Politics, Prayer, And Prejudice

[Glenn101]

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?

I think that I might vote for such a politician, all other things being equal. It would take a lot of personal courage after the savaging and mocking that Dan Quayle received after making such a statement some years ago.

Glenn

[CV75]

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.

If you discovered that he prayed to God to know what his views should be, would that give you pause?

[Jeff K.]

Jaybear, on 17 August 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

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?

I always find it interesting that those who don't understand prayer, claim or implicate its sole purpose is to seek divine intervention or revelation. I refer to such as a Cecil B. Demille attitude, both by those who expect it and those who presume in their ignorance that is all that comes from prayer. If an atheist chooses to medidate to dwell upon an issue and develops insight, do we nail him as some kind of idiot? Of course not.

An agnostic who works with me has nothing to do with religion. Thinks it doesn't really have any effect, however he doesn't mind me saying a prayer and I feel comfortable doing it because he is my friend. More to the point, he see's prayer not so much as communion with God, but an attempt by western standards to meditate upon an issue and resolve it with thoughtful reflection. He he's it as the equivalent of meditation. Now he doesn't think God is speaking to us, but he does think it opens up avenues of thought we haven't been able to distinguish when we do not fully empty our minds of distractions (he meditates himself).

I think this is a healthy attitude towards the prayer of others. Does prayer therefore imbue authority in the answer? Well to someone who is ignorant of the standards held, not just by our church but by many churches, the answer is obviously yes. But again this is an answer in ignorance without an understanding of the church or prayer.

41 No power‍ or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul‍ without hypocrisy, and without guile— 43 Reproving‍ betimes with sharpness, when moved‍ upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love‍ toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; 44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. 45 Let thy bowels‍ also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue‍ garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence‍ wax strong in the presence‍ of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews‍ from heaven. 46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness‍ and truth; and thy dominion‍ shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (#38:41 -46 )

Doctrine and Covenants 121

In other words persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, pure knowledge, without hypocrisy or guile. Very key, very important aspects that are put to use when one is in authority and one prays.

All things being equal, there is no literacy test for voting, there is no real logic test before one votes. Many who claim no divinity exists while disdaining those who do or finding them somehow less intelligent would fail voting tests simply because they have no real experience in thinking deeply, meditating, using pure knowledge, or even engaging other different groups and cultures in attempting to understand people. I used to think those types only existed in certain hills in the Appalachians. My mistake.

[Jeff K.]

Analytics, on 17 August 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

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.

If you discovered that he prayed to God to know what his views should be, would that give you pause?

If one removed the word prayer, and instead said meditated, would that change anyone's mind?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Jeff K.

[KevinG]

I would vote for the candidate who would cause me to pray for deliverance the least number of times during their administration.

[Lightbearer]

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.

Of course we all know that according to "one of the greatest minds of the 19th century" that "Religion is the opium of the people"(Karl Marx)

Of course any self respecting socialist or communist would hate the idea of a leader that prays. The "religion" of the communist party is secularism!

But I can think of another reason a president should pray... perhaps he is not so sure that he has all the right answers! I am sure that some "great leaders" of the past were not "praying men" (Hitler and Stalin come to mind)

So yes I admit my bigotry, and my distrust for those who hate religion, also those who blame religion for all the evils and ills of the world, are suspect as well.

I would much rather have a leader who prays for guidance than one who is a secular demagog.

[Pahoran]

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.

It's quite noticeable, yes.

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.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a false dilemma.

And furthermore, you know it to be false.

I refer to your OP:

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.

IOW, it's not a case of either secular or religious-based decision-making; it's a case of both methods being employed by the same individual; and futhermore, that is how you described it from the outset.

So an LDS student who wants to do well on a math test will study and rigorously work out the logic and pray for a clear mind when taking the test. A Latter-day Saint going on a road trip will get sufficient rest to stay alert and pray for divine protection. An LDS national leader contemplating entering a war in the Middle East will consult the best a secular information about the situation and pray about what is in the best interests of the people he or she is supposed to serve.

But what you're really saying is that it offends your sensibilities that anyone would dare to pray about something; and so, you would vote against such a person for no better reason than that.

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

Like Stalin, for instance?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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

Thank you for so openly confessing your bigotry.

Only two things can happen.

If you actually believe in God, and that God answers prayers, then yes. However, there is a third alternative: they won't get any sort of answer, and so they'll just do what they were going to do anyway.

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?

Would you vote for someone who would resist going to war, against secular advice, because God told him not to?

Is there anything, apart from your own knee-jerk assumption, that suggests that those who pray are more likely to go to war than those who do not?

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

would any of you vote for someone who prayed to satan?

[Analytics]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as a false dilemma.

And furthermore, you know it to be false.

I refer to your OP:

IOW, it's not a case of either secular or religious-based decision-making; it's a case of both methods being employed by the same individual; and futhermore, that is how you described it from the outset.

So an LDS student who wants to do well on a math test will study and rigorously work out the logic and pray for a clear mind when taking the test. A Latter-day Saint going on a road trip will get sufficient rest to stay alert and pray for divine protection. An LDS national leader contemplating entering a war in the Middle East will consult the best a secular information about the situation and pray about what is in the best interests of the people he or she is supposed to serve.

So by your logic, if I said that spinach is more healthy than candy, you’d claim that’s a false dilemma, because you could eat spinach and candy. Got it.

But what you're really saying is that it offends your sensibilities that anyone would dare to pray about something; and so, you would vote against such a person for no better reason than that.Like Stalin, for instance?

By Goodwin's law, I won the debate.

[Jeff K.]

No you didn't. You merely invoked something that does not indicate a debate is won, if the analogy works, then it is a legitimate point. Goodwins law isn't a shield you can run behind.

[Jeff K.]

would any of you vote for someone who prayed to satan?

Would I vote for someone who seeks the destruction of mankind, and desires depravity for all of man? Would you?

[Pahoran]

So by your logic, if I said that spinach is more healthy than candy, you’d claim that’s a false dilemma, because you could eat spinach and candy. Got it.

No.

By my logic, if you described someone who eats only vegetables and someone else who eats vegetables and candy, and then talked about whether it's good to eat only candy, you'd be posing a false dilemma.

By Goodwin's law, I won the debate.

Amateur.

Lie down before you hurt yourself.

It's Godwin's law.

And it was your idea to suggest that atheists make better national leaders; I merely mentioned a well-known example.

Would you prefer a different atheist? How about Mao Zedong? Pol Pot? Kim Jong-Il?

Which atheist would you rather live under?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

If a candidate prays i would prefer that he keep it private. There are those who want to pray out on the corner in front of all the world; these are people I specifically distrust. I am wary of the their public spirituality. I will vote for those who I think are most qualified and those who demonstrate, i.e. I see by their actions, that they have a sense of morality, integrity, and honesty (I know we are talking about politicians, but at least a modicum of such).

[Analytics]

No.

By my logic, if you described someone who eats only vegetables and someone else who eats vegetables and candy, and then talked about whether it's good to eat only candy, you'd be posing a false dilemma.

Which, of course I didn't do. Here is what I said:

I happen to believe that secular decision-making processes are better than religious-based decision-making processes.

I didn't say or suggest that religious people don't primarily rely upon secular decision making processes.

Amateur.

Lie down before you hurt yourself.

It's Godwin's law.

And it was your idea to suggest that atheists make better national leaders; I merely mentioned a well-known example.

Would you prefer a different atheist? How about Mao Zedong? Pol Pot? Kim Jong-Il?

Which atheist would you rather live under?

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

You have now quadruply lost this debate via Godwin's law. To an amateur.

[Analytics]

No you didn't. You merely invoked something that does not indicate a debate is won, if the analogy works, then it is a legitimate point. Goodwins law isn't a shield you can run behind.

But the analogy didn't work.

When somebody has no response other than an irrelevant and invalid response that entails an analogy to Stalin, he has lost the debate.

[Jeff K.]

And that guarantees your amateur status. Preferring someone who does not believe in God or pray, over someone who does overlooks those tyrants in history who fulfill your position exactly.

[Analytics]

I always find it interesting that those who don't understand prayer, claim or implicate its sole purpose is to seek divine intervention or revelation. I refer to such as a Cecil B. Demille attitude, both by those who expect it and those who presume in their ignorance that is all that comes from prayer. If an atheist chooses to medidate to dwell upon an issue and develops insight, do we nail him as some kind of idiot? Of course not.

An agnostic who works with me has nothing to do with religion. Thinks it doesn't really have any effect, however he doesn't mind me saying a prayer and I feel comfortable doing it because he is my friend. More to the point, he see's prayer not so much as communion with God, but an attempt by western standards to meditate upon an issue and resolve it with thoughtful reflection. He he's it as the equivalent of meditation. Now he doesn't think God is speaking to us, but he does think it opens up avenues of thought we haven't been able to distinguish when we do not fully empty our minds of distractions (he meditates himself).

I think this is a healthy attitude towards the prayer of others. Does prayer therefore imbue authority in the answer? Well to someone who is ignorant of the standards held, not just by our church but by many churches, the answer is obviously yes. But again this is an answer in ignorance without an understanding of the church or prayer.

This is a good point. Meditating on things is a good idea, and for many effective people, prayer is a form of constructive meditation.

But on the other hand, your comments reminded me of an editorial I read while the U.S. was preparing to go to war in Iraq. The editorialist was very concerned about the wisdom of this decision to go to war. Was it really necessary? Would the trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands killed be worth it? He had his doubts. He then talked about the weeks and weeks that the president had recently spent meditating and struggling to come up with a Solomon-like policy for whether or not the United States should fund stem-cell research, and compared that to the lightening-quick decision and absolute confidence that invading Iraq was the correct thing to do. Where did his rock-solid testimony come from that we needed to attack a foreign country that hadn't attacked us?

In other words persuasion, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, pure knowledge, without hypocrisy or guile....

A fun exercise would be to evaluate how well the various Saints here take this approach to our chats.

[Analytics]

And that guarantees your amateur status. Preferring someone who does not believe in God or pray, over someone who does overlooks those tyrants in history who fulfill your position exactly.

Seriously Jeff? Here are my specific political views, as outlined in this thread:

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

So CFR. Please name one tyrant in history who "fulfills my position exactly."

[Jaybear]

If you actually believe in God, and that God answers prayers, then yes. However, there is a third alternative: they won't get any sort of answer, and so they'll just do what they were going to do anyway.

True, but inconsequential to my point.

Would you vote for someone who would resist going to war, against secular advice, because God told him not to?

IMO: The decision whether to go to war (or not) should be made based evaluating the best evidence available and without consulting a deity. The president is the commander in chief, not the nation's prophet.

Is there anything, apart from your own knee-jerk assumption, that suggests that those who pray are more likely to go to war than those who do not?

I never made that assumption.

[mercyngrace]

As MRSR said, all things being equal, I'd go with the one who prays.

I like the idea, rare though it seems to be in politics these days, of a public official who doesn't believe he is the ultimate authority.

[Analytics]

As MRSR said, all things being equal, I'd go with the one who prays.

I like the idea, rare though it seems to be in politics these days, of a public official who doesn't believe he is the ultimate authority.

I'm sure the majority of people agree with you, and it is perfectly legitimate and in no way bigoted to vote accordingly.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Nixon ran on his "secret plan" to get us out of Vietnam. He didn't. He nearly doubled the amount of troops, and tried to conduct a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, leading to the downfall of that government, and the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge. The furthest he got was to stop sending new US troops there. I know I was slated to go, up to the last minute. Gerald Ford was actually the President who got us out of Vietnam.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

Nixon ran on his "secret plan" to get us out of Vietnam. He didn't. He nearly doubled the amount of troops, and tried to conduct a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, leading to the downfall of that government, and the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge. The furthest he got was to stop sending new US troops there. I know I was slated to go, up to the last minute. Gerald Ford was actually the President who got us out of Vietnam.

Are you sure? What I've read is that "the peak year for American troops was 1968, when there were 536,000 of them in Vietnam. In 1971 there were only 156,000, and in 1972 only 24,000."

Nixon didn't get us all the way out, but things were certainly going in that direction durring his presidency.

(http://www.rasmusen.org/x/2005/03/04/the-vietnam-war-troop-levels-victory-and-poll-opposition/)

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

My mistake. I should have included the word killed. Don't know why my fingers didn't type it. My apologies.