next »

[rowan1]

Perhaps I have my head in the sand... I'll put a qualifier on this that I certainly may be wrong... but I've really felt like religion (or race or gender, this year) has happily not been so targeted in the elections.  Not that there hasn't been this sentiment at all, but I really haven't seen it as a big issue.  And I imagine where it does come up, there are that many more people who vote for Romney because he is a Mormon, or Clinton because she is a woman, or Obama because he is an African American.

I think that religion has been a pretty big focus and will get bigger as we get to the conventions.  Huckabee is wooing the deeply conservative; Romney, as some have said, didn't have a chance with many of the evangelicals; McCain faces a similar challenge.  The "Christian Factor" was a part of what did Guliani in.  The Repubs are facing an interesting time in their party as the fiscal conservative but socially middle of the road folk seem to be more uncomfortable with the socially conservative religious side of the party. 

But religion is also an active factor on the Dems side.  We have the crap that has been tossed around about Obama's upbringing and faith, and there have been attempts to defame him due to his stepfather's connections to Islam.  Religious prejudice is alive and well in America.

BTW - having grown up in Utah and having a family history that goes back to Joseph Smith, I have to say that my experience with the LDS and race is that the Church has grown and changed just as the country has grown and changed, but that the deep seated, race based prejudices are not going away but are down played for appearances sake.  In my experience the Mormon church is very good at that (remember how caffeine became OK to drink when the church acquired Pepsi, or was it Coke?) But the honest history of the LDS church and race issues is pretty extreme and very negative. 

[danny_boy]

...remember how caffeine became OK to drink when the church acquired Pepsi, or was it Coke?)

The Mormons own Pepsi (or Coke)?  That's scarier than two guys in black suits and helmets cycling through rural Japan.

[dolljepopp]

Can we blame them for New Coke?

[ablewasi]

...I'd be worried about voting for anyone who could honestly support the LDS church due to its social policies, and equally worried about someone who claimed to be a member of a given church and did not support the majority of its doctrines and contribute to it financially (hypocrites are not ideal leaders).

I'd be worried about voting for anyone who could honestly support a worldview based on faith in the supernatural, but I really don't have a choice.


!a

[mended_drum]

Can we blame them for New Coke?

Wouldn't you rather blame them for having multiple Cokes?  Even if they no longer do that?

[rowan1]

...remember how caffeine became OK to drink when the church acquired Pepsi, or was it Coke?)

The Mormons own Pepsi (or Coke)?  That's scarier than two guys in black suits and helmets cycling through rural Japan.

Yeah, Back in the day when Spencer Kimball was the church pres.  Spence and God had a chat:

God: Hey Spence.
Spence: Not now God I am heading out to the golf course.
God: Spence, Now!
Spence: Fine.  What.
God: You know that whole "don't drink caffeine thing I told Brigham about?"
Spence: Yeah...  (looking sheepish because he had two cups of coffee with breakfast.)
God: Well, here's the thing, I don't want to seem like a hypocrite, but...
Spence: Come on God, out with it.
God: Well, have you seen the profit margins on Pepsi?  I mean, Jesus...  uhm, Judas Priest, but there is some money to be made in the soda industry.  Holy Cow.
Spence: Yeah,  so what are you saying?
God: Well, heres the thing, first buy more stock in Pepsi - we have enough to get a controlling margin, then announce to the sheep faithful, that you and I had this talk, and I thought about it and decided that caffeine isn't really so bad, in Moderation!
Everything in Moderation, except wives.  Wait, strike that, moderation on the wives too.  Got it?
Spence: Yup, buy Pepsi, tell them you said it was OK, have a rum and Coke.
God: Rum and Pepsi you idiot.

[husqvarna]

I'd be worried about voting for anyone who could honestly support a worldview based on faith in the supernatural, but I really don't have a choice.


!a

Here's an interesting point to discuss.  Sunsearching said a little bit upthread:

Impossible - no atheist would have a chance in hell [of being elected] (ha, ha)...

How can we begin to say that religious folks are wrong for distrusting atheists when atheists say the same thing about those with religious beliefs?  Jeffrey Stout (former president of the AAR, atheist ethics professor at Princeton) spoke on this in his plenary address at the AAR meeting in San Diego this November, "The Folly of Secularism".  In it he took aim at some of the new atheists and at Rorty as well... some others also that I'm not recalling perhaps.  His argument was that a secularist agenda that distrusts or tries to push religion out of public discourse will only backfire, that it is an illiberal idea and will foster animosity among the religious- the very sort that secularism tries to situate itself against. 

Perhaps grasshopper, JP, or dr. seuss were there and can give a better summary.  I personally didn't like the way Stout used blanket terms like "moderate" and "extremists" when talking about religious people... it left me curious (and worried!) about where he would place me if we sat down to chat over coffee.  But his points were very good, and ablewasi's rhetoric here made me think of the caution he gave to would-be secularists.  Stout emphasized that the biggest challenge to be faced right now was that of plutocracy, not religion.  A quote I found from the talk through a blog was interesting:

"Reform in the United States, if it does happen, will happen in spite of secularism, not because of it."

I don't know if there's a fulltext or video of the talk available, but perhaps there's more to dig up online.  What are people's thoughts about this?  Personally, I think distrusting a religious person in office because they are religious is just as ignorant as distrusting an atheist because they're not.

[ablewasi]

...How can we begin to say that religious folks are wrong for distrusting atheists when atheists say the same thing about those with religious beliefs?... 

Wait.  Are you saying that religious folks don't trust me?  About what?


!a

[jonesey]

Uh, the LDS Church doesn't own Coke or Pepsi.  They never have. 

For the person that identified him/herself as Mormon, I'm surprised you believe this.  It's one of the more common urban myths surrounding the Church.

Now, you want to see people freak out over a candidate's religion?  Just wait until Tom Cruise runs for Governor of California. 

[kaysixteen]

Like it or not, virtually every American religious group has historically been tainted with racism.  It is simply not fair to use the past racistic views of a group against contemporary adherents thereof, unless said modern-day believers espouse the same convictions themselves.

[aandsdean]

Like it or not, virtually every American religious group has historically been tainted with racism.  It is simply not fair to use the past racistic views of a group against contemporary adherents thereof, unless said modern-day believers espouse the same convictions themselves.

Why then is it OK to use the "established tradition of the church" to support other views (as in your implied defense of the death penalty based on that fact)?  K, you disappoint me.

[kaysixteen]

Apples and oranges.  I use the established tradition of the church to argue that it is acceptable, perhaps even required, to support the death penalty, which is clearly not taught against in the scriptures.  The fact that there have always been people in the church advocating racism does not alter the fact that racism is taught against in the scriptures.  No one is perfect, of course, in his obedience to the scriptures, however much one tries to be, and whenever one finds one is believing/ practicing in error, it behooves one to change.  But the fact that others in the past may have been racist is not my problem, nor that of my church today, any more than Romney can legitimately be held responsible for the prior officially racist view of his.

[dolljepopp]

Wouldn't you rather blame them for having multiple Cokes?  Even if they no longer do that?

Actually, they do. The "classic" formula is sold in the US, Canada, and (I think) the rest of the Americas. The "new" formula from the 80s is sold in the rest of the world.

I no longer drink pop more than once or twice a year, but if I have a Coke here in old Europe, I can still seriously taste the difference.

[dolljepopp]

How can we begin to say that religious folks are wrong for distrusting atheists when atheists say the same thing about those with religious beliefs? 

The snarky reply would be to point out that atheists have yet to launch their own Inquisition or series of Crusades to reclaim an un-Holy land for the non-believers.

Yes, I know -- Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Each encompassed atheism within his political world view and viciously punished/slaughtered those that disagreed.

So, no shortage of historical barbarism either in the name of God or in the name of no God. 


Which, to my mind, hvernon, tends to make me agree with this point:
 

Personally, I think distrusting a religious person in office because they are religious is just as ignorant as distrusting an atheist because they're not.

That being said, those of us (believers and un) that believe the last quarter century or so of US history has been quite negatively affected by leaders claiming religious guidance and justification and pandering to a narrow slice of the electorate are pretty weary of candidates telling us the United States was founded as a "Christian Nation" and we need to return to that state of godliness.

I am personally not an atheist or even really an agnostic. At one point I was fairly religious (albeit within a decidedly non-biblically-literalist practise), but have turned away from it in large part because of obnoxious behaviour by too many people in the name of Jesus.

I would welcome a candidate who said, "What is my religion? None of your damned business. Here is what I believe about where we are as a nation and the direction I believe we should try to follow. And here is how I will try to do it."

But I don't really expect that in my lifetime...

[patchouli]

Hvrnon,

I am really excited to see this topic as a thread.  Thank you.

Of course a candidate's religion (or lack thereof) stills plays a large role in the election process in my belief, but as prior posters have mentioned, it depends on the candidate, his/her beliefs, and the area of the U.S. in terms of if it benefits or harms.

In terms of local elections, the flyers around here for candidates always mention community and church service, and that may or may not be true for other local elections.

I still remember as a child the heated debate about Kennedy running for president and the fact he was a Catholic.  There was great fear that the Pope would run the country, or so some said.  It was a big cause for debate among some, as I remember.