Religion and politics - no religious tolerance

Parent Cafe
21

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m very confused by your response. My point is that religious conversions, either to one world religion from another, or within one particular tradition don’t generally happen without much forethought and self-examination. When one makes the commitment to change, the domino effect usually results in a vision for their lives that usually isn’t previously there, and that vision leads to a renewed effort to serve. </p>

<p>If you read his memoirs and pay attention to the stages of questioning and exploring he did when he was working as a community organizer, it is clear that, as he opened his heart to God, he was better able to articulate and accept what God wanted for his life, which was community service. I really believe that he was more ambivalent than sure of his vocation prior to becoming a Christian, but once he committed to his faith, God’s plan for him became more clear, and he began to trust that he was doing God’s will. </p>

<p>I’ve read both his books twice, with a critical eye to timing of events, and believe that his call to public service only became definitive after he became a Christian.</p>

22

<p>“devout religious person”- that’s your problem, fortunately not everyone’s. Religion will always divide people- all religions make a statement that excludes others, those others will always have reason to dislike/mistrust those of the religion. It’s too bad religions have the corner on so much in our society- most, if not all, they do that’s good could be done without the religious label, ie no set of religious beliefs makes good deeds good. Christianity is the dominant religious group in this country, not surprising to see people join up. It is hard to not follow the crowd as so much of life in this country revolves around the social circles of churches.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>You are incorrect. Atheists have been shown statistically to be the most unpopular minority in politics. 50% of people say they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified candidate if they were atheist. And the next worst is Muslims - but only 38% wouldn’t vote for them! And with all the subversive flak Obama’s taking about even maybe being slightly associated with Islam, can you imagine how bad it would be for an atheist?</p>

<p>In terms of history, there is no openly atheist member of Congress; there has never been an openly atheist president, vice president, Supreme Court justice, governor, or presidential cabinet member. That is stunning (atheists have average education well above the national median and the group includes a large number of extremely intelligent people [college professors, economists, many many scientists, etc.]), and to my mind, extraordinarily saddening.</p>

24

<p>Politics is about getting elected to serve the society- fitting in with the majority is needed. The very nature of being religious is at odds with someone who denies religion- no church will support any politician who blatently denies their right to dictate values, and the majority of people are influenced by their churches (temples, whatever). Religions expect to be the major influence in the lives of people, and they are; they associate being good with believing in their tenants- not believing in any version of a god contradicts the notion that one needs religion to be a good/better person. We will never be without religions, sociologists can explain why, and therefore religion will always play a role in politics. Everyone wants their own needs and wants met (physical and otherwise), letting others get theirs met is secondary. Second guessing a politician’s take on religion is all about how that person will meet those needs- will his religious beliefs benefit me or the other person? Selfishness rules, examine any religion closely and you will see.</p>

25

<p>To the OP-</p>

<p>Kerry was branded as the flip-flopper in 2004, but Romney has raised that to an art form. He pretended to be moderate when he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994, became the conservative darling of Utah when he “saved” the Olympics (on the federal tab, BTW), then swung back to the right to get elected as governor of Massachusetts, then portrayed himself as a conservative again in his failed 2008 campaign.</p>

<p>I think the country saw him as a chameleon, a guy who will say anything to get elected.</p>

<p>It’s funny how he’s now moving to California–how many people does he think he can con?</p>

26

<p>“No matter what they say, it was political convenience over religious views.”</p>

<p>I find it hard to understand how a person who is religious himself can be so certain that somebody else’s religious beliefs are fake. Why should we believe you, and not them?</p>

27

<p>

This is demonstrably…inaccurate.
People of varying religious persuasions will vote for and against those their share their own faith. I suppose many Catholics and Jews will vote for Obama and McCain even though they are both protestant, and many Catholics and protestants voted for Lieberman, Levin, Cole, Schummer, Specter, Lautenberg and Finestien even though they are Jewish.</p>

<p>

This, I think, is a very simplistic view of some very complicated people. </p>

<p>If I were to venture a guess, I would say people --in general, no matter their religious convictions-- are weary of those whose beliefs indicate that, in the grand scheme of things, there is no higher authority in life than themselves. </p>

<p>Rightly or wrongly, such a disposition seems to lack the humility and balance favored by those of a less certain frame of mine.</p>

28

<p>Woodwork, wis75 said no CHURCH will support. I believe that s/he was speaking of the hierarchy of the church and their official position, not of the choices of individuals. And I think s/he is correct. Most churches are authoritarian in nature, and their leaders claim to have an inside line on The Truth. They naturally gravitate towards individuals who are willing to grant some special status to what they now like to call “people of faith,” as if having religious faith was in some way a virtue in and of itself.</p>

<p>I don’t get what you are saying in the second part of your post. Are you saying that those who do not kowtow to some “higher power”–atheists, for example-- lack humility and balance, or are you saying that those who claim that they have a direct line to “god” lack it? Or possibly both, depending on their frame of mind?</p>

29

<p>“Are you saying that those who do not kowtow to some “higher power”–atheists, for example-- lack humility and balance…?”</p>

<p>Well, I would say that if they refer to religious people as “kowtowing.” Using that kind of language will not garner votes from the kowtowers.</p>

<p>“People of varying religious persuasions will vote for and against those their share their own faith. I suppose many Catholics and Jews will vote for Obama and McCain even though they are both protestant, and many Catholics and protestants voted for Lieberman, Levin, Cole, Schummer, Specter, Lautenberg and Finestien even though they are Jewish.”</p>

<p>I agree with this, but I suspect that there is some vague line beyond which this is not true. If the candidate’s religion (or lack thereof) is too far outside the mainstream, it starts to be a problem. I think this is part of what happened to Romney, and I think that element was underestimated.</p>

30

<p>Sorry, Hunt, for letting my irritation with the constant genuflection in the direction of “people of faith” show. Luckily <em>I</em> am not running for office. :)</p>

31

<p>

Inasmuch as I do not think that the future Obama administration will begin an investigation into those in the American government responsible for ‘inflicting AID’s on the AfAm community,’ as claimed by his pastor, I do not believe that any other serious candidates or voters are likely to take marching orders from their clergy, parents or spouse before hitting the voting booth. It strikes me as paranoid to believe otherwise.</p>

<p>

Don’t all interest groups claim the same? </p>

<p>I wouldn’t expect anything less from NARAL, NRA, NED or the World Sikh Council…each of which have those amongst us that believe their discriminating views are, as a matter of fact (truth), in error. If what you mean to say is that people believe what they believe is true for mysterious reasons not always apparent to those that do not share their beliefs, we agree. Even Wikkans. </p>

<p>

Kowtow might be one way of putting it, but I think an honest person in search of reason and understanding would more likely say something like ‘those that are painfully aware that they don’t know what they don’t know and may never fully understand’ or even;’ those that believe that there is always something beyond a single limited view, with the hope that there is something greater than themselves with a broader view that they can not fully understand in a single lifetime, or even many lifetimes (I for instance do not understand the need of many to belittle the beliefs of those that participate in religious communities; but it may just be that I do not fully understand the certainty of their point of view, or version of truth.)</p>

<p>But ‘Kowtow’ could be, I suppose, another way to put it.</p>

<p>Everyone, from time to time, is forced into bouts of humility and abasement; some just take it as a matter of faith before the weight of the world drives them to their knees…in prayer, for instance. </p>

<p>If you believe in something greater than yourself, you do; if not, you don’t. No one can make themselves believe what they do not, or not believe that which they do.</p>

<p>It’s an honest distinction.</p>

32

<p>I don’t know if genuflecting is better than kowtowing. As a mainline Protestant, I tend to just bow my head slightly.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>As an atheist who grew up in the Bible Belt (and was bullied for it, quite a lot), I’m inclined to think not. Not when you’re talking about a national office. There’s way too much anti-atheist sentiment out there.</p>

<p>Gallup agrees with me. According to a poll that they did<em>, 53% of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheist nominated by *their own party</em> for President.</p>

<p>Now, in a district race, that’s a different issue. Rep. Pete Stark of California is an atheist, the first “out” one to serve in Congress. A member of Congress just has to be electable in their district, not nationwide.</p>

<p>But as far as the OP’s point goes, Obama became a Christian between when he got his bachelor’s degree and when he entered law school. Not, so far as any evidence would indicate, for the purpose of running for office.</p>

<p>*[Some</a> Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates](<a href=“Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates”>Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year-Old Presidential Candidates)</p>

34

<p>jessiehl, I didn’t realize an open atheist had finally been elected to Congress. That’s really great, in my opinion.</p>