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."
Agreed. Religion causes nothing but conflict. Good for you. LOLOLOLO
Religionists. What can you do? *shrugs*
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."
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.?
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.
...that's not what I asked Onusonus.
Thanks for offering your feelings...:
What's the answer to my question?
I thought that was a pretty clear answer, "Should that be a "disqualification" for being Pres.?"
Ya answered one question.
I asked 2.
How about the other?
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?
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.
Yeah, "Super man in the sky" That's real polite.
You this brave in person?
Thats is a big gun u got there.
Make u brave?
Yep! : "Superman-in-the-sky."
Instead of being "snotty," pls give me a sound, logical reason to refer to "it" as sumthin' else.
Until you can do that, why do you think I am I being disrespectful using that term?
You're not too good at answering questions..using "reason" soooo, I can pretty much guess the answer I'll get to that question.
Dude, I'm sure you have been given plenty of logical reasons not to refer to God as some silly superman in the sky, I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise. So instead of spinning our wheels on weather or not he exists, lets just try to be effectively non discriminate towards one anthers beliefs and/or non beliefs.
"...I'm sure you have been given plenty of logical reasons not to refer to God as some silly superman in the sky,...)
Iv'e never gotten 1 (one!) logical reason...NEVER!
"...weather or not he exists..."
He? Who? (...and I'm not considering the "weather.") :
"... try to be effectively non discriminate towards one anthers beliefs and/or non beliefs.try to be effectively non discriminate towards one anthers beliefs and/or non beliefs."
I'm a very "discriminating" man. :
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.
I'd like to think you are right, but the USA is a nation of believers.
I can't recall 1 of the, am I correct?...44?... presidents of these US of America, having been an "alledged" atheist.
Read the comments "Papa" Bush made when questioned about his feelings about "atheists." :
I'm afraid that too many think as he.
No chance at all of an openly "alledged" atheists being nominated, running or being elected as Pres. at this time in god fearing America.
WE must agree to disagree..:
I do not deny there hasn't been one... but there hadn't been a black president either. I also believe a women, or hispanic, or anyone else coould win these days. It is more about policy and values today than race and belief.
And I hope your day is going well.
I hope yer right! :
Doin' good thank you!...hope you r2! :
Caught a few crappie this evening. Too damned hot to fish during the day.
Now ya know why I'm stuck inside during the day with the air conditioner on full blast playin' on this derned computer thing...:
It'd be boring without it. :
Sure they do. To the extent that voters have biases based on demographics, not ability to do the job. Every country has that problem to some extent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
by Jack Lee20 hours ago
Let's just cut to the chase. I have initiated a discussion here on hubpages forum regarding the media and conservatives but here is the bottom line.This is an appeal to all liberals and progressives...and...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
A recent Gallup poll shows Protestants and Mormons really Disapprove of how President Obama is doing his job by 58% and 78%, respectively. Catholics only barely Disapprove with 51% while all other religions...
by cooldad5 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim...
by Grace Marguerite Williams13 months ago
PresidentLove or hate Hillary Clinton, she is leading significantly in the polls for Democratic presidential candidate. She has the political smarts & experience to led this country. She also have...
by aka-dj5 years ago
bother posting AGAINST beliefs?If the Atheist can "convert" any believer to Atheism, then, they can be compared to evangelists who do it the other way.Any thought?
by JonTutor7 years ago
Last night there was a debate.... this topic "would you marry atheist".... I said... I'm not atheist... I'm "individualist".... experienced for myself.... this Budhist technique.. ...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.