X-post from GD:P, RE: O vs. HRC.

[Deep13]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4086745&mesg_id=4086745

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. If I was going to vote for someone based on their religious views,

I wouldn't be voting for anyone.

[Deep13]

2. The question is who will be a secular leader.

I can't say for certain who that is, though a lot of candidates, most among the Rs, are ruled out immediately. I can say HC has never been on the 700 Club and has never announced how awesome "our" god is as if she was speaking for the whole country.

[TZ]

4. Hello? Prayer warriors?

Do you remember that crap she was talking about with the CNN faith and politics special? About how her faith in god got her through the Lewinski affair. I doubt she was sincere, but still. She's every BIT as bad in the religion dept as Obama, IMO. Worse maybe because its so patently fake to me. Where as Obama probably (and sadly of course) really thinks that. Who is worse the person who is religious and says it, and truly believes it (even when its obviously stupid and irrational) or the person who pretends to be religous in order to court voters. A toss up there if you ask me.

[Deep13]

5. The person who really believes it is worse.

The person who really believes it will rely on it to look into people's souls and listen to what god is telling him. Politicians will always be politicians. Frankly, it doesn't bother me that they lie since nothing they say on the campaign trail should be relied on anyway. What does bother me is when they start to believe their own propaganda.

If I were choosing just on policy, I would go with Edwards. We both know, however, that he hasn't got a hope in hell. So we are left with (some might say stuck with) HC or O. On the other side it is even worse. I think most of us realize that neither HC nor O is the best choice we had. Unfortunately, all of the really experienced candidates have dropped out.

[cosmik debris]

3. I don't feel threatened by the religiosity of any of the Dems.

At least not as much as I feel threatened by other aspects of their personality, character, and positions on more immediate issues.

I'm convinced that the religiosity will disappear when the campaign is over.

[and-justice-for-all]

6. I think it is just for show...

at least for the Dems. They may "believe" to an extent; I am confident Obama has had conversations with his Atheist mother about religion, but Dems might as well be Atheist when compared to the Theocratic drones on the dark side.

[Warpy]

7. Same here, I've noticed that piety generally becomes

quite muted after the election with two notable exceptions: Carter and Clinton, both of whom were regular churchgoers after they took the oath.

I'm much more concerned with views on war and healthcare and for those reasons, the two front runners are at the bottom of my list. A pox on both their houses, and may they be uninsured when they have to seek medical attention for it.

[ozone_man]

8. I wouldn't base my decision purely on religion.

That is a factor, but is heavily outweighed by a candidate's political views. I see little difference between Clinton and Obama politically. I have a small preference for Obama, if I had to choose. Thankfully, I don't have to make that choice. I've got Edwards, and he's much more electable in the general election.

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. Thanks for playing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2716521

"But it is my very firm conviction that there is a
growing awareness of the need for a spiritual renewal in our
country and a willingness on the part of many to act and work
in good faith together to fill that sense of emptiness with
the Word and with an outreach that is grounded in real
Christian values.