As A Persecuted Christian.....

[SPKrazy]

Just kidding

But now that I have your attention, I do have a poll question:


How much, or how little, should the Presidential (Dem) candidate talk about their spiritual (presuming that the candidate would be a person who professes some kind of spiritual beliefs, since my estimation is that professing atheism would put a big fat target on his/her head due to the lack of understanding, tolerance, and unfortunately trust, that exists towards atheists today)

I'm asking this because it seems that the right wing wants to flaunt their beliefs, and that Democratic candidates have been criticized for both talking about their beliefs, and not talking enough.

[rzemanfl]

1. I'm for the "prove that you are not hearing voices" litmus test. We

have seen what a President who things "God" talks to him has done for us.

[SPKrazy]

2. LOL

I hear ya

[rzemanfl]

15. Sorry about the typo, I meant "thinks" of course.

[rpannier]

7. Not just the pretender-in-chief

Marion (pat) Robertson keeps hearing God tell him that people need to be killed.

[sutz12]

3. In today's climate, it will come up inevitably

I wish it wouldn't, because religion should be left out of it.

I kind of agree that we should shun candidates that "talk to god." Sorry, but voices in the head and imaginary friends don't instill confidence in me. :)

So I voted 2.

[SPKrazy]

22. I Voted 2

of course I made up the poll

but I had to think about it because I really don't think it should be an issue. But it is.

[baldguy]

4. The faith of a truly spiritual person is a part of their life.

If the candidate believes, he should talk about his faith and tell how it has influenced his positions.

The danger of fundamentalism is that it seeks to instill it into the framework of society and give it the authority of the law. The definition of totalitarianism is when sin becomes a crime.

[Demeter]

5. I am Rational, Not Spiritual

Spirited, but not mezmerized by anyone or anything.

Is there no place for me?

[baldguy]

14. If there wasn't, this wouldn't be America.

Which is exactly how the fundies want it.

[SPKrazy]

34. I Would Think That Spirituality and Rationality Are Not Mutually Exclusive

ideals

when you get away from the fundie ideas about God, you get into the more rational views (IMO) and so I would think that of course there is a place for you.

If a candidate says anything about their spiritual beliefs does it put you off any more than someone who wants a candidate (not necessarily me) to speak about spiritual beliefs who does not?

I think the Democratic party is the true "big tent" party. Sometimes I think we are so broad that it is hard to please everyone

[xchrom]

6. oh god -- i'm torn between two and three.

[rpannier]

8. I think they should talk about it as much as they feel comfortable

It gives us insight into how they see the world. If he/she is a 'devoutly' religious person then I'm o.k. with them talking about it. If they're not, that's o.k. too.

[ulysses]

9. 2.

It's not reasonable, in 2006, to expect a candidate to refuse to talk about her beliefs.

To expect that candidate to not say things such as "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion", yes. But not to expect them to refuse to talk about it.

[Proud_Democratt]

10. The candidate should only answer questions

and not elaborate on religion.

[El Supremo]

11. Whatever he/she does say, I hope it is scripturally correct, unlike Dean..

who thought that the book of Job was in the New Testament. No phony acting OR auditory orders from God!

[SPKrazy]

13. Interesting n/t

[melnjones]

16. lol...oops. nt

[SPKrazy]

17. 8 More Posts To 1000!

[Zebedeo]

30. Not just scripturally correct,

but genuine. Not faked. People can tell when a politician is faking it. E.g. John Kerry going duck hunting in his brand new hunting costume. A candidate caught feigning religious conviction would be a dead duck in the general election.

[SPKrazy]

33. So John Kerry Is A "Fake"?

because he had a new hunting "costume" (WTF)

I've got my lounging around on Sunday afternoon costume on right now, does that mean I'm "fake" too?

[varkam]

12. In a perfect world...

A candidate shouldn't have to talk about their spiritual beliefs because not only is it wholly irrelevant to politics, but it also flirts with the union of church and state. Unfortunately, we live in a world where strong religious affiliation (and the flaunting of those affiliations) is a simply must for any serious American Presidential candidate.

[Igel]

27. In a perfect world, we wouldn't

have questions about character or think that values were in any way related to a formal system of ethics or beliefs.

But, then again, that's pretty much an assertation that character and values will necessarily come up.

[Silent3]

18. I'd love to be able to pick 5...

...but because I live in the reality-based community, and have to face unfortunate facts about hostility towards atheists, I picked 2.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. I have two different answers.

One is my personal preference in an ideal world, and the other one is my pragmatic answer for today's political realities.

My personal preference in an ideal world would be that the candidates would talk very little about such personal matters as their spirituality. For the real world that we're actually dealing with though, I think that what is best is that the candidate talk about their spiritual values in such a way as it can resonate with religious Americans without alienating non-religious ones, and should do it in such a way that their religious values will be seen to support a progressive political agenda.

I wish that we lived in a country where one's spirituality was treated as personal and private, and where it was not something that mattered in politics. The fact is that we don't, but given that fact, I would like to see progressives using spirituality as a vehicle for promoting our values, rather than ceding it to the other side.

[SPKrazy]

20. I'd Have To Say I Agree With You

pragmatism and all

Progressives can't let the right own "God"

after all, according to Mann Coulter, we are all "Godless".

I've got news for her. There are plenty of atheistic libertarians that vote republican. There are probably plenty of atheistic Republicans as well.

She is nothing but an attention seeking freak.

But back to your post, I do agree with it 100%. Religion, and spiritual beliefs shouldn't be part of politics, but it is. And we have to deal with that. Taking the approach that we talk about it in serious ways, and in reasoned arguments, is a better way than just spouting off religous slogans (although religious slogans play better for the soundbite audience of television)

Maybe we can help develop some reasoned, liberal religous slogans to use.

Like: "It's not just a choice, it's a woman's life"

[El Supremo]

21. Personal, yes. Private, no.

Christians are supposed to spread the 'good news'. That is our calling. But Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is his and give unto God what is his." That means separation of Church and State to me. However it does not mean ignoring your faith at any time.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Nevertheless, in my opinion,

it is not the role of an elected official to be a religious proselytizer, even if he is a Christian.

IMO, when it comes to politics, religion should be treated as a private matter.

[NMMNG]

26. I agree

To me a candidate's religion/spirituality should have nothing to do with his/her political platform and should never be brought up. However the in the current climate that is simply not feasible. Therefore while I prefer option #3, I selected #2 as the more pragmatic.

[bluesbassman]

24. I think people's "actions" should speak for them.

And no, I'm not talking about "works". What I am talking about is someone's character. So whether a person is a theist or an atheist is irrelevant.

There is too much hypocrisy and subterfuge in the public arena. When asked, a candidate should state clearly and simply what their views on "belief" are, and leave it at that.

[beam me up scottie]

25. I agree with you.

I don't trust anyone who equates religious beliefs with morality, from the right or the left.

And by loudly proclaiming how "christian" they are, that's exactly what politicians are doing.

[davidinalameda]

28. 1

especially if they derive their policy positions from their beliefs

[JerseygirlCT]

29. I somewhat reluctantly chose the second

I don't think anyone, including presidential candidates, should feel at all compelled to hide a part of them -- if it's a sincerely important one.

That said, I tend to keep questions about my own beliefs rather quiet and to myself. Unless you ask, lol!

I don't think it should be trumpeted. I don't think it should ever be used to create "us" and "them" dichotomies within the populace. And I most certainly don't think it should ever be used to blur the lines between church and state.

But the philosophical underpinnings of a candidate's opinions might be very enlightening, I think.

[lvx35]

31. A candidate should talk about it and use it to show the separation of ...

... church and state. (s)he should show that she is not ashamed in her beliefs, nor does she feel that they should be repressed or hidden, but that she will not bring them into play with legislation because that's against the constitution. This would help squelch the conservative idea that liberals want to suppress or get rid of religion while also reminding people of the constitutional separation of church and state.

[cynatnite]

32. None of the above...

If all a candidate says is their relationship with God is personal, it's more likely to get my attention. That's one of reasons why Bill Clinton impressed me. He had no need to discuss his spirituality with the public. By all accounts he has been a very religious man for some time with no need to pander as many repubs do.