Should a Presidential candidate's religious beliefs be a factor in deciding how you vote?

[Laika]

I finished watching an episode of the West Wing ("In God We Trust") in which it is strongly implied that the (fictional) Republican Nominee is an Atheist or Agnostic and therefore declines to make public his religious views (or lack of). It raised some interesting questions.

In spite of the separation of Church and State there is a kind of implicit assumption in US politics that religious beliefs or the lack of them will be a factor in how a President will arrive at making decisions. This is partly because of the supposed relationship between religion and morality, and in examining who a person 'really' is not simply as a public figure, but as a private individual whilst making important decisions. This may include specific issues where religion is a major factor in determining the outcome (such as Abortion, Gay-Marriage etc.) People therefore often draw conclusions about a person's character and ability to govern based on their religious beliefs. Atheists, as one of the most distrusted groups in America, are least likely to be elected president because of this.

Do you think that a Presidential Candidates religious beliefs should influence who a person votes for in an election? Would it matter if a person was a Muslim, an Atheist, a Scientologist or a Christian? Or should Candidates be allowed to keep their views private as recognition of separation of church and state or simply as part of respect for personal privacy and there individual rights? Or are we entitled to know about a person's beliefs as a way to judge their character and their decision-making?

This is obviously directed more at people from the US, but I thought it was a good way to think about the relationship between Politics and Religion in general.

 

[Awoon]

Christians running for President should prove Jesus existed without using any religious writings.

 

[BSM1]

I finished watching an episode of the West Wing ("In God We Trust") in which it is strongly implied that the (fictional) Republican Nominee is an Atheist or Agnostic and therefore declines to make public his religious views (or lack of). It raised some interesting questions.

In spite of the separation of Church and State there is a kind of implicit assumption in US politics that religious beliefs or the lack of them will be a factor in how a President will arrive at making decisions. This is partly because of the supposed relationship between religion and morality, and in examining who a person 'really' is not simply as a public figure, but as a private individual whilst making important decisions. This may include specific issues where religion is a major factor in determining the outcome (such as Abortion, Gay-Marriage etc.) People therefore often draw conclusions about a person's character and ability to govern based on their religious beliefs. Atheists, as one of the most distrusted groups in America, are least likely to be elected president because of this.

Do you think that a Presidential Candidates religious beliefs should influence who a person votes for in an election? Would it matter if a person was a Muslim, an Atheist, a Scientologist or a Christian? Or should Candidates be allowed to keep their views private as recognition of separation of church and state or simply as part of respect for personal privacy and there individual rights? Or are we entitled to know about a person's beliefs as a way to judge their character and their decision-making?

This is obviously directed more at people from the US, but I thought it was a good way to think about the relationship between Politics and Religion in general.

Absolutely, as with everything else that makes him who he/she really is. This person will literally have the power of life and death over you. I would think you would want to know every thing about that person from his personal and philosophical outlooks down to his hat size.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think that a Presidential Candidates religious beliefs should influence who a person votes for in an election?

Yes, but not on a reductionist level. There must be an effort at detailing what those beliefs mean to the candidate on a practical level.

Religious beliefs are a meaningful component of political ideologies, as is the lack of same. And elected representatives are by definition subject to some degree of scrutinity about their proposals, beliefs and ideologies. I see no reason to make exception for religiously motivated ones.

Would it matter if a person was a Muslim, an Atheist, a Scientologist or a Christian?

Yes, although that is not enough to fully decide the matter. Even for beliefs I have made up my mind about, there is always the odd duck that surprises us.

Or should Candidates be allowed to keep their views private as recognition of separation of church and state or simply as part of respect for personal privacy and there individual rights? Or are we entitled to know about a person's beliefs as a way to judge their character and their decision-making?

They are of course allowed to have privacy, but then again so are voters allowed to inquire and to learn about their views. I figure politicians who choose to be very private are often not very convincing, regardless of the actual merits of their proposals.

This is obviously directed more at people from the US, but I thought it was a good way to think about the relationship between Politics and Religion in general.

While the separation between Church and State is very much necessary IMO, I don't think secrecy of belief is a good thing. Nor do I mind if a politician's ideologies have religious motivation, as long as they are made clear and evaluated for their own merits, without relying on their origins alone.

 

[George-ananda]

I admit I would be emotionally reticent to vote for an atheist President even though I intellectually know that that is no reason why he could not be the best person for the job.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is an important factor I consider when it comes to choosing a candidate. I want a candidate that reflects my values.

 

[Skwim]

Q. Should a Presidential candidate's religious beliefs be a factor in deciding how you vote?

A. Of course! If an atheists got into office it would bring the country to its knees in a heart beat. Satan would be running wild, corrupting our youth and raping women everywhere. Big business would no longer be able to rip off the middle class, and our ak47s would be snatched from the very hands of our children. Everyone, yes, everyone! men included, would be having abortions morning, noon, and night. AND our money would have "There Ain't No God" printed on both sides. Worst of all, our churches would no longer be tax shelters. Just think of it: there would no longer be any exaggerating our religious donations for tax exemptions. And, how could we spend billions sending someone to Mars rather than helping the poor if an atheist gets into office? We couldn't!

KEEP ATHEISTS OUT OF OFFICE
AT ALL COST​

 

[metis]

Not really, but his/her scientific stands are very important to me.

 

[Father Heathen]

And, how could we spend billions sending someone to Mars rather than helping the poor if an atheist gets into office?

Wait. I thought it was the atheists who had an affinity for science and space exploration, whereas religious fundies abhorred it. Not the other way around.

 

[Skwim]

Wait. I thought it was the atheists who had an affinity for science and space exploration, whereas religious fundies abhorred it. Not the other way around.

Atheists do indeed like science, but they're also attuned to the needs of others. And, it's not necessarily the fundies, but all the faithful who put their good money into expensive architectural extravagances in which to worship rather than using it to help the less fortunate.

 

[BSM1]

Atheists do indeed like science, but they're also attuned to the needs of others. And, it's not necessarily the fundies, but all the faithful who put their good money into expensive architectural extravagances in which to worship rather than using it to help the less fortunate.

Go figure.....

 

[Father Heathen]

Atheists do indeed like science, but they're also attuned to the needs of others. And, it's not necessarily the fundies, but all the faithful who put their good money into expensive architectural extravagances in which to worship rather than using it to help the less fortunate.

Understood, but I wouldn't compare space exploration to building fancy temples, nor would I consider scientific/technological advancement to be at odds with humanitarian causes.

 

[gsa]

I finished watching an episode of the West Wing ("In God We Trust") in which it is strongly implied that the (fictional) Republican Nominee is an Atheist or Agnostic and therefore declines to make public his religious views (or lack of). It raised some interesting questions.

In spite of the separation of Church and State there is a kind of implicit assumption in US politics that religious beliefs or the lack of them will be a factor in how a President will arrive at making decisions. This is partly because of the supposed relationship between religion and morality, and in examining who a person 'really' is not simply as a public figure, but as a private individual whilst making important decisions. This may include specific issues where religion is a major factor in determining the outcome (such as Abortion, Gay-Marriage etc.) People therefore often draw conclusions about a person's character and ability to govern based on their religious beliefs. Atheists, as one of the most distrusted groups in America, are least likely to be elected president because of this.

Do you think that a Presidential Candidates religious beliefs should influence who a person votes for in an election? Would it matter if a person was a Muslim, an Atheist, a Scientologist or a Christian? Or should Candidates be allowed to keep their views private as recognition of separation of church and state or simply as part of respect for personal privacy and there individual rights? Or are we entitled to know about a person's beliefs as a way to judge their character and their decision-making?

This is obviously directed more at people from the US, but I thought it was a good way to think about the relationship between Politics and Religion in general.

Actually I don't know that there is an assumption that religion will be a factor in how a president makes decisions. Certainly, I believe that evangelicals think that is the case. And there is some disturbing evidence from a phone call between Bush and Chirac that the former considered the prophecy of "Gag and Magog" threatening Israel when attempting to persuade the French president to support the US invasion of Iraq. By and large, however, I think that most Americans consider it puffery. We do not believe that most people are motivated by religion in all but a few discrete areas, the ones that you mention being first and foremost.

That said, there is some evidence that religious beliefs, at least those sincerely held, do in fact motivate actions. Indeed, most religious people would probably find any suggestion to the contrary offensive, as though they did not have firmly and sincerely held beliefs. For that reason I think that those beliefs should be considered, and that it matters whether someone is a Muslim, atheist, Scientologist or Christian. Additionally, some religious institutions exert unusually strong influence over their members. If a candidate will be threatened with excommunication for disagreeing with his church over LGBT rights, for example, I want to know that and I have a right to weigh that in the voting booth.

 

[Baladas]

I don't think it should matter what someone's religion is.
The only case that it would matter to me is if they were a fundamentalist, who would attempt to legislate their faith.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It matters, but not in the superficial way most people in the general population seem to assume it matters.
I swear there is an element of team barracking. We seem to associate someone falling under the same religious umbrella as making the 'right' choices, or giving us more of a voice.

What matters is how this person will make and react to policy. To a degree, that is informed by their truly held beliefs, and to some degree it is informed by how they view their constituents, how they see their representative role, and what the polls are saying.

What matters very little is what religion they claim to be. In an area with a Christian constituency who will vote for Christians, surprise, surprise, virtually all successful political candidates claim to be Christian, and represent 'good Christian values' whilst often keeping this deliberately vague so as to allow as many different Christians as possible to associate with them.

I would assume an atheist candidate would get a similar boost in atheist vote, at least initially. But the associated 'bump' would be worth far less than the associated issues with openly identifying as an atheist, pragmatically.

 

[Laika]

Christians running for President should prove Jesus existed without using any religious writings.

OUCH! That is so evil. It would be agony to watch in the Presidential debates.

I like it.

I admit I would be emotionally reticent to vote for an atheist President even though I intellectually know that that is no reason why he could not be the best person for the job.

I like your honesty George-ananda. Is it that Atheists are (usually) free thinkers so your not sure what they are going to do if they got power? Or maybe the bad association from Atheist=Commies?

That said, there is some evidence that religious beliefs, at least those sincerely held, do in fact motivate actions. Indeed, most religious people would probably find any suggestion to the contrary offensive, as though they did not have firmly and sincerely held beliefs. For that reason I think that those beliefs should be considered, and that it matters whether someone is a Muslim, atheist, Scientologist or Christian.

It crossed my mind that knowing about someone's religion would give you an idea as to whether they actually measure up to their own standards and you could see whether they were hypocritical in the past or not. That might be a way to evaluate someone's suitability for the role.

Religious beliefs are a meaningful component of political ideologies, as is the lack of same. And elected representatives are by definition subject to some degree of scrutinity about their proposals, beliefs and ideologies. I see no reason to make exception for religiously motivated ones.

It is surprising how often religious and political ideas overlap, particularly if a person views god as the ultimate authority. The inverse is true for Atheists and agnostics is deciding which sources to trust and authorities to respect, such as the scientific community.

 

[Sees]

Most religious Americans in my experience don't actually care much about religion in day to day life...my typical analogy is it is something they keep in their back pocket and tend to only pull it out for special occasions and emergencies. Their views on different issues and actions in life, which represent their overall character, matter way more to me. Same as if I wanted to call them a friend.

Plenty of atheists have the same preachy, exclusivist attitude and outlook that they had as a Christian, for example...you can't just judge by cover or labels.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I finished watching an episode of the West Wing ("In God We Trust") in which it is strongly implied that the (fictional) Republican Nominee is an Atheist or Agnostic and therefore declines to make public his religious views (or lack of). It raised some interesting questions.

In spite of the separation of Church and State there is a kind of implicit assumption in US politics that religious beliefs or the lack of them will be a factor in how a President will arrive at making decisions. This is partly because of the supposed relationship between religion and morality, and in examining who a person 'really' is not simply as a public figure, but as a private individual whilst making important decisions. This may include specific issues where religion is a major factor in determining the outcome (such as Abortion, Gay-Marriage etc.) People therefore often draw conclusions about a person's character and ability to govern based on their religious beliefs. Atheists, as one of the most distrusted groups in America, are least likely to be elected president because of this.

Do you think that a Presidential Candidates religious beliefs should influence who a person votes for in an election? Would it matter if a person was a Muslim, an Atheist, a Scientologist or a Christian? Or should Candidates be allowed to keep their views private as recognition of separation of church and state or simply as part of respect for personal privacy and there individual rights? Or are we entitled to know about a person's beliefs as a way to judge their character and their decision-making?

This is obviously directed more at people from the US, but I thought it was a good way to think about the relationship between Politics and Religion in general.

A presiden's private beliefs wouldn't affect my vote too much but his or her religious beliefs in general may sway me. For example I would never ever vote for a member of the westboro baptist church or a scientologist.

edit.
and to add I would never vote for a young earth creationist.

 

[Marisa]

There's a vast difference between Jack Kennedy/Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan/Rick Santorum. Kennedy and Santorum are/were both catholic. Reagan and Carter are/were both evangelicals. IMO, you'd be hard pressed to argue that these individual's religious beliefs didn't inform their political ideology. It's in the how that is important. Kennedy may have held the belief that abortion is immoral, but would he have believed that his religious belief should be advanced in a world that was increasingly accepting of the idea of female bodily autonomy? At almost every turn, Kennedy tried his best to separate the catholic from the president. A President Santorum wouldn't do that, Santorum has firm beliefs on the issue of female autonomy and how available birth control should be. The problem with this is that not everyone believes what he believes. Santorum would be the "catholic president". Same with Carter, he wasn't the "evangelical president".

The problem isn't that a candidate is religious. It's how that belief informs the candidate. You can't be president of just the people who think like you, you have to be president of ALL the people, and that includes those who think dancing is immoral even though you like to kick up your heels on Friday night. Public policy has to be written which flatters all beliefs whenever possible, and generally this means preserving an individual's right to choose. When choice is safe and protected, that means that every individual can make the choice that meets their personal moral standard. In that sense, it's very important to me what a candidate's religious beliefs are, and how much those beliefs inform the candidate's position. I'm not concerned with whether or not Mike Huckabee approves of abortion, I'm concerned with whether he will actively seek to destroy my right to own my body.

ETA: Even though I referenced the issue of abortion, for the purposes of my argument "choice" has more of a general meaning. It can mean the right to choose to abort, to use birth control, both of which are very close to me as a woman and mother of a daughter, but it can also mean the right to choose to refuse certain medical procedures, for instance.

 

[Marisa]

Christians running for President should prove Jesus existed without using any religious writings.

We've had a long string of christian presidents, but not all of them have sought to legislate their belief. Given that in the US today, still more than 70% identify as christian yet elected Obama for 2 terms, that suggests that not all christians are interested in implementing religious law.