Politics, Prayer, And Prejudice

[Analytics]

Restating the question in more detail, imagine that you are a voter watching a debate for your party's presidential candidate. There are two candidates that you really like, named candidate Religious and candidate Secular. You are trying to decide which to vote for.

The moderator asks a question about whether or not the candidate would pray before deciding to take military action on foreign soil.

Both candidates give the stock verbiage about military action being a last resort and carefully consulting with their advisors and generals. However, candidate Religious says that after full and careful consideration, he’d humbly and sincerely pray for divine guidance before making his final decision.

In contrast, candidate Secular says that he would only employ secular considerations when making the decision.

Based upon this, would you be more likely or less likely to support the candidate who prays, or wouldn’t this matter to you?

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

By their works ye shall know them.

[Analytics]

I’ll go on record as saying that I’d be less likely to vote for the religious candidate. Some would say that that constitutes religious intolerance on my part, and upon noting that I’m pretty-much a liberal who prides himself on his open-mindedness, would say that the stench of my hypocrisy is superlative.

However, I happen to believe that secular decision-making processes are better than religious-based decision-making processes. If you want to do well on a math test, studying and rigorously working out the logic will be more effective than praying for the right answer. If you are going on a road trip, grabbing a cup of coffee to help keep you alert will be more effective than praying for divine protection. If you are contemplating entering a war in the Middle East, a secular evaluation of the situation is more effective than praying about whether or not the Book of Revelations provides guidance on how you should act.

Those happen to be my personal beliefs, and I happen to believe the president would be a better president if he acted accordingly.

I also acknowledge that many, many, Americans would prefer the president to `humbly and sincerely kneel down for divine guidance like George Washington in that Arnold Friberg painting.

So I have two points. First, if I’m bigoted for being more likely to support a candidate who doesn’t pray, then it follows that people who are more likely to support a candidate who prays are commensurately bigoted.

Second, while I appreciate the gesture of tolerance and multi-culturalism of those that voted it doesn’t matter, I do wonder if this is a case of political correctness going too far.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Analytics

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Tough call. I guess "if" all other things being equal then I would be more likely to vote for some one who does pray.

If all other things are not equal then I need to weigh what each candidate brings to the table.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

They are seldom, if ever, that equal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

They are seldom, if ever, that equal.

I know, it was one of the few times I delved into a hypothetical.

[Analytics]

Tough call. I guess "if" all other things being equal then I would be more likely to vote for some one who does pray.

If all other things are not equal then I need to weigh what each candidate brings to the table.

I respect that answer; thanks for being truthful.

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

They are seldom, if ever, that equal.

That's true of course, and there are many issues that are much, much more important than whether and how a candidate engages in this type of ritual. However, most people do care about it marginally one way or the other.

I'd be less likely to support a Mormon, but I'd be more likely to support, say, Jon Huntsman over any number of less qualified atheists.

I don’t think it’s fair to accuse people who answer the poll question honestly as being intollerant.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don’t think it’s fair to accuse people who answer the poll question honestly as being intollerant.

Me either.

I have a question though, is choosing to vote for some one because they hold similar values that you hold tolerance? I am not sure that tolerance is the right word to describe what goes on.

Was this thread started because of Scott's thread?

[CV75]

I think there is a big difference between preferring one attribute over another and having or lacking tolerance or prejudice or bigotry for an attribute. I cast a "wouldn't matter" vote because whether the candidate says he does or does not pray needs to be weighed with all the other information and considerations that come into play.

[Vance]

I hope they ALL pray (in secret).

[Analytics]

Me either.

I have a question though, is choosing to vote for some one because they hold similar values that you hold tolerance? I am not sure that tolerance is the right word to describe what goes on.

It isn’t tolerance or intolerance—it’s just an expression of Democracy--it's an individual voter deciding what criteria he will use for who he votes for.

Was this thread started because of Scott's thread?

Yes.

[Analytics]

I think there is a big difference between preferring one attribute over another and having or lacking tolerance or prejudice or bigotry for an attribute. I cast a "wouldn't matter" vote because whether the candidate says he does or does not pray needs to be weighed with all the other information and considerations that come into play.

What inspired this was a Pew poll where they asked, “Regardless of the specific candidates who are running for president, we’d like to know how you generally feel about some different traits. First, would you be more likely or less likely to support a candidate for president who is Mormon, or wouldn’t this matter to you?” 30% of Democrats responded that they’d be “less likely” to vote for a Mormon. Scott interpreted this result as wide-spread anti-Mormon prejudice among Democrats, and for self-stylized liberals who pride themselves on their tolerance, superlatively hypocritical.

I agree with you that there is a big difference between preferring one attribute over another and having or lacking tolerance or prejudice or bigotry for an attribute. That’s precisely my point.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Would I support a Reid over an Angle? In a heartbeat, and it has nothing to do with eithers religion.

Would I support a LDS whom agrees with my politics over an equally qualified LDS whom doesn't? In a shorter heartbeat.

I support in politics those whom I politically agree with. Whom or what they pray to is between them and their God. Equally true is that I'd vote for an Atheist if he/she had a better idea.

[Analytics]

I hope they ALL pray (in secret).

Such anti-Christian prejudice against politicians who believe in day-long prayer meetings!

[Jaybear]

I am always suspicious of anyone who claims to pray for divine guidance.

Only two things can happen.

God will tell them to do something that they would do anyway. Meaning the process is pointless.

or

God will tell them to do something that applying reasoning, ethics, common sense, they would not otherwise do.

All things being equal, why would I want to vote for someone who could possibly send us to war, agaisnt his better judgment, just because God told him to?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Suppose God has been telling the President not to go to war. Wouldn't THAT be a novel idea.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

Would I support a Reid over an Angle? In a heartbeat, and it has nothing to do with eithers religion.

Would I support a LDS whom agrees with my politics over an equally qualified LDS whom doesn't? In a shorter heartbeat.

I support in politics those whom I politically agree with. Whom or what they pray to is between them and their God. Equally true is that I'd vote for an Atheist if he/she had a better idea.

I totally agree that when individual voters make a criteria list of preferences for their ideal candidate, many, many, things ought to be higher on the list than religion. That’s basically your point, isn’t it?

If any viable candidate articulated and championed [my specific political views omited], then I'd be thrilled to support them, regardless of their religious beliefs.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If any viable candidate articulated and championed [my specific political views omited], then I'd be thrilled to support them, regardless of their religious beliefs.

I think most people are this way. I guess.

[Analytics]

I am always suspicious of anyone who claims to pray for divine guidance.

Only two things can happen.

God will tell them to do something that they would do anyway. Meaning the process is pointless.

or

God will tell them to do something that applying reasoning, ethics, common sense, they would not otherwise do.

All things being equal, why would I want to vote for someone who could possibly send us to war, agaisnt his better judgment, just because God told him to?

Well said.

Jaybear:

Suppose God has been telling the President not to go to war. Wouldn't THAT be a novel idea.

If it were to ever work out that way, I sure would be glad God was there to keep the peace. However, as far as I can tell God doesn't has a very good track record of instructing his followers to avoid war. After all, America is the most religious Western Nation, and is by far the most militarized. Where are the Quaker political leaders when we need them?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

We had two Quaker US Presidents. The last one was Nixon. Not too sure he'd be classified as against war.

[ldsfaqs]

I voted "more likely", because if we take two individuals who are the same, the one with Prayer has my vote because he's actually listening, and humble enough to know what is the most right thing to do. The person who doesn't pray and is a full of himself know-it all in my view is not someone who's the most qualified to make important decisions. Those who can lean on a higher power also, rather than just themselves or others is one who is generally wise.

Of course, if we take two "unlike" individuals, such as Obama who says he prays and a Conservative who doesn't pray, I will go with the non-praying Conservative, because while he may not pray per-se, he's clearly much more knowing of good and evil, right and wrong, thus on the side of the Light rather than the darkness and perversion if it. In my view of course.

Edited August 17, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Analytics]

Analytics:

We had two Quaker US Presidents. The last one was Nixon. Not too sure he'd be classified as against war.

I'm just about as liberal as they come, and even though Nixon was a crook, he got us out of Viet Nam and normalized relationships with China. Some Democrats have done worse.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm just about as liberal as they come, and even though Nixon was a crook, he got us out of Viet Nam and normalized relationships with China. Some Democrats have done worse.

Some? Lol. One comes to mind. Lol.

[Analytics]

Some? Lol. One comes to mind. Lol.

John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson escalated that stupid war. Surely both those two come to mind as awful Democrats.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson escalated that stupid war. Surely both those two come to mind as awful Democrats.

Oh come on, I was thinking of some one a little more recent. Lol.

Well we should just leave it at that as, of course, this thread is not about presidents who decide to go to war.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram