Religion and politics in America: BBC

[Cowperson]

A BBC article examining the impact of religion on the USA elections.

In fact, although the United States has a constitutional barrier separating church and state, the vast majority of Americans want their leaders to be religious.

A poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 72% agreed with the statement "The president should have strong religious beliefs."

"I want to be sure that the person I vote in has got some religious beliefs - as long he has some convictions about his faith and is not afraid to say so," said Raymond Barber of Sea Breeze, Florida.

Should faith be a virtual mandatory factor in the election of a national leader?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3658172.stm

Cowperson

[Lurch]

Bizarre. Seems Americans want a religious man, but not a Catholic. Often under-reported, but America has had exactly 1 Catholic President. Seems odd to me, as I remember reading somewhere that Catholics make up 15 or 20% of the population.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Personally, I would prefer a leader that did not have a strong religious belief, or any religious belief at all. Religion is a divider, not a uniter, and a leader needs to be a strong uniter. I'd prefer that the leadership could listen to all voices and make an educated decision on any matter. But there is the key word. Educated.

As studies have shown, the more education an individual is able to get, the less likely they are to fall back upon religion or practice religion religiously (pardon the pun). I think a highly educated person in a position of leadership is the most important. I think Bush is a perfect example of the point I'm getting at!

[Cheese]

I agree wholeheartedly with Lanny....Religion mixed with anything is poisonous. Lambs led to the slaughter.
I can hardly wait for a Muslim to be elected leader of the USA.

Does God endorse George Bush?

"He is one of those men God and fate somehow lead to the fore in times of challenge," said George Pataki in the high-profile introduction of Bush at the Republican National Convention, an introduction almost certainly scrubbed if not written by the White House.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 15 2004, 03:06 PM
Personally, I would prefer a leader that did not have a strong religious belief, or any religious belief at all. Religion is a divider, not a uniter, and a leader needs to be a strong uniter. I'd prefer that the leadership could listen to all voices and make an educated decision on any matter. But there is the key word. Educated.

As studies have shown, the more education an individual is able to get, the less likely they are to fall back upon religion or practice religion religiously (pardon the pun). I think a highly educated person in a position of leadership is the most important. I think Bush is a perfect example of the point I'm getting at!

Not endorsing Bush, but doesn't he have an MBA from Harvard?

Are not most presidential hopefuls graduates of Ivey League Universities?

Just add to the fire, can a secular leader claim any moral high ground on any issue?

[troutman]

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

This site is not about religion, nor about Christianity, nor about Republicans. This site is about how a small group of Republican strategists targeted a religious constituency to expand the base of their party, and how a small group of religious extremists targeted the Republican Party to bring the United States government under religious control.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

Separation of church and state is the only principle that can ensure religious and philosophical freedom for all Americans. Church-state separation does not mean hostility toward religion. Rather, it means that the government will remain neutral on religious questions, leaving decisions about God, faith and house of worship attendance in the hands of its citizens.

[sbailey924]

About the Catholic thing--most of the people that do link the church to their vote for state officials are the Christian Coalition, who seem to think that Catholics are related to Satan or something to that effect.

Organized religion can very well be poisonous, since it shows more submission to earthly figures rather than a higher power (which is exactly their complaint about Catholicism, ironically).

Another interesting point: there has never been a Baptist Republican President. That is something that people at my church don't believe when I tell them. They tend to think that if you are Baptist, you are a Republican.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Sep 15 2004, 09:43 AM

Just add to the fire, can a secular leader claim any moral high ground on any issue?

Yes.

[troutman]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 15 2004, 09:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 15 2004, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bleeding Red@Sep 15 2004, 09:43 AM

Just add to the fire, can a secular leader claim any moral high ground on any issue?

Yes. [/b][/quote]
Yes, morally higher.

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
Thomas Paine

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan Anthony

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Sep 15 2004, 03:43 PM

Not endorsing Bush, but doesn't he have an MBA from Harvard?

Are not most presidential hopefuls graduates of Ivey League Universities?

Just add to the fire, can a secular leader claim any moral high ground on any issue?

I do believe that Bush is a Yale man, just like Kerry. Both were members of Skull and Bones believe it or not. The differences between these two is not that dramatic if you look at their backgrounds, so its funny to hear people yap on and on about their backgrounds growing up. Bother were spoiled rich kids. The difference is that Kerry was more successful as an adult than Bush, which for some reason has never been examined. Also, Kerry did very well in school while Bush did not. Kerry delivered the oratory at his Yale graduation and was a debate champion. Bush was recognized as a rich frat boy who liked to party.

Yes, most Presidental candidates are university graduates, but as President Bush proves there is a big difference between having a degree and being educated. Bush got thorugh school. It appears that Kerry learned something. The difference is the ability to show that you have learned something.

Frankly I don't think a non-secular leader can claim high ground on any moral issue, simply because their point of reference is clouded. I don't think they make good judges and I think they make brutal leaders. Give me an educated man any day of the week. Keep the bible thumpin' yoyos out of any decision that has to do with the public good.

Edit: It's amazing what missing three letters will do to the meaning of a paragraph isn't it!

[troutman]

Lanny, I think we have a different definition of "secular". It sounds like from your post you equate "secular" with "bible thumpin' yoyos". Maybe I misunderstand your meaning, but secular means the opposite.

Definition
secular [Show phonetics]
adjective
not having any connection with religion.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Sorry trout, I meant non-secular but typed secular. What's really funny is that I don't even notice it when I skimmed it before I posted it. I knew what I meant, why the hell didn't you??? Sheesh!