Politics, Prayer, And Prejudice

[frankenstein]

Clement V

Phillip IV

Spanish Crown

King Henry

Oliver Cromwell

Andrew Jackson

KKK

[KevinG]

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

It depends. Is he promising to audit the Fed?

(a little Ron Paul humor there...)

[Ares]

Unless this topic is more about voting for a candidate that prays and less debate about which dictators kill more (religious or atheist) the discussion will be ended.

[frankenstein]

Candidate A: Atheist

Candidate B: Muslim who regularly Prays to Allah

Candidate C: Active Homosexual and Active Christian who states "I find strength and guidance when I pray"

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

Lots depends on what ideas about governance they had.

I've worked professionally with a few devil worshippers. Crazy as loons. But I don't know if their craziness was a cause or an effect of whom they prayed to.

[KevinG]

Candidate A: Atheist

Candidate B: Muslim who regularly Prays to Allah

Candidate C: Active Homosexual and Active Christian who states "I find strength and guidance when I pray"

I don't have a religious litmus test for a candidate. My answer would depend entirely on factors other than what you have listed here.

Frankly it disgusts me that the press and political campaigns push religion as a deciding factor when our constitution clearly protects personal beliefs and prohibits them from barring someone from office.

If I found an Atheist, Muslim or Homosexual who was a honorable and just man or woman with views on governance that I felt were wise, I would vote for them in a hearbeat over a Mormon candidate who was politically or ethically challenged.

[frankenstein]

I don't have a religious litmus test for a candidate. My answer would depend entirely on factors other than what you have listed here.

Frankly it disgusts me that the press and political campaigns push religion as a deciding factor when our constitution clearly protects personal beliefs and prohibits them from barring someone from office.

If I found an Atheist, Muslim or Homosexual who was a honorable and just man or woman with views on governance that I felt were wise, I would vote for them in a hearbeat over a Mormon candidate who was politically or ethically challenged.

I suspect that many responses have less to do with prayer and more to do with religious tests. Given the 3 I suggested I suspect many who have responded in this thread would take none of the 3, even if we considered that all 3 were equal in capacity and ability and the only deciding factor was "prayer".

[Loran Blood]

Analytics:

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

Why not? He ended America's participation in the Vietnam war.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

Because he didn't. That was Gerald Ford. What Nixon did was end sending more American troops to Vietnam. An important step but not the same thing.

Ps. Also Nixon started a "Secret" bombing campaign on Cambodia. When the campaign became public it lead directly to the collapse of the Cambodian government and the Khmer Rouge "Killing Fields".

Edited August 18, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[ldsfaqs]

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

Depends on how he "interprets" Satan.....

Does he interpret him as some do as some New Age Angel of Light who has simply been misunderstood etc., and then this guy in his politics was completely conservative, thus on the "side of Light", then YES, I would vote for him, if he was better than the other candidate obviously.

But, if he worshiped the Devil we traditionally believe one of evil, perversion, destroyer of worlds, etc. Then NO, I wouldn't vote for him, no matter if he was conservative or not. I would think there is something seriously wrong with the guy.

[ldsfaqs]

Mormons are to combat the powers of darkness, evil, etc. in the world..... Not "Faith".

As long as ones Faith doesn't do evil, such as Fanatical Islam, then they are a viable candidate. Then voting for them would depend entirely on their other ideology's embraced.

This is one reason anti-mormons are so wrong. They have perverted the scriptures of the Bible, and ignoring others to create this religion within a religion, a religion that destroys Faith, not builds it. They directly go against Christ's own words in Mark 9 & Luke 9, in which he chastises the Apostles for attempting to be critical of other believers who were not with them, had not their Faith, had not their Authority, had not their religion. But they were believers, and according to Christ THEY ALSO are His Children, and should not EVER be offended.

Yet, anti-mormons directly go against Christ's counsel in those verses, offending us in their every word about us, and they don't care. Christian anti-mormons have a LOT of repenting to do, for Christ has harsh judgment against them. It's so harsh, that he even says their whole being will be cast into h***, unless they cut that offending body part off. In other words, to Christ it doesn't matter how "good" of a Christian you are otherwise, you engage in anti-mormonism, and you are automatically cut off for your acts against his other children.

You Christian anti-mormons out there, pay attention.

Edited August 18, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Pahoran]

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.

In which case, voting against a candidate because he prays is an expression of mere prejudice.

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

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

Time for a little more schooling.

Godwin's law does not specify who wins or loses. The only thing it asserts is this:

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Some Usenet fora adopted a rule to the effect that the first person to introduce such a comparison had lost the debate. But that is not inherent in the "law" or in anything Godwin himself said about it.

You appeared to assume that atheists make more trustworthy national leaders. Comparing that "article of unfaith" with reality, in the form of actual atheist leaders, is therefore a valid exercise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Loran Blood]

You appeared to assume that atheists make more trustworthy national leaders. Comparing that "article of unfaith" with reality, in the form of actual atheist leaders, is therefore a valid exercise.

And the list that could be compiled regarding those atheist leaders is fairly substantial, and makes for some very unhappy history.

[Jeff K.]

I suspect that many responses have less to do with prayer and more to do with religious tests. Given the 3 I suggested I suspect many who have responded in this thread would take none of the 3, even if we considered that all 3 were equal in capacity and ability and the only deciding factor was "prayer".

Most suspicions are unfounded. Most suspicions reflect the character of the person suspecting others, not necessarily the suspect.

[frankenstein]

Most suspicions are unfounded. Most suspicions reflect the character of the person suspecting others, not necessarily the suspect.

do you care to prove yourself correct then?

3 candidates, you personally agree with each one completely with respect their statements concerning the office they seek, the only deciding factor you have left is "prayer"

candidate A is an atheist

candidate B is a practicing Muslim

candidate C is in a ssm and is a Christian who has stated he prays regularly.

[Jeff K.]

Prayer being the same as contemplation, meditation, deep thought. It would not matter.

If the atheist does not believe in contemplation or deep thought, than he would be less than the other two.

[KevinG]

do you care to prove yourself correct then?

3 candidates, you personally agree with each one completely with respect their statements concerning the office they seek, the only deciding factor you have left is "prayer"

candidate A is an atheist

candidate B is a practicing Muslim

candidate C is in a ssm and is a Christian who has stated he prays regularly.

The fact that you have to bracket this choice with no other variables to get a response is proof that the candidates proclivity to pray isn't that big of a deal to those responding.

Where have I seen this premise before? Oh yeah. Clone candidates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cQe7PlnESc

[Analytics]

Some Usenet fora adopted a rule to the effect that the first person to introduce such a comparison had lost the debate. But that is not inherent in the "law" or in anything Godwin himself said about it.

That's all fine and dandy. By no means was I trying to duck out of a fight I was losing on a technicality. Rather, I was demonstrating that your implications were so insipid and stupid that they didn’t deserve a serious response.

You appeared to assume that atheists make more trustworthy national leaders. Comparing that "article of unfaith" with reality, in the form of actual atheist leaders, is therefore a valid exercise.

First of all, your accusation here is not only off topic, it is against board rules. The point of this isn't to argue whether or not praying presidents or non-praying presidents are better. Rather, it's to explore whether answering either A or B, as phrased in original question, is a sign of bigotry.

Equating my political views (which, out of respect for the rules of the board I haven't even stated) with the politics of people with whom I disagree on almost everything is in no way a valid exercise.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Analytics

[Eldwynn]

Shouldn't you be asking which God the politician is praying too? I think those who would be more likely to vote for Candidate religous are only saying so because they just assume he is praying(and getting answers from) their God.

[Jeff K.]

Late in the game, already discussed.

[mercyngrace]

Shouldn't you be asking which God the politician is praying too? I think those who would be more likely to vote for Candidate religous are only saying so because they just assume he is praying(and getting answers from) their God.

Not so, Eldwynn. Your supposition reveals your own bias against believers rather than any prejudices of the OP's respondents.

I would vote for a spiritual person of any faith or philosophy. I would also vote for an atheist. However, the hypothetical presented in the OP allows for the singular discriminator of prayer to a higher power. So again, all other things being equal, I would vote for the candidate who clearly acknowledges he is not the supreme authority - regardless of who or what he prays to.

[Pahoran]

That's all fine and dandy. By no means was I trying to duck out of a fight I was losing on a technicality. Rather, I was demonstrating that your implications were so insipid and stupid that they didn’t deserve a serious response.

That might have been what you were thinking, but what you said was that I had lost the debate to you.

And from where I sit, your new recasting of your position looks like a convenient way to avoid engaging me.

First of all, your accusation here is not only off topic, it is against board rules.

What "accusation," and what rules?

In your second post of this thread you wrote:

I’ll go on record as saying that I’d be less likely to vote for the religious candidate.... However, I happen to believe that secular decision-making processes are better than religious-based decision-making processes.... Those happen to be my personal beliefs, and I happen to believe the president would be a better president if he acted accordingly.

Why is it on-topic for you to say that but off-topic for me to reflect it back to you as "You appeared to assume that atheists make more trustworthy national leaders?" That is merely what I understood your statement to mean; if I'm wrong so be it, but where is the off-topic, rule-breaking accusation?

The point of this isn't to argue whether or not praying presidents or non-praying presidents are better. Rather, it's to explore whether answering either A or B, as phrased in original question, is a sign of bigotry.

Equating my political views (which, out of respect for the rules of the board I haven't even stated) with the politics of people with whom I disagree on almost everything is in no way a valid exercise.

But that's the point, really. Distrusting praying candidates regardless of their political positions rather transcends politics, and as such is not a "political view." And while it is comforting to know that you disagree with the named atheists on almost everything political, it takes us to the next question: if you were faced with a choice between (for example) Kim Jong-Il and "Candidate Religious," how far away from Kim's position would CR have to be before it would be sufficent to overcome your repugnance for candidates who pray?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

Shouldn't you be asking which God the politician is praying too? I think those who would be more likely to vote for Candidate religous are only saying so because they just assume he is praying(and getting answers from) their God.

That is a very narrow perspective to have of believers of any religion. I am a spiritual person, but when I make decisions I make seek God's guidance, but I try to make the best decision possible given the information I have. I do not believe God makes my choices for me though I do feel he may bless me to use my best faculties in making decisions. I make the same assumption of others regardless of their religion.

You really do have a twisted view of followers of religion. I think what is worse is that you are not aware of your own perspective, i.e. you don't know that you have this twisted view.