I think it is very important, because it tells about the values and understanding person has.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: Religiosity in Politics
- Thread starter Exaltist Ethan
- Start date
I think it is very important, because it tells about the values and understanding person has.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Understanding of what?
CharmingOwl
Member
I think most Lavenderists are communists. Communists don't tend to vote in America's two parties so if we ever became the majority there would have to be a complete change of government. And the religious beliefs wouldn't matter as long as that person upholds dialectical materialism. Once a person becomes too theocratic the communist party would obviously have a talk with them about secular government since that is a core part of the ideology.
so as a whole, being spiritual doesn't necessarily separate the believer from the greater religious association that they/it were raised within.Religion for Breakfast just published a video on YouTube detailing some statistics on religious affiliation in the national United States congress. If you want to watch the video it will be here below so you can see it.
Apparently there are three major outliners in religious affiliation: Muslims, atheists and Mormons. People are less likely to vote for a candidate who is one of those three. They rate those groups poorer than others.
I'm just going to get this out of the way so people know where I stand on this issue. Pretty much every member of Earthseed is a Democrat. If it were some Earthseed progressive Democrat vs a staunch fundamentalist Christian Republican, I would still vote for the Republican, but I would not donate to the Republican's fundraisers. On the other hand, if it were both Earthseed and Republican, then I would donate, get involved and vote for that person too.
Ultimately who I vote for is mostly determined by political party, as I don't vote in primaries very often. The last primary I voted in was 2016 Republican Presidential primary and I chose John Kasich for President in that primary. Of course, I didn't get my way, and Trump won anyways, so I voted Libertarian Party for President instead now, even though I realize that the Libertarian Party is just full of crazy anarchist radicals.
I think a lot of people are going to say not important at all, but I don't believe that is entirely true for most people. Most people want to be represented by someone in their own religion, or at least someone who overall religious world view is close to their own. I intend on answering this poll with "Little importance". If it were a Christian Republican vs a Earthseed Republican, unless I personally knew the Christian Republican my vote would go towards the Earthseed Republican, so it does have some vague importance to me.
And I know John Kasich is a staunch Christian, but Earthseed is so small that finding representation for my religious beliefs isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Note: I purposefully put this in religious debates so we can debate on how important it is that a political candidate has the same religion as your religion. Please use this space and thread to discuss religiosity in politics and how important religion is to you in politics. How important is it to you that the person you vote for has the same or similar religion as you? Please discuss this topic with us below.
unfortunately a label seems to be more important to most than a behavior in general.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I vote for economics, and moral values. Separation of church and state is very important.
Government is the only means by which people have a voice, can choose the rules of economy and society, and get to choose how they protect the general welfare of its citizens. Secular people make the best leaders for that cause.
Republicans and religious ideologies have failed the American people for way too long. There's no such thing as a free and fair market that's unregulated. To vote Republican is to vote for oligarchy, and worker exploitation. Just because politicians espouse religious values does not mean they have any meaningful values; most often it's just lip service. And that lip service is a religious mask that hides their real intentions.
Most religions are for the poor and middle class, but most politicians who profess religion do the exact contrary and opposite of those religious values that are acceptable. The country runs on the poor and middle class workers. The wealthy people provide oppression only, and use religion to sucker people. They rig the system against the poor and middle class and concentrate their power.
Often times religious people follow after the rhetoric and don't do any meaningful fact checking on what's really going on in government. The religious right and their trickle down economics is nothing but falsehoods.
If anything the conservatives would be wise to boot religious thinking from politics, and be more accepting of the liberal policies that work well. A true conservative should be able to work with liberals, and only focus on cutting programs that are wasteful, and exploitive. Instead we have religious pandering to the masses, and back door economic policies that rig the system for monopolistic control in the hands of the oligarchs. American politics has been disgusting for quite a long time. Religious pandering only makes it worse.
Government is the only means by which people have a voice, can choose the rules of economy and society, and get to choose how they protect the general welfare of its citizens. Secular people make the best leaders for that cause.
Republicans and religious ideologies have failed the American people for way too long. There's no such thing as a free and fair market that's unregulated. To vote Republican is to vote for oligarchy, and worker exploitation. Just because politicians espouse religious values does not mean they have any meaningful values; most often it's just lip service. And that lip service is a religious mask that hides their real intentions.
Most religions are for the poor and middle class, but most politicians who profess religion do the exact contrary and opposite of those religious values that are acceptable. The country runs on the poor and middle class workers. The wealthy people provide oppression only, and use religion to sucker people. They rig the system against the poor and middle class and concentrate their power.
Often times religious people follow after the rhetoric and don't do any meaningful fact checking on what's really going on in government. The religious right and their trickle down economics is nothing but falsehoods.
If anything the conservatives would be wise to boot religious thinking from politics, and be more accepting of the liberal policies that work well. A true conservative should be able to work with liberals, and only focus on cutting programs that are wasteful, and exploitive. Instead we have religious pandering to the masses, and back door economic policies that rig the system for monopolistic control in the hands of the oligarchs. American politics has been disgusting for quite a long time. Religious pandering only makes it worse.
Really, that simple? Many religious people are rather highly educated, as far as I know. A Catholic priest has the equivalent of a Master's Degree, and most Muslim religious leaders are well-educated in Islamic Studies. (I grant that many American "preachers' get their training from the equivalent of Billie-Bob's Barbecue and Seminary, often through the mail.)
I have said before, when you believe that you are "authorized by God" to do any injury, compel any behaviour, "disfellowship" any who don't conform (at huge personal cost because we are a social species), and so forth, you will do it without compunction and with no feeling of either guilty or pity. After all, it's not you, it's God, right?
For me, a candidate's personal religion is irrelevant to me except to the extent that their beliefs reflect on their ability to govern.Religion for Breakfast just published a video on YouTube detailing some statistics on religious affiliation in the national United States congress. If you want to watch the video it will be here below so you can see it.
Apparently there are three major outliners in religious affiliation: Muslims, atheists and Mormons. People are less likely to vote for a candidate who is one of those three. They rate those groups poorer than others.
I'm just going to get this out of the way so people know where I stand on this issue. Pretty much every member of Earthseed is a Democrat. If it were some Earthseed progressive Democrat vs a staunch fundamentalist Christian Republican, I would still vote for the Republican, but I would not donate to the Republican's fundraisers. On the other hand, if it were both Earthseed and Republican, then I would donate, get involved and vote for that person too.
Ultimately who I vote for is mostly determined by political party, as I don't vote in primaries very often. The last primary I voted in was 2016 Republican Presidential primary and I chose John Kasich for President in that primary. Of course, I didn't get my way, and Trump won anyways, so I voted Libertarian Party for President instead now, even though I realize that the Libertarian Party is just full of crazy anarchist radicals.
I think a lot of people are going to say not important at all, but I don't believe that is entirely true for most people. Most people want to be represented by someone in their own religion, or at least someone who overall religious world view is close to their own. I intend on answering this poll with "Little importance". If it were a Christian Republican vs a Earthseed Republican, unless I personally knew the Christian Republican my vote would go towards the Earthseed Republican, so it does have some vague importance to me.
And I know John Kasich is a staunch Christian, but Earthseed is so small that finding representation for my religious beliefs isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Note: I purposefully put this in religious debates so we can debate on how important it is that a political candidate has the same religion as your religion. Please use this space and thread to discuss religiosity in politics and how important religion is to you in politics. How important is it to you that the person you vote for has the same or similar religion as you? Please discuss this topic with us below.
... for instance, I wouldn't vote for a creationist, since - IMO - anyone who can maintain a belief in creationism is either too sheltered from reality or too flawed in their thinking to be fit for any elected office I would be voting for.
As for someone whose religion isn't just a matter of personal faith but also what they would impose on others through their office, their religion is going to be a major factor in my voting decisions.
What is really that simple, at least in terms of this thread, is that you prejudge religious people and you are proud of it. There's a word for that ...
Heyo
Veteran Member
"Pre - judge" - condemning someone before hearing their arguments. I'm not prejudged against believers. I've heard their arguments. No prejudices, just judgement.
Thanks for sharing although it would have been more useful if it were in any way relevant. You'll no doubt do better next time.
I have personally been the butt of "religious arguments" against LGBTQ+ people. I protested against the Reverend Paul D. Smith of the People's Church in Toronto, who was advocating publicly for me and my kind to be PUT TO DEATH for our most grievous sin of loving one another. I am aware of the "sound religious arguments" for mutilating the genitals of infants and young children, but haven't yet found them really compelling. I've studied the depredations of missionaries -- such as the Christians in Canada and the United States who took indigenous children from their families (often forever) and forcibly converted them to their language, their religion and their culture, right up until after I was born, so that's not "ancient history."
I've read the arguments from the Catholic Church against the use of prophylactics, particularly egregious when condoms could have done so much to save the lives of so many in the AIDS pandemic. Or better yet, could have made many abortions totally unnecessary by the simple expedient of preventing pregnancy in the first place.
There's a lot more -- consider: The Crusades (Christianity), Jihads (Islam), The Inquisition (Christianity), Genocide of native North Americans (Christianity), Ku Klux Klan murders (Christianity), Witch hunts and Wiccan murders (Christianity), Biblical endorsement to mistreat homosexuals (Christianity), French wars of religion (Christianity), The Holocaust (Christianity), 9/11 (Islam) for starters.
I haven't "pre-judged" at all. I've judged on the evidence, and found religion generally wanting.
And I have persistently denounced such arguments for decades, all of which is irrelevant.
You wrote:
I am suggesting that this is a sadly naive and prejudiced view of both categories. At best, it's an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. i.e.,
- EH: I would never vote for a committed religionist.
- JS: But what if this "religionist" is the more progressive candidate?
- EH: Well, then s/he is obviously not a true committed religionist.
Now you are putting words into my mouth, and the pronouncing me "guilty."
I never said "I would never vote for a committed religionist." "Almost certainly" is not the same as "never."
And the second comment quotes not a single word that I have ever posted. At best, it is a strawman. You do not consider what I mean by "equally intelligent," so let me clarify -- Progressivism holds that it is possible to improve human societies through political action, and to this I hold. Politically, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform based on purported advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, and again, I think this is wise and I hold to it.
Thus, whatever their religious views, I would have already rated the more progressive candidate as also the more intelligent.
Heyo
Veteran Member
There is that word again. Even after @Evangelicalhumanist and I have explained that and why we are judgemental but not prejudiced.
I would also, from two equally qualified candidates, vote for the atheist. Not because I don't like believers but because I know that the atheist will never throw his hands up and claim that some magical being will help.
Yes.
You're being more than a little sloppy. @Evangelicalhumanist spoke of "equally intelligent," not "equally qualified," but no matter. You two vote as you wish. I'll vote based on political positions and political history.
And the Scotsman wins.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
*snort*
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Alistair Campbell used to step in with "We don't do God", whenever a journalist asked Tony Blair about religion. Quite right too.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Exactly. Godless communists.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This reflects my position. There are some politicians who intend to use office to further a religious agenda, for instance those who supported "Intelligent Design" in American schools. But so long as they don't impose their own beliefs on others then I don't think it matters at all.
We have a case in point at present in Scotland, where one candidate to be leader of the Scottish National Party, which is in power, is a Wee Free (Calvinist). She has admitted she would not personally have felt able to vote in favour of legalising gay marriage and that, for her, having children out of wedlock is wrong. However she has stressed she would not try to impose her personal views on the country. Some people are very indignant at the prospect of her as party leader and First Minister, because of this. I'm not sure it really matters.