jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (39 posts)

Religious preference shouldn't be a disqualification for President

  1. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    I recently came across this hub; http://hubpages.com/hub/Romney-Is-No-Option
    which in one major piece of the article uses Mit Romneys religious preference as a disqualifying factor in his presidential bid. I personally do not like Mit Romneys policies, and I would not vote for him based on his advocation for socialized medicine (among other reasons). regardless of my position on the issue, I think it is blatant discrimination to do this.
    It isn't about shooting the messenger, it is about perpetuating falsehoods about the beliefs of others. I would like to quote Mike Otterson, and ask the same to CJV123
    "Who decides, that one religion is acceptable and another “false and dangerous”? Do you? Does the church that you attend? Since you aren’t calling for Mormons to be legally barred from the highest office in the land, is your idea just to effectively marginalize Mormons and make it impossible for them to run for office? Do you feel the same way about other faiths that are different from yours? Catholics, perhaps? Isn’t there something called Article VI, a constitutional provision that forbids a religious test for political office? “…No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” What does that mean – what has it ever meant – if it doesn’t apply in a case like this?
    What it seems you would like me and six million other Mormons in the U.S. to do is concede a fundamental right granted to all Americans because we don’t fit within your definition of what is theologically acceptable. Fortunately, that’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s not what America teaches. I should hope that I can sit one of my grandchildren on my knee and tell them that in our religiously diverse society they are as good as anyone else, and that they will be judged by the fruits of their lives and not by discriminatory interpretations of their faith.
    For whoever might be elected, I expect the judgment that this nation and history will eventually render about him, or her, will have little to do with where they worshipped on the Sabbath. It will have much to do with their grasp of economics, of foreign policy, of education and health care, of their skills as commander in chief. It will likely reflect how they responded to crises, their core values and ability to unite and rally the American people."

    1. Evolution Guy profile image60
      Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed. Religion causes nothing but conflict. Good for you. LOLOLOLO

      Religionists. What can you do? *shrugs*

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For once, I agree with you. I'll even go one further, and say that "I expect the judgment that this nation and history will eventually render about him, or her, will have little to do with where [or whether] they worshipped on the Sabbath."

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you, as long as a politician upholds the constitution, and isn't a freaking commie, I could care less what he or she believes, provided they do not infringe on the rights of the people.

    3. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Onusonus:

      The title of your thread is:

      "Religious preference shouldn't be a disqualification for President"

      What do ya think the chances are of even being considered for a presidential position, if one doesn't believe in a "superman-in-the-sky" and is overt in communicating his disbelief?

      Should that be a "disqualification" for being Pres.?

      Qwark

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As I said to Jeff, as long as a politician upholds the constitution, and isn't a freaking commie, I could care less what he or she believes, provided they do not infringe on the rights of the people.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ...that's not what I asked Onusonus.

          Thanks for offering your feelings...smile:

          What's the answer to my question?

          Qwark

          1. Onusonus profile image85
            Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I thought that was a pretty clear answer, "Should that be a "disqualification" for being Pres.?"
            No. Better?

            1. qwark profile image61
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Onusonus:
              Thanks.
              Ya answered one question.
              I asked 2.
              How about the other?
              Qwark

              1. Onusonus profile image85
                Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry I didn't realize I was trial.
                Now lets see, you said; "What do ya think the chances are of even being considered for a presidential position, if one doesn't believe in a "superman-in-the-sky" and is overt in communicating his disbelief?"
                I give up, what are the chances?

                1. qwark profile image61
                  qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  I ask politely with a "thanks: included and I get attitude?

                  Forget I asked. tch tch

                  I think my point was made without your response. hmm

                  Qwark

                  1. Onusonus profile image85
                    Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, "Super man in the sky" That's real polite.

                  2. TMMason profile image73
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually. I think their chances would be pretty good. America does not hold ones beliefs against them, we just want you to stick to the Constitution. Something most politicians these days do not understand.

            2. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Couldn't have said it better myslf, Onu.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I'll agree with your title. It shouldn't have any factor on whether or not someone can be President. That happens to be one of the biggest problem as it stands presently....too many people voting based on religious view, instead of what is right.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image59
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      agree for me also, good job.

  3. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Agreed.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, you would vote for a Muslim if he was the best choice?

  4. Mandrake_1975 profile image91
    Mandrake_1975posted 5 years ago

    I'm not sure what you are saying.  Are you saying private individuals should not allow their own beliefs concerning the beliefs of a candidate to aid in determining whether or not they will elect that candidate, or are you talking about government tests of religion for political office?  The two are very different, so I'm seeking clarification.

    On a personal level I would never vote for someone who believes they were hatched from test tubes by space aliens or that they were going to one day rule their own little solar system because frankly I believe those people are either nuts or have issues of ego, and they are incapable of making good decisions.  Both of those examples are beliefs from two religions, btw.

    As far as government tests of religion to hold public office...I do not agree with that although there is a long history of government tests concerning belief in a Creator (in several states atheists are not allowed to hold public office), to which I say, "who am I to judge the Founders?"  If they believed atheists are poor choices for public office they must have had a good reason.  Since atheism is not a religion, I might suppose that perhaps such laws were tests of philosophical sanity rather than religion.

    My point is that you can't very well separate personal beliefs and your perspective concerning the beliefs of others from the way you choose to vote if you have any personal convictions at all.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well let me ask you something, I work on nuclear submarines, and I fall into one of your little categories, so do you think I am mentally capable of doing my job? Do you think I should be fired or perhaps put away in some safer line of work so I am not a danger to society?
      Perhaps Mormons and scientologists shouldn't be allowed to be chemists, or electricians, because they aren't mentally capable of doing that either. I mean would you want someone who believed they were hatched from an egg to be messing with high voltage equipment either would you, let alone being given the right to vote.

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Sure you can separate it to the extent that people don't have to be like you to run for office.  I vote for Christians all the time, if a guy thought he was created by alien overlords (rather than deity overlords) but he could do the job he was going for, I'd vote for him.

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I don't see the belief one was created by aliens as an kookier than the belief one is created by god.  IMHO so long as they are rational, good at their job, and their belief won't make them hurt people, I genuinely don't care.  I doubt an alien believer is any more likely to want to hurt people than a fundamentalist Christian with some weird end times ideas.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think most people have a belief that can be construed as strange or unusual to others. Your point is exactly right, rarely do spiritual beliefs hinder people's ability to be effective and productive members of society.
      I know that there is a large diversity of people with differing religious backgrounds in office right now and they are perfectly capable of doing their jobs, including presidents like JFK, Nixon, and Obama. I can't think of a single thing about any of these peoples religious backgrounds that has hindered their ability to be leaders of this nation.

  7. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Long as they aren't freaking Vulture Capitalists--I'm all for them too.

    And you didn't answer UW...
    In fact, I'll bet many would be the same...subsitute "Muslim" for "Mormon", and your attitude would change.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      UW directed her question to TMMason, not me. And I believe Obama used to be a Muslim, Isn't he the president? It shouldn't be a factor, substitute Muslim for Jew, or Baha'i, Hindu, Buddhist, Whatever.

      1. lovemychris profile image78
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I believe Romney to be crook. Cause I say it--guess it makes it so. No matter what he himself has to say on the matter, huh?

        Glad to hear you don't have religious predjudice...even though you take it upon yourself to tell someone what they believe....

        1. Onusonus profile image85
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Вы говорите по английски?

  8. Hugh Williamson profile image88
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    A candidate's religion, or lack of one, isn't an issue unless he/she are influenced by it in their making decisions.

    You have to be able to believe that decisions are being based on facts and not on someone's personal beliefs.

    1. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely.

  9. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    And if America hated Muslims and Blacks so much, Obama would not be president. And there would not be blacks and Muslims throughout our govts. The facts, speak louder than you.

 
working