If my mother and father were alive today they wouldn't vote for Mitt because he is Mormon and, to their belief, Mormonism is a cult. I'm not sure how prevalent that belief is within the fundamental world now, but it sure was common thinking when I was growing up (my best friend was a member of said cult when I was growing up).

Our current president is governing essentially only for businessmen, and religious conservatives. He pushes for laws and policies that reflect his particular religious doctrine, with no secular reasons for them (prohibiting US funding for foreign clinics who even think about abortion even though those abortions don't use US money). He has no interest in what anybody says in his citizenry. Biblical rules really don't have any meaning to those of us who don't follow the bible as a holy text. It's just stories to me, yet I am being asked to accept biblical teachings in public spheres. No.

My current elected US Congressman is the same way, for the same reason- religion. He's a rich white conservative Christian guy and anyone who isn't can just go fly a kite in a thunderstorm cuz he doesn't care. He phrases it a little more politely, but it's still a complete blow-off. Apparently people in this county agree with his social conservatism and sadly, I'm stuck with him. I write him letters, though. He knows his county is more diverse than he's willing to admit. He just doesn't seem to care.

It's true that this happens in non-religious ways, but it seems to be more prevalent in relation to religious laws and teachings.

Let religion guide your personal life but don't start making policy for the rest of us. It's like in Muslim countries, all women are required to wear the covering, Muslim or no. That's the kind of thing that scares me.

I'd be with you there.

We are all, however, simply a conglomeration of our experiences. I share the same fervor you that you, APG, and you, BTD have stated regarding religious influence in governing when it comes to raising my taxes or moving toward socialized health care. I reject the argument that someone who rejects (or pushes for) something because of religious faith is any different than someone who rejects (or pushes for) something for any other reason.

The Constitution says there shall be no religious test in order to hold office. This works both for those who profess a religious faith and those who do not. You cannot be excluded for either. You freely have a right not to vote for someone who has religious ideas that influence them, but they certainly have as much of a right to run and govern in a fashion that they see best for the country.

I don't care the reason for policy decisions. Saying someone who has faith as one guiding factor in their lives should not be elected without saying they will not allow that to influence them or guide them in decisions is bigotry.

I find it interesting that as long as someone agrees with a policy decision, they don't care if it is based on religion. I know many, many religious people who believe that medicine shjould be socialized. If someone says "Jesus was the great healer, and would want us all to be healed. For this reason, if elected, I will push for a national socialized health care system.", would that be OK because that is a policy you agree with?

It isn't the religious influence, it is the policy, and the religious influence is simply the rallying cry of those who dislike the policy, shouting from the mountain tops "separation of church and state", all the while ignoring what I mentioned previously, that there can be no religious test of any kind for someone to hold office. Clearly religious influence is not disallowed in the least - and dare I say religious influence certainly played a large role the founding of this country, and therefore I would argue it is encouraged.

I honestly don't think Bush is really helping businessmen all that much, or at least not for small- and mid-sized businesses. He is, certainly, helping the religious right.

Bleh.

And the big corporations.

Where does it say that religion has no place in politics? This is an opinion, just as saying that religion has a place in politics.

Religion in many builds a sense of right and wrong that is no different than the sense of right and wrong that you may have, though they are most likely different. Because my sense of right and wrong may include religious influences and yours does not does not mean mine is less valid.

You would be just as much against someone who says that because a fetus can experience pain at such and such a week in utero or that since a fetus is viable after such and such a week in utero that abortion should be outlawed after that point as you would to someone who used religious justification for the same desire to outlaw it. You may say you respect the reasons more, but you would still be against it. Those are non-religious reasons.

Not to bring up a sore subject, but there was a discussion about the horrible practice of aborting a baby in India simply because it is female. Why is the disgust at that reason any more valid than disgust at it for a religious reason?

Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the founders of this country were religious individuals (overall) and without those religious individuals involved in politics with their religious viewpoints coming into play, this country would not exist.

Religion is tricky because it forms part of of an individuals evaluation and decision making processes. Policy decisions especially lend themselves to evaluation of "rightness" or "wrongness". I can't say that I would be able to make any policy decisions that were completely devoid of any influence from my religious beliefs. Mormonism, Catholicism, humanism - they all are systems of belief that, at their core, have something to say about what behavior is or isn't proper.

There can be a very fine line between "I am making this decision because, based on the totality of my influences and life experiences, it is the best decision for the entire country" and "I am making this decision because my church/not church has decreed that it is the proper decision." They can sound like such different approaches in the abstract, but in implementation - for some people those two concepts are synonymous.

And I guess that's where I draw the line with candidates - do I think that they're capable of seeing a distinction? Or is their faith/non-faith so dominant in their life that inevitably both they and their church will dictate the same decision?