The Boston Global reports, "The Republican Party is attempting to convince Roman Catholics that Democratic nominee John F. Kerry is "wrong for Catholics" and at odds with his church." (GOP urges Catholics to shun Kerry)

The GOP is parading Kerry's record as an indication as to his religious belief. This puzzles me for the reasons I have stated as questions. I torn between two sides. One claims that religious beliefs are apart of a person, and therefore the person will vote accordingly, as the other half of me questions the intent of forcing a religion in the sacrifice of what is best for a FREE America. So I pose my struggle as a thread.

In order to refrain from making the topic an issue of 'religious dumb' or 'immorality of americans' these questions are phrased accordingly:

1. Is someone's Religion apart of their political views?

2. Should a political be judge based upon his or her religion?

3. If religion is nothing more then a set of beliefs:

A. should people vote based on their beliefs?

B. should a politician's beliefs be judge?

C. should a political who votes outside his or her beliefs be judge as not following their beliefs?

D. do politicians vote according to beliefs or what is right for their people?

4. Should are leaders be religious and stand firm in their beliefs or be allowed to vote what their voters feel is in the best interest of the country?

Unless that person's faith is nominal only, yes. Religion does play a part in a person's political views.


If the politician in question showcases his religion in a campaign, yes. If the politician's avowed stance is to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights first and foremost, and s/he is consistent in upholding the laws of this land, then no, not necessarily. An Orthodox Jew can sign a bill approving subsidies for hog farmers. A Christian judge can defend a woman's right to wear a scarf or a burkha to school for religious reasons. But a religious idealogue (read: fanatic) would necessarily have less leeway as a government official, and his/her following would expect him to support only causes in line with their beliefs and oppose those things out of line with their beliefs.

In a secular government system, I would hope that a politician's actions would be "for the good of the people" rather than just what his religion dictated. Sometimes there are differences, depending on the religion. For instance, one commandment in Judaism and Christianity is to "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Do we really want legislation to shut down businesses on Saturday or Sunday to follow the tenets of their faith?


I do not think it is "nothing more than a set of beliefs." Now obviously, there are those who originally came from a particular religious tradition who have thrown off those beliefs. But what is taught from an early age tends to stay with a person for a very long time and tends to influence that person's life choices.

Which kind of leaders would you rather have? Service in government involves compromise. Politicians must come to terms with the discrepancies between what should be and what is, strive to deal honestly and fairly, and avoid breaking laws if at all possible. They also have to get along with their fellow politicians, or they will experience continual gridlock when they try to promote legislation.

Possessing a conscience and listening to that conscience are helpful. But trying to dot every "i" and cross every "t" as it relates to a religious group doesn't work well in government.

Before I answer this, let me preface my remarks by saying that I’ve lived in the so-called ”Bible belt” all my life. I have been weary of the concerns of Christian conservatives for years and I grow wearier as I see what is happening in this campaign. Jefferson and Adams, two men with greatly different political ideas, both thought religion was a private matter. This is my position. The way religion is being used by a president who pledged to unite the nation is, in fact, dividing it even more.

1. Is someone's Religion apart of their political views?

Psychologically and spiritually speaking, the whole of a person is the sum of the parts, but it’s not always possible to compartmentalize those parts. I actually prefer the word “spiritual” to religious. Viktor Frankl, a survivor of Nazi concentration camps, wrote in his widely read book Man’s Search for Meaning that those Jews with faith tended to survive the concentration camps better than those who lacked it. It’s been years since I read Frankl, but he seemed to be saying in other chapters that “spirituality” is what gives meaning to life even if that meaning is not provided by religion.

2. Should a political be judge based upon his or her religion?

By judged, do you mean elected? Election is judgment by the voters. Here’s what the Constitution says:



I don’t know how this provision would be carried into practicality. Certainly nobody could make a candidate sign some pledging support of a certain set of beliefs. What’s more important to me is the “spirit” not the letter of the document. I think what the GOP is doing violates the spirit of the Constitution.

Actually, this is twice I’ve seen this in my lifetime. The first time was when John F. Kennedy ran in 1960 and now in 2004 with Kerry. I actually thought people had matured enough that the issue would not pop up again. But now--44 years later-- it’s back, but manifested in a polar opposite kind of way. Both times the issue has been pretty ugly.

In 60 Kennedy had to show that he wasn’t all that good a Catholic to get elected. The debate with Nixon was important, but a speech he made concerning separation of church and state helped his cause.



http://www.humanistsofhouston.org/JFK_speech.html

Now, the better part of half a century later, the argument is that Kerry isn’t a good enough Catholic to be elected.

All I can say is shame on the Republican Party. In my opinion the GOP is violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.

3. If religion is nothing more then a set of beliefs:

A. should people vote based on their beliefs?

Yes, people should vote based on beliefs, but those beliefs are not always religious. I’m voting for Kerry for a number of reasons. I see him as the more cerebral of the two. I think he would attempt to create a fairer tax system than Bush. I almost know I would like his judicial appointments better, etc. As a retired educator, I think he would fully fund "No Child Left Behind." He might even remove some of the destructive provisions that necessitate teachers teaching to the test. None of these things has to do with religious faith.

BA. should a politician's beliefs be judge?

No. This is just my personal opinion, but I think religion should be kept a private matter by public officials. We live in a very diverse and pluralistic society. If we judge politicians beliefs, which set of beliefs do we use? Do we mean Christian? If we mean Christian, what brands of Christianity are acceptable? Are Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, atheistic, agnostic, pantheism, polytheism, transcendentalism, etc. acceptable?

CA. should a political who votes outside his or her beliefs be judge as not following their beliefs?

NO! The way bills get passed or defeated in Congress is a complcated matter. Robert Dallek tells, in his biographyof Lyndon Johnson, of several instances where Congessmen would work behind the scenes for passage of a Johnson proposal, but vote against it to satisfy voters in their state or district. Congressmen sometimes vote for a bill they believe in, even though the bill may contain riders they don't like. The system, when it works, does so on compromise not rigid belief. That may not be ideal, but it's reality.

DA. do politicians vote according to beliefs or what is right for their people?

This is a question I’ve heard since I took my first government course. Congressmen the President and state and local politicians all have a constituency and are accountable to that constituency. They also have a conscience. I would suggest that in practice politicians of both parties combine the two to get the final product.

Then again, it isn’t that simple. What does, just for example, a Republican Congressman do when the folks back home want him to vote for a bill, his conscience tells him to vote for the bill, but Tom DeLay opposes the measure and threatens to inflict party discipline if the Congressman doesn’t line up correctly?

4. Should are leaders be religious and stand firm in their beliefs or be allowed to vote what their voters feel is in the best interest of the country?

Whether our leaders are religious should be up to them, not us. They should, at least in theory, vote for what they think is in the best interest of the country. You know, whoever wins the election, will be sworn in with his hand on a Bible but they will "solemnly swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I apologize if this offends anyone, but in affairs of the state, the Constitution trumps religion.

Ahh religion, the great plague of our society... let's see how long before this thread get's closed.




Yes, almost inseparably. Religous doctrine often dictates what is to be considered a political issue. Gay marriage, abortion, etc. are all debates that are fueled at least by one side by religous premise. Religious belief imparts a pre-packaged ideology, with the intent of creating a bloc or group of people whom all think the same, feel the same, want the same, and who will act and vote the same.



Should a politician be judged based on their religion? Politicians SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! Never should a politician be open about their religion, whether they are a candidate or an elected official, religions separate people by dogma. There is no bridging that dogma, so a politician who seeks elected REPRESENTATIVE office cannot represent those who are not of the same religion. To be specific: The vast majority of politicians are christian. Because of this, non-christians in America do NOT have political support from the big guy. So much for separation of church and state or freedom of religion... what a joke.



I don't really see how they could vote on anything other than their beliefs? I think people should use more than the given dogmatic absolutes given by churches for voting. I.E. Good Christians vote for Bush. The power of the christian church over democracy in America is frightening and horribly detrimental to democratic ideals. If people are unable to see past those dogmatic absolutes, then they are unable to vote as individuals and only function as a statistic within the church. I will not stress again how un-democratic and dangerous this rigid thinking is.



They should not. But of course, religion is given so much power in the everyday person's life, there is no avoiding judgment based on religous creed. People don't remember that a politician job is to make good public policy, it seems people care more about supporting their favorite rich white guy in the biggest popularity and power trip imaginable.



The rigid thinking again. If we assign a religion ONE code of ethics, and assume that those who claim to be a part of that religion must ALWAYS uphold that code or they work against the religion, we take away our human free will. As intelligent beings our personal code of beliefs is fluid, they change constantly as we digest more and more information. To refuse to digest new information, or allow your code to be fluid, is ignorance. It is not leadership, not personal strength, rigid moral/ethical thinking is in no way positive. It is always ignorance.

Politicians vote according to two things
1) personal ethics: often dominated by religous or traditional ideology
2) electoral politics: If a politicians votes against his party too much he is in danger of losing his job.

Justice, and the good of the people have little or nothing to do with the voting of politicians. If they say otherwise they are lying. Just look at the lobbying efforts in washington, look at the SUCCESS of those lobbying efforts. Once you look at those truths, how could anyone claim that public interest came before personal goals.



As representatives of the people, if politicians vote in any way other than what is best for the people than they are not doing their job. A politician who votes according to personal creed alone is nothing more than a small dictator with limited power (according to office). Democracy is dependent on the sensitivity of our politicians to the needs of the public.

Too bad everyone too hyped up in popularity contests to care that the government forgot about them...