Is a candidate's religion ever fair game?

[sampsonblk]

I am trying to imagine if David Koresh or Jim Jones ran for president. Would I be within the bounds of common sense and etiquette to say negative things about their religions.

Like 'Hey, what this guy believes in is messed up.'

What it a man believes in having his wife walk behind him, or that she should be mutilated once she reaches adolescence? Is it ever acceptable to say someone's faith itself is not acceptable?

[Kagemusha]

1. It's not what a guy believes in, it's what he is going to do about it.

But, the constitution says no religious test for a reason. It may take some boring history books about a lot of people being slaughtered like pigs to understand why, but that clause exists for a good reason.

[lvx35]

8. exactly.

A person should be able to defend what they are going to do without refering to faith. However if their faith inspires the ideas they are willing to back by reason, good for them, but who cares.

[pnwmom]

9. The Constitution doesn't direct us as to how we are supposed to vote.

Anyone can decide not to vote for someone based on their beliefs. There are certain religious beliefs that would make me question a person's intelligence, and/or motivations, and I would feel free to vote against a person for those reasons.

But the Constitution says that the government can't prevent anyone from RUNNING on that basis.

[Kagemusha]

11. Yeah, anyone can decide that, but the proper basis is as to actions.

Motivations and intelligence and so on go as to actions. I don't think it's a good idea to make someone's religion a mark of inherent evil. Yes, people are free to believe that, but I don't play that game. I focus on religion to the extent it guides a person's actions, and how. For a lot of people, it guides their actions a lot.

But let's say for Romney, the scary thing isn't his religion. It's that he seems to otherwise have no principles he's not willing to bend for the sake of raw power. He'll say whatever he needs to say.

[pnwmom]

12. I'm thinking less of people like Romney

and more of people like Tom Cruise. From an extended family member's experience with his org, I would be very concerned about a Presidential candidate of that ilk.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Yes, when the candidate makes religion fair game

When a candidate makes a big deal of his religious beliefs and makes religiosity part of her campaign, then yes. As informed voters in a democracy, it is our civic duty to examine everything that a candidate offers to us. When the candidate's religion is part of that offering, then we are obligated to treat it as any other datum.

[SheilaT]

3. Yes, A person's religion is fair game.

If someone claims to be a member of a particular faith community, then I think it's reasonable to expect that person to adhere to the teachings of that faith. And I also think it's fair to assess whether or not a member of that particular faith community will be fair and honest in his/her dealings with others, especially as an elected official of some kind.

Obviously, it probably doesn't matter a lot what your religious beliefs are if you're running for water board, or perhaps city council. But once you're running for mayor, or state rep, or President, that you darn well better be able to separate your own personal religious beliefs from the larger good. You need to be able to understand that, not matter how deeply and sincerely you believe, no matter how right you think you are, that many others don't believe the same way, and that respecting others beliefs (and non-belief also) requires that you refrain absolutely from any action that would tend to force your beliefs, your world view upon others.

Actually, what bothers me a lot about this recent focus on candidates' religion is that there's an assumption that only members of approved faith communities are suitable for public office. Candidates are forced to be publicly religious, which I personally find somewhat offensive.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Yes. In politics, everything's fair game and should be

If a politician is an extremist Mormon who believes in polygamy and enforcing under-aged women into relationships with older men, that should be brought out into public so people can make up their minds as to whether that matters to them.

Religion is not, and shouldn't be, a blank check, nor should it be above the law. The tacit assumption is that religion is "good", and therefore should be exempt from criticism. I simply don't agree. Not only do I see that many religions are wicked institutions, I don't think the concept of religion is all that good.

It's a personal choice, not something out of their hands. It's wrong to bring gender, race, sexual orientation or physical traits into the argument except where these traits affect electability. (Even then, it's a very thorny issue, but these things do have bearing on the vote and one would be foolish to not address them.) Religion is entirely different because it is a personal choice.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Look at keith ellison and how he was treated.

[wildhorses]

6. or, rather the lack thereof. don't dis the atheists ---

they have rights, too. you know;)

[sampsonblk]

13. Good point-nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. No, unless a candidate is exploiting it

In that case, though, imo, the criticism should be limited to the misuse of religion, not the religion itself. For instance, pointing out that Reagan rarely went to church is legitimate because he exploiting a religious image for political gain; bashing his sect of Christianity is not legitimate.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. Absolutely.

It's just assumed that atheists are excluded. Why not exclude members of extreme or cultlike sects? I don't want a Mormon president, a Scientologist president, a Moonie president, or indeed a Branch Davidian president. Candidates from bizarre cults should be shut out at the gate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. Define "bizarre cult," please. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

17. Beliefs that are totally beyond the pale

like Jesus coming to America, for instance.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Wicca? Asetru? Atheism?

Now define "beyond the pale" and explain why some religious beliefs would get a pass while others would not. Please keep in mind the United States Constitution's "religious test" clause and the First Amendment.

[Jed Dilligan]

26. I'm not talking about in law.

I deplore the fact that non-Christians are de facto excluded. I'm talking about excluding Christian weirdos. I'm talking about who people shouldn't vote for, not legally barring people from running. If the religion is a mind-control cult, like Scientology or Mormonism, we do not want a president from it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Define "weirdos" and "mind-control cult", please

You are just citing groups you do not like and offering nothing more rational than "Blech!" Is there a metric that people can use to distinguish between "cults," "weirdos" and "mind control" groups?

[Jed Dilligan]

28. Here are a few good yardsticks:

--mandatory financial contributions to religious organization
--institutionalized child abuse in the form of child marriage, etc.
--going door-to-door looking for converts
--excessive promises of worldly success, health, etc. to prospective converts
--belief in the imminence of an apocalypse or any real, physical event that will end the secular order of nations and put the religion in control of the earth
--brainwashing: I don't mean the normal brainwashing that comes with any religion, I mean you have to be deprogrammed by professional psychologists to function normally
--refusing modern medical or psychiatric care based on beliefs alone
--and yes, the blech factor. If you have a strong sense that a candidate lives in a science-fiction universe that does not resemble the world you see, I wouldn't recommend voting for that person.

You seem to be asking for some kind of scientific measurement basis for determining whom to vote for, but that's not how voting works

:shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. The reason I am being pissy is...

I was a Wiccan for a long time, and many of my friends still are Wiccan or Asatru. I have now been an atheist for many years. I and my friends are constantly being called "cultists" or followers of "weird" beliefs. According to national polls, it would be absolutely impossible for me to run for public office solely because of my lack of belief in supernatural entities; atheists constantly rank lower than lawyers in terms of public trust.

So arbitrary "Yuck!" responses based on religion tend to set me off.

[Jed Dilligan]

36. I've long accepted that

I'm an atheist and I would never want to be in public office.

But Wicca and atheism aren't cults. The "blech" factor could change over time for various faiths/non-faiths, after all, we went from anti-Catholic riots to Pres. Kennedy in just a hundred years.

However, this wouldn't change the fact that a leader from an ACTUAL cult, like Scientology or LDS, would be gravely dangerous to America and the world.

[gratuitous]

15. Of course it is, but who would ask the question?

It's not as if the reporters for the major media, their editors, producers, or publishers, evince the slightest indication that they understand anything about religion or religious beliefs. They gladly parrot the lunatic rantings of the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells and the other yammerers who try to hide their bigotry behind a bible or a koran, pretending that this represents mainstream religious thought. And people who don't know any better, or whose own laziness is justified by thinking the worst about their religious fellow citizens, are happy to just think that the majority or even a significant plurality of Christianity or Islam or any other religion is represented by these charlatans, crooks and killers.

The next sustained, serious treatment of a candidate's religion in the major media will be the first.

[Tellurian]

16. Has everyone forgotten Jack Kennedy?

Being Catholic definitely was a black mark against a potential presidential candidate. The cry was: "how can a Catholic be elected with such close ties to the Vatican?" The Republican mantra was instilling fear of a government takeover by the Catholics/Vatican? So, guess what, they did it themselves using Evangelicals as a huge voting block backing Bush in 2000/2004.

[sampsonblk]

20. What if the guy's a satanist? Or worships nature?

You approve of a catholic. Do you approve of all religious affiliations?

I honestly don't have an answer that fits in all cases.

[Tellurian]

22. The point is:..

In the 60's, one had to be a white, male, protestant to fit the model for consideration as a presidential candidate. That is the mega wall against which JFK faced when he ran. A Catholic seeking the presidency was historically a shocking move on Kennedy's part, with media mavens floating the meme, he was considered unelectable because of his religious affiliation.

[Radical Activist]

18. To the extent that it affects his political views

then its ok. If a candidate can separate his political and religious beliefs, then so should the public.

[onenote]

21. A candidates personal beliefs may be fair game, but not his adherence to a particular religion

The fact that a candidate may identify himself or herself as an adherent of a particular religion is meaningless. What matters is what the candidate personally believes and what actions, if any, the candidate might take reflective of those beliefs. John Kerry identifies himself as Catholic. The Catholic Church obviously doesn't support a woman's right to choose. Kerry, while identifying himself as Catholic, disagrees with the church on this. To fault Kerry for his religion would substitute the religion for the candidate's belief.

[AngryAmish]

23. Only if a Republican

Honestly, anything is fair game against a Rethug.

Family, sex life, anything.

These people must be destroyed by any means necessary. They are sub-human filth.

[Independent Democrat]

24. Not unless the candidate themself makes it an issue.......

If they're going to run on religion, then they should be properly vetted. Otherwise, it's not fair game.

[sampsonblk]

25. Germany bans Cruise film shoot (scientology)

Germany bans Cruise film shoot

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defence Ministry said on Monday...

Defence Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult"...

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSL253889920070625?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true


So I guess in Germany, one's religion is an issue. What if Tom Cruise runs for President of the USA?

[jmowreader]

29. It is under two circumstances

When the candidate puts his religion into play, and when the candidate's religion is unamerican.

An example--a very GOOD example--of the first is Bush himself. When he started screaming about how holy and pure he is, would have been the optimum time to point out he had at least one DUI, he was a cocaine snorter, he is a drunkard, he went AWOL from the National Guard, he offered to beat the shit out of his own father...you know, all those Good Solid Christian Values we've come to know and love.

An example of the second is the Unification Church. About 99.95 percent of all Americans would not enjoy having a moonie president. (America's reaction to some of the upcoming executive orders might be kinda fun, though: "Washing yourself with a Holy Washcloth and putting a picture of the Reverend Moon on your nightstand before you have sex? Fuck that!") No, if my president's a moonie I really want to know about it, 'kay?

[Bucky]

30. If someone is running as a theocrat, then sure. A candidate's world view is important. But...

on the whole a person's religion isn't fair game. Whether you're a Catholic in 1960, a Jew in 2000, or a Mormon in 2008, I judge you on your merits.

[Eugene]

31. It is fair game if a candidate uses it as a political tool or as a gov't action plan.

When the candidate makes his or her faith the people's business,
then and only then does it becomes fair game. Beyond that,
if your faith keeps you on an even keel, there is no issue.

[calimary]

32. If they're making it about religion, themselves, then so be it.

If and when any of these guys (and Hillary, too) want to pontificate about their religious beliefs, then yes, it's fair game. If they don't want their religion to be an issue, they should say so. "My religious preferences are my own private concerns. I'm running for President. Not Pope, Archbishop, Reverend, Rabbi, or Mullah. I'm hoping to be working in Washington DC, not the Vatican or Tehran." Wouldn't it be nice to hear this instead of watching most of them wrapping themselves around the Bible? Last I looked, this was still a SECULAR nation.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Yes and that includes ALL religions.

But, then, of course, I believe that anyone who takes a book of fairy tales seriously has got some serious issues to begin with.

If someone ABSOLUTELY believes in the bible (beyond looking at it as a book of fairy tale like stories from which they can draw some moral lessons at times) I seriously question their intelligence and their capacity for rational thought.

When you are applying for a job, the main center of which is making decisions that alter the lives of hundreds of millions of people, I want to know that you can think rationally.

I understand that lots of candidates need to be *wink* *wink* religious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y2N9FueKak

but if they really REALLY believe, I fear for what decisions they may make in the future.

[rucky]

35. You don't have to imagine a cult leader running...

our current idiot in charge makes foreign policy decisions based on the voice of "god" inside his head.