Obama's Religious Background, Does It Matter? Options

[fameONE]

For those of you that have been following, yet another, God-awful US election, you're well aware of the recent specualtions about Barack Obama being a Muslim. Does it really matter? What difference would it make if the man was a Scientologist?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Discuss.

EDIT: Can someone please correct the spelling in the title?

[absinthe]

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

[NoSex]

I never stated that their religion was the sole basis for character evaluation.

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.

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.

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.

In concept, most religions DO preach positive concepts.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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).

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

Atheism is also irreligious, by definition.