40% of voters don't want a religious president

[wednesday]

Look at George W. Bush. If your religious beliefs are stupid enough, they can make you the worst president in the history of the United States.

Agreed.

What if the president made decisions in favour of his own faith? Would extremists of every other religion try and bomb him? Seems like the current common trend :S

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm part of that 40% also. I don't care if a president is member of a religion, but I do care if a president (as is currently the case) feels like his obligation is to the religious right (as opposed to the American people).

jonny, I'm part of the religious right and also the American people too. What most of you fail to understand is, this country is divided and half of us are just fine with the current state of affairs. The religious right is going to vote another President in again. Why? because we contribute money to campaigns. We actually make it to the voting booth and bring along Lot's of folks with us when we go.

40% is just about right. Surely you don't want 40% to run this country right?

 

[BUDDY]

I am part of the 40%. Not because of my religious preferrence but because it is not very fair the way it is currently setup. Meaning, if a president of a particular faith comes into office they generally try to impose their own religious veiw point on the rest of us. If there was a way to limit laws that could be passed by the president that pertain to morality. For example, if a president who had a problem with gays or abortion came into office, they would not be able to pass a law against them. If that were the case I bet the 40% would not care either.

I would like to know if you have any examples of how previous presidents have "imposed their religious beliefs upon you".

 

[BUDDY]

Religious beliefs could possibly get in the way of your decision making as a political leader couldn't they? When you govern 60 million people that could cause chaos? Religion has no place in politics regardless.

Any belief whether religious or not could do the same thing. Hell, atheism could get in the way. It makes little difference.

 

[BUDDY]

Agreed.

What if the president made decisions in favour of his own faith? Would extremists of every other religion try and bomb him? Seems like the current common trend :S

What trend? What Americans have tried to bomb representatives that disagree with them religiously? This post is simply stupid.

 

[BUDDY]

jonny, I'm part of the religious right and also the American people too. What most of you fail to understand is, this country is divided and half of us are just fine with the current state of affairs. The religious right is going to vote another President in again. Why? because we contribute money to campaigns. We actually make it to the voting booth and bring along Lot's of folks with us when we go.

40% is just about right. Surely you don't want 40% to run this country right?

Your right, 40% in not a majority, not even close in the political world. It doesn't matter though. The OP's question was insincere. The point is just one more attempt to try to get the religious to feel bad for being religious. Personally, I am getting kind of tired of people tryign to make me feel guilty for being who I am...a believing and practicing Christian. I wish they would just give it up.

 

[tmaromine]

I would like to know if you have any examples of how previous presidents have "imposed their religious beliefs upon you".

I don't know if it has happened (yet), but here'd be one:

If a bill about national civil unions (aren't we called the ""United"" States for some reason ?) – or hell, orientation on the hate crimes list – gets to the president and he vetoes it, he has imposed his religious beliefs on them, on me.

If we don't get Paul or to a lesser extent Romney, or a democrat (amazingly, it seems all of the democrats as a single label are equally sane on this topic, even if it does oppose their religious beliefs), it looks like it might most definitely happen.

Congress/Senate disposed of ENDA, and I believe one reason was because this guy who currently plays the US president probably would've vetoed it.

It may be that my example hasn't actually played out on the presidential level, but it's a minuscule chance that it never will.

Any belief whether religious or not could do the same thing. Hell, atheism could get in the way. It makes little difference.

I agree with this. I wouldn't mind putting my atheism (or whoever atheistic candidate could really get to presidency. . .in 70 years when we're a saner voting-public) just to get back at the idiots who would pay attention to nothing else but (my) atheism in daily life, but I couldn't justify imposing that on the people who don't care, and the only logical route to take is just leaving all personal opinions out of government.

Equality. 'Good' (Fair?) people get good consequences ; 'bad' (unfair?..) get bad consequences ; 'good' Asians get the same rights as 'good' Australians ; 'good' Christianity gets the same rights as 'good' Islam ; et cetera – and, 'good' humans get to marry 'good' humans (or, even just: humans get to marry humans). It's amazing how many people would be idiotically blind to this logic though, so the chance of this type of president is pathetically lower.

(I '...'ed good and bad, because they can really only be described based on personal opinions or beliefs.)

 

[wednesday]

What trend? What Americans have tried to bomb representatives that disagree with them religiously? This post is simply stupid.

No extremists in other countries ie. Pakistan. Atheism could get in the way, any beliefs can get in the way. However i don't see how not considering God at all can get in the way of making decisions? With religion there are more things to consider being a) is it ethical for my country and b) is it ethical based on personal beliefs. Maybe im not seeing what you are saying from the right angle?
Also, people like bush wouldn't waste money visitng religious centres at the cost of tax payers if they weren't religios.

P.S you dont have to be so blantently arrogant when you reply to a post

 

[Francine]

I would like to know if you have any examples of how previous presidents have "imposed their religious beliefs upon you".

"The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." - The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military

 

[wednesday]

"The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." - The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military

Maybe the military is against all kinds of relationships that could interfere with misisons/training with weapons? Im not American so i don't know, but from what you've posted that is a strongly religious based political decision.

 

[Francine]

Maybe the military is against all kinds of relationships that could interfere with misisons/training with weapons?

The Pentagon will discharge a member for adultery. That is actually an article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and evidence that the military is at least somewhat even-handed in its crusade to impose the Law of Moses on servicemembers.

 

[wednesday]

The Pentagon will discharge a member for adultery. That is actually an article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and evidence that the military is at least somewhat even-handed in its crusade to impose the Law of Moses on servicemembers.

What about people in serious relationships who join? Say a husband and a wife? Can they be discharged for having a relationship inside the military or at least by showing affection? I would understand since it can be a distraction, but if homosexual people cannot have a relationship, why should straight people be allowed to under the same circumstances?

 

[kai]

In 08 (unless someone comes out of the blue) every candidate will be claiming to be christian.
Now, you have to decide which is worse, a "true believer" or someone that is pandering to a perceived majority.

I will look for someone that talks about issues more instead of there personal faith or there opponent.

their poloticians what do you think there going to do "tell the truth" anyway a true beleiver is a frightening thought

 

[Francine]

What about people in serious relationships who join? Say a husband and a wife? Can they be discharged for having a relationship inside the military or at least by showing affection? I would understand since it can be a distraction, but if homosexual people cannot have a relationship, why should straight people be allowed to under the same circumstances?

Because"marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."