Politics and religion

This was the topic of a Talk Of The Nation show on NPR today that I only caught the last few minutes of. So, to continue it here, what do you see as the role of relgion in politics?

My personal take: I don't subscribe to a formal religion, but I know many do, and for them, they're most comfortable having someone of their own faith running the country, because it implies (true or not) that that person shares a common set of beliefs with them.

I think if a politician makes a point of their religion then they are fair game to be quizzed on it, and if there's hypocrisy it's proper to call "bullshit" on it. If they keep it private, though, then it shouldn't be our concern. Unfortunately I also think various groups are MAKING it an issue when it really shouldn't be one.

I hate to drag Bill Clinton into this, but I think he demonstrates the dividing line. I didn't vote to elect a Pope, I was trying to elect a President. I want a good PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR for this country. George W Bush might be the holiest guy on the planet (probably unlikely) but he's a crappy administrator. I don't care if the President calls an escort service at 2 a.m. as long as he keeps our country at peace, keeps the economy flowing and growing, and generally works to improve our lives. Some Presidents fool around (e.g.: JFK), some probably don't, but I really don't frickin' care, as long as they do the job they were elected to do, any more than I would want my employer being all so concerned with what I do at 2 a.m. as long as I get my job done.

Clinton was no Pope, but at least he was a President. Bush, unfortunately, is no President, although he thinks himself a Pope. When the hell did this become the litmus test for becoming President? Everyone's so afraid of offending the "religious right" but they're not a huge majority, but everyone's scared into thinking that they are. The good thing about them (from a candidates point of view) is that if you can convince them you're "the one" then they'll vote for you en masse, so you get a whole bunch of fervently religious people advocating for you and voting for you at once, but why should that be the determining factor in electing a President?

I have some friends who are devout Christians, but they hate Bush and are smart enough to distinguish between Pope and President. Why is this so hard for everyone else?

more than self-appointed morals inspectors but unfortunately only look at the morals of others, never at their own. They should turn their gaze toward themselves and they might be surprised at what they would find. A bunch of bigoted, opinionated, self-righteous, ignorant jerks. This country as let these country dictate government policy for far too long and it's time it comes to a halt. These poeople can't run themselves, let alone a whole country.

I think most Americans (even the non-religious) do care about the president's personal moral behavior.

The challenge lies in convincing Americans that certain moral transgressions (infidelity?, etc.) do not automatically disqualify a person from administering the country.

but that should be evident from their history. Presidential candidates should expect to be checked out for criminal backgrounds, accusations, all kinds of stuff. But morals in what? Business? Certainly. A one time fling with someone? Not so sure. We're not privy to their personal lives. It's gotten so that if you're not absolutely frickin' squeaky clean and have been a choirboy that you're ineligible to be a candidate.

I wouldn't be the right person to run, but I think I'd do pretty well as a President, but I'd never make it because I've had an imperfect past. But the gauntlet you have to run pretty much ensures only either the choirboys or the pathological liars will make it to the end. I'm not sure that's best for us.

with you. Like you, above all else I want a president who's a capable public administrator, and one who doesn't tout his or her religiosity, if he or she happens to be religious (I'd prefer a good down-to-earth atheist myself).

OTOH, I don't recall Reagan seeming overtly religious, yet didn't he go to palm readers or psychics or some such? That's pretty scary, imo, so I'll add that I wouldn't want the president to be a woo-woo, even if he or she keeps it to himself or herself.

No woo-woos or closet woo-woos allowed! :woohoo:

K&R

She was criticized for seeing an astrologist. I don't think Reagan himself ever was called on somthing like thar. And as the former husband of a former wife who herself was a nutcase and saw an astrologer, I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on him on something like that. He did a lot of other things I don't (and didn't) agree with, but I can't hang him on that one, other than a questionable choice in women (if the story is true).

It was just Nancy who saw an astrologer, not RR himself. Still, I wonder how much influence she had on him as president. I wouldn't hold it against anyone for marrying a woowoo, but if if the president of the U.S. is married to one, I might feel uneasy.

trumps church affiliation, but fundamentalists disagree. We are American citizens who obey the laws of the land, and have freedom to believe whatever we wish, as long as this does not infringe on another's rights. For the life of me I cannot see what is so hard to understand about this!!!!
Fundamentalists primative thinking in essence says; Since I have chosen to join this (man made) church, everyone else on Earth must do the same, even if this conflicts with national law. This sh*t has to stop.