Replies

Why? There isn't a qualification in the Constitution that excludes a certain characteristic as an incentive to prefer one candidate over another. It would be impossible to separate the human tendency to be drawn to someone for more than qualification, just as it is impossible to separate bias from reporting. It isn't possible.

I do think qualifications should dominate, but the character of a candidate and how they view the world is defined by who they are. Faith, gender, resistance on race etc... It would be foolish not to factor the sum that evolves the character of the candidate into your decision of whether they deserve office. Further, I have only become more conservative across the board because of my faith. I do not mean only socially but economically as well as my opinion of world affairs. It gives me boundaries morally and it is through this prism I view the rights of my government vs my own divined rights.

It is sad to watch so many voters voting on some basis, other than qualification. Religion, race, sex, looks, you name it. Sad decision making.

This is an ignorant comment. My religious beliefs invariably inform my view of a man’s qualifications. It is no different than for those who are atheistic, whatever. Their moral and/or theological views invariably impact how they select office holders.

I would agree with you that race, sex, and looks are not appropriate. However, to compare choosing a candidate based on his having a better haircut, with my choosing a candidate because his pro-life stance matches my (faith taught) view that all human life has worth, is asinine.

Keep in mind, that the polls prove that voters didn’t vote just based on a shell of religion, e.g., the Catholics didn’t vote for Kerry simply because he is a Catholic, but rather they chose a politician whose political stances fit with their beliefs: religious, social, moral, and economic. In that light, religious views are entirely appropriate in politics, and in some cases are inseperable.

patent