Presidential Candidates

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:58 am

Brian37 wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"No religious test" is supposed to be upheld and ALL the canidates should refrain from divisive pulpit politics.

How does “no religious test” equate to “politicians shouldn’t use religion as a political tool”? Honestly, it seems reasonable to expect any good politician to use the most powerful rhetoric possible to get elected. Let’s be honest here, religion is one of the most powerful tools any of them have. If they had to talk about “real” issues most of the voting base would be bored shitless (perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing).

Yea, thats fine if you want to end up looking like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and for government to be free, it must not take sides in that issue. The founders were a variety of beliefs from Freemason, Unitarian to Christian to Deist. BUT all of them understood Jefferson's "wall" and is why Jesus and Christianity are NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

Religion is brought up because it is an area that affects policy. While there cannot be a state church, there is nothing in the constitution that suggests it is wrong to discuss one's beliefs in relation to politics.

When somebody is asked their religion it is because many people do believe that policies that they may agree with or may not agree with may be affected by the person they are voting for.

While we could avoid that by asking how do you stand on abortion or gay marriage which is what we really care about as voters, some people equate the answer with religion.

And that is where we then narrow it down because many people of religion vote for abortion and gay marriage even though personally they may hold a different view.

Just as there are atheists who are against both of those issues, the real issues are eventually what do get decided upon in the final months of which candidate do we want.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

ShaSha wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"No religious test" is supposed to be upheld and ALL the canidates should refrain from divisive pulpit politics.

How does “no religious test” equate to “politicians shouldn’t use religion as a political tool”? Honestly, it seems reasonable to expect any good politician to use the most powerful rhetoric possible to get elected. Let’s be honest here, religion is one of the most powerful tools any of them have. If they had to talk about “real” issues most of the voting base would be bored shitless (perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing).

Yea, thats fine if you want to end up looking like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and for government to be free, it must not take sides in that issue. The founders were a variety of beliefs from Freemason, Unitarian to Christian to Deist. BUT all of them understood Jefferson's "wall" and is why Jesus and Christianity are NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

Religion is brought up because it is an area that affects policy. While there cannot be a state church, there is nothing in the constitution that suggests it is wrong to discuss one's beliefs in relation to politics.

When somebody is asked their religion it is because many people do believe that policies that they may agree with or may not agree with may be affected by the person they are voting for.

While we could avoid that by asking how do you stand on abortion or gay marriage which is what we really care about as voters, some people equate the answer with religion.

And that is where we then narrow it down because many people of religion vote for abortion and gay marriage even though personally they may hold a different view.

Just as there are atheists who are against both of those issues, the real issues are eventually what do get decided upon in the final months of which candidate do we want.

Really? We could put out a 3rd party Candidate, who could be the most brilliant economist and foriegn policy leader, but as soon as they say the "a" word, they wont get any consideration.

You are setting up an already established "wink wink, nod nod. as long as we dont say "Christianity and Jesus" and use words like "faith" and "values", we can "wink wink, nod nod" maintain our monopoly on power. The Constitution does not forbid religious people from being politicians. IT DOES forbid them from favoring one religion over another.

That is why they should refrian from ending every speech with "God bless America". That is why we should NOT have god on the money and in the pledge. Because the Constitution does NOT forbid non-Christians or Christians from competing in politics to the highest level, the establisment uses code words like "generic god" and "faith" as a loophole to maintain their antitrust monopoly on power.

Why dont you see politicians on either side left or right talking about Jefferson's wall? Why dont you see them constantly talking about the Barbary Treaty and articall 11? and give it equal time as much as "God bless America".

Because equality to Christian politicians, is not the equality for non-Christians to compete at the higest levels. Equality to them is for non-Christians of every level to know that they can do anything in America, except sit on the Supreme Court or get ellected president. It is not that the Constitution forbids it, but because the vast majority of Americans dont know what secular government is. Most think it is unconstitutional for a non-Christian to be president(I bet most would say that if polled).

I am trying to force politicians to live up to defending the Consitution, insted of hiding the truth so Christians dont have to worry about political competition.

ANYONE can run, and if they get enough votes, can be Jewish, Mormon, Hindu or atheist if they meet the Constitutional requirments of citizenship and age. Most of the voting public doesnt know this, and the ones who do, most of them dont want minorities to know this.

Issues to Christians other than religion are important as long as a Christian gets ellected. When was the last time a non-Christian was president? Not since Thomas Jefferson, but our societal makeup is different now and Thomas Jefferson could NOT get ellected if he ran today.

I am trying to free every citizen of their mind shackels. I am trying to get them to consider performance first, results first, not religion. That is damned hard to do when every time I turn on the TV Obama or Huckabee are standing in front of a congregation stumping for votes talking about god "wink wink nod nod". That is hard to do when every politician ends their speach with "God bless America".

I really want it to be about issues and results and not about beliefs, but that cant happen when every other word out of a politicians mouth is "God".

They are not promoting the idea that everyone is an equal citizen and can do what they are doing. They are promoting a "good ol boy" club where the status quoe only allows for outsiders to be guests in their own house.

It is a loophole I am trying to shut down. Not by laws baning speech, not by laws banning politicians from expressing personal opinions. But asking that they truely represent all citizens by not lending the implication that non Christians will never compete at their level.

I am asking that they do their civic duty by refrieging from constantly chosing a side and pretending that that is not what they are doing. If it is ok for a citizen to believe whatever, then they should also give equal time to saying things like, "You can believe in any god or no god and you can still run for office like I did".

If they truely want to defend the secular Constitution, and not a "Jesus owned" Constitution, then they need to stop being so one sided.

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

[quote="flowcool"]

dolenzia wrote:

Yes Jefferson and Lincon were both non-religous. Some say they were atheist but they were agnostics at best.

Lincoln wasn't anyone to be admired. He was a white supremacist and he was anti-liberty.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:31 pm

Brian37 wrote:

I am asking that they do their civic duty by refrieging from constantly chosing a side and pretending that that is not what they are doing.

Unfortunatly good sir, the American brand of politics is mostly about "taking sides".

Quote:

ANYONE can run, and if they get enough votes, can be Jewish, Mormon, Hindu or atheist if they meet the Constitutional requirments of citizenship and age.

Certainly anyone can run, but you can't win without votes and the religious in this country control most of those votes. To ask someone to run on a campaign that ignores that portion of the voting populous is asking them to loose. That portion of the voting populous wants to here things God bless America. This system of election is about pleasing the maximum amount of people possible.

Quote:

But asking that they truely represent all citizens by not lending the implication that non Christians will never compete at their level.

This won’t happen in a democracy or even a representative democracy as long as a particular group is in the majority. It’s a pipe dream to believe it will.

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9384

MockingGods wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am asking that they do their civic duty by refrieging from constantly chosing a side and pretending that that is not what they are doing.

Unfortunatly good sir, the American brand of politics is mostly about "taking sides".

Quote:

ANYONE can run, and if they get enough votes, can be Jewish, Mormon, Hindu or atheist if they meet the Constitutional requirments of citizenship and age.

Certainly anyone can run, but you can't win without votes and the religious in this country control most of those votes. To ask someone to run on a campaign that ignores that portion of the voting populous is asking them to loose. That portion of the voting populous wants to here things God bless America. This system of election is about pleasing the maximum amount of people possible.

Quote:

But asking that they truely represent all citizens by not lending the implication that non Christians will never compete at their level.

This won’t happen in a democracy or even a representative democracy as long as a particular group is in the majority. It’s a pipe dream to believe it will.

I am well aware of this. My goal is not to ask politicians to ignore people, but to expand the minds of citizens so that they are more open minded so that common law and common intrest and results are the test of a good canidate and NOT sectarian division.

It was once a "Pipe dream" for women to vote, and it wasnt untill a small minority of the population stood up and competed that the mindset of the country changed.

It was once a "Pipe dream" for women or blacks for that matter to even consider running for president, and now for the first time in history, there is a good chance of one or the other or both becoming President or Vice president.

You would be right that electing a non-Christian president would be a "pipe dream" if no one ever raised thier voice. But our country has had a non-Christian president in Thomas Jefferson. If we did it once, we can do it again.

If a Muslim can get ellected to the Senate and an atheist can get ellected to congress, then their is no reason we cant build a future long term, a society that cares more about practical issues rather than personal religion.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore