A Baptist pastor describes the Mormon faith as a "cult" and proclaims that he would prefer not to vote for a Mormon candidate. Another Christian leader calls for Americans to elect "a man of sincere, authentic, genuine Christian faith."
Here we go again.
Another presidential election year has brought with it another infusion of religion into politics.
Talking to reporters a few weeks ago, Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas called the Mormon faith "a cult" and said he would prefer "a competent Christian to a competent non-Christian."
At the recent Values Voter Summit, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said that the "ideal profile of the next president of the United States" should be "a man of sincere, authentic, genuine Christian faith."
Both assertions are deeply misguided and profoundly undemocratic.
Apparently neither Jeffress nor Fischer has looked at Article VI of the United States Constitution, which embodies the Founders' view of the role of religion and elected officials -- and emphatically rejects all religious tests for public office. It's time for them -- and others who are seeking to make an issue out of the Mormon faith of two prominent candidates -- to consider this provision and recognize that such statements are inappropriate.
Real leadership demands a demonstrated commitment to our nation's founding principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and equality. None of the other candidates for the Republican nomination has explicitly raised this subject, but the candidates' condemnation of this anti-Mormon stereotyping and these religious appeals to voters has been tepid. All candidates of good faith must swiftly, publicly and definitively reject and repudiate religious-based election appeals.
Sadly, America has not made as much progress as many thought we have regarding faith and elections since presidential candidate John F. Kennedy -- over a half-century ago -- found it necessary to openly declare he was "not the Catholic candidate for president" but "the Democratic Party's candidate who happens also to be a Catholic."
Even Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is not a new issue. During the 2008 election, when he was a national candidate for the first time, his faith came under attack and two polls found that one-quarter of Americans would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Sadly, little has changed for the 2012 presidential race. According to a June 2011 Gallop Poll, 22 percent of Americans would not elect a Mormon president today, and a more recent September nationwide telephone survey by Poll Position found that 32 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon to be president. These findings reflect not only anti-Mormon bias, but also widespread ignorance of a fundamental American principle. Not only does the Constitution insist that there can be no religious prerequisites to being on the ballot, but equally as important, a candidate's private religious beliefs should not be held against him or her.
In a democracy such as ours, each candidate must be judged based on his or her individual position and abilities. No doubt there are valid issues involving the role of religion in public life to be debated and discussed, including the appropriateness of faith-based government programs. And candidates should feel comfortable explaining their religious convictions to voters and commenting about how their own religious beliefs shape their policy perspectives. But they should be cognizant that there is a point where an emphasis on religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a religiously diverse nation.
While many Americans do not seem bothered by excessive religious discourse in the public sphere, countless others find it off-putting. The United States is made up of many different types of people from different backgrounds and different faiths -- including individuals who do not believe in any God. None of our citizens should be treated as outcasts or made to feel like second-class citizens because they are different.
In addition to alienation, there is reason to be concerned about the impact of such excessive religious speech on religion itself. Religion-based appeals to voters are often made with promises to promote policies and programs that promote one religion over another or promise a closer intermingling of government and religion. That co-mingling is not healthy for religion. History teaches that it is the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment that has helped religious practices and beliefs to flourish in America.
More than two centuries ago, in 1790, George Washington told the Hebrew congregation of Newport, R.I., that America would provide "to bigotry no sanction." For that promise to be fulfilled, candidates and their supporters must resist reaching out to voters along religious lines and reject divisive appeals rooted in bias or prejudice.
First Read - Pastor backing Perry: Romney not a Christian
Vegas debate: Perry defends pastor who called Mormonism a cult ...
Perry Refuses Romney's Request To 'Repudiate' Pastor's Anti-Mormon
Mitt Romney's Mormon faith attacked by Rick Perry supporter as 'cult ...
Romney has explicitly avoided this explanation because, if you are a Mormon, you know what a disaster that would be.
You see, what has informed Mr. Romney, is a secret oath he made to make sure that every act he performs will be for the "...building up of the church." He has consecrated, in Mormon terms, his life to serving the goals of Mormonism. These goals are outlined in secret ceremonies in temples built with tax-exempt dollars that are only open to "worthy" Mormons. In other words: Romney has already declared that *YOU* should pay for Mormon temples, even though *YOU* are banned from ever stepping foot therein.
Additionally, he has covenanted to never reveal those covenants to YOU, so Mr. Foxman is ignorant of the setup he is playing into here. Romney doesn't want you to know what religious tenets inform his political beliefs because then you would be absolutely justified in rejecting a Mormon simply because he is a Mormon.
You should also do the same for any lunatic ~ christian, muslim, scientologist, osirian, apollan, etc.~ who runs for public office. People who believe in magical beings are not fit for leading a country, consider George Bush.
I rest my case.
As an example, say John is running for President and identifies himself with a religion that promotes and believes in the moral correctness of female genital mutilation and sexual relationships between older men and children below the age of ten. I find it ridiculous to say that his religious belief should have no bearing on whether he should be President. If he believes that genital mutilation and sexual relationships between older men and children are morally acceptable, I'm more than willing to question where his values will lead him on decisions he makes as President.
I don't know that much about Mormonism. I don't think much of the country does -- which is much of the reason why a substantial percentage of people are concerned about having a Mormon President. If Romney (as I believe he does) stands by his religion as a devout Mormon, I think voters are absolutely justified in questioning whether he should be President -- IF those voters have taken the time to educate themselves about Mormonism.
If they have not educated themselves about Mormonism, it's a shame if they dismiss Romney simply out of fear and ignorance. Romney knew going into this, though, that he lives in a very Christian nation and is running for the very Christian party, so he assumed the risk of being dismissed out of fear and ignorance.
In a nutshell -- religion cannot and should not be divorced from politics and voters' decision-making processes. They are inextricably linked.
Article VI of the Constitution tells us that the Federal Government can't create a litmus test based on religious affiliation for who is eligible for being President. Nothing more. What this author is apparently saying is he thinks we are all supposed to conform our opinions to the values embodied in the Constitution.
If one were to extend that view to the Second Amendment, for example, he would be saying that no one in this country should be against gun rights, since it's sanctioned by the Constitution. How ridiculous is that?
I think it's extremely off-putting to hear people like Fischer say that "'the ideal profile of the next president of the United States' should be 'a man of sincere, authentic, genuine Christian faith'"; however, there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that condemns, or even addresses, his right to feel that way and express that view.
In addition, for truly religious candidates, it's nonsense to suggest their religious views should have no bearing on their political viability. Dedicated religious people derive their values, at least to some extent, from their religious views, and those values inform their decisions. You can't just look at their "positions" on political buzzword issues in debates to be able to evaluate their values, either. They often take such positions to pick up certain voting blocs, not because those positions necessarily reflect their personal values.
wish people running would just shut up about it. Remember when Kennedy won and he said his
religion would have no part in his decisions. (?)
The sad fact is that the corporate interests who control the right learned decades ago how to use faith in the same way they use race; to divide class.
I don’t want a President who believes that this country was founded as a “Christian Nation”, or who believes in biblical law and biblical capitalism--Christian Nationalists. That’s what Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Palin, Paul and Newt believe.
Dominionist, Christian Reconstructions, Christian Revisionists, and members of the C Street Family (Thune) are all disqualified as far as I’m concerned.
The problem is that Christians who embrace a “biblical worldview” are poorly informed as to what path these loons want to take. So, sorry—in 2012 if you vote without taking religion into consideration—you are a fool.”
OR, you can be a normal American and agree that, as a person lawfully entitlted to vote, you can damn well use whatever criteria you want in selecting your candidate.
Wat the author has guised as his argument is that religion should not enter into our democratic system, at all, but should you take his employment (therefore his beliefs) into consideration, then you will know why he falls short of clearly stating it.
Religion should have zero ground in our political stage, but, thanks to lobbyist, and groups such as the A D L, religion is the first vetted requisite in our system. Religio-poltical rhetoric has been prominent in every debate by every "candidate"' and lets be honest, if you're not any kind of christian you won't be on the Republican ticket.
I would ask, how does the author feel about the accusations against Obama being a secret muslim? A lets say that he is a muslim, hypothetically, the wouldn't the authors argument come to his defense?
That is question tat needs to be answered, should we continue to speculate and imagine that the VI Amendment protects the state from religiou hijacking or if it just keeps the government in the hands of christian.
Read " The Family".
I don't believe you need to have Religion to have character, but I'll say that many of people that have character are Religious. If I chose to use this as one reason to connect with a candidate -- that's my business. You pick your own reasons.
Personally I don't really care nor put that much into the faith of a President because I focus on fiscal issues not social ones. I have a deep respect for Religious people that have convinction for points of view that don't reflect violence, for example. But I also feel that it's people of faith that have to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion -- not have the government make the decision for them.
Republican Principles
1- low taxation
small government
strong defense.
Self-reliance, instead if intergenerational dependency of the welfare state.
My issue is that many (not all) republicans have bad values, Such as ... If you re wealthy, don't befriend help anyone else to become wealthy (offering advice, direct investment in poor etc)
For the most part, Republicans are a party of good policy, with values for expediency sake only.
I think overall, Republican POLICIES are not anti-biblical. They NEED an attitude adjustment.
At least Reagan had a good heart.
1. Christian Economic Policies-
2. Anti-Christian Economic Policies-
3. How either 1 or 2 enter in the American Framework, in any sense-
4. How 3 fits into a secular democracy, in this case the United State of America-
Th4en the Educational Religious Freedom foundation. then . . .
http://www.lessontech.blogspot.com
No matter which definition the government decides it is "allowing religion in politics".
It is up to the couple as a Jewish marriage is a contract between two people witnessed by the community. No one needs to officiate to make it a Kosher marriage. As such, depending on the participants and their view of Jewish law, same sex marriages are fine. The reconstructionist and some reform movements bless same sex marriages and rabbis will officiate at them.
That said, this has nothing to do with the government's civil law responsibilities.
Just because the UCC agrees with secular or atheist Canadians doesn't make having secular, non-religious laws on marriage "religious".
The point is that the state shouldn't even consider religion when it is legislating the rights and obligations of its citizenry, other than ensuring that people are free to worship or not worship without undue governmental interference.