Freep a Poll! (Should presidential nominee's religious beliefs be considered?)

www.onenewsnow.com ^ | 7-17-07 | One News Now

[dynachrome]

Should a presidential nominee's religious beliefs be considered during the confirmation process?

It should never come into play

Everything's fair game

For Christians, it is of the utmost importance

[dynachrome]

I answered that everything is fair game. Religion would be a minor factor unless the candidate is a muslim. Then I would want to know a lot more background such as the type of mosque attended.

[dynachrome]

Interesting results. I seem to be in a minority on this poll.

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

[cripplecreek]

It is a good question.

[Responsibility2nd]

Should a presidential nominee's religious beliefs be considered during the confirmation process?

Only if they're different than mine.

[MovieMogul]

Religion (in some people, nay...perhaps most) serves as their set of values and what is right vs what is wrong.

I think we have a duty to know how an elected official will use the religious principles that they believe in to determine what is "right" vs "wrong."

Fortunately, for most religions these values are relatively similar. And I think the difference between various denominations is minimal when it comes to the really big issues.

There used to be a time when "common sense" told us what was right and wrong, but there's just too many idjits today that have messed that up.

Under the right circumstances I'd vote for any mainstream Americanized religion. I would really be hesitant voting for a self-described atheist.

[dynachrome]

Scientology would probably be a no go for me, also.
You are right about the values deriving from religion, even if someone is not religious now, in the formal sense.

[muir_redwoods]

I voted No, Thanks for the lead

[cripplecreek]

If I knew the Atheist had a good record over many years, I would vote for the atheist if a Christian judge had a history of bad decisions over the same timeframe.

After all, there are a surprising number of good conservative atheist FReepers lurking around here.

(BTW I’m a Christian myself)

[toldyou]

It should never come into play 199 (10.22%)

Everything’s fair game 133 (6.83%)

For Christians, it is of the utmost importance 1615 (82.95%)

[ishabibble]

I voted “Utmost Importance”, which it isn’t for me. However, I do believe that the continuous questions about faith are skewed as ballast for the Clinton’s lack of faith.

Absolute, unyielding lack of any moral guidance whatsoever, that is what the Clintons are, in essence. Anytime anyone brings up Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, that is exactly my first thought. I don’t care that Romney is a devout Mormon. I do care that he has a steadfast belief in something.

[MovieMogul]

Scientology would probably be a no go for me, also.

Good point.

[MovieMogul]

If I knew the Atheist had a good record over many years, I would vote for the atheist if a Christian judge had a history of bad decisions over the same timeframe.

Interesting point. If given that circumstance, I'd likely vote for any third person running, or as I've done many times before, write my own name in the ballot.

[mware]

Religion no, but issues that are important to people of religion yes.

[cripplecreek]

I use the old “Will he cut off my head” litmus test.

[mware]

The reason I say no to the nominees religion being important is because many of the candidates who claim to be RC are far from practicing that faith.

I judge them by how they vote on issues important to people of faith, such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.