I agree what you said for the most part, and it all sounds so good on paper. The problem is that people try and bend the rules to fit there life-styles, especially with religion. When a person that is running for a high office, they seem to become somewhat power hungry. If elected, the person tends to bring along the same type of people (religion-wise) that s/he is. That doesn't sound so bad at first, but having lived in Utah, where most of the politics are controlled by the LDS church, I can somewhat imagine that on a national scale.

Imagine a babtist being elected into a high office. That person may try to change things like drinking laws, and abortion and such. The same with any other type of religion. Of course, there is the system of checks and balances, but who knows how that would work if an entire group of the same religion were brought in. Or worse, a group of differing religions that contradict each other, where very little, if anything, could get past the debating.

I would be all for what you said, if there weren't those things to consider.

I wonder if a prospective candidate should explain why they take certian positions based upon thier beliefs. I surley would help us to understand why they feel the way they do and to reassure us thay they are most likely not making empty promises?

I wonder if a prospective candidate should explain why they take certian positions based upon thier beliefs.

But many people involved in religion don't really have a reason except "it's wrong because of the Bible, or God" or something like that. Yes there are people out there that do study, and that do have genuine reasons besides the above, but those generally aren't the political leaders.

I agree with you. If a candidate should come out and say they are against this or that because "the Bible says it wrong" and provides no personal reasons I would say that, that person is simply hideing behind thier faith. If they cannot explain whay they are against an issue, barring "the Bible says it wrong", then they obviously are not very intelligent and shouldn't be runing for office anyway lol.

If a candidate should come out and say they are against this or that because "the Bible says it wrong" and provides no personal reasons I would say that, that person is simply hideing behind thier faith.

Along the same lines, what kind of explaination would be accepted by the masses...especially the left? Anything religiously based is being destroyed by liberals that believe in some warped equality. On the other hand, anyone that isn't religious is being...demeaned by the overly religious conservatives. So what kind of person, and religion, and explianation would be accepted that wouldn't tear our country completely in half?

That is a good question. I belive that if a candidate for any public office simply stated what they belive in and also reassured the people that he or she would still vote as they wished it wouldn't be a problem. I just feel that a person should be who they are and not change, or give the apperance of chage, simply to appease the masses or to gain office. As far as what kind of person, religion and ecplination, I would venture to say an honest and sincere person who is not willing to sacrafice thier beliefs, the type of religion should have not bearing to voters as long as the values are what they are looking for, and as for an explanation I would say again that they should simply be honest and nonjudgmental to people who diagree with them.

I would venture to say an honest and sincere person who is not willing to sacrafice thier beliefs, the type of religion should have not bearing to voters as long as the values are what they are looking for, and as for an explanation I would say again that they should simply be honest and nonjudgmental to people who diagree with them.

But does such a person exist when politically speaking?

Reply #4 By: Dysmas - 12/30/2004 11:56:10 AM I agree with you. If a candidate should come out and say they are against this or that because "the Bible says it wrong" and provides no personal reasons I would say that, that person is simply hideing behind thier faith. If they cannot explain whay they are against an issue, barring "the Bible says it wrong", then they obviously are not very intelligent and shouldn't be runing for office anyway lol.

Are you kidding me? No one would EVER get elected!

Are you kidding me? No one would EVER get elected!

'cept you...lol

Reply #9 By: Silver_and_Jade_Tears - 12/30/2004 2:24:51 PM Are you kidding me? No one would EVER get elected! 'cept you...lol

I don't think so. No one would want me in office. I'd be impeached and tossed before a week was out.

lol, yeah I honestly doubt that a politician will go that route. It has failed before but then again they failed it
Kerry tried it with Catholicisim but failed because he didn't stand up for his beliefs, that and he went back and forth on issues. And for preisdent Bush it seemed to have worked except that he got many Christian fanatics on his side as opposed to your "average joe Christian" and because he advocated Christianity alone and not the values it represented. Muslim and Jewish fatihs preach basicly the same values as well but he seemed to excluded them.
I don't know I just thought it would be a good idea to try even if they got burned. But again no prospective politician would risk that, if they did, they would have no place in the corrupt world of politics.
sigh.
> lol

I just read my response....I don't think it is quite accurate but the point comes across somewhat. I dunno thats just me I guess.
America..we've had what..one Catholic President in our history. JFK. A well loved and respected President and yet he did things completly against the morals his faith taught. Indeed morals that virtually ANY faith teaches.
I've come to realize that you can not judge a person simply on what they believe. If you must "judge" a person it should be on what they pratice not what they preach.
The president of the United States. What a job. What a responsability to have. A pain in the ass if you ask me yet there is an unequaled oppertunity to get things done. The RIGHT things hopefully (depending upon your view of right, it would have to be what the majority of Americans wanted).

You've got "spin", lies, "disinformation" running rampant and yet, as a President, you are expected to somehow rise above it all. How hard that must be. How can you get anything done if you dont participate in what typicaly goes on in the Government.

It makes me contemplate which form of government would be most effective. I don't think there really is one nor could there be. ( One can't please EVERYONE all of the time). Sure we have a system of checks and balances and it works alright. Yet because of our many overlapping laws there are loopholes within loopholes. If it is done right, almost anything can be done "legaly". It seems to be interpretation of the law only.
Who would I vote for? Well I would vote for anyone, yes even a female, as long as I agreed with thier plans. But how could I be sure they would actually follow through with what they say. Typicaly poloticians DONT tend to do exactly what they say, or they give it a half assed attempt and give up.

Democrat, Republican, Independant, Moderate and so on. All of these labels and they dont quite fit right. How can a person slap a lable on and say " I am a Republican for better or worse" and just go with the pary, or whatever party? Eventually you would compromise your own values.
I vote for whomever i feel like, I dont have a party affiliation. I think there are good things to every side of the political spectrum. Except perhaps the far left and far right. But someone has to be there I guess.

Whats wrong with America? We seem to never even consider a Catholic candidate, even though there are few, for high public office. We complain about other Christians holding office. We complain about secularists holding office. We complain about everyone and everything.
I have no answers but I think it is easy to see the problem.

America is becoming to American.