I would like to know how many of you would vote against someone soley due to their open religious agenda even if they might have good ideas in other areas. What are your thoughts on this?
Do you have an example of a person with an 'open religious agenda' that has 'good ideas in other areas'?
You don't get to throw out the assumption that such a creature exists without evidence.
I'd like to read an example. Just like pretty much everything else, the easiest way to show a statement is supportable is to support it.
What's that old saying? It is an ill wind indeed that doesn't blow someone good somewhere. The world is a complicated place and I doubt that you could find anyone with which I disagree with every single attitude they have.
But the more someone believes in fantasy, the less likely it is that I would vote for them.
To put it another way -- the more likely it becomes that I would choose someone else.
Having an open religious agenda - absolutely not. I voted for Jimmy Carter, and would do so again, but although outwardly religious, he didn't push an agenda aimed at corrupting and controlling the populace.
Separation of church and state is essential.
I will never vote for someone who is anti-abortion, against birth control, against immigrants, anti-gay, racist, bigoted, who denies the climate crisis, wants to destroy clean air, water and public parks, who pushes mining, fracking and oil drilling: in short, a Republican.
Since I started voting, I actually did vote for a couple republicans, a long time ago - never for President. And the one, a past senator from my state left his party and joined the Democratic party. Maybe, just maybe, some day one will return, but being pessimistic about most politicians, I doubt that I will ever vote another republican.
If they have a religious agenda they are actively working on through legislation then yes I would vote against them. Look at how many "religious freedoms" have already made it through. And religious freedom is code for Christian Freedom to discriminate against those whose lifestyles they find repugnant. History shows us how well theocracy works. No thanks!
An "openly religious agenda" would be a violation of our Constitution. I would NOT vote for such a person.
I vote FIRST for those who believe in science, protecting the environment, civil rights, women's rights...so really only Democrat.
Interestingly, although I would not vote for Mitt Romney because of his politics and because he wears his "Cult" on his sleve, I admire the fact that he alone among all of the Repub. Party has the integrity to be true to his convictions and his oath to uphold the Constitution. What does this say for the future of our country. He may be a "Christian" but at least he is not a traitor to the American People and to himself and his "god".
I don't have an issue with a politician having a religious view/belief for how he lives his life. The problem or issue lies with can the politician separate his duties to the Constitution, Rule of Law, the Right of Rights - the secular nature of what our government is suppose to be from his Jesus/god fairy tale?.
We clearly have too many elected officials using religion as tool to get votes, change legislation and actually discriminate against those that do not fit their religious agenda mold.
I remember my parents at the kitchen table when Kennedy was running for president - there was a real concern the pope would be running the country if Kennedy was elected.
Yes. Their religious agenda is contrary to the constitution.
Any politician who creates an agenda around religious views loses my vote. I'm fine with a politician having religious views, but not to create an agenda around them. Unless the "religious views" are the freedom FROM religion, they have no purpose being part of an agenda.
An open religious agenda is a very clear red flag.
It ignore it is folly.
It shows that they'll justify any evil deed in the name of their beliefs.
It shows that they're either pandering to believers just to get their votes, or they're
So, they're either lying to get votes, or they're mentally ill.
You can bet your ass I'd be voting against them.
There is a difference between professing religious beliefs and having a religious agenda. President Carter, for example, was openly religious, but his policies were informed by his morality, not his religion's dogma. I voted for him twice and I'd do it again if I could. Politicians who use their dogma to, for example, discriminate against the LGBTQ community will never get my vote.
It depends upon the extent of their religious agenda. We've had 45 presidents, and so far 100% of them have been "religious." (I'm sure a few were closet atheist/agnostics... and of course some of the early ones were Deists). At this point electing an atheist/agnostic is unlikely, though I hope it happens in my lifetime. I'll vote for a religious candidate as long as their record and platform are superior to the alternative candidates. In 2020 I'm voting for whoever is most likely to defeat Drumpf.
We , as a country , went through this when Kennedy was running for president . He was the first Catholic candidate , and there were concerns about what would he do , if the Pope told him to do something that was not in the best interests of this country . We m as a country , voted him into office , because , as a country , we believed in him . Can't say the same for Trump , regardless of what ever he claims to believe .
It depends what you mean by "open religious agenda". Obama and Clinton regularly invoked God and went to church, but they were also thoroughly liberal and accused of being atheists and godless for keeping religion out of public policy. Indeed, their policies (pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ) were diametrically opposite the religious agenda.
Considering it's still nearly impossible for an openly atheist candidate to get elected to national office in America, would I fault a candidate for putting on a good show while still supporting my own agenda? No. I take the best I can get, while hoping for better one day. I'm a pragmatist.
If their 'religious agenda' was simply to be religious themselves, then I would have no issue with that.
If, however, their 'religious agenda' was to base their public work on the words in the bible, or to require others to live and work by their own religious rules, or to actively promote religion in public spaces (especially schools), or to voice prejudice against minorities based on their religion, then that I certainly would have issues with.
If I knew that a political person was going to push their religius views on the people that they were supposed to represent I would vote against them. Like Jefferson, I think religion should be kept out of the government!
Actually Thomas Jefferaon did not think religion should be kept out of government as we believe today. He believed that government should be kept out of religion.
I am so tired of this shit that I will not vote for anyone who is not in some way intelligent enough to not put religion into politics.
We are supposed to have a secular government. If anyone had a religious agenda to push into or onto our government, I would certainly not vote for them.
This question seems to apply to Mayor Pete, who is running for president. I think he is the best moderate candidate, bu7t I would still vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie sanders over him. And yes, part of thi smay be due to his being religious. Being gay myself, I think it would not be a bad thing to have a gay president, but his being gay isn't really a consideration as much as his being religious. I do question a person who adheres to a religion which condemns him for who he is though.
Despite all that,. if he becomes the democratic candidate I'd vote for him over Trump, even though I'd prefer Bernie sanders or Elizabeth Warren as the democratic candidate.
We had a lesbian minister in Aus., when I was living there last, who was very disappointing in her lack of vocal skills when it came to standing up for LGBTQ people’s rights and interests. Unfortunately identifying as a certain group doesn’t necessarily involve representing them, apparently
@girlwithsmiles I'll probably get smacked for this but, can't resist: we have that now in a senator, Lindsay Graham.
@Beowulfsfriend I’m sorry to hear that, It’s very frustrating. But probably some kind of reverse ism to expect them to behave differently from the rest of the politic - ing crowd.
If their agenda is to make their religion law, then absolutely. Full Stop.