Christian and a liberal (as much as the right likes to make them mutually exclusive to me they are very mutually inclusive) I am offended that someones race, gender, and sexual orientation are plusses but someones faith is a minus. Every president has had some faith, Barack Obama is a stauch Christian, Clinton and Carter were, Kennedy was a devout Catholic, so was Kerry. And for the most part there faith defined their policies, for me anyway the social justice message of Christ and that compassion for the less fortunate is a Christian value that defines my progressive heart and runs against my more utilitarian and libertarian brain. So faith like anything else really depends on how one applies it.
<
p>
I am a Christian but I have and will likely vote in the future for non-Christians. Yes Mitt Romney is a Mormon, yes Mormonism is to me a very weird religion, and from my point of view Joseph Smith was a fraud, but one could argue Christ or Mohammed were as well, and Harry Reids a good Democrat and a good Mormon so again while faith does affect political policy it depends on the persons own interpretations.
<
p>
I would’ve voted for Deval regardless of his race, it was barely a factor in my decision, I like women but if either of Devals white primary opponents had won I would have voted for them since their positions and values are more in line with my own than Kerry Healy’s even if she is a woman while they are white men.
<
p>
If you truly followed MLK only the content of their character, aka their views on the issues and what shapes those views, only those would matter. Not race, not religion, not gender, not sexual orientation, and importantly not political party either, Democrats come in many stripes as well.
I like what you said.
<
p>
You say there should be no bias against religion (I kind of wan to agree) but why? Especially in light of the fact that candidates openly use Christianity to gain the votes of certain Christian groups, why isn’t that in fair play to reject a candidate?
<
p>
What if a candidate was in the 62% of Americans who believed Creationism should be taught in science class? Creationism and even Intelligent Design are not science and are rooted in the Old Testement. By voting against a pro-Creationism candidate, is that not using religion against a candidate?
<
p>
Perhaps I am just ignorant here (and that is why I put forth this thread), but I’m not so sure Clinton and Kerry’s “faith defined their policies”. I am skeptical of that statement. Also, as I stated in the other thread, by shear mathematical probability, some of the national politicians must be hiding the thruth about their faiths and are in fact Christian (or what ever faith) In Name Only.
if you take off the kid gloves around religion, bigotted pols who lean on it heavily for votes (like W & Willard) won’t be able to hide their bigotry behind it any more and will be seen for what they really are. they’re too scared to speak for themselves. if they can’t pretzel up scriptural passages to make it look like god is commanding them spew all that hate, they’ll be too timid to speak. and gosh, that would be just awful.
I voted for Patrick in part because he is not deceased. I might have voted for Calvin Coolidge, but, alas, he passed away over 70 years ago.
<
p>
Being alive, however, wasn’t very high high on the list of determining factors. Nor was race.
Has race/gender/sexuality/relgion ever positively influenced your opinion of a candidate. Race wasn’t the determining factor in casting my vote for Deval, but it did make him a more attractive factor in voting for him.
<
p>
Now, I’m a white guy, but if you poll my African American friends and neighbors here in Dorchester, you get a great many “Hell yes!” I voted for Deval (in part) because he was black.
This may be because I only care about the compelling back story for an exceedingly short period of time. This is true about Deval on the South Side as it is about Clinton and Hope, Arkansas.
<
p>
I suppose that others’ mileage may vary. But it sure seems to me like the hypothetical statement by your neighbors isn’t all that different from “Hell yeah! I voted against Healy (in part) because she’s white.”
<
p>
This runs parallell to the Romney/religion discussion of a few days ago. Race and religion are officially neutral factors, at least for me. I agree that, especially with religion, a candidate’s religious belief may manifest itself with policies that are objectionable to me. I might then oppose the candidate because of his/her stance on those policies, but not necessarily because of the religion, per se. It is harder to see how this would happen with race, but I suppose it could.
<
p>
I was going to do a whole post on this–why I found the Mormon attack to be so offensive– after the religion thread the other day, but have been too busy. The short version is that it is offensive to assume that the adherents of a particular religion, or race, are monolithic in their views: Well, the LDS website says X, so Mitt must believe X.
…and I take you at your word that you are color/religion/etc blind.
<
p>
<
p>
But I think the majority opinion at BMG is that it is different. I wonder out loud does this make those of us who feel that it is different bigots? Racists?
<
p>
Another rhetorical/hypothetical: Could the BMG community vote for, say, a pre-op transsexual? I would submit that to the voting comunity at large, a pre-op transsexual would be unelectable. It be fascinating (granted, this is a little sci-fi) if we could use a computer simulation where by the 2006 Dem primary was exactly the same, except Deval was a pre-op transsexual. Take it a step further, let’s remove any republican opposition and assume that the Dem nominee will win by default, therefore electability is not an issue.
<
p>
Would pre-op Deval stand a chance at winning, given the deeply ingrained from birth notion that tansgendered people are percieved as ‘wierd’? We have recently made strides, but there are still boundaries on queerness. Queer candidates still must present a certain degree of hetero-normitivity.
<
p>
[I know this is far fetched, but some day (hopefully) this question will confront us in real life. This is not a question about biases as much as it is an attempt be me to explore the boundaries]
<
p>
PS – I hope you do write that post on the offensiveness of the Mormon attack; I would look forward to reading it.
If you vote for a practicing Catholic candidate, you are voting for someone who believes:
<
p>
1) God made himself human and sent his only son here to die for our sins.
<
p>
2) Scratch that — he sent Himself. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, are all one.
<
p>
3) Early in the last century, the Virgin Mary appeared to young girls and said more people need to pray. (Fatima is dogma — look it up.)
<
p>
4) Every week, you eat the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ at mass. This is called transubstantiation.
<
p>
5) A German Cardinal and former member of the Hitler Youth can, if he chooses, speak “ex cathedra” — from the chair, literally, metaphorically “From the chair of St. Peter.” When he does this, whatever he says is correct — he is infallible during that time.
<
p>
So Mormonism, while odd — particularly on matters of race — is hardly unique. The reasons to vote against Romney are myriad, one doesn’t need to consider his religion.
<
p>
That said, I do think it’s valid to vote to increase female or minority representation. Congress and the White House do not, in Bill Clinton’s famous phrase, look like America.
<
p>
Example – I didn’t vote for Shannon O’Brien because I didn’t think she was worthy of the office, even if she was a woman. I voted for Kerry Healey because she was worthy of the office, and her being a woman was an added attraction. I vote for Martha Coakley who WAS a worthy woman candidate, and was glad to vote for a qualified woman.
<
p>
I din’t vote aganist Deval becasue he was black, I voted for Kerry as more qualified and specific about ideas AND a woman.
<
p>
If a person with a disability runs, I give them extra points, like veterans preference, but NOT a 40 point jump, like another said.
<
p>
I don’t vote against a person because he is gay and I’m straight. I’ve voted for both gay and straight candidates based on my oerall assess ment of their abilites.
<
p>
Religion? Fuhgedaboudit. It’s like mothers – everybody has one (athiesm is just the absence of religion, with its own set of beliefs). And I am old enough to remember when it WAS a deal breaker with voters. Really, don’t vote for the Catholic, vote for the Quaker instead? If you think a person with a religion is worth a negative vote, despite other qualifications, then you are as much a bigot as I would be if I refused to vote for a black because I am white. It should NOT be a defining element.
<
p>
Extra points? OK.
<
p>
Exclusion points? Not OK.
…informs peoples ways of thinking far deeper than race/gender/sexuality? Everyone has one, but what if a candidates religous views are in direct conflict with one’s own religious views?
<
p>
Rhetorical question: what about a candidate who, otherwise quite attractive, belongs to a religious sect that most of us would consider a ‘cult’?
<
p>
I agree with your ‘gut’ statement, btw; I’ve stated above I’m in the same boat. I do hope that between these three threads we may have a way to define that ‘gut feeling’ and articulate why we think that way. It is an important enough question to be able to articulate an answer beyond a gut feeling, no?
that voting ‘against religion’ is really just voting against that which religion represents.
<
p>
I would not vote against a progressive if he or she was a devout Christian. Nor would I vote for a Jew or atheist who opposed same-sex marriage or reproductive freedom or who wanted to abolish the income tax and cut social services.
<
p>
The vote has nothing to do with religion, per se. But religion often informs the candidate’s values and that is what I will vote for or against.
<
p>
Voting for a woman or racial minority, on the other hand, seem to be much more vague “leg-up” or “even the playing field” or “i like making history” votes and are secondary to the candidate’s values, which are judged first before getting to minority status. (I didn’t vote for Healey, nor would I vote for Al Sharpton, because their values get weighed before I consider other things.)
In the last presidential primary.
<
p>
No, I don’t think he would make a good president. But in the primary debates, he was speaking about under-represented issues and stirring up some sh@t! He was doing so in no small part because of his race.
<
p>
I wanted to use my vote as a message to the other candidates to say ‘Pay attention! There are people who care about the issues Sharpton is addressing.”
I would submit that activists in all THREE areas are now chasing you with eidritch shreiks.
<
p>
The passion exhibited by SSM activists, for instance, that straight allies could not POSSIBLY be as invested/concerned/correct as they are is but one example. There professional gender and race activists, as adamant as any pastor, who would state that THOSE realities supercede any trivial denonominational ones.
<
p>
Likewise, here in the land of ‘Cafeteria Catholics’, I would not assume that a denomination holds total sway over a candidate’s thinking – remember the John Kerry sneaking Communion with the Paulists kerfluffle?
<
p>
In short, no, I really do NOT think that religion is necessarily more illuminating about a person’s ability to govern than other factors.
I don’t agree, but for argument’s sake, I’ll concede the point that race/gender/sexuality and religion are semi-equal factors in informing ones thinking.
<
p>
What if I re shape the question and I ask do you think that religion informing people’s ways of thinking is more prevalent than the other three? Are more people, given the poll numbers in my post, likely to use Christianity to inform decisions on gay rights, abortion, or any hot botton than the other three?
Why not Judiasm or Islam, which are both still more strictly governed by the sections of the Bible/Torah/Qu’ran which make these prohibitions than Christianity, whose only comment is that ‘I come to fulfill the Law, not change it’. Come to think of it, the abortion issue is strictly Roman Catholic – not mentioned in the Scriptures anywhere, and not prohibited by the equally old Eastern Orthodox aka Byzantine Chruch. That is a ‘fish on Friday’ issue.
<
p>
I get the feeling that many BMGers don’t actually KNOW many people of faith, but repeat rumors they’ve heard as often as not. I work with one lady who prays if she loses a paper clip, but votes a straight Democrat ticket.
<
p>
There is a tremendous double standard here, too. Faith seems to be an issue only with GOP candidates – I admit, I don’t even KNOW what John Edwards denomination is. What if it’s very pentecostal? Does that sideline him as a Democrat contender? If not, why not? Religious belief shaping opinion is not a partisan phenomenon – I know plenty of GOP athiests.
<
p>
<Why Christianity
<
p>
1.) A recent poll indicates 82% of Americans identify as Christians. while Jews are estimated to be 2.1% of the population. The overwhelming majority of religious-minded and religiously fundemental people in America are Christian. And I would apply the same standard I apply to Christians as would Jews, Muslims and even dogmatic atheists.
<
p>
2.) See the pool numbers cited in my post.
<
p>
3.) Due to the fact that we are an ostensibly Christian culture and I grew up in a UCC church, I am most familliar with the Christian belief system.
<
p>
John Edwards
<
p>
Again, I hate to think this out loud, but I have to be honest in order for this conversation to work, if John Edwards state that he, like many other Pentecostals, recieves the Holy Ghost and speaks in tounges, he would slide significantly down the scale for me.
<
p>
Abortion being a “strictly Roman Catholic” issue
<
p>
I don’t think this is the case, given abortion prohibition efforts in South Dakota and Mississippi. I also remember bombings and assainations of clinics and doctors being carried out by radical Christians, not Catholics.
<
p>
That’s because faith seems to be an issue only with GOP voters. So GOP candidates dutifully follow them to prove that they are good leaders.
athiesm is just the absence of religion, with its own set of beliefs
<
p>
Atheism has no central dogma, no rule book, koran, torah or bible, no “set of beliefs”. It is rumored that only the rare few who have reputedly seen copies of The Homosexual Agenda have a copy of the atheist Set of Beliefs. Naturally, as a gay atheist, I’ve been privy to neither. 🙂
I heard that in light of the comercial success of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Iraq study group report, The Homosexual Agenda will be available for purchase on Amazon.com in March. I wonder if that’s true? Or perhaps I should just stop believing everything I read from that right wing blog in Beverly?
There are buckets of Agendas already available at Amazon. But they’re all unofficial. ANd I can certify their unofficiousness, since I wasn’t consulted and havn’t received a cut of the sales loot.
…and I wanted to make some wise crack, but some of those books (and the hate they spew) just turn my stomach. 🙁
And NEITHER of us has a definitive answer on the matter yet, so it IS a matter of belief!
that I don’t already have the definitive answer? 😉
You voted for those people because they were Republicans…which makes absolute sense for a Republican. I would have voted for their opponents, because they were Democrats. Except when one of the candidates is screamingly corrupt (which really should be dealt with by the AG rather than the voters), the criteria should be political/ideological first. I don’t really think voters are well qualified to “hire” management…we are there to pick the person who will take things in the direction we want to go.
One of these things is not like the others.
<
p>
To the extent that religion is a chosen and consciously adopted belief system, isn’t it fair game for criticism? For me, though, denominational affiliation doesn’t really have much to do with it. It’s more a question of how religion seems to be related to a candidate’s decision-making processes, which is a very personal thing.
<
p>
If they seem to actually believe in irrational miracle stuff (rather than just giving lip service) and show that they can’t or won’t keep a clear line separating those thoughts from reality, that’s a problem. If someone says they believe Jesus is “coming back” during their term of office, or the like, it’s tough to feel confident that they’ll exercise good judgment on policy issues.
<
p>
The other issue is their view of religious authority and whether they ultimately have stronger loyalty to their church than to the constitution. I suppose this one is somewhat denominationally influenced, since it depends on whether or not the religion even has a strong central authority or tends to be cultish and closed to outsiders like some small sects. But I’m not particularly suspicious; a candidate would have to give me some specific reason to think there’s a problem, in general.
When I was a kid, I spent 10 years affilliated with a United Church of Christ congregation (incedentally, it is the same denomination to which Barry Obama belongs).
<
p>
At the time, they seemed pretty liberal and very flexible on personal behavior. I believe that my old congregation, in accordance with a recent General Synod, will perform same-sex marriages.
<
p>
Howver, I have a friend whose parents are divorced, but recently got back together, and are living togeher as an unmarried (although previously married) couple. Their church (I do not know the denomination) forced them to resign from their respective commities and have limited their participation in the church becuase they are ‘living in sin’.
<
p>
Even if there are no expressed rules, congregations do have cultures and can apply pressure to go along with some irrational beliefs and behavior. Could you be openly pro choice, pro gay marriage in one of those ‘mega churches’ seen on TV?
their religion…they are baptised as children, or brought up in a certain faith, and when they grow up they may break away from it…but most don’t. People tend to choose their religion in the negative sense, that is by deciding to reject the faith of their parents. However, most people don’t reject their parents faith, any more than they reject their parent’s ethnicity or social class. It’s like nationality…very few people choose that, they are born somewhere, they grow up and are educated there…it becomes a part of who they are.
You raise an interesting point, Alice. I think the christian tradition (I don’t know enough to talk of others) of raising your kids to be christian with general expectation they will remain so is quite, well, rude to the child and perhaps not ideal for the religion itself.
<
p>
How is it not ideal for the religion? It creates lots of mentally lazy, semi-adherents who dont take it too seriously because they’ve never had to really read the bible, think it through and then opt in (keeps the pews filled, though..). What do you end up with? A Roman Catholic church (for example) full of “Roman Catholics” who are rebellious against their supposedly accepted leader, the pope.
<
p>
How is it rude to kids? It plants the notion in their mind that this is the truth. notice how most people from most religions think they have the corner on the truth? It’s because they were all raised to believe that. how authentic. So, a kid is raised this way, and to have a superstition about god, hell, whatever, and so is fearful or guilty for thoughts of leaving the religion. How nice to set up our kids to 1) blindly follow the one and only “truth”, and 2) set up the expectation for damnation if they stray.
<
p>
I am doing my own thinking out loud here, in stomv’s fine tradition. So please dont skewer me – I haven’t thought it all through.
<
p>
And stomv, “atheist dogma”? Aint no such thing. As PP pointed out, atheist just means not believing in diety(ies). No other conditions. No dogma. And so, what I say above does not necessarily refelct the views of any other atheist. Or it may. Either way, suit yourselves.
I think you are adressing me, tblade.
<
p>
I don’t see all athiests, especially atheists like you, as dogmatic. I do think a small percentage of ahtiests are dogmatic. I think there are atheists who poractively adovate the abolition of all religion and work to promote their beliefs in an almost evangelical way.
i must have just read something by stomv – appologies to both of you.
<
p>
oh, i see what you mean by dogmatic atheist. a crusader like dawkins, maybe? i can see how he could be thought of as evangelical. yes, for sure. in a way, all activists are evangelists for their causes. but dogmatic? i still have a problem with that, unless you want to call all scientists dogmatic because they pursue knowledge through logic, reason and experimentation, not mythology (well, most of them do, anyway). but for me, the term just doesn’t fit very well.
Dawkins, no. But I can’t think of any mainstream, dogmatic atheists.
<
p>
But dogmatism is everywhere. Christians, atheists, Democrats, Republicans, vegans, anmial rights activists – If we look hard enough we can find dogmatics in all of those groups. But I don’t mean to imply that all vegans, etc are dogmatists.
She was the lady who sued to get prayer out of schools. The non-custodial father who sued so his daughter would not have to say ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. The several who complain about nativity scenes at Christmas, or ask that stores excise mention of the holiday.
<
p>
I would describe these as mainstream, dogmatic athiests.
<
p>
There are also philosophers such as these –http://en.wikipedia….
Examples similar to these show where the domatism of atheist people would affect my vote. Anyone so intolerant that they zelous attack Christianity through the legal system I would not want as my elected official.
<
p>
I am not saying that there isn’t a place for these types, or that all of their arguments are ridiculous. Again, it is the inflexibility.
That is what your post implies, but I’m not sure that’s what you intended to say.
<
p>
O’Hare sued to have mandatory school prayer removed, and by 8 to 1 the supremes agreed with her that that was the correct constitutional stance. The fact that they prayers happened to be christian was used by christians to claim that this was an anti-christian campaign. it wasn’t. it was a campaign to separate church and state. the distinction is important. so many religious people love to tar atheists as religion killers, when in fact actions such as o’hares actually help insure that less popular religions or denomination have breathing room. of course, some religious behemoths don’t want other beliefs/philosophies to have breathing room. so they vilify the o’hare types. people from the smaller religious communities applaud her, but silently. so painfully silently.
Since I do not know the specifics of the examples Peter cited, I tried to reply vaguely; I didn’t want to claim that I agreed with Peter that the people cited above were in fact “dogmatic atheists”, but it did make me think of a hypothetical where atheists could be domatic.
<
p>
I am in favor of eliminating the ‘under God’ portion of the Pledge of Allegiance, given that were are a secular society and ‘under God’ was added during McCarthyism. I think it sends a deep seeded message of non-inclusion to children who do not believe in God (athiests, Buddhists, etc). I respect the people who work in the legal system to try and change the Pledge. But there are some people out there who can’t talk about the issue in a rational manner and drip so much contempt (perhaps even justifiable contempt) for Christianity. That is who I am saying I wouldn’t want as my elected official.
I wanted to say that:
<
p>
“I think [under God] sends a deep seeded message of non-inclusion to children who do not believe in God (athiests, Buddhists, etc) and may give them the dangerous sense that they are un-American.”
why would you disqualify a candidate who expresses it?
Given that polls indicate 82% of America identifies as Christian, and I would guess Mass is probobly a large majority Christian, I would’t want someone who held a dogmatic contempt for the Faith of the large majority of his/her constituants.
And school prayer was just the beginning. She was a brilliant and philosophical person, who devoted her life to elinimating any reference to faith from public life; a athiest fundamentalist, if you will.
<
p>
The problem with that is that the Establishment Clause carries two parts – That the State shall not establish an official religion, and that the State shall not prevent the free exercise of religion. The second half gets overlooked sometimes. And, it is important to remember that the phrase ‘seperation of church and state’ appear nowhere in the Constitution or laws of the United States, but rather in a private letter from Thos. Jefferson debating the matter. While the Federalist Papers are a good guide to the deliberation process creating our rights, it is important to remember that there are many ideas there which were considered and discarded.
<
p>
As Americans, we do not need to have a faith in our life, and we do not need to be ashamed of having one in our life either. We have the freedom to make that choice.
From a Sunday telegraph article titled Burma ‘orders Christians to be wiped out’
<
p>