I don't really care about him.
I just hope Huckabee doesn't win.
He's a MORMON *clenches fists*

no he isn't

That isn't the point. Religion shouldn't have any part of politics this day and age. Having said that, fact is, it is and probably always will.

The modernized world and the younger generations are ready for anything. America, in the sense of your old white republican, is not. I know you knew that, and we're on the same page, but that was for the fans.



Care to enlighten us with your splendid information?

I misread an article.
Never mind >___>;
But I don't want Huckabee to win anyway :T

anyone watch Caroline/Ted Kennedy's speech endorsing obama?

Ideally, separation of church and state is wonderful.

But frankly, we're attempting to chose a leader whose supposed to represent the views and beliefs we as Americans hold while barely knowing who the candidates are. And I'm not talking about that fancy campaign image they'd like to believe we buy (which apparently some Americans do since we were gifted with two dumbshit terms of Bush) -- I'm talking real time. Hence, it isn't exactly surprising that people would look the candidates' respective religions as a basis for review -- especially since a good number of Americans assume stances on controversial issues based on the stances of their religious affiliation(s).

So I guess, to a certain degree it does make sense. IMO, religion is a good way to gather insight on the moral standings and practices of a person. And that should actually help, as, to the best of my knowledge, all the religions we deal with politically promote positive teachings and practices. The problem is the racism people associate to the practiced religion, and the accompanying misconceptions they might have which may shed an unfair negative light on any given candidate -- which I believe is Obama's gripe at the moment.

So personally, I think its fair game if analyzed properly. It's not as if we're voting for the government itself -- we're voting for the person. If we were really going to be true to separation of church and state all of our political leaders would be required to have no religious affiliations at all, which in itself is another form of religious affiliation. It just isn't possible.

Gahd, I'm all over the place in this post. Not sure if I conveyed what I was trying to, but I wrote it, so I might as well post it. ;) Hahaha.

Hitherto religious affiliation has been an utterly inappropriate means towards character evaluation. It just doesn't work. What a religion preaches is seldom what its followers practice. Just as you identify that politicians create elaborate campaign images, as do all people create even more complex and interweaving images - the personalities we suggest in small doses. Christians can be pretty huge shit heads, as can Buddhists, atheists, and Hindus.

Further, the best of your knowledge sucks if you think religion promotes wholly positive teachings and practices; anything that dampens scientific research and dismembers equal rights can suck my ass.



Well, if our analyzers are the American voting population - f**k all!



1. The facilitators of our state do not have to be completely removed from the church (or spirituality) to conduct government business in a secular manner. What you're arguing is a far too broad definition of separation.

2. Secondly, the hell do you mean "no religious affiliation" is a form of "religious affiliation?" Have you never heard of the law of non-contradiction?

So that I'm just not entirely contrary here: You put forth a good point in imposing realism here - people do care about an individual's religious positions and reasonably so. In application it might not be pretty, but in theory it makes perfect sense. People care about that shit and they probably should - just not precisely in the way that they do. Voting for George Bush because he promises to fight for the "rights of the unborn" is not only obnoxious, it's politically ignorant and foolish.

I never stated that their religion was the sole basis for character evaluation. When I chose to practice a certain religion, and identify myself with their teachings, that means I as a person agree with said concepts. That gives insight to what a person believes, which in turn gives insight to a person's thought process.

And you missed the point completely.
In concept, most religions DO preach positive concepts. Hence, a candidates religious affiliation shouldn't ideally hurt them. But courtesy extremism and the mixture of personal beliefs, a number of religions aren't exactly practiced the intended way. Hence, a lot of them are shed in a negative light.

I never said practicing a religion MAKES a person good. I said practicing any certain religion shouldn't hurt their evaluation as a person, so why would it matter?

Because people lack the ability to understand other religions objectively because of improper practice, prejudice, racism, etc. But that's a problem with the people, not the concept.



Agreed. I never said the American population HAD the capacity to analyze intelligently. We've had Bush for two f**king terms!



1. I never said they couldn't. What I'm saying, is that if we're able to evaluate a candidate based on past actions and beliefs, moral and otherwise, why shouldn't religious standing be fair game? We voting for the person to fill the job -- not the job itself.

2. Why not? Atheism can be defined as a religious affiliation.

I never stated that you stated that religion worked as the sole basis for character evaluation. I was simply criticizing your simplistic identification as religious affiliation as a proper tool towards any sort understanding whatsoever. You said we couldn't believe in the political-media-image, I'm saying we can't believe in the church-going-image either. It's that simple.



Depends on how much you believe in the freedom of human choice (I was baptized before I could piss in a toilet by myself, think I knew f**k about "salvation?"), and where exactly you fall on a wide spectrum of philosophies concerning the nature of men. Essentially, your simplistic pontification strikes a meaningless blow, again!

Not only is it common that an individual is utterly ignorant of his or her own descriptive theology, it is also very likely that many more individuals have their own interpretation, their own deficiency in comprehension, and or their own perspective on any given tenant or dogma. If you ask every self-described Catholic for an interpretation of the good-old Sunday mass, you're going to, very likely, get no one answer that is identical to another. Further, you're just as likely to get drastically varied ideas and feelings. f**k, even if you ask those same people to describe their God, you'll find immense variety.

Whatever shallow insight you think identified religious affiliation gives, is, embarrassingly, quite insignificant and or deficient, at least, in the way in which you describe it.




However utterly subjective that may or may not be, that does not mean that those concepts are ever pragmatically or meaningfully practiced in any sort of conceptually equitable way. More simply, people don't do what they say they're going to do, let alone what their religion presupposes they "should" do.



Maybe it should hurt them. If you want to play by your rules, why should we ever expect a Christian to avoid nuclear war in the Middle East or do anything to protect the environment?



I was talking about separation from church and state and how it doesn't require, in any sort of sense, a government employee to be separate from his or her own religion (as you were suggesting).



Atheism is also irreligious, by definition.

it does matter.
religion is really important to people.

and it will probably affect his chances of winning.

But it shouldn't. Separation of state/church tbh. AMGAD HE WORSHIPS A GOD THAT'S THE SAME AS MINE BUT THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT! f**k HIM HE'S GOT NO CHANCE IN HELL!

Haven't read the previous posts, but I'd like to throw in my opinion.

The USA isn't in a great position now as we know it. There isn't a problem with having a women, or Muslim running the country if they can do a good job. However if the economy starts failing, I see them putting the blame on the president because they were the first of this kind. Obama being a black muslim. Or in the other case Hilary being a female.

Don't know if that made any sense.

obama is christian

Bush is a white male and still a shit president. It doesn't matter what I part of his background I blame that on.

Relax ass wipe, I knew it was something like that but I wasn't sure. Anyway, people who are ignorant enough to not want Obama as president because they think he is Muslim, or because Hilary is a woman, really don't deserve to vote. I mean seriously, take your head out of your ass.

Whether they "don't deserve to vote" or not isn't going to stop them from actually casting a vote based on their prejudices and beliefs - which, essentially, is the reality of our democratic republic. Do you honestly believe that there are a bunch of informed and prepared voters?

^Of course not, but I think you get the idea of what I was trying to say. Let's face it, there are alot of people who never want to see a black person become president. As much as it appears to be otherwise, that sentiment still exists. I have always wondered if Obama were running for the republican seat, and he was the front runner,if he would have the backing like McCain has. In no way am I one of those people who are all hey we are black and deserve this and that, but the truth is the truth in this instance. I mean if you think about it, Hilary really only has like what, a year or two on Obama when it comes to her political career. The fact that he is inexperienced, I think bodes well for him in my opinion. We definitely need a breath of fresh air from the good ol' boys network that has plagues us.

I love when people tell me to relax and then call me a name. So mature.
If you're going to talk about ignorance, don't post things that make you sound ignorant. If you're so unsure, look it up. Google is your friend.

McCain actually has a pretty poor financial backing. And a black man running as a Republican? That's just funny. Hilary makes people think she has more experience by preaching her "35 years" during debates, when in actuality being married to experience doesn't count.

Sorry about the name calling, I just got a little excited. The thing is, I could have sworn I heard that one of the presidents was jewish but obviously I was wrong. Oddly enough, I happen to know a lot of black republicans. I just think that if Hilary wins, Bill will be running the country again. For some reason I just think it will be that way. Have you ever noticed, that whenever she talks about the black community and what they have done, it is almost as if she is saying you people owe us this vote. Maybe I am the only one that feels that way but who knows.

^why do you think that hillary isn't capable of running the country herself?

[color="#00BFFF"]Everybody in this election scares the living daylights out of me.
And it's not their religion or their beliefs, it's just the fact that they would be destructive to this country.
I never cared for any of them.

And Hillary Clinton is perhaps the worst...
and by the way, watch her dumb Bill's ass after she wins this election.
I bet she was only sticking with him to get where she is.

=/
It's all very despondent.

^wanna be more specific about why you don't like them or how you think they would be "destructive" to our country?

I just think that she isn't out there enough if that makes any sense. Ok how about this, how is it that we both live in the ny area, but the only senator we constantly see is Charles Schumer? He is always the one fighting for this and that, and we never seem to see her. I just don't think that she is one that will stand up for things strongly. It seems to me as if she has no backbone, and the clear point for that would be the crying incident. Her husband is the only reason that she is where she is today and that is the truth and as much as people don't want to admit it, they know it is true. Am I saying that I wouldn't want a woman running the country? Absolutely not, and to the contrary, I think C. Rice would actually make a good president for some reason. What I am saying, is why should we have some cry baby who has to depend on her husband to bail her out of trouble. When the heat was put on Obama about the whole race thing and other issues, he stood his ground by himself. During that same ordeal about two or three weeks ago, I saw Bill doing more talking than Hilary. She still has a lot of proving to do in my opinion.