Should the show of religion/faith be a necessary part of the election process ?

[Totally Committed]

Religion and politics hand-in-hand in 2008 race
Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs -- even when they'd rather not

Story Highlights:

* Personal faith of candidates is very public part of presidential campaign
* Clinton, Obama hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters
* Dems targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, evangelicals
* Some top-tier GOP candidates are finding issue awkward to handle

"To many Americans, religion is a very important part of their life and they are interested in how religiosity influences candidates," said John Green, a University of Akron political science professor and senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"Where this election cycle is different," he said, "is that more of the Democratic candidates are speaking out about their faith, and they've organized their campaigns to appeal to religious voters."

In past campaigns, Republicans nearly cornered the conservative religious vote. The 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, is a Catholic but lost the Catholic vote 47 percent to 52 percent to Bush, according to exit polling. Bush won white evangelicals 78 percent to 21 percent.Now, Democrats are speaking plainly about their beliefs. In March, Edwards told the multi-faith Web site Beliefnet.com that Jesus would be appalled at how the nation has ignored the plight of the suffering.

"I think the majority of Americans, the people who largely decide elections, what they are looking for -- particularly in these times -- is a really good and decent human being to be president," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you are a person, a man or woman, of faith, that has an impact on how they view you as a human being, whatever your faith is."

Entire Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/01/candidates.religion.ap/index.html

I find this a bit disturbing, this acceptance of the blurring of the lines seperating Church and State. While I agree with Obama, when he says, in the article: "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters..." I do believe that this Party's chiming in with the Show-and-Tell exercize campaigns have become where religion is concerned is a slippery slope that could find Democratic political candidates needing to provide more and more "proof" of faith during elections, in order to become viable with more "voters" (Read: Red State voters), when I feel it's actually no one else's business.

How do YOU feel about this? Should the show of religion/faith be a criterion forced on the election process?

(1) The Seperation of Church and State is important. A person's relationship with God is personal and should be kept personal. It is no one's business what a candidate's relationship with God (or lack of one) is like, and it should not be used as a criterion in elections.

(2) The Seperation of Church and State is important, but I don't see a problem with a show of faith from a candidate if it is a sincere representation of the candidate's relationship with God. I don't see how using faith as a criterion in elections is hurtful, or potentionally hurtful to that Seperation.

(3) The Seperation of Church and State is not important. Our candidates should be willing to demonstrate their faith in order to be seen as viable.

(4) The Seperation of Church and State is not important. This is a Christian Nation and candidates should be willing to demonstrate their Christian faith to be seen as viable.

(5) There should be no Seperation of Church and State.

(6) Other. (Please elaborate)

TC

[doggyboy]

1. Very poorly worded

and with 6 choices, not one mentions the possibility that expressions of faith from a candidate are an example of free speech which is how the law actually sees it.

[Totally Committed]

2. That would be "Other", maybe?

Sorry about the wording.

TC

[doggyboy]

3. Maybe it's just me

but I think the actual constitutional basis for allowing candidates to make expressions of faith should be something more than "Other"

[Totally Committed]

6. The seperation of Church and State is what I'm interested in, in this poll...

While I think the actual constitutional basis for allowing candidates to make expressions of faith could be seen through the lens of "Freedom of Speech", that was not my focus. I'm more focused on what I see as the current assault on the Seperation of Church and State.

I'm sorry you're offended, but you've made your point very well, and your point was taken. It's just not the intended focus of this poll.

TC

[doggyboy]

8. "could be"????

No, free speech *IS* "the actual constitutional basis" for this.

I'm more focused on what I see as the current assault on the Seperation of Church and State.

Then read the constitution. It places no restrictions on the speech of any candidate or any individual. The "Establishment Clause" only restricts what they GOVERNMENT may do or say. Specifically, it starts "Congress shall pass no law....."

It is a restriction on the govt, not individuals. If you want to restrict the speech of candidates, then you have to limit Free Speech, and not change the Establishment Clause

[Totally Committed]

9. Thank you. I appreciate your passion on this subject.

But, I do not want to restrict the speech of candidates, I was just asking why it is necessary for them to make shows of faith or statements about their relationship with God at all, vis a vie the article I posted along with the poll.

Did you read the article? What do you think about it? Do you see it as a slippery slope situation?

That's all. I never meant for you to get upset.

TC

[doggyboy]

10. It isn't necessary

I don't know why you would think it is necesary?

As far as the article goes, no I don't think it's a slippery slope. I don't think there's any possibility of a slide to theocracy merely because a candidate speaks of their faith.

I also think that while it is silly to judge a candidate based on expressions of faith, it would be even sillier (and actually damaging) to limit free speech in the hopes it will keep people from making a mistake

That's all. I never meant for you to get upset.

Why personalize this discussion by mentioning my emotional state, a subject you know nothing about? Are we to assume that starting a thread is a sign that you're not upset, but my posting in it shows that I'm "upset"?

I haven't said one word about your personality or your character. Let's try to keep the discussion about the issue, and not the personalities, OK?

[Demit]

5. not very well spelled, either.

[Totally Committed]

7. Thanks for the input.

On Edit: I can find the mis-spellings in the OP. Sorry.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

15. nor very well answered, apparently

it never ceases to amaze me that we see posts criticizing spelling or grammar that completely fail to even discuss the issue at hand ...

is spelling what you most value? are you from the progressive spelling bee wing of the party?

btw, how do you like my punctuation? i don't like to use capital letters too often because i consider them elitist, and, well, kind of uppity ...

[Demit]

42. The misspelling jumps out here esp. b/c it is a much discussed concept.

Presumably the OP has enough interest in his subject to care how it is spelled. As for your attributing class distinctions to lower/upper case letters, that's pretty funny. Well, sad, really.

[AndyTiedye]

11. He Wasn't Asking About the Legality of Expressions of Faith by Politicians

Nobody is questioning their right to speak about their religion as long as they do not violate the Establishment clause by using government resources to promulgate their religion.

The question is not CAN they do so without breaking the law.

The question was how have we come to a place where they MUST do so? Is this a good thing?

[doggyboy]

12. No, he didn't question that

he merely left out the actual constitutional basis for it, as if the idea that someone might support it based on the actual constitutional basis for it never occurred to him

And they do not "have to" do this. They have chosen to do this. I don't see Kucinich talking about his faith.

[welshTerrier2]

13. total bullshit!

try answering the question that was asked. the OP made no reference about an imposition by law on the rights of a candidate. the OP said nothing about violating anyone's right to free speech.

instead of discussing the actual question raised which was clearly more of an exploration of the impact of religious speech in the campaign process, you chose to completely ignore the question and raise a totally separate issue. well, there's your free speech for you ... it's often not worth what you paid for it ...

and then she's kind enough to tolerate your unfortunate point and YOU can't even graciously accept her good will ...

[Totally Committed]

14. Thanks so much...

Have I told you lately how much I appreciate you?

You are a sweetie pie!

TC

[welshTerrier2]

16. quit personalizing this!!!

what the hell is the matter with you !!!! ;-)

[doggyboy]

18. Please don't be so upset

I'm sorry for driving you to cursing

[doggyboy]

17. 5 of 6 choices refer to the Establishment Clause

None refer to the part of the Constitution that is the actual legal basis for allowing these religious statements by candidates. The Establishment Clause has nothing to do with this, as it allows candidates to make such statements.

I did not say that the OP wanted to change any laws. In fact, it was ME who brought up the need to limit free speech *IF* one wanted to do anything about it. Not the OP. It was me who said it.

I merely criticized the OP because its' premise is misleading. The post and the poll choices imply that this might be a breach of the Establishment Clause. It is not.

instead of discussing the actual question raised which was clearly more of an exploration of the impact of religious speech in the campaign process

I do not see it as simply exploring the impact of religious speech in a campaign. The OP choices clearly imply that such campaign talk is in breach of the Establishment Clause.

[Totally Committed]

20. The OP (which I wrote) implies no such thing.

I am trying my hardest not to lose my patience with this argument, but for one last time:

I see candidates feeling the need to talk about their faith/religion/relationship with God as part of their political stance. The acceptance of this as a granted is something I see as dangerous to the Seperation of Church and State. It leaves agnostics or atheists in a position where they are seen as "less than" or "not as good as" the other candidates and therefore are rendered less viable. I was asking if people here thought that was a good thing or a bad thing.

I don't want to argue with you about this because it is not now, nor was it ever meant to be the point of my OP. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD. Sorry.

I see you are relatively new here, so by way of welcoming you, let me clue you in to a great feature of the boards here at DU. It is the HIDE THREAD feature. If you choose to, you can ignore this entire thread. Even better is the IGNORE fuction which will allow you to ignore me, my bothersome opinions, and any other OPs I might be so bold as to post here.

Sorry it was so badly worded or mis-spelled or whatever else is getting up your nose about it, but YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THE OP. Period.

TC

[doggyboy]

23. It certainly does, and you repeat the implication

acceptance of this as a granted is something I see as dangerous to the Seperation of Church and State.

For the life of me, I don't see how you can deny implying that this a "Seperation" issue, and then turn right around and say "I see (it) as dangerous to the Seperation of Church and State"

And since you have been on this board so long without noticing ALL of the rules, let me clue you in:

I will continue to post in this thread for however long as I desire. And I will continue to point out how obvious (and obviously wrong) it is that you think this is an Establishment issue and not a Free Speech issue.

[welshTerrier2]

21. "OP choices clearly imply"

it clearly implied that to you ... perhaps you can show the wording in the OP that made such a conclusion so clear to you.

[doggyboy]

24. 5 of 6 choices refer to the Establishment Clause

and the OP explicitely states that this is a threat to the seperation of church and state

But no, the seperation of church and state had nothing to do with the OP

[welshTerrier2]

25. the law is not the only vehicle available to separate church and state

separation of church and state is also brought about through our judgment, our values and our words and actions. the OP made no reference to ENFORCEMENT under the law. your entire implication is that she did.

her essential question had to do with self-imposed conduct.

[doggyboy]

26. Oh, yes it is

And I never said that the OP implied anything about enforcemnt. What I said is that the OP implies that this is a seperation of church and state issue, when it is not.

her essential question had to do with self-imposed conduct.

And that's why it has nothing to do with the Establishment clause. The Establushment clause deals with STATE-IMPOSED conduct, not self imposed conduct. It's about the speech of individuals, and not the actions of the state.

[welshTerrier2]

31. did the CONCEPT of separation of church and state exist before the ESTABLISHMENT clause?

you're the one referencing the ESTABLISHMENT clause, not the OP ... the OP referenced the separation of church and state and you chose to think of it only in the narrowest sense of the law.

the OP did not mention the ESTABLISHMENT clause.

here's what she did say:

I do believe that this Party's chiming in with the Show-and-Tell exercize campaigns have become where religion is concerned is a slippery slope that could find Democratic political candidates needing to provide more and more "proof" of faith during elections, in order to become viable with more "voters" (Read: Red State voters), when I feel it's actually no one else's business.

How do YOU feel about this? Should the show of religion/faith be a criterion forced on the election process?

how you get from her statement that a candidate's faith is "no one else's business" to restricting their freedom of speech or invoking the ESTABLISHMENT clause remains a mystery.

[doggyboy]

32. The Seperation of Church and State derives from the

Establishment Clause. The "Seperation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution. TSoCaS is a reference to the Establishment clause and I can't believe you need to have this explained to you.

how you get from her statement that a candidate's faith is "no one else's business" to restricting their freedom of speech or invoking the ESTABLISHMENT clause remains a mystery.

5 out of 6 choices make reference to the Establishment Clause by mentioning the seperation of church and state and I did not say the OP called for restricting any speech.

[welshTerrier2]

33. i thought you were opposed to personal attacks?

"I can't believe you need to have this explained to you."

again, you see on the law. the issue of church and state has been around for thousands of years. it precedes the ESTABLISHMENT clause. it is a concept in addition to being a law. the OP made no reference to enforcement of any law in any way. she talked only of the conduct of the candidates and its effect on the CONCEPT of church and state.

[doggyboy]

35. Yes, I am

The fact that "the seperation of church and state" is considered a reference to The Establishment Clause is widely known. I find it incredibly surprising that anyone needs to have this explained to them, particularly on DU. Even more surprising is that you would argue about the seperation of church and state as if you know about this matter, while not realizing that this idea is derived from the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause has nothing to do with a candidate expressing their faith. It is about the govt establishing a state religion.

And no matter what the candidates say, the CONCEPT of seperating church and state remains the same: not establishing a state religion. A free Americans, individuals have a right to prefer a candidate for whatever reason they choose to do so, and that freedom does not make it an infringment on the seperation of church and state.

[welshTerrier2]

41. it is clear ...

there is no point in continuing this discussion ...

[ieoeja]

27. For the record, don't forget the "religious test" clause.

Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


You keep bringing up the First Amendment's Establishment clause. I just wanted to remind you that there is a clause within the body of the Constitution itself that speaks more directly to the OP's question, should religion be part of the electoral process. Of course, this again merely limits what the gov't can do.

[doggyboy]

29. There is no religious test required

so I see no breach of Art VI, para 3

[ieoeja]

34. The OP is accusing candidates of creating a "de facto" religious Test.

Are candidates publicly discussing their religious beliefs because they like to talk about their religious beliefs in public, or are they trying to get us to vote for them because of their religious beliefs?

The gov't may not have created a religious Test. But a large body of people have created such a test in politics. In doing so those people stand in direct opposition to the religious Test clause. They are clearly defying the intent of the Constitution.

[doggyboy]

38. Candidate can't create a "de facto" religious test

We, The People, can and the Constitution does nothing to stop them from doing so. The Establishment Clause prevents Congress from creating a religious test. It is silent on "de facto" religious tests that the people may desire.

Are candidates publicly discussing their religious beliefs because they like to talk about their religious beliefs in public, or are they trying to get us to vote for them because of their religious beliefs?

Undoubtedly the latter. And if people vote on that basis, then they are being foolish. But the constitution does nothing to restrict an individuals foolishness in this matter.


The gov't may not have created a religious Test. But a large body of people have created such a test in politics. In doing so those people stand in direct opposition to the religious Test clause. They are clearly defying the intent of the Constitution.

The intent of The Framers, in regards to this issue, is quite clear. They prohibited the govt from establishing a state religion. They did nothing to restrict a citizens freedom to choose their preferred candidate on whatever basis they chose to do so not did they restrict a candidates speech in any way. Though they may not have approved of such campaign talk, they clearly did not think it should be banned or restricted in any way.

The bottom line is that there is no religious test at this time, and there is no way for the people to establish a de jure religious test. Though there is certainly room to debate the wisdom of this religious talk, and the effect it might have on our political system, the establishment clause has nothing to do with it.

[sellitman]

4. #5 = Trolls and Freepers click here

:sarcasm:

[welshTerrier2]

19. sheesh ...

i've finally worked my way through the responses. now i can actually respond to your interesting topic.

i think you've asked a difficult question. here's the best i can do with it:

people we elect must, by their words and deeds, clearly convey a sense that they represent ALL THE PEOPLE and not just the white people or the black people or the rich people or the poor people or this religion or that one or people in the east or the west and so on. more than anything else, they are elected to represent everyone. does this mean they should never be seen exiting from a Sunday service? no ... does it mean that they should never talk about praying for the safe return of our troops? no ...

but, there is indeed a line which should not be crossed. in public discourse, i think it is not healthy for democracy to speak or act in a "religious way". this absolutely should not preclude THE VALUES that person has taken from their religion. so, for example, i have no problem with someone saying that "my religion teaches me to turn the other cheek." i do have a problem with an elected official saying something like "Jesus Christ, Our Savior, has taught us to turn the other cheek." Politicians should keep "their saviors" to themselves.

i think it's important for citizens to understand how candidates think and make decisions. if they are deeply religious, i think it's important for voters to understand the underlying values. we do not need to have their faith "spewed" into the public dialog. no, we shouldn't legislate that conduct. nevertheless, i believe there is a good for democracy / bad for democracy line here that should be respected.

[Totally Committed]

22. I never wanted to legislate anything.

Thanks for seeing my point.

Lieberman was a very religious candidate, and talked about his religion a lot. No one doubted his sincerity. I was just asking is that sort of display is now necessary for a candidate to be seen as viable.

I wish I had your talent for writing OPs! This has been gruelling! LOL!

TC

[doggyboy]

28. No one has claimed you want to legislate anything

I think the confusing arose from my statement in an earlier post:

If you want to restrict the speech of candidates, then you have to limit Free Speech, and not change the Establishment Clause

Please note the conditional nature of the statement. I don't say "you want to restrict the speech of candidates". I said "*IF* you want to...."

[kestrel91316]

30. Loudly proclaiming one's "faith" for political gain ranks right up there

with loud, showy public prayer, AFAIAC. Unseemly at best.

[NoPasaran]

36. When Jimmy Carter first started yammering

When Jimmy Carter first started yammering about being "born again" in 1976 it creeped me out and it creeps me out to this day. The less I have to hear about anyone's religion the happier I am with them.

[More Than A Feeling]

37. Sometimes the god-talk bothers me, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the context, I guess.

I don't think there should be any expectations that they are or are not going to talk about it. Either should be ok, so long as they are only talking about their personal faith. Personally, it doesn't appeal to me, but then again, it's good to know what the influences on the candidates are going to be.

[doggyboy]

40. And if a candidates religion unduly influences their opinions

I don't want them covering it up.

As some of the posts in this thread indicate, religious talk on the campaign trail can cut both ways

[lvx35]

39. Religious tolerance is really important to me.

I need to hear it expressed. The candidate that would most appeal to me would express faith, support separation of church state, and express religious tolerance. Belonging to any religious sect that is intolerant would be a turn off, as would brash atheism at the other extreme.