Comments on: Why care about presidential faith?

By: Adrian

Adrian — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:57:53 +0000

Chief Wiggum, being a “devout Muslim” in no way means you have to be a salafist or wahhabist. Perhaps you should do your homework before making such inflammatory statements.

Romney’s religion matters only because other religious people (evangelicals) make it matter, not because the giant atheist voting bloc prefers some versions of Christianity over others. Which is why I, as an atheist, get such a chuckle out of the Republican primaries. It’s a big Republican circular firing squad in terms of religious politics.

By: donald wilton

donald wilton — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:44:32 +0000

We use faith as much as a tool for determining when somebody is unacceptable as when they are acceptable. Discrimination of this type has evolutionary precedent. Females routinely reject male suitors for a variety of reasons including lack of steady income. That we use faith to reject candidates since we can’t insure that atheists are available to do any of the work, is a smart evolutionary psychological move.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:35:05 +0000

Chief, what about a Sufi?

Having asked that, the only time I’ve ever been concerned with the religion of a candidate was during the last round of Supreme Court nominations. When a person brags about their Catholicism, while applying for a job where the issue of abortion rights is almost guaranteed to come up, at a time when Church officials are threatening pro-choice politicians with excommunication. . . some close questioning seems to be in order, no matter what one’s own views on the abortion debate actually are. As I’ve not heard of the LDS threatening its politicians with excommunication (or whatever their term is) for certain votes, I’m not particularly worried about Romney’s faith.

By: Aceface

Aceface — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:39:52 +0000

Changing topics,but there was a short report on weekly Shukan Shincho this week that Moonies are about to set up religious party in Japan.
If so,and they put themselves in casting vote position in
coalition games at the diet,Japan would have same problem as
people talk here now.

By: Chief Wiggum

Chief Wiggum — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:04:56 +0000

Michael, my post is only two sentences long. How did you miss the word “devout”? How did you get to “...Muslims aren’t fit to lead the United States…”?

Would you agree that anyone who holds salafist, wahhabist or jihadist views would be unsuitable? How about someone who seeks the destruction of Israel or of Jews? How about someone, like CAIR’s spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who supports the abolition of the U.S. Constitution and the imposition of Shari’a law?

Let’s look at some prominent American Muslims. Would you support Louis Farrakhan or someone who shared his views for President? How about Congressman Keith Ellison, who compared Bush with Hitler (unfavorably, I presume), and compared the 9/11 attack to the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used as justification to consolidate his power and persecute his enemies?

The question is moot, anyway.

By: Durf

Durf — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:51:50 +0000

What if the presidential candidate appeared to be capable and was also a devout Muslim? That would be a deal-breaker for me.

Yeah, me too. We’ve had a lengthy string of presidents who in no way appeared to be capable and I don’t think it’s time to break with tradition just yet.

By: Calbraith

Calbraith — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:19:49 +0000

I think the faith of a candidate matters so much to Americans because it is a convenient yardstick by which to measure him or her. Most Americans are ignorant about where their local representatives stand on the issues, let alone ones from the other side of the country. If a candidate shares their faith, that helps to create a common background. They don’t have to know where the candidate stands on issues (and probably don’t care to know); just knowing that a candidate is guided by the same moral code as them is enough. This becomes a huge hurdle for Romney, since most Americans know very little about Mormonism, with some equating it with a cult. His “foreign” religion cannot be measured by the moral yardstick, and so his efforts to connect with highly religious, non-Mormon voters will be an uphill battle.

By: Michael Hancock

Michael Hancock — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:58:03 +0000

Whoa, now, Chief Wiggum. Are you serious? You think Muslims aren’t fit to lead the United States, just because of their religion? That’s a surpassingly offensive thing to say. Tell me I’m not understanding you correctly.

By: Woody

Woody — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:34:17 +0000

It does not matter to me if a candidate goes to the Mormon Temple, or bows down to Mecca 5 times a day, or stands and confesses Jesus and claims to be born again, or claims to accept no God, or intellectually says there is no way to know if there is a God. What matters to me is that the person is socially and fiscally conservative, has leadership and communications skills, understands the economy, and realizes that this nation needs to reduce its national and personal debt and its dependence on foreign oil if it is to continue being a world leader. That’s my story and I am sticking with it.

By: Alfred Russel Wallace

Alfred Russel Wallace — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:24:33 +0000

What on earth makes you think that religion and stem cell research have any overlap?

Religion clearly helps set your ‘world view’, but as a religious and regular worshipper, I say HUMBUG. These positions are being directed by consultants, not by religion.

As a liberal Anglican, I abhor this politicising of religion – if a politician has a position, let it be honest!

By: Chief Wiggum

Chief Wiggum — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:55:34 +0000

What if the presidential candidate appeared to be capable and was also a devout Muslim? That would be a deal-breaker for me.