I do not feel that any President should be selected based on religous beliefs, and that is my opinion. Competence, experience, credibility, honesty, support of the Constitution and founding principles of this country, and commitment to the safety and well being of the people of this country rank fare above all else.Even under your terms, which I would find extremely limiting, I still think you are off base. Many portions of the Constitution and our founding principles were based on religious belief. Perhaps you'd like us to strike parts of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--Those are, are they not, parts of our founding principles? The belief that our Creator gave us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? All these things for me are defined by my religion. I’m sure you are well aware that many of our founding fathers were deeply religious, and in their actions in establishing this country they turned to those beliefs. We should not do as they did?And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Take a look at these rights our Declaration says our Creator gave us. What is life? For me its defined by my religion, for instance in abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc. If I can’t apply my religious beliefs on life, am I therefore not allowed to vote on abortion issues? Its inseparable from my religion.
What is liberty? Freedom of religion certainly applies, and thus even this is inseparable from religion. Should I vote for a man who, using your terms, would competently, honestly and credibly promise to prohibit my religion?
What is the pursuit of happiness? For me happiness is to know God, to love God, to serve God. Again, defined by my religion.
Moreover, you yourself mention several values. Honesty, well-being, etc. Most of us have our views on these issues shaped by our religious values, or if there is a lack thereof, by our personal philosophies. So again, even on your terms, if you encourage me to chose a leader based on my views of honesty, you are asking me to bring religion into it. For me, they are inseparable. I value honesty because of my religion. I have particular views about what is and is not honesty because of my religion.
It is a distinctly modern notion that religion has no place in politics. It is designed by liberals and communists to drive religious people out of politics and into the closet, where they can be safely ruled by their “betters.” No thanks. I’ll stick with the true Constitutional principles, and true founding principles, and I’ll continue to have my vote informed by my religious beliefs.
patent
Excellent post.
EagleUSA's unease with religion: "We all have our opinions" is a good illustration of why Kerry did badly among Catholics, - and especially badly among serious Catholics. When asked about his responsibility for pro-abortion legislation, Kerry offered the same rationale: -- I don't believe in killing babies, but others do; since opinions about killing babies are domain of religion, I cannot possibly allow my personal opposition to murder get in the way.
This is an awful breakdown of cognitive ability from any standpoint. But it cost him more among the Catholics, because a Catholic is more likely than a Protestant or an irreligious to distinguish between the voluntary obligations one uniquely has as Catholic (such as gong to confession now and then) and universal truths proclaimed by the Catholic church to all men of integrity (such as not to commit murder). The Protestants have too much invested in the habit of forming 22,000 mutually incompatible doctrines, to immediately recognize that Mr. Kerry, with his separation of religion and politics, is only fit to legislate in a farm of animals.