Does religion determine politics

[Confused]

I have found the following quote by Sam Harris to be quite true, unfortunately:

"In our next presidential election, an actor who reads his bible would almost certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does not".

Question for debate:
1) Does the religious orientation of a presidential candidate really hold enough influence to determine the outcome of an election (I am asking if this happens, not if it should happen)
2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?
3) Do you think the religious orientation of a president is important? Why? Why not?

[achilles12604]

I have found the following quote by Sam Harris to be quite true, unfortunately:

"In our next presidential election, an actor who reads his bible would almost certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does not".

Question for debate:
1) Does the religious orientation of a presidential candidate really hold enough influence to determine the outcome of an election (I am asking if this happens, not if it should happen)
2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?
3) Do you think the religious orientation of a president is important? Why? Why not?

1) Yes

2) Yes to some extent. For example if a man is deeply religious it will certainly affect his views. Take abortion for example. An atheist can be just as against abortion as even the most right wing Christian. But in GENERAL, if a Christian is in office, the public can generally assume what his position will be. I take the person's beliefs into account. Indeed I think it would be foolish not to. Would you elect someone who believed that a holy jihad needed to take place to cleanse the world of infidels? You would take his religious beliefs into account as well you should for they will mold many of his decisions.

3) see above.

[McCulloch]

1. Does the religious orientation of a presidential candidate really hold enough influence to determine the outcome of an election (I am asking if this happens, not if it should happen)
   In the USA, religion has a positive effect on the electability of any candidate. In most other western civilized countries, too overt religiosity is a liability.
2. Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?
   In a way. I do try to avoid candidates where I believe that they make decisions based on faith rather than reason.
3. Do you think the religious orientation of a president is important? Why? Why not?
   The private religious beliefs of my political leaders is not relevant to me. However, if their belief in the supernatural affects their work, then it is a factor.

[Chimp]

Would you elect someone who believed that a holy jihad needed to take place to cleanse the world of infidels? You would take his religious beliefs into account as well you should for they will mold many of his decisions.

Sadly this has happened already.

I would argue that religion as it pertains to politics is a form of segregation. The
nominal method for getting elected (according to textbooks) is on merit and the
candidates qualifications, but it seems to be more about how like the candidate
is to his constituents. This is where the machinery of crafting a candidate comes
into play...the candidate who appears most like the largest number of people wins.

This is where the wedge issue becomes all important...find the largest compatible
number of wedge issues, regardless of their actual effect on people's lives, and
you win.

[Confused]

2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?

2) Yes to some extent. For example if a man is deeply religious it will certainly affect his views. Take abortion for example. An atheist can be just as against abortion as even the most right wing Christian. But in GENERAL, if a Christian is in office, the public can generally assume what his position will be. I take the person's beliefs into account. Indeed I think it would be foolish not to. Would you elect someone who believed that a holy jihad needed to take place to cleanse the world of infidels? You would take his religious beliefs into account as well you should for they will mold many of his decisions.

Wow. This really surprised me. I am failing to make the connection of your reasoning here. So, you would elect a Christian over an atheist because you believe you can predict, in general, what that Christians position would be on certain issues. I am sorry, but how is that even relevant. You give an example of abortions. What does the president have to do with the issue surrounding this? To broaden this perspective, I have to say, what religious beliefs are relevant to the presidential office? Let me see if I can be a bit more clear here, I am taken so off guard, I am sure I have not made sense yet.

During elections, I listen to the foundation the presidential candidate presents. What are his aspirations? What are his qualifications (or hers)? What are his suggestions for enacting reform? Are these suggestions really plausible or is it obvious that he could never really do X, Y, and Z without making us a socialist country, interfering with human rights, ignoring one population while favoring another, etc...? I listen to what his position is on both foreign and national reform. I don't infer anything about his beliefs based on his religious affiliation. I couldn't care less what it is. I want to hear HIS ideas, not his religions ideas. I don't believe you can honestly infer anything about his position based on his religious orientation. If he was to say he was Christian, well, I could infer that he was a literalist with a desire to use scripture to guide him on making social and international policy. I could infer that his religious affiliation would hinder a persons right to choose. I could infer that he was an extremist who was set on fulfilling the criteria needed to help usher in the 2nd coming of Christ. But all of these would be no more than inferences that I am presupposing based on his orientation rather than on what he states he represents.

What I am trying to say is how can you infer, even on a general basis, what a presidential candidates position would be on some things simply based on the "faith" he carries? Since most religions have variances in their degrees of adherence to certain aspects of their doctrine, I don't think it would be possible to infer anything based on his orientation. Moreso, I don't think his religious orientation should even be relevant to the position unless he blatantly says he is looking to incite a jihad.

I would be curious as to why you say you could infer, in general, what a Christian candidates position would be but apparently, you couldn't infer an atheists.

I would be even more curious why you would infer anything. Would it not be wiser to listen to his platform, then determine if not only is his platform a positive one for your country, but is it possible for him to fulfill his platform?

[Confused]

Would you elect someone who believed that a holy jihad needed to take place to cleanse the world of infidels? You would take his religious beliefs into account as well you should for they will mold many of his decisions.

Sadly this has happened already.

I would argue that religion as it pertains to politics is a form of segregation. The
nominal method for getting elected (according to textbooks) is on merit and the
candidates qualifications, but it seems to be more about how like the candidate
is to his constituents. This is where the machinery of crafting a candidate comes
into play...the candidate who appears most like the largest number of people wins.

This is where the wedge issue becomes all important...find the largest compatible
number of wedge issues, regardless of their actual effect on people's lives, and
you win.

I am sorry, who has been elected who has decided a holy jihad is needed to cleanse the world of infidels? From an American perspective, I have to assume you are referencing Bush and his "war on terrorism". If my assumption is wrong, then I apologize for jumping so quick, if it is right, then I shall continue.
How is disarming the Al Queda a holy jihad?

I do agree, the candidate who appears most like his constituents is most likely going to win, but should religion play a role in it?

[twobitsmedia]

I have found the following quote by Sam Harris to be quite true, unfortunately:

"In our next presidential election, an actor who reads his bible would almost certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does not".

Question for debate:
1) Does the religious orientation of a presidential candidate really hold enough influence to determine the outcome of an election (I am asking if this happens, not if it should happen)

I think it gets played up during the campaign process, but I think, in the end, most people vote their pocket book.

2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?

Not as much their "orientation" as to whether they are real or just playing it for politics.

3) Do you think the religious orientation of a president is important? Why? Why not?

Only if they really believe it. I don't believe in "Mormonism," but I would support Mitt Romney over Guiliani. Guiliani seems to be playing politics.

[achilles12604]

2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?

2) Yes to some extent. For example if a man is deeply religious it will certainly affect his views. Take abortion for example. An atheist can be just as against abortion as even the most right wing Christian. But in GENERAL, if a Christian is in office, the public can generally assume what his position will be. I take the person's beliefs into account. Indeed I think it would be foolish not to. Would you elect someone who believed that a holy jihad needed to take place to cleanse the world of infidels? You would take his religious beliefs into account as well you should for they will mold many of his decisions.

Wow. This really surprised me. I am failing to make the connection of your reasoning here. So, you would elect a Christian over an atheist because you believe you can predict, in general, what that Christians position would be on certain issues. I am sorry, but how is that even relevant. You give an example of abortions. What does the president have to do with the issue surrounding this? To broaden this perspective, I have to say, what religious beliefs are relevant to the presidential office? Let me see if I can be a bit more clear here, I am taken so off guard, I am sure I have not made sense yet.

Let me explain in greater detail with perhaps some examples.

Candidate 1 is a younger (38-42) lawyer with an extensive history of common sense economics, independent thinking, and environmentally sound views. He is pro-choice. He is also an atheist. Because he is an atheist, I can be reasonably sure that he would not support radically religious ideas such as the recent creationist movement pushed by our current illustrious leader. This is an example.

Candidate 2 has publicly declared that God told him to do certain things like restrict rights of Gays, go to war, and promote creationist views. He is firmly pro-big business and anti-environment. He is also a devout Christian.

Now because he is a Christian, his views and decisions have been altered by his beliefs, just as the atheist's views are altered by his experiences growing up.

My point above was that a person can roughly be predicted based on what we know about them. You would not expect an atheist president to advance and support creationist views in the court system. You would not expect a devout Christian president to support pro-choice views. You would probably not expect a white supremist to support the Negro College Fund.

This is what I meant above. When voting I would consider the person's declared beliefs and what had been observed of his behavior in the past because these are both great markers of what we can expect in the future.



My personal favorite political person right now is Arnold Swartzenegger. I think he has done an incredible job in California for the most part. And he has plans to do even more. He has been very active. And more importantly his past behaviors have gone BOTH for and AGAINST his own parties agenda. This tells me that he is leading of his own accord and not by listening to his fellow republicans and the right wing Christian's who condemn him from time to time.

What I am trying to say is how can you infer, even on a general basis, what a presidential candidates position would be on some things simply based on the "faith" he carries? Since most religions have variances in their degrees of adherence to certain aspects of their doctrine, I don't think it would be possible to infer anything based on his orientation. Moreso, I don't think his religious orientation should even be relevant to the position unless he blatantly says he is looking to incite a jihad.

I would be curious as to why you say you could infer, in general, what a Christian candidates position would be but apparently, you couldn't infer an atheists.

As I stated above, I would be fairly certain that a devout Christian would not enact policy giving blatant governmental support to all abortion clinics. This is something I feel confident of based on what I know about devout Christians in general.

Now this presumption would then be tested further by that person's history and finally by where the stood while campaigning.

Analysis of their beliefs is not my final decision maker. In fact it isn't a decision maker at all. It serves as a guide so I can better predict which candidates I would like to listen to more, or less to further adjust my opinions.



Since I am having trouble articulating what I mean, HERE is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

[Chad]

1) Does the religious orientation of a presidential candidate really hold enough influence to determine the outcome of an election (I am asking if this happens, not if it should happen)

Yes, I think this is undeniable, at least in my experience with what happens in the U.S. Candidates seem to go out of there way to appeal to the religious demographic.

2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?

Yes, I consider it, but I consider it in relation to the rest of their ideas. I will not dismiss them based purely on their religious beliefs or lack there of.

3) Do you think the religious orientation of a president is important? Why? Why not?

Yes, but not as important as other qualities. Religious beliefs can easily influence your stance on different positions. A recent example would be the veto to stem cell research given by Bush. Now, just because they're religious doesn't necessarily mean that they will let it influence political decisions, but I think it needs to be taken into account when you're evaluating the rest of their ideas in relation to their religious beliefs.

[Goat]

I have found the following quote by Sam Harris to be quite true, unfortunately:

"In our next presidential election, an actor who reads his bible would almost certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does not".

Question for debate:
1) Does the religious orientation of a presidential candidate really hold enough influence to determine the outcome of an election (I am asking if this happens, not if it should happen)

I think it gets played up during the campaign process, but I think, in the end, most people vote their pocket book.

2) Do you consider the religious orientation of a presidential candidate when deciding who you will elect?

Not as much their "orientation" as to whether they are real or just playing it for politics.

3) Do you think the religious orientation of a president is important? Why? Why not?

Only if they really believe it. I don't believe in "Mormonism," but I would support Mitt Romney over Guiliani. Guiliani seems to be playing politics.

I would never support Mitt Romney, precisely for the same reason. I don't care if he is a Mormon or not, I find him a hypocrite and someone whose declared politics
change with the wind.

I don't like Guilanni, but for an entirely different reason. I don't think his views are 'playing politics', but I find him paranoid, arrogant, and annoying.