The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

What I am trying to say is good as the man or his policies may be there will be people who feel they just cannot vote or trust him because of the religion connection and that IMO is detremental to democarcy. It should be policy and policy only or party line that gets voted on NOT that he attends church and holds religous beleifs

I find that a somewhat staggering statement in its nievity and purely a massive assumtion on your part. I'll just refer you to my last answer. "The USA has existed for a long time and a lot of presidents with the sentiments "God Bless America" and the dollar bill heading "In God we trust". It never mattered or impacted on politics before, why should it now? People belive what they believe and to deny them the right to do that, whatever it may be, is hypocritical IMO. Religion is never forced on anyone and neither should atheism be. The people of America have just voted for the best man to do the job, colour, creed or lack of it immaterial.

I find your comments more naive than Hoboh's TD. Your sentiment of what SHOULD be what affects people is exactly waht i beleive in. However, to think that a presidential candidate's stated religion doesn't affect his chances is so so naive. There are many rumours Clinton was not religious, and the tone of Obama's speech, where he made a point of including 'non-beleivers' into his description suggests that even if he isn't atheist himsefl, heat least sympathises with that right to not believe in a god. However, were any candidate to openly come out as atheist, it would turn masses of the bible belt and the southern states against him/her. I agree completely with Hobo, and what i think you are saying, which is that religion should play no part in politics, that the best man should be elected regardless of faith, but in America that would be a big hindrance, if not an impossibilty.

[TANGODANCER]

I thought that the fact religion should have no part in politics ( one way or the other) was exactly the point I was making. I must express myself rather badly.

[Montreal Wanderer]

What I am trying to say is good as the man or his policies may be there will be people who feel they just cannot vote or trust him because of the religion connection and that IMO is detremental to democarcy. It should be policy and policy only or party line that gets voted on NOT that he attends church and holds religous beleifs

I find that a somewhat staggering statement in its nievity and purely a massive assumtion on your part. I'll just refer you to my last answer. "The USA has existed for a long time and a lot of presidents with the sentiments "God Bless America" and the dollar bill heading "In God we trust". It never mattered or impacted on politics before, why should it now? People belive what they believe and to deny them the right to do that, whatever it may be, is hypocritical IMO. Religion is never forced on anyone and neither should atheism be. The people of America have just voted for the best man to do the job, colour, creed or lack of it immaterial.

No one is denying anyone the right to believe or follow what ever God he chooses (BTW in the US this tends to be the dollar and not because of what is written on it). All I'm saying is religion should be totally detached from politics. The Yanks make a big play on religion "In God we trust" etc etc but lets dig deep then if you think they are a Christian God fearing country. Was it the will and with the blessing of God they are the only nation in history to drop not one, but two atomic bombs? No that was politics!!! Religion had no part except maybe weasel words of self pity trying to pray to God for what they were about to do.
Religion IS forced on people, How about the kids indoctrinated into Christian/Muslim etc beliefs from the day they are born? Do they have any choice?
Do we hear human rights activists calling this an abuse of peoples freedoms and rights? (something again good old Christian uncle Sam chooses to ignore, human rights that is).
Sorry but I 'll say again religion is between one person and whatever God he follows and should not be allowed to be publicly pushed by the most powerful man on the planet!

Here endth the sermon

And rather an extraordinary sermon it is too. Yank bashing because they have a motto that mentions God, from someone who hails from the land of God save the Queen, and who took up the White man's burden and propagated the gospel, so they could feel good about building an economic empire? History is history. Whatever the rights and wrongs of dropping that bomb, God had little to do with it - it was about winning a war which had initially been thrust on them by a fairly unpleasant enemy (I personally think that decision was wrong as was Bomber Harris's destruction of Dresden etc but this is not the point). At the inauguration Obama included all major faiths AND unbelievers - how is he publicly pushing religion on us?

[Montreal Wanderer]

However, to think that a presidential candidate's stated religion doesn't affect his chances is so so naive. There are many rumours Clinton was not religious, and the tone of Obama's speech, where he made a point of including 'non-beleivers' into his description suggests that even if he isn't atheist himsefl, heat least sympathises with that right to not believe in a god. However, were any candidate to openly come out as atheist, it would turn masses of the bible belt and the southern states against him/her. I agree completely with Hobo, and what i think you are saying, which is that religion should play no part in politics, that the best man should be elected regardless of faith, but in America that would be a big hindrance, if not an impossibilty.

I would agree that a candidate who was an open atheist would lose a lot of votes regardless of other qualifications - this would be true of an openly gay candidate, a woman or, for that matter, a black candidate. Obama already had one strike because of his colour, but he did overcome that (largely thanks to 8 years of Bush and Sarah Palin). I think he is also religious and not just pretending to be. America is advancing slowly in what it will accept, but it is advancing. I remember when the first Roman Catholic became President and that was a shock. Hpefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

[TANGODANCER]

Hopefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

As long as they are the best people for the job, then that's the way it should be. The rest, as I stated earlier, is immaterial. Funny how the main points of any argument/discussion become lost in all the waffle that surrounds them.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Hopefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

As long as they are the best people for the job, then that's the way it should be. The rest, as I stated earlier, is immaterial. Funny how the main points of any argument/discussion become lost in all the waffle that surrounds them.

IMHO Obama was the best person for the job this time round from the choices we had. In all the talk about religion we also forget that one needs massive financial backing to get the job, so that may always be an impediment to the most qualified.

[TANGODANCER]

Hopefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

As long as they are the best people for the job, then that's the way it should be. The rest, as I stated earlier, is immaterial. Funny how the main points of any argument/discussion become lost in all the waffle that surrounds them.

Might also be worth noting our Queen is a church-goer. It hardly ever gets mentioned except when someone takes photographs of her visiting a service. She doesn't make laws that all her subjects do likewise. The whole thing is being blown out of all proportion. Religion is a personal thing and shouldn't have any bearing on everyday life. The bus campaign of another thread is just hornets' nest stirring to me and totally unnecessary. Just someone trying to prove a point as dictated by the great anti-deity Lord Dawkins. It all gets dafter as time goes on. As you were.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Alright fellas, at ease, I'm only messing.

The speech flew, but did not soar, as they say... though it could scarcely fail to disappoint, such was the build-up. And yes, the mistake with the oath was really Chief Justice Roberts'.

So it appears and he was sworn in a second time yesterday with the correct wording. On this occasion he did not use the bible. Regarding the first mess up:

In the oath, as set out in the US Constitution, the new incumbent swears to "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States".

But as Chief Justice Roberts read out the oath for Mr Obama to repeat, he moved the word "faithfully" to the end of the phrase.

Mr Obama, apparently noticing the error, hesitated.

[Puskas]

Hopefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

As long as they are the best people for the job, then that's the way it should be. The rest, as I stated earlier, is immaterial. Funny how the main points of any argument/discussion become lost in all the waffle that surrounds them.

Might also be worth noting our Queen is a church-goer. It hardly ever gets mentioned except when someone takes photographs of her visiting a service. She doesn't make laws that all her subjects do likewise. The whole thing is being blown out of all proportion. Religion is a personal thing and shouldn't have any bearing on everyday life. The bus campaign of another thread is just hornets' nest stirring to me and totally unnecessary. Just someone trying to prove a point as dictated by the great anti-deity Lord Dawkins. It all gets dafter as time goes on. As you were.

So you'd say that religion shouldn't have any bearing, on, say, moral judgements?
What do you think it should have a bearing on?

[TANGODANCER]

So you'd say that religion shouldn't have any bearing, on, say, moral judgements?
What do you think it should have a bearing on?

Careful, you're on sticky ground here. Are you saying that moral judgement is taught in schools without the use of religion? If it is, I've never heard of such. Religious instruction is claimed to be unnecessary in a lot of today's schools. It's very purpose is to differentiate between what is morally right and wrong according to its bases, ie Bible Torrah, Quran etc. I never heard of Moral Judgement classes. Did I miss something? I thought the whole idea was to instill a basis of right and wrong in children till they left school, after which they'll make their own minds up anyway. Just my view.

[BWFC_Insane]

So you'd say that religion shouldn't have any bearing, on, say, moral judgements?
What do you think it should have a bearing on?

Careful, you're on sticky ground here. Are you saying that moral judgement is taught in schools without the use of religion? If it is, I've never heard of such. Religious instruction is claimed to be unnecessary in a lot of today's schools. It's very purpose is to differentiate between what is morally right and wrong according to its bases, ie Bible Torrah, Quran etc. I never heard of Moral Judgement classes. Did I miss something? I thought the whole idea was to instill a basis of right and wrong in children till they left school, after which they'll make their own minds up anyway. Just my view.

Eh? You can teach morality without religion.

Morality exists outside of religion for sure!

[Puskas]

So you'd say that religion shouldn't have any bearing, on, say, moral judgements?
What do you think it should have a bearing on?

Careful, you're on sticky ground here. Are you saying that moral judgement is taught in schools without the use of religion? If it is, I've never heard of such. Religious instruction is claimed to be unnecessary in a lot of today's schools. It's very purpose is to differentiate between what is morally right and wrong according to its bases, ie Bible Torrah, Quran etc. I never heard of Moral Judgement classes. Did I miss something? I thought the whole idea was to instill a basis of right and wrong in children till they left school, after which they'll make their own minds up anyway. Just my view.

No. Where have I said that? You said that religion "is a personal thing and shouldn't have any bearing on everyday life"
I was merely point out what a silly statement that was.

[Montreal Wanderer]

So you'd say that religion shouldn't have any bearing, on, say, moral judgements?
What do you think it should have a bearing on?

Careful, you're on sticky ground here. Are you saying that moral judgement is taught in schools without the use of religion? If it is, I've never heard of such. Religious instruction is claimed to be unnecessary in a lot of today's schools. It's very purpose is to differentiate between what is morally right and wrong according to its bases, ie Bible Torrah, Quran etc. I never heard of Moral Judgement classes. Did I miss something? I thought the whole idea was to instill a basis of right and wrong in children till they left school, after which they'll make their own minds up anyway. Just my view.

Our public schools here have a requirement for Moral and Religious Education (MRE) from Grades 1 to 6 in three streams. The parent can choose whether they wish it to be Protestant religious education, Catholic religious education or moral education with no religious content - so apparently we think moral education can be taught without the use of religion. Private religious schools (Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox etc.) also exist and have their own MRE program approved by the Ministry. Those of these other religions who go to public school (free) take the straight MRE and are expected to get the religion part on the weekend if they feel so inclined. Teaching a child that it is wrong to steal does not require reference to the ten commandments IMHO.

[TANGODANCER]

So you'd say that religion shouldn't have any bearing, on, say, moral judgements?
What do you think it should have a bearing on?

Careful, you're on sticky ground here. Are you saying that moral judgement is taught in schools without the use of religion? If it is, I've never heard of such. Religious instruction is claimed to be unnecessary in a lot of today's schools. It's very purpose is to differentiate between what is morally right and wrong according to its bases, ie Bible Torrah, Quran etc. I never heard of Moral Judgement classes. Did I miss something? I thought the whole idea was to instill a basis of right and wrong in children till they left school, after which they'll make their own minds up anyway. Just my view.

No. Where have I said that? You said that religion "is a personal thing and shouldn't have any bearing on everyday life"
I was merely point out what a silly statement that was.

It isn't a silly statement at all. I meant the fact that you have or haven't religious beleifs shouldn't have a bearing on the everyday life of politicians or political matters, the topic of conversation in this thread. I thought you would understand that.

[Puskas]

It isn't a silly statement at all. I meant the fact that you have or haven't religious beleifs shouldn't have a bearing on the everyday life of politicians or political matters, the topic of conversation in this thread. I thought you would understand that.

Oh, I understand perfectly. And it's still very silly.

Politicians have to make all sorts of moral judgements every day. Probably more in their job than I do in mine. Are you saying that their religious beliefs shouldn't enter into these? That Catholic MPs should vote in favour of abortion, for example?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

However, to think that a presidential candidate's stated religion doesn't affect his chances is so so naive. There are many rumours Clinton was not religious, and the tone of Obama's speech, where he made a point of including 'non-beleivers' into his description suggests that even if he isn't atheist himsefl, heat least sympathises with that right to not believe in a god. However, were any candidate to openly come out as atheist, it would turn masses of the bible belt and the southern states against him/her. I agree completely with Hobo, and what i think you are saying, which is that religion should play no part in politics, that the best man should be elected regardless of faith, but in America that would be a big hindrance, if not an impossibilty.

I would agree that a candidate who was an open atheist would lose a lot of votes regardless of other qualifications - this would be true of an openly gay candidate, a woman or, for that matter, a black candidate. Obama already had one strike because of his colour, but he did overcome that(largely thanks to 8 years of Bush and Sarah Palin). I think he is also religious and not just pretending to be. America is advancing slowly in what it will accept, but it is advancing. I remember when the first Roman Catholic became President and that was a shock. Hpefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

In my view, Obama's colour was a massive contributing factor in his victory, not a hindrance. We have seen the jubilation at the bare fact of a black man becoming president - historical injustices have come in a bizarre full circle and actually given Obama an advantage. A white man of his age, career, CV, and modest charisma & rhetorical skills would not have prospered in the same way in this election.

[Montreal Wanderer]

However, to think that a presidential candidate's stated religion doesn't affect his chances is so so naive. There are many rumours Clinton was not religious, and the tone of Obama's speech, where he made a point of including 'non-beleivers' into his description suggests that even if he isn't atheist himsefl, heat least sympathises with that right to not believe in a god. However, were any candidate to openly come out as atheist, it would turn masses of the bible belt and the southern states against him/her. I agree completely with Hobo, and what i think you are saying, which is that religion should play no part in politics, that the best man should be elected regardless of faith, but in America that would be a big hindrance, if not an impossibilty.

I would agree that a candidate who was an open atheist would lose a lot of votes regardless of other qualifications - this would be true of an openly gay candidate, a woman or, for that matter, a black candidate. Obama already had one strike because of his colour, but he did overcome that(largely thanks to 8 years of Bush and Sarah Palin). I think he is also religious and not just pretending to be. America is advancing slowly in what it will accept, but it is advancing. I remember when the first Roman Catholic became President and that was a shock. Hpefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

In my view, Obama's colour was a massive contributing factor in his victory, not a hindrance. We have seen the jubilation at the bare fact of a black man becoming president - historical injustices have come in a bizarre full circle and actually given Obama an advantage. A white man of his age, career, CV, and modest charisma & rhetorical skills would not have prospered in the same way in this election.

We will have to agree to differ. First I think he has far superior rhetorical skills to Hilary and McCain. His opponents in the presidential election were a man who might not finish his term (age and health) and a VP who was a frighteningly ignorant wildcard. The country was tired of 8 years of Bush and Republican policies, and really wanted a change. Despite this he only got 52% of the vote, when I think a white of the same background and ability might have had a landslide. America is still over 70% white, 15% Latin and 14% Black. Racism is still endemic in many areas and 55% of white voters went for McCain so Obama needed (and got) massive support from Blacks, Hispanic and Asian voters for his 52%. Only the black support (95%) could really be said to be based on his colour rather than other factors.

[Prufrock]

I thought that the fact religion should have no part in politics ( one way or the other) was exactly the point I was making. I must express myself rather badly.

And i said i agreed with that bit, i just thought that in a post where you accused Hobo of naivety, 'twas quite naive of you yourself to say "It never mattered or impacted on politics before, why should it now?" whilst talking about religion. My post was aimed at that sentence. It shouldn't matter, but it has and does.

[Prufrock]

However, to think that a presidential candidate's stated religion doesn't affect his chances is so so naive. There are many rumours Clinton was not religious, and the tone of Obama's speech, where he made a point of including 'non-beleivers' into his description suggests that even if he isn't atheist himsefl, heat least sympathises with that right to not believe in a god. However, were any candidate to openly come out as atheist, it would turn masses of the bible belt and the southern states against him/her. I agree completely with Hobo, and what i think you are saying, which is that religion should play no part in politics, that the best man should be elected regardless of faith, but in America that would be a big hindrance, if not an impossibilty.

I would agree that a candidate who was an open atheist would lose a lot of votes regardless of other qualifications - this would be true of an openly gay candidate, a woman or, for that matter, a black candidate. Obama already had one strike because of his colour, but he did overcome that(largely thanks to 8 years of Bush and Sarah Palin). I think he is also religious and not just pretending to be. America is advancing slowly in what it will accept, but it is advancing. I remember when the first Roman Catholic became President and that was a shock. Hpefully we may live to see Jews, atheists and women in the office in the next 25 years.

In my view, Obama's colour was a massive contributing factor in his victory, not a hindrance. We have seen the jubilation at the bare fact of a black man becoming president - historical injustices have come in a bizarre full circle and actually given Obama an advantage. A white man of his age, career, CV, and modest charisma & rhetorical skills would not have prospered in the same way in this election.

The man's a black Cicero, with his speech giving skills, in contrast to the always slighty terrifing McCain/Palin double act, Obama could have been Muslim and given them a run for their money!!! Well maybe not, but my own view is that had he been white, he would have had at least as much a chance if not more. As Monty says, the only racial group where his race seemed to be a factor is amongst African Americans, the majority of whom were unlikely to vote Republican anyway.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The man's a black Cicero, with his speech giving skills, in contrast to the always slighty terrifing McCain/Palin double act, Obama could have been Muslim and given them a run for their money!!! Well maybe not, but my own view is that had he been white, he would have had at least as much a chance if not more. As Monty says, the only racial group where his race seemed to be a factor is amongst African Americans, the majority of whom were unlikely to vote Republican anyway.

Blacks do tend to vote the Democratic ticket in massive numbers. 88% of Blacks voted for Kerry versus 95% for Obama, so he only increased it 7%. However, turnout was also a factor. Blacks represented 13% of the electorate last year and only 11% in 2004, so Obama got them to come out as well. Blacks represent about 12% of the population, btw.