Posted on 10/20/2010 8:59:05 AM PDT by Colofornian
A Freeper posted a Rasmussen poll about 4 years ago (late 2006) [see Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll) ]. According to that excerpt: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 4<<4% of white Democrats agree.
So…what % of the following groups found that a candidate’s faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
So you dare, Allmendream, to call 62% of Americans "un-American?"
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
So you dare, AMD, to call 92% of Evangelicals "un-American?"
(3) Republicans: 78%
So you dare, AMD, to call 78% of Republicans "un-American?"
(4) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]
Considering is not the same as outright rejecting.
If 62% of Americans said they would simply NOT vote for a candidate unless they were the same religion as they were (or an acceptable approximation), for example, that they would not under any circumstances vote for a Catholic; I would say that they were bigots and that their sentiment - at its heart - was Anti-American.
People of any religious faith are perfectly acceptable as candidates for CIVIL office in our CIVIL society.
Equal eligibility before the law is not, I repeat, not, the same as equal private consideration.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2- BOTTOM LINE: You seem to confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
So sum up: All citizens who are not felons have the right to aspire to any office regardless of any faith, religious adherence or other-worldly commitment. But that doesn't mean you, then can come along in some jack-booted way, allmendream, & tell somebody, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Mrs. Individual Voter...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we will shame you, we will tell all you are an 'embarrassment' to the rest of us...that you disgust us...and we'll accuse you of attacking the beliefs of these people. What's more, we'll accuse you of being in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution! Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!" You seem to accuse outright that when casting a vote...someone's expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-death doesn't provide for us a glimpse of their broader perspectives.
My teachers on this subject have been Madison and Jefferson. They despised that sort of bigotry as anti-American as well...that some religions were “truth” while others were “falsehood”.
Jefferson despised that some religions were 'truth' while others were 'false' and supposedly called that "bigotry???" My, my, my, such historical revisionism. Jefferson, in fact, found the Bible to be both!
In his own Jefferson edited Bible, he took all of the miracles in it. (Which meant he deemed some of it as "false"). You need to go back and study history, my boy.
I've seen two polls through the years re: about 50% of voters would not vote for either a Muslim candidate or an atheist. So you're calling half or even slightly more than half of America bigots??? Really?
If 62% of Americans said they would simply NOT vote for a candidate...
So if they wouldn't vote for a Satanist outright, that's "bigotry"? Really?
We don't need another unwinable McCain like situation in 2012.
Nice truncation of my sentence! You almost got it to say what you wanted it to say.
Here is the unedited version again....
“My teachers on this subject have been Madison and Jefferson. They despised that sort of bigotry as anti-American as well, and they did not at all propose that some religions be considered ‘more equal than others’, or that some be “tolerated” while other accepted, or that some religions were “truth” while others were “falsehood”.”
Implicit in that is that the ‘consideration’ is by the government. They did NOT set up a system whereby the government would be considering some religions “more equal than others”.
Now OBVIOUSLY each had a PERSONAL preference for a particular religions belief - and PERSONAL notions of what religious tenets were “truth” or “falsehood” - and it is a preposterous straw-man to even consider that I was suggesting that our founders were PERSONALLY uninterested in the “truth” or “falsity” of such.
To reject a candidate based upon their religious beliefs in this Civil society is to engage in religious bigotry.
To suggest that others do the same is anti-American.
Our founders were clear that religious liberty was for ALL, and that American civil offices should be filled by any qualified candidate based upon their political/civil beliefs rather than religious alignment; and directly put into place a very AMERICAN doctrine that there would be no religious test to hold office.
I suggest you study history better, and perhaps you might glom onto what made America unique in all of human history, and believe you me it was NOT the sentiment that ‘i wont vote for nobody lessen they believes the sames as I does bout God’.
I watch none of them.
Man, are you so "government-water-logged" that you can't see beyond your systems & government approach to everything? (You're beginning to sound more government-is-our-model than even the Obama admin)
I've repeatedly made distinctions between how the govt has to approach various religious...vs. how the individual has to approach them.
FYI we are mandated, if we wanted to pick a personal adherence to some religion, to "try out" each one on some "equal ground" status, lest we be "intolerant" of one or more.
The same holds true for the voter. 78% of Republicans give weighty consideration to the faith of a given candidate. Some may give it a 30% weight. Some a 35% weight. But just because some may give it a 51-100% weight on some candidates (another example is how one of the Dem POTUS candidates last year had New Age leanings), doesn't mean you can come along and show your bigotry (your intolerance of it) without it being pointed out.
Why are you then so "bigoted" (intolerant) about others who allow their religious convictions to apply to the public square?
What? Do you just want their religious beliefs to "stay put" and "contained" in their homes & churches?
Our founders were clear that religious liberty was for ALL, and that American civil offices should be filled by any qualified candidate based upon their political/civil beliefs rather than religious alignment; and directly put into place a very AMERICAN doctrine that there would be no religious test to hold office.
I suggest you study history better, and perhaps you might glom onto what made America unique in all of human history, and believe you me it was NOT the sentiment that ‘i wont vote for nobody lessen they believes the sames as I does bout God’.
Let's see how how consistent your face is in applying your interpretation of govt doctrine imposed upoon the individual to certain Western states...like Utah...Arizona...Nevada...all of whom have 8% or more of a Mormon population...and since most of them are Republicans...a much heavier representation in Republican primaries 3 years ago.
Isn't it interesting that about 94% of Mormons voted for Romney in those states? And here's the reason, per the Salt Lake Tribune's citation of exit polls:
Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 7, 2008: Exit poll data from Tuesday's primary elections showed Utah Republican voters cared more about presidential candidates' personal qualities than their positions on issues, the opposite of the national trend in Super Tuesday voting. Source headline: "Romney's exit disappoints strong Utah following"
"Personal qualities"...Mormon talk for "he's a fellow Mormon."
How consistent, allmendream, are you in applying your "American civil offices should be filled by any qualified candidate based upon their political/civil beliefs rather than religious alignment" to what happened in those states in the '08 primary?
This info has been out for almost 4 years? Have you been out there beating your drum against Mormon voters that they shouldn't lift their "religion alignment" they shared with Romney above other considerations?
Pick a Southern state with a high% of Evangelical voters. Could you imagine the hue and cry had 94% or 95% of voters in that state voted for Huckabee? I'm sure you would have been first in line to lecture those in that state, AMD. Where have you been these past three years on the lecture circuit re: Utah???
For clarification, I'm repeatedly said on these threads I don't think the Mormon voters of Utah were engaging in "bigotry" by voting for Romney. I think that's part of what it means to live in a "Free Republic." If they wanted to vote for Romney for religious considerations, that's part of the religious freedom that posters like AllMenDream apparently frowns upon.
(1) You need to re-read post #64 so that you can better discern that the Constitution of our country is geared toward candidate eligibility, not forcing voters to vote in some jackbootged allmendream notion.
(2) You know I've greatly disagreed on some issues on this site with libertarians over a few issues, but I think you could benefit from a few more discussions with libertarians over issues of individual freedom instead of seemingly weighing things thru "government" eyes in such a lopsided way.
You're a sad case, AMD, when you take your ethical and moral cues and civil responsibilities from how government does things -- even the best of governments. (Your use of "American doctrine" and government this and systems that) Pathetic really.
No wonder too many in our country see our govt as the "savior" and "answer" for everything. You have modeled that perspective well on this thread.
Because I find the sentiment of a personal religious test to hold office un-American I am suddenly a Statist? What a pathetic dodge to cover your anti-American proclivity to engage in religious bigotry.
Going after Romney on the issues makes you look principled.
Going after Romney because he is a Mormon makes you look like a bigot.
Going after Kennedy on the issues would have made you looked principled.
Going after Kennedy because he was a Catholic would make you look like a bigot.
The principle has not changed. Principles do not change. The ideas of our Founders are to be RESPECTED and EMULATED and EMBRACED, and doing so doesn't make one a jackbooted thug of any sort. Your anti-Americanism is showing again.
Actually taking religion into consideration is an American tradition from the founding, and there is no way that a Mormon or a Muslim would have had a chance of winning the presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter.
Don’t tell people what information about an individual that they can use, or not use, to decide if they want to make him the President of America.
A Catholic would have had no chance of winning the Presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter. Do you think that this reflected the promise of America as much as, less than, or equal to the fact that it wouldn't be nearly so difficult today?
Has our outlook grown to be more accepting of the American principle of religious liberty, or is such acceptance not at all indicative of the unique promise of America?
A black man would have had no chance of winning the Presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter. Do you think that this reflected the promise of America as much as, less than, or equal to the fact that it wouldn't be nearly so difficult today?
Has our outlook grown to be more accepting of the American principles of liberty and equality, or is such acceptance not at all indicative of the unique promise of America?
A woman would have had no chance of winning the Presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter. Do you think that this reflected the promise of America as much as, less than, or equal to the fact that it wouldn't be nearly so difficult today?
Has our outlook grown more accepting of the American principles of liberty and equality, or is such growing acceptance not at all indicative of the unique promise of America?
Exactly.
Too many people (like AMD) try to superimpose what they think the golden era of the founders would embrace or not embrace. The fact of the matter is that Mormonism was not well received...
...in the 1830s when Smith started calling all other creeds an "abomination" before God and all people of Christian sects as "corrupt" (Joseph Smith History, vv. 18-19, Pearl of Great Price)
...Nor was it in the 1850s, when the fledgling Republican Party said it was taking on the "twin relics of barbarism," polygamy and slavery...
...Nor was it in the 1870s and 1880s, when the federal govt started passing laws cracking down on polygamy and the source of it...
...Nor was it in the 1890s when grass roots America signed 7 million signatures to 28 rolls to get Congress to not accept B.H. Roberts as the Utah congressional representative because Roberts married his third simultaneous wife in the 1890s.
Don’t tell people what information about an individual that they can use, or not use, to decide if they want to make him the President of America.
Hey, I don't mind AMD telling people what he wants to tell people. It is a Free Republic, after all. But he should expect some resistance if he thinks he can shame people by trying to impose his view that a candidate's other-world dimension worldviews are somehow "off-limits" for whether or not to reject that candidate.
According to his "principles," if he were to be consistent, that is,
...then he would utterly have to ignore a candidate's religious adherency even if that candidate religiously believed that suicide was a direct means for being beamed up by aliens from another world!
(The religion I reference: The Heaven's Gate cult, which was operative in the San Diego area...you know...the ones who committed mass suicide because they were told that was the gate to the heavens where they could encounter aliens from another world)...
Many of the founders would turn over in their grave before being resurrected if they knew what would be taught under the umbrella of "religion"...and they certainly had access to the same Bible where Jesus talked about false Messiahs who would come upon the earth.
Are you actually suggesting that they would have FORBIDDEN particular teachings under the “umbrella” of religious belief? That they would have used the power of Government to condemn such, outlaw it, pass laws against it?
Jackbooted thug for theocracy much?
I don’t see you being able to convince Americans to shut their minds off, from considering how someone being Muslim, fits into what they want for a President and leader of the GOP.
Yeah, well read my last post. You're telling us that if somebody said they were resurrecting koolaid parties and starting a Jim Jones cult...
...or was a member of Heaven's Gate...
...or a Satanist...
...and they said they could not in good conscience vote for a Jim Jones clone adherent, a Heaven's Gate disciple, or a Satanist...
...that you would call them to their face a "bigot" for such an assertion...
...shows exactly your lack of discernment.
... the unique promise of America?
The "unique promise of America" is one where unlike Russia and some of its former USSR countries, where Jehovah's Witnesses are either being booted out, not allowed, or are under consideration for being booted, the JWs can operate here in freedom...
But that doesn't mean all free speech commenting upon what JWs believe is squelched at the turn of your front porch sprinkler faucet!!!
Now I know we'll probably never see a JW candidate even at the local level because they are so anti-govt and pacifist, but let's just say there was one who wanted to run for public office. "The unique promise of America" is that such a person could run, in juxtaposition to perhaps what he might face in Russia or a former USSR country.
But guarantee on a ballot does not equate to a guarantee that some of their worldviews won't trigger a reject notice at the ballot box.
You have a very dangerous worldview, were it to be accepted very widely, I might add, AMD. I mean, consider all of the Democratic ideals we loathe on this site:
* Social utopianism
* Social utopianism ushered in by socialism
* The great welfare state
* Govt is the answer for all or almost all problems
* Mortgaging our children's financial future via debt
* Abortion on demand
* Marriage can be defined however you want
* Etc.
* (Oh, and let me add one more: If you disagree with any of these above-mentioned religious tenants, you are a "bigot")
All a Democratic or Independent candidate would need to do is to find a "religious" base for these beliefs, start his own religion with these as the basic tenants, and then when it comes time to go to the ballot box, you would have to forego rejecting such a candidate on the basis of these "beliefs" because to do so, in your eyes, would constitute "bigotry..." and you've been well-trained, Pavlov style, by liberals, to believe that "bigotry" is one of the worst possible sins out there!
Fact of the matter is "bigotry" = intolerance...and far from showing tolerance to our religious views, you are quite intolerant of them. So "bigotry" for thee, but others can't be intolerant of false worldviews?
Being a conservative does not mean being an anarchist, but in accepting the philosophy of our founders regarding the natural rights of man, freedom of conscience, and a government of limited and enumerated powers.
It seems your only defense for your bigotry is to accuse me of being a Statist for embracing the foundational philosophy of America.
Pitiful display of your anti-Americansim. Truly.
A Catholic would have had no chance of winning the Presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter. Do you think that this reflected the promise of America as much as, less than, or equal to the fact that it wouldn't be nearly so difficult today?
Has our outlook grown to be more accepting of the American principle of religious liberty, or is such acceptance not at all indicative of the unique promise of America?
A black man would have had no chance of winning the Presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter. Do you think that this reflected the promise of America as much as, less than, or equal to the fact that it wouldn't be nearly so difficult today?
Has our outlook grown to be more accepting of the American principles of liberty and equality, or is such acceptance not at all indicative of the unique promise of America?
A woman would have had no chance of winning the Presidency in 1790, or 1890 for that matter. Do you think that this reflected the promise of America as much as, less than, or equal to the fact that it wouldn't be nearly so difficult today?
Has our outlook grown more accepting of the American principles of liberty and equality, or is such growing acceptance not at all indicative of the unique promise of America?
Are you actually suggesting that our founding fathers would have FORBIDDEN particular teachings (those seen as sprouting from “false Messiahs”) under the “umbrella” of religious belief? That they would have used the power of Government to condemn such, outlaw it, pass laws against it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.