Faith not fair topic for electoral po...

Faith not fair topic for electoral politics

There are 50 comments on the Baltimore Sun story from Aug 25, 2008, titled Faith not fair topic for electoral politics. In it, Baltimore Sun reports that:

I don't often agree with Kathleen Parker, but she was right on with her comments about the presidential candidates' interviews with Rick Warren .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Baltimore Sun.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
PDupont

Huntington, MA

#1 Aug 25, 2008
Yes I agree that a person's religious beliefs should have no bearing in thier suitability for office and that in a perfect world it would have no bearing. But we don't live in such a world, or country yet and for millions of voters it is intwined and thier concerns should be answered.
MarkP

Pawling, NY

#2 Aug 25, 2008
There is another thing to consider in this issue, how does the candidate's faith effect his or her ability to govern?
One of the candidates for president has for many years attended a church that is racist and supported that church by his presence and supported it monetarily. By attending and supporting a racist church you must agree with and believe it's views and teachings. Can a person who has supported these views be counted upon to govern fairly?

Since: May 08

Hanover, Md.

#3 Aug 25, 2008
I don't mind at all that a group of voters would want to ask the candidates questions from their perspectives, and that the candidates would oblige them for an evening.

What is disturbing (and depressing) is that they would never, ever even consider addressing the concerns of nonbelievers in this fashion, and if they did, a lot of religious people would attack them a lot more aggressively than this letter writer.
chrisp

United States

#4 Aug 25, 2008
A candidate's core beliefs, the measure they use to judge right from wrong, whether they believe their actions will one day be judged or they only need to please their fellow man (or themselves), can only be exposed through discussions of faith. Government may not force it's citizens to belong to a particular faith group, but to ignore faith all together is ludicrous.
John

United States

#5 Aug 25, 2008
Any set of beliefs--religious or otherwise--can throw light on the quality of a candidate's thinking, and so on his or her fitness for office. But being interrogated by a churchman invites candidates to compete on an inverted scale; the more asinine the view, the better the candidate scores.

“Don't protect me from me!”

Since: Jul 07

Reston, VA

#6 Aug 25, 2008
How do you seperate Faith from Values?

The values of a candidate are very important to me and a candidate's failth is often an accurate barometer of their values.
Bucktail

Westminster, MD

#7 Aug 25, 2008
Voters have always connected with the "faith" of whom they vote for. To answer the question "Does this kind of interrogation mean an atheist could never be elected as president?"; yes probably because so many Americans predicate their live on faith in God in some form or another.

I get so tired of people using the "separation of church and state" argument. Let me quote the Constitution for those that think they know it but obviously don't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore "separation of church and state" is NOT on of our most basic principals; in fact, it really doesn't exist.
Margie

Baltimore, MD

#8 Aug 25, 2008
Bucktail wrote:
Voters have always connected with the "faith" of whom they vote for. To answer the question "Does this kind of interrogation mean an atheist could never be elected as president?"; yes probably because so many Americans predicate their live on faith in God in some form or another.
So sad that a civilized, industrialized country has so many wayward minds that still believe the silent, invisible sky ghost somehow directs their actions and wants something from them. Chilling when you think about how far we as a species have come, but refuse to take that extra step. It would be a wonderful world so many, many less wars and conflicts without the hold that these mythologies have on us.
westmonster

Glen Burnie, MD

#9 Aug 25, 2008
Bucktail, really I don't know how you tried to prove your point by quoting the very text of the document that disproves your point. But what would I know. I only hold a degree in political science.

It is sad that we judge a person's character based on their proposed interpretation of belief and their supposed "faith". Religious conviction CANNOT be used as an accurate barometer of effectiveness in presidential office. Lets look at two examples to illustrate this. Lincoln used his faith to guide the notion that all men should be free. Not just those who were white and owned land. He took his religious convictions and accurately interpreted the gospel of Jesus whom he followed.

George W. Bush on the other hand, who has regularly professed his faith, must be listening to a wholly different God. He has raped our natural resources giving more public lands to private interests such as logging and mining than any other president. His domestic policies are disastrous, as has been his encroachment on civil liberties. Not to mention engaging in an unnecessary and costly war.

Lincoln is regularly seen by historians as one of our best presidents, whereas Bush is currently considered among the worst.

Religion and professed belief are no indicators of how a person will preform in office. It should not be seriously considered when picking a candidate.
mike- nottingham

Baltimore, MD

#10 Aug 25, 2008
Margie wrote:
<quoted text>
So sad that a civilized, industrialized country has so many wayward minds that still believe the silent, invisible sky ghost somehow directs their actions and wants something from them. Chilling when you think about how far we as a species have come, but refuse to take that extra step. It would be a wonderful world so many, many less wars and conflicts without the hold that these mythologies have on us.
You as a member of the species obviously have not come far at all if you think the only reason countries and leaders start wars are for religious reasons. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min and Hitler were Atheists like you Skanky!
westmonster

Glen Burnie, MD

#11 Aug 25, 2008
And Mark P hmmm, interesting analysis of Obama's church, although wrong. Perhaps a better indicator of faith is when you commit adultery and then leave your disabled wife. The media loves to point out Edward's wrongs, but they fail to mention that McSame has done it as well. Republicans are so very gullible. They base their opinions on fear and innuendo. Do you really think your nominee is a man of faith?? Idiots.
mike- nottingham

Baltimore, MD

#12 Aug 25, 2008
westmonster wrote:
Bucktail, really I don't know how you tried to prove your point by quoting the very text of the document that disproves your point. But what would I know. I only hold a degree in political science.
It is sad that we judge a person's character based on their proposed interpretation of belief and their supposed "faith". Religious conviction CANNOT be used as an accurate barometer of effectiveness in presidential office. Lets look at two examples to illustrate this. Lincoln used his faith to guide the notion that all men should be free. Not just those who were white and owned land. He took his religious convictions and accurately interpreted the gospel of Jesus whom he followed.
George W. Bush on the other hand, who has regularly professed his faith, must be listening to a wholly different God. He has raped our natural resources giving more public lands to private interests such as logging and mining than any other president. His domestic policies are disastrous, as has been his encroachment on civil liberties. Not to mention engaging in an unnecessary and costly war.
Lincoln is regularly seen by historians as one of our best presidents, whereas Bush is currently considered among the worst.
Religion and professed belief are no indicators of how a person will preform in office. It should not be seriously considered when picking a candidate.
You must hide under your bed every night fearful that George Bush is coming through the front door. You neglect to mention that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for AMERICAN CITIZENS something that liberals like you have been excoriating Bush for doing to foreign born terrorists who want to kill all of us even naive people like you.
MarkP

Pawling, NY

#13 Aug 25, 2008
westmonster wrote:
And Mark P hmmm, interesting analysis of Obama's church, although wrong.
How exactly is my analysis of Obama's church wrong?
mike p

Rosedale, MD

#14 Aug 25, 2008
Are you kidding me? Of course faith has something to do with it. As Mark P points out, Obama was a member of a racist church. Don't believe me. Then go to the church's web site. His wife is a racist. Don't believe me. Read her thesis. I have. The info's out there, all you have to do is look it up.
Izzy

Glen Burnie, MD

#15 Aug 25, 2008
NoFreeRides wrote:
How do you seperate Faith from Values?
The values of a candidate are very important to me and a candidate's failth is often an accurate barometer of their values.
I very strongly disagree. Our morals do not come from religion. We can all agree that murder is wrong, regardless of if we believe in God or not. However, when some politicians are against things like gambling just because it says in some spirit books that these things are wrong, that is where I have a problem.

“Don't protect me from me!”

Since: Jul 07

Reston, VA

#16 Aug 25, 2008
Izzy wrote:
<quoted text>
I very strongly disagree. Our morals do not come from religion. We can all agree that murder is wrong, regardless of if we believe in God or not. However, when some politicians are against things like gambling just because it says in some spirit books that these things are wrong, that is where I have a problem.
I agree that religion is not always an accurate of a persons value.

In fact, many politicians pretend to be religious while arguing for abortion at will, and gladly subsidizing adultery and illegitimacy.
Joe

Gwynn Oak, MD

#17 Aug 25, 2008
The Constitution states the qualifications for the Presidency. However, opinions and beliefs are the factors that people use to vote. This argument that religion is not a qualification is a bad attempt to make people feel guilty if they don't agree with someones faith or lack thereof. A candidate can be perfectly qualified for the presidency but not for your vote.
Steve Gearhart

Randallstown, MD

#18 Aug 25, 2008
Bucktail wrote:
Voters have always connected with the "faith" of whom they vote for. To answer the question "Does this kind of interrogation mean an atheist could never be elected as president?"; yes probably because so many Americans predicate their live on faith in God in some form or another.
I get so tired of people using the "separation of church and state" argument. Let me quote the Constitution for those that think they know it but obviously don't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore "separation of church and state" is NOT on of our most basic principals; in fact, it really doesn't exist.
You are right.

And you are wrong.

Right in that it does not exist in the Constitution in that wording and wrong in that it doies not exist as a guiding principal.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson responded a group of Danbury Baptists that called for government intervention in local politics concerning the fact they were a minority religion in the area. They called upon the national government to intercede on their behalf.

Jefferson declined. Inhis responses he wrote the following;

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The "wall of separation between church and state." is the reference to the Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, really, the seperation of church and state IS a guiding principal of this nation and your belief that it is not, or rather, it does not exist, is incorrect.

“Don't protect me from me!”

Since: Jul 07

Reston, VA

#19 Aug 25, 2008
Steve Gearhart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right.
And you are wrong.
Right in that it does not exist in the Constitution in that wording and wrong in that it doies not exist as a guiding principal.
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson responded a group of Danbury Baptists that called for government intervention in local politics concerning the fact they were a minority religion in the area. They called upon the national government to intercede on their behalf.
Jefferson declined. Inhis responses he wrote the following;
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
The "wall of separation between church and state." is the reference to the Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, really, the seperation of church and state IS a guiding principal of this nation and your belief that it is not, or rather, it does not exist, is incorrect.
People that consider a candidates religious beliefs in how they vote are simply demonstrating the "free exercise thereof".
Tom McKearney

Baltimore, MD

#20 Aug 25, 2008
NoFreeRides wrote:
How do you seperate Faith from Values?
The values of a candidate are very important to me and a candidate's failth is often an accurate barometer of their values.
One does not need to have faith to have values. There is no need to capitalize either, by the way. The Ten Commandments are nothing but common sense based on simple Philosophy.

Also, when is the last time a public figure who supposedly is a person of faith that has failed to disappoint us with some big scandal or another?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Catonsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News In flood-devastated Ellicott City, Md., a vow t... Aug 1 He Named Me Black... 1
News 2 dead after historic Maryland town ravaged by ... Aug 1 He Named Me Black... 1
Looking for sexy BBW NSA DF to join me and my h... (Sep '11) Jul 25 krish 3
Review: Jiani Staffing LLC (Apr '15) May '16 Leave it to beaver 5
Review: Metro Motorworks (Feb '15) May '16 Sarah 2
News Hundreds show support for housing bill in Balti... Apr '16 Fitus T Bluster 1
News Lights, camera, action for filming of pilot for... (Jan '09) Apr '16 Soulmannn 58

Catonsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Catonsville Mortgages