Religious Litmus Test

[JakeHero]

I believe I've gotten to know some of the regulars on the board. Out of curiosity I'll ask this: think of the one religion/denomination you can't possibly stomach(keep it to yourself), now would you vote for a politican coming from your pet-peeve religious group IF they agree with you politically or would their religion cause you second thoughts? Remember this is just a survey on my part.

[SuperDeagle]

I would vote for 'person a' if person a had the same political views as me.
So no it wouldn't bug me if they had a different religion.

[Memorize]

My opinion of someone is not based upon their religion.

So, no, I wouldn't consider it a factor.

[ianater]

i would not vote for a scientologist or any religious extremist but otherwise it does not matter

[Ravariel]

Ignoring the fact that the scenario would be (for me) oxymoronic (paradoxical, mutually-exclusive, take your pick) I'd have to say yeah, it would give me pause.

[SuperDeagle]

At 5/20/07 11:22 PM, ianater wrote: scientologist

would a cult count as a religion?

[Draconias]

I would not vote for a person who believed in a religion I viewed as dangerous, regardless of their political views, primarily because religious sects I see as dangerous involve high levels of fanaticism or unreasonability, which would make the person extremely dangerous regardless of their apparent political views.

For example, I would not support a member of the Isma'ili or an Amish person for any significant political position because I know that their religion or lifestyle choices will inevitably attack my beliefs and freedoms. If they appear to be a "surface only" believer, they may be fine, but a die-hard believer would not be because religious and political attitudes are not independent.

[ForkRobotik]

At 5/20/07 11:29 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 5/20/07 11:22 PM, ianater wrote: scientologist

would a cult count as a religion?

Scientology is considered a religion by the usa govt.

Also, my vote would have nothing to do with a politicians religion. Then again, here in Canada, we mostly vote for a party, not some schmuck with grand ideas.

[Bolo]

As long as their religion is kept securely out of the reaches of their political doctrine, then I honestly don't give a shit what faction they belong to.

[riffraff120000]

At 5/20/07 11:29 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 5/20/07 11:22 PM, ianater wrote: scientologist

would a cult count as a religion?

Aren't all religions basically a cult?

[cellardoor6]

I don't really care what religion someone belongs to as long as they keep their religious views out of their politics. I think religion shouldn't even be a factor, it shouldn't be brought up at all.

Policies should be emphasized, not their personal life, and that includes love life, sex life, family life, financial life etc... Those, along with religion shouldn't even be discussed.

[ForkRobotik]

At 5/21/07 01:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I don't really care what religion someone belongs to as long as they keep their religious views out of their politics. I think religion shouldn't even be a factor, it shouldn't be brought up at all.

Policies should be emphasized, not their personal life, and that includes love life, sex life, family life, financial life etc... Those, along with religion shouldn't even be discussed.

How is that possible? if they want to ban abortion, their religious views are the reason...

[Memorize]

At 5/21/07 02:03 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

How is that possible? if they want to ban abortion, their religious views are the reason...

Allow me to introduce you to Memorize.

Religous. Opposes religion into politics.

Abortion Stance: Pro-Life.
Reason: Abortion promotes irresponsiblity. The more we tolerate abortion the more likely a person is to make a mistake and get one regardless of their financial situation. The hypocracy in it all is how a father and/or mother would die for their child after it is born but never when it is still a fetus unless they see it with ultrasound which has a good chance of changing a woman's mind of getting an abortion.

I guess the only way it is wrong is when you see it.

[ForkRobotik]

At 5/21/07 02:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/21/07 02:03 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

How is that possible? if they want to ban abortion, their religious views are the reason...

Allow me to introduce you to Memorize.

Religous. Opposes religion into politics.

Abortion Stance: Pro-Life.
Reason: Abortion promotes irresponsiblity. The more we tolerate abortion the more likely a person is to make a mistake and get one regardless of their financial situation. The hypocracy in it all is how a father and/or mother would die for their child after it is born but never when it is still a fetus unless they see it with ultrasound which has a good chance of changing a woman's mind of getting an abortion.

I guess the only way it is wrong is when you see it.

So you're saying that abortion isn't wrong because you believe the fetus has a soul(do you?), but because it's a mistake the someone made, and should be forced to live with, because people shouldn't be allowed to make mistakes?...

[SolInvictus]

if i agreed with his/her politics then the person in question's religion is kept seperate from politics meaning i would have no problems with the candidate.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/21/07 02:03 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 5/21/07 01:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I don't really care what religion someone belongs to as long as they keep their religious views out of their politics. I think religion shouldn't even be a factor, it shouldn't be brought up at all.

Policies should be emphasized, not their personal life, and that includes love life, sex life, family life, financial life etc... Those, along with religion shouldn't even be discussed.

How is that possible? if they want to ban abortion, their religious views are the reason...

Opposition to murder isn't a purely religions view. Opposition to stealing isn't purely a religious view. There are atheists that are pro-life, and socially conservative in other ways.

Besides, abortion is more about rights, the rights of the woman to excercise power over whats in her body and kill what people consider to be an innocent unborn child, or the right of the child to live his/her life.

Pro-lifers believe that the child inside the womb is a citizen of the country, a human being, and therefore eligible to the right to life regardless of whether or not it is inside the woman. Allowing the woman to have a doctor suck its brains out is allowing her to take away a fundamental right of that child who is considered innocent and just as deserving of rights as the woman who bears it.

If Michael Moore stuck a midget up is ass, would that mean he could kill it because it's in HIS body? Would someone who opposed his desire to kill the midget have to be religious for disapproving of killing the midget? I don't think so.

So beyond religious beliefs, abortion is a very complicated subject. You don't have to be religious to be pro-life, and you don't have to be pro-life if you are religious.

[Memorize]

At 5/21/07 02:14 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

So you're saying that abortion isn't wrong because you believe the fetus has a soul(do you?), but because it's a mistake the someone made, and should be forced to live with, because people shouldn't be allowed to make mistakes?...

Why should I care about the lives of the idiots who made the "mistake"? Why should I care about the lives of women who kill themselves, coathanger style?

Why should these morons get the easy way out?

The mere fact that you sympathize with these idiots is illogical.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/20/07 10:14 PM, JakeHero wrote: think of the one religion/denomination you can't possibly stomach(keep it to yourself), now would you vote for a politican coming from your pet-peeve religious group IF they agree with you politically or would their religion cause you second thoughts?

Second thoughts, without a doubt.

I'd go into detail if not for the whole "keep it to yourself" thing.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/21/07 03:15 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

Second thoughts, without a doubt.

I'd go into detail if not for the whole "keep it to yourself" thing.

Don't keep it to yourself. Elaborate.

[Alphabit]

Nope, but one of my political views is that religion should not influence politics.
... I don't know many full-on Christians that are for stem-cell research.

[dognesss]

i would vote for someone only if i agreed with them pollitically. religion (unless impacting politics) isn't a factor for me.

[morefngdbs]

At 5/21/07 01:45 AM, riffraff120000 wrote:
Aren't all religions basically a cult?

;
Pretty much right on the money .

I would rather vote for someone from a less radical religion , than say a Fundamentalist Baptist or a Jihadi Muslim.
Might be nice to see someone from the Baha'i faith, they seem to be fairly peace loving.
Probably why none of them are in politics.

-(Actually I found a couple of them in Google -Cynthia Perry U.S. Ambasador to Sierra Leone & David Kelly U.K. British Ministry of defence)

[HighlyIllogical]

I wouldn't vote for a fundamentalist of any stripe...

And I would NEVER vote for a Jonestown Revivalist...

[emmytee]

It really depends on how extreme they are, and what parts of their religion they are obsessed by. I would vote for mother Teresa but not Fred Phelps

[WWEFan444]

It's hard because a lot of politicians are affected in some way with politics. Yes I know people spent a lot of time debinking what I said but that's just my thought. Anyway, I don't really hate any religion so it's hard for me. Yet I can't say I wouldn't vote for the candidate because I am agreeing with him/her.

[Dr-Worm]

At 5/20/07 10:14 PM, JakeHero wrote: I believe I've gotten to know some of the regulars on the board. Out of curiosity I'll ask this: think of the one religion/denomination you can't possibly stomach(keep it to yourself), now would you vote for a politican coming from your pet-peeve religious group IF they agree with you politically or would their religion cause you second thoughts? Remember this is just a survey on my part.

I can only answer your question with another question.

Would YOU vote for Tom Cruise?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 5/21/07 03:30 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 5/21/07 03:15 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

Second thoughts, without a doubt.

I'd go into detail if not for the whole "keep it to yourself" thing.

Don't keep it to yourself. Elaborate.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of someone who doesn't believe in any sort of higher power having authority over other people, so there would definately be second thoughts regarding any athiest politicians. Also, people so wrapped up in their own religion that it becomes more about spreading ritual and maintaining tradition instead of anything truly spiritual. Agnostics wouldn't raise as much concern with me because I can at least see the rationale in not vocalizing a belief one way or the other... but athiests, nahh, if that's the conclusion they've come to about life and existence then I can't imagine that translating into a... let's say, very 'optimistic' policy. This isn't to say that religion itself would make things any better... it's what a person does with it, really.

Basically I'd much prefer that a politician has some type of faith. I can be good friends with those of the athiest mindset on a personal basis, but as far as them exerting authority over others while refusing to recognize the ultimate authority above them? Thanks but no thanks.

[JakeHero]

At 5/21/07 08:36 AM, Alphabit wrote: Nope, but one of my political views is that religion should not influence politics.
... I don't know many full-on Christians that are for stem-cell research.

You mean embryonic stemcells?

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/21/07 06:37 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

Would YOU vote for Tom Cruise?

Only if he were running against

Charlton Heston, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld...or basically any neo-con.

[Memorize]

At 5/21/07 08:30 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Charlton Heston, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld...or basically any neo-con.

Or Hillary Clinton.