Poll: How Big of a Role does Religious Background Play in Your Opinion of Presidents and Presidential Candidates?

[TolkienFan]

As I've seen plenty of discussion about Barack Obama and his religious background, it made me wonder about something. To you, how big of a role does religious background (or lack thereof) play in your opinion of a President (historically) or a presidential candidate (more recently)?

[Vivian]

I did not vote because it is not ostentatious religiosity that counts, but true religion.

Having been political in the past, I know how we can make ourselves look like anything (when I was quite young, I prepared myself for an elected position by making sure that all I did publicly - or available for public knowledge - would put me in the best light.)

So I don't really care what church a politician attends or has attended but how true religion has manifested in his life.

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

There is a difference between a politician who uses politics as a means whereby he serves himself, and a politician who uses politics to serve God and humanity.




Viv

[TolkienFan]

Indeed so Viv. The question of course was not of very specific nature. I was just wondering if religious background at all (or lack thereof) real or faked makes that much of a difference in your opinion of them. But if you don't want to vote, that's cool.

[Ryokan]

Generally speaking, so long as there views do not obligate them to do or believe things public policy wise I strongly disagree with I really don't care.

[TolkienFan]

Hey Ryokan. That's basically my view as well. As a general rule, I don't really care, as I think it only really matters in extreme cases.

[Vivian]

Indeed so Viv. The question of course was not of very specific nature. I was just wondering if religious background at all (or lack thereof) real or faked makes that much of a difference in your opinion of them. But if you don't want to vote, that's cool.

I went ahead and voted, saying somewhat, because truthfully I would look to see what sort of religious tradition they publicly lived.

Their proclaimed religious affiliation and beliefs would be important in seeing if they are being true, or if the are hiding behind a superficial religious persona.

And so I might vote against one who claimed and appeared to be something other than what they were.

In other words, I feel that this country would be better served by an honest atheist than a lying Christian.



Viv

[Sheepdog]

my religious views guide much of my political opinions, so for me religion plays a role in the sense that i'll vote for the candidate that most closely shares my political opinions.

i would have no problem voting for a nonchristian, given the above.

now, in the context of Rev. Wright, the issue is slightly different. my problem is that if Obama doesn't repudiate his pastor, he will be associated with the hatred that Wright spewed. In that case there is some valid guilt by association, since a religious leader has a lot of influence on their followers that other sorts of leaders do not.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

ALL of those options mean "I could care less," since none of them say "I don't care at all."

[Chuck Lee]

I'd say that the religious backgrounds of the candidates play a slight role for me. If I voted in the primaries (and I don't), I'd probably make it more of an issue. The more extreme cases get weeded out in the primaries though, so for the actual nominees, I could generally care less.

[Soyeong]

I can think of a few candidates who could use a strong dose of thou shalt not lie or maybe love the person you are running against as yourself.

[guacamole]

If I thought a person who was genuinely concerned with governing as a Christian following Christ's example was running, I'd probably vote for that person.

[Paintbucket]

Don't care, there are more important things for them to deal with.

[Alchemist]

As long as they don't base their policy decisions on their religious views I don't find it important.

[Messor Mortis]

i believe in a theocracy so you can guess my views on this matter :)

[USIncognito]

I voted it's important with some qualification. Generally I really don't care about the religious beliefs of a candidate. They can be atheist, a holiday observer, devout, whatever, but I would have a problem with any candidate who sees their office not as a bully pulpit, but as a literal pulpit or who would seek to enact an overtly religious (or anti-religious) agenda.

[ForHimAlone]

I voted "very important" in the context to me personally. But on a national level I would say only "somewhat" because I am voting for someone who will (in the United States, anyway) defend and protect the Constitution and Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment "the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [i.e., no "state" church officially sanctioned and set up by Fed] nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Atheists, agnostics, wiccans, heck, even satanists enjoy freedom to express their spiritual persuassion in America. They have a chance to enter their idea into the stream of ideas and to argue their reasons for supporting whatever view they embrace.

In pluralistic America, Catholics, Protestants, and Independents in all Christian denominational traditions have the right to worship as they please.

The press ripped Romney because he is a Mormon. They didn't rip on him because they dislike mormons. In my view, many in the press are atheist/agonostic or non-devout Catholics or Protestants They ripped Romney because its "fun" and "controversial" and helps the bottom line. The press doesn't care so much about religion as about almighty dollar, the god of choice among many in the media. They are impressed with Romney's money, not his mormonism.

Palin is another excuse to repudiate Christianity. It seems the only religion free from media persecution is Islam, and probably because they are "very afraid" of saying anything amiss about Islam. They don't want their building leveled.

The press is likewise loath to opine negatively about Judaism. Again, its about lots of money and influence. They don't know any more about Judaism than Christianity but the Jewish people in America exercise a huge influence because of the huge dollars, just like Islam.

It's funny, when I think of it, because Christians represent a huge voting block with billions of dollars but they are still the object of ridicule, bigotry, and religious racism...

Most of the press is probably far too ignorant of religion to intelligently comment on it but they are clever as foxes and Pharisees when it comes to asking "gotcha" questions of candidates in order to make them appear judgmental, bigotted, narrow minded, etc. In reality, they are the ones fitting such definitions in many cases.

I want my President/VP, Congress/Senate and Supreme Court to make sure that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is upheld, period. If they want to preach, they need to exchange their lecturn for a pulpit and they better, from my point of view, know the Bible and know Jesus!

[Silver Hand]

Wasn't it Luther who insisted he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk rather than an incompetent Christian (and to you liberal goofballs, no, I'm not referring to Bush)?

If I had the choice between an Atheist who upheld my constitutional rights (and did his proscribed job but otherwise left me alone) and a Christian who taxed me to no end and controlled my daily life, I'd vote for the fool who says in his heart "there is no God."

[Lizard]

I put it is somewhat important. I certainly "look into" the religious background, but I don't recall ever making the religious background a deciding factor....ever.

I would rather have a professing atheist who would make sound political decisions, than say a devout Christian like...say....Jimmy Carter. I don't doubt Carter's Christianity, but IMO he was the worst president of the 20th century (beating out LBJ, which is no small feat).

[Fishermage]

For the most part I would like to know a person answers to a Higher authority. I don't really care which one all that much.

[Philosophickle]

For the most part I would like to know a person answers to a Higher authority. I don't really care which one all that much.

Sarcasm?

[Zero Tolerance]

I didn't vote in this poll because I don't know which option would be the most accurate in terms of my stances.

I didn't vote for Obama on the sole basis of his stance on (partial birth) abortions. Disgusting. That overrode anything else positive that he had to offer for me. I would have voted for him otherwise.

[Jack777]

To me it came down to religion is everything. Turing wrote what he thought to be a message from angels, "religion is a boundary condition." Obama did as I thought he would, open Pandora's Box. Partial birth abortion, abortion and gay marriage are issues that his stance is at variance with the Bible.

[laffer]

For me it depends. If the person is moderatly religious, I don't put much weight on that.

But if the person is a fundamentalist, then I will most likely not vote for him/her.

I believe one very important aspect of a leader is being able to think rationally, and in my experience, fundamentalists are not too good at this.

But as I said.. moderates I don't mind so much.

[Zero Tolerance]

We're talking politicians here. With that said, I'm not voting for anyone pro abortion or pro gay agenda. Basically, if the president is an advocate having the option or capacity to commit sin, I'm not voting for him.

I don't know which option that is on the poll, so I won't vote until someone can interpret my post into one of the choices.

Whoops! Didn't realize that I had already posted here. The topic is provocative.

[Roy]

Where's the option for it's relevant, but not that important?

Roy

[Seasanctuary]

Religious background? Unimportant.

Philosophy of how to apply religion to public policy? Very important.