Would it be legitimate to go after the faith of a Scientologist candidate?

[KingsGambit]

One of the most controversial aspects of the Bernie Sanders emails was the suggestion of going after his faith and implying he's an atheist... so there's been some discussion over to what extent it's okay to go after somebody's religion. Evangelicals had this discussion about Romney four years ago.

Sometimes, I think it's clearly wrong. In my home state, there was an election maybe 20 years ago where the night before the election, somebody placed anonymous phone calls to people saying, "Remember, (Democratic candidate for governor) is a Jew!" That's clearly out of bounds to me.

But what if a candidate was a Scientologist? Would that be a legitimate criticism? (I personally think so but want to hear what others think.)

[Teallaura]

Your worldview is perfectly fair game - and so is your faith. That doesn't make anti-Semitism or rank prejudice okay, fair or even remotely a good idea but yeah, how you view the world, what your values are and how you think are all critically important to how you will behave as president so yes, it's fair game.

[KingsGambit]

Your worldview is perfectly fair game - and so is your faith. That doesn't make anti-Semitism or rank prejudice okay, fair or even remotely a good idea but yeah, how you view the world, what your values are and how you think are all critically important to how you will behave as president so yes, it's fair game.

Another factor is how independent minded one will be. One of the major concerns with JFK as president would be that he would just do the Vatican's bidding, but he really wasn't all that devout of a Catholic anyway. That's obviously a factor that would come to play with Scientology.

[Raphael]

One of the most controversial aspects of the Bernie Sanders emails was the suggestion of going after his faith and implying he's an atheist... so there's been some discussion over to what extent it's okay to go after somebody's religion. Evangelicals had this discussion about Romney four years ago.

Sometimes, I think it's clearly wrong. In my home state, there was an election maybe 20 years ago where the night before the election, somebody placed anonymous phone calls to people saying, "Remember, (Democratic candidate for governor) is a Jew!" That's clearly out of bounds to me.

But what if a candidate was a Scientologist? Would that be a legitimate criticism? (I personally think so but want to hear what others think.)

Nope. I think you may choose to not vote for a particular candidate because of their religious position. But I don't think we would want to go to a place where ones religious position is used as an attack platform

[KingsGambit]

Nope. I think you may choose to not vote for a particular candidate because of their religious position. But I don't think we would want to go to a place where ones religious position is used as an attack platform

What if they were a Muslim with ties to a pro-terrorism imam?

[Raphael]

What if they were a Muslim with ties to a pro-terrorism imam?

I would say don't attack him because of his religion (Islam) but you could question his association with the Imam.

[Teallaura]

Your religion teaches X = fair game.
You're a blankity-blank _____ = way off limits

[KingsGambit]

Needless to say, claims should be accurate as well.

Ted Cruz was often accused of being a dominionist, but he isn't one. I doubt many of the people making that accusation even know what that means.

[Raphael]

Needless to say, claims should be accurate as well.

Accurate claims? then it wouldn't be politics

Ted Cruz was often accused of being a dominionist, but he isn't one. I doubt many of the people making that accusation even know what that means.

I thought the most serious accusation against him was that he was Canadian.

[Catholicity]

This is hard for me. I couldn't go after someone because of their religion, but I could point out where they were wrong. That said I would vote for certain people with specific faiths probably over another. I wouldn't necessarily vote for a scientologist or a muslim with ties to a terrorist, but I would vote for a muslim who was patriotic to the US. And I would certainly vote for a Sikh or a Hindu or a Jew etc.

[Starlight]

Your religion teaches X = fair game.

One of the scarier claims I ever heard made about Bush W was that he genuinely held some apocalyptic beliefs and viewed his own interventions in the middle East as paving the way for the beginnings of a biblical apocalypse in that region. The French president was reportedly concerned after Bush talked about gog and magog to him.

Obviously anyone with apocalyptic religious beliefs should not have access to nuclear weapons and should not be in charge of pressing the button. That arguably means most evangelical Christians are unfit for office by virtue of their Christianity.

[Jaecp]

Mm,

I want a leader who is focused on the world, not the afterlife.

[NorrinRadd]

One of the scarier claims I ever heard made about Bush W was that he genuinely held some apocalyptic beliefs and viewed his own interventions in the middle East as paving the way for the beginnings of a biblical apocalypse in that region. The French president was reportedly concerned after Bush talked about gog and magog to him.

Obviously anyone with apocalyptic religious beliefs should not have access to nuclear weapons and should not be in charge of pressing the button. That arguably means most evangelical Christians are unfit for office by virtue of their Christianity.

Based on that small bit of data, I'd say that either W. held atypical apocalyptic views, or, perhaps more likely, the French president misunderstood him. Most would not hold that American "interventions" would or should be any intentional part of "paving the way" for the Apocalypse. (Of course I'm talking about interventions by the U.S. as a national entity -- military, economic, diplomatic. Some might well hold that evangelistic "interventions" by branches of the Church could have such a role.)

But of course pretty much all of us Xians have that whole thing going on where we really and truly believe that God is our Father, Jesus is our Brother, and we actually communicate with them regularly. So, from the infidels' point of view, we're all disqualified by virtue of being clinically insane, even though our insanity is Constitutionally protected.

[Jaecp]

So, from the infidels' point of view, we're all disqualified by virtue of being clinically insane, even though our insanity is Constitutionally protected.

Huzzah! You've passed the worlds seconds lowest bar

[KingsGambit]

One of the scarier claims I ever heard made about Bush W was that he genuinely held some apocalyptic beliefs and viewed his own interventions in the middle East as paving the way for the beginnings of a biblical apocalypse in that region. The French president was reportedly concerned after Bush talked about gog and magog to him.

Obviously anyone with apocalyptic religious beliefs should not have access to nuclear weapons and should not be in charge of pressing the button. That arguably means most evangelical Christians are unfit for office by virtue of their Christianity.

What is your source for this? I've heard this claim about Reagan but not Bush. (I would actually doubt it about Reagan, though, because based on his lack of church attendance and consulting with an astrologer, I don't think he as a very serious Christian.)

In any event, your criteria would seem to exclude all Christians because the future return of Christ is one of the core teachings of Christianity. (I happen to believe there's not a thing we can do to affect the timing.)