Should Religious Ministers Be Allowed To Hold Political Office?

reply to post by SuperiorEd
. I don't actually think they could be barred but it's supposed to be separation of church and state....it wouldn't be prejudice that would Barr them it would be conflict of interest.

What about a Buddhist President? I would rather have one of those before I'd want a Christian in there.
What about a Hindu? Bahai? What then? I'm not a Christian, nor would I ever care to be. I don't need a fairy tale to sleep well at night or feel safe about my place in Universe, yet I accept the fact that my elected representatives believe ( or profess to ) in a fairy tale. I want intelligence, logic, and reason, tempered by compassion, to rule the day, not out-dated dogma. But, such is life...

Originally posted by moonzoo7
What about a Buddhist President? I would rather have one of those before I'd want a Christian in there.
What about a Hindu? Bahai? What then? I'm not a Christian, nor would I ever care to be. I don't need a fairy tale to sleep well at night or feel safe about my place in Universe, yet I accept the fact that my elected representatives believe ( or profess to ) in a fairy tale. I want intelligence, logic, and reason, tempered by compassion, to rule the day, not out-dated dogma. But, such is life...

edit on 10-10-2011 by moonzoo7 because: Grammar

edit on 10-10-2011 by moonzoo7 because: Grammar

If a person can keep religion and politics separate, then perfect by all means run. If you are doing your job with good intentions for the wide spectrum of people we have in this country then more power to you.

If you think that your political standing is a way for you to convert masses of people, change laws because of your own religious views regardless of benefits it has , or even raise money for the religion of your choice, then you are in the wrong business and you should stick to being a religious figure, not a political one.

Again, just my own thoughts.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Wrong?

Look at all the people supporting Dem Rep. Weiner after he got caught exposing himself online and then lied about it as the perfect example of what I meant. A lot of their support was based on the argument that Weiner was "only human", so should be given a pass.

You sure do enjoy speaking for liberals. What about all those people who support/supported say... Duke Cunningham? David Vitter?

Instead, long live politicians who can have a faith, but are able to keep that from driving their political agenda.

Hey you can worship paint chips for all i care, The subject at hand as i recall was "Should Religious Ministers Be Allowed to Hold Political Office?"... do you have any sort of constructive reply or are you just here to stir up s--t?

reply to post by negativenihil


The OP basically says that "clerics" should be disqualified form running from office, and then uses Romney as an example.

I responded to what the OP said - taking issue with the false equivalency the OP was attempting to create that Romney is a religious "cleric" that should be disqualified from running for office.

Someone else mentioned that same logic would have also disqualified the Rev. Al Sharpton from running when he did. But no complaints from you, the OP, or anyone else on the left about that.

So, it's all of the sudden an issue just because Romney is running?

What are you responding to?

reply to post by centurion1211


Ha i don't think anyone on the left cares if al sharpton wakes up tomorrow. so...maybe you shouldA used a better example.

reply to post by centurion1211


OK, honestly, I don't want Al Sharpton in office either. Someone replied that the concept would keep Sharpton out of office too, and I'm the one who starred the comment.
Again, Romney's religious beliefs are a topic of conversation; He's not a minister, and I'm not implying such.
Romney has not claimed to be representative of the Mormon church. I do think that if Romney were to be elected that he would try to advance a Mormon agenda in any way that he could get away with. Sharpton would also try the same ploy. This thread is not about Romney. I don't think any religiously-inclined "activist" ( remember the term, "activist judges" ? ) should be holding such a powerful office, be they Liberal or Conservative, Dem or Rep.
I'm supporting secular humanism. How's that?

Basically, the question is just an extension of culture war:

"Should people you disagree with be allowed to hold office?"

As someone else said, why stop at Christians? Why not ban the Jews while you're at it. Or people who have sex in ways that seem icky to you.

While you're at it, you could make a finely graded scale of who is a "better" citizen, based on height, weight, hair color, eye color, and maybe even melatonin levels.

The idea that inspired America was something about all people being created equal. Not "some of them are less worthy to lead, because of what they profess."



But then, democracy has been so thoroughly discredited by ideas like the OP that it hardly matters.

reply to post by FloatingGhost


another example sure the good Reverend Jessie Jackson ran for potus

will that one work for you?

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by negativenihil

 

The OP basically says that "clerics" should be disqualified form running from office, and then uses Romney as an example.

Gotcha - a little lacking in the reading skills dept.

Here is the offending line from the OP:

I don't care that Mitt Romney is a Mormon per se, I just don't want anyone with a religious agenda to be the President of the United States.

So you're basically reading something that wasn't there.

And.. GASP - I agree. Anyone who can't be separated from their religious dogma (ie- Bachmann) shouldn't be in charge of a nation that supposedly respects all religious views.

I responded to what the OP said - taking issue with the false equivalency the OP was attempting to create that Romney is a religious "cleric" that should be disqualified from running for office.

Someone else mentioned that same logic would have also disqualified the Rev. Al Sharpton from running when he did. But no complaints from you, the OP, or anyone else on the left about that.

Al Sharpton has never been, and will never be a serious candidate. You and I both know this, so let's not play coy.

But well, if we have to enact these sorts of rules, then i'm fine with his not being able to run. Big deal. Zero loss to all involved. Feel better now?

Separation of Church and State. If Romney can (and he will) keep his religious life separate from his political life, then he'll have little issue getting the GOP nomination.

I swear, I don't know why I expect anyone to actually apply critical thinking skills to the things they read here these days...

The OP was about religious leaders running for office. Pastors, Priests, Imams, Clerics.. whatever you want to call them.

I would only like to say that the separation of church and state was to remove the state from church affairs. The separation of church and state as I understand it was/is not meant to keep the church out of politics.

Mr. President To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem. (signed) Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802.

This letter was written to a baptist church in 1802, I believe religion is between each man/woman and their God, and a person's religion should not be something that is even mentioned in politics.

The first amendment contains the "establishment clause" that pretty much says the separation of church and state is to keep the government from helping, regulating, or endorsing any religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

US CONSTITUTION

No. Not a chance in Hell!

THERE IS A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND THIS SHALL REMAIN!

After careful thought on the question, the answer is no, a minister should not hold a political office, while he is still in the position of a minister.

A minister is in a position of religious responsibility, leading people in a religious aspects. Their focus is on what their belief and the interpretations of their holy scriptures. For one to run and try to hold a political office, would lead to questions making their term in office pretty much far more difficult than it should be, as the question would be are they following the law, or using religion as a basis for their decision.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

A minister is in a position of religious responsibility, leading people in a religious aspects.

But his position is a private one. And people outside of his own personal fan-club don't acknowledge his authority.

Their focus is on what their belief and the interpretations of their holy scriptures.

Many of the US presidents have had another focus besides their work. Some have been focused on fly-fishing or big game hunting. The current one is focused on golf with nearly 50 'golf weekends' since he took office. One seems to have been focused primarily on getting laid.

It seems like it would be sufficient to judge a president on the job he does, rather than on how he spends his off-time. Spending the weekends on a golf-course is somehow not a problem, but spending the weekends in church.....makes it sounds like the problem is religion period.


For one to run and try to hold a political office, would lead to questions making their term in office pretty much far more difficult than it should be, as the question would be are they following the law, or using religion as a basis for their decision.

That's a decision for voters to decide, rather than for Congress to pre-emptively decide by outlawing certain professions from campaigning for the presidency.


IF you want to ban a profession from the presidency, wouldn't it make more sense to ban lawyers?

Originally posted by centurion1211

I responded to what the OP said - taking issue with the false equivalency the OP was attempting to create that Romney is a religious "cleric" that should be disqualified from running for office.

Someone else mentioned that same logic would have also disqualified the Rev. Al Sharpton from running when he did. But no complaints from you, the OP, or anyone else on the left about that.

So, it's all of the sudden an issue just because Romney is running?

First, the bit about Al Sharpton running? That was in 2004. I doubt you scoped over ATS postings all the way back to 2004 and determined there were no complaints? A bit of a reaching assumption IMO.

And a predictable attempt to shift the blame toward the left?

The Romney controversy is generaetd by his GOP contenders BTW...

The Rev. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor at First Baptist Church of Dallas, endorsed Perry at the event and introduced him as "a proven leader, a true conservative, and a committed follower of Christ."

and who later told reporters that Perry's rival Mitt Romney belongs to a cult and is not a Christian.

"Rick Perry's a Christian. He's an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ," Jeffress said. "Mitt Romney's a good moral person, but he's not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity."

The pastor said Romney "is not somebody I would vote for, nor would I encourage evangelical Christians to vote for" in the GOP primary."

Read more: www.star-telegram.com...

That aside I agree with the premise of your position.

Ministers, priests...Christians and Muslims etc. can and should run for office if they feel the need.

Iran is a Theocracy not because of their leaders faith, but because that is the way their political system is structured. America is not a theocracy in law or political structure.

God before Country only up until you pledge to"Serve your country". The people first, otherwise find another occupation.

I could not care less about anyone's religious theology, I care about their economic, domestic and foriegn policy.

Rick Perry should slap down his Minister publicly for distracting the debate and pandering to the fundementalists.

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by negativenihil

 

The OP basically says that "clerics" should be disqualified form running from office, and then uses Romney as an example.

Gotcha - a little lacking in the reading skills dept.

Hardly ...

But if "gotchas" are all you can bring to the discussion, keep trying.

Ever hear of a little thing called "guilt by association"? As in The OP first says "clerics" shouldn't run for office and then only mentions ONE candidate - Romney?

A little education for you on the subject of "guilt by association":

source

An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

A perfect description of what the OP was trying to accomplish. And sadly, something you see people try to do here all too often.

I basically called the OP for using this tactic. Now maybe the rest of you can understand why.

Wow. It cracks me up when I see people trying to speak for me, and try to spin "my intentions" into some argument that benefits their position. ( "Red Herring"? "Gotcha statements"?. Give me a break...)
Bachman is much more dangerous ( and offensive to me personally ) than anyone else in the GOP field. This is not about "Christians", or "Muslims", or "Jews".
This is about me saying that I believe a secular society is better than some type of psuedo-theocracy, which seems to be the wet dream of many conservatives.

Check this out: http:www.nytimes.com...

This is a New York Times book review written by ALAN BRINKLEY, on a book titled, 'American Theocracy', by Kevin Phillips. In the review, Brinkley states;
Phillips is especially passionate in his discussion of the second great force that he sees shaping contemporary American life — radical Christianity and its growing intrusion into government and politics. The political rise of evangelical Christian groups is hardly a secret to most Americans after the 2004 election, but Phillips brings together an enormous range of information from scholars and journalists and presents a remarkably comprehensive and chilling picture of the goals and achievements of the religious right.

He points in particular to the Southern Baptist Convention, once a scorned seceding minority of the American Baptist Church but now so large that it dominates not just Baptism itself but American Protestantism generally. The Southern Baptist Convention does not speak with one voice, but almost all of its voices, Phillips argues, are to one degree or another highly conservative. On the far right is a still obscure but, Phillips says, rapidly growing group of "Christian Reconstructionists" who believe in a "Taliban-like" reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a "myth" and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent "rapture" — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven.

Prophetic Christians, Phillips writes, often shape their view of politics and the world around signs that charlatan biblical scholars have identified as predictors of the apocalypse — among them a war in Iraq, the Jewish settlement of the whole of biblical Israel, even the rise of terrorism. He convincingly demonstrates that the Bush administration has calculatedly reached out to such believers and encouraged them to see the president's policies as a response to premillennialist thought. He also suggests that the president and other members of his administration may actually believe these things themselves, that religious belief is the basis of policy, not just a tactic for selling it to the public. Phillips's evidence for this disturbing claim is significant, but not conclusive.

How does the clarion call of "Separation of Church and State" creep into a discussion about a private citizen who holds a religious leadership position and is vying for public office?

That issue is a red-herring in itself because the person is not the Church nor the State. By crying "There must be separation of church and state!"; which derives its foundation from the First Amendment it wholly neglects all other aspects of that very same amendment, latter amendments and articles within the Constitution.

What is even more amazing is when a person invokes "separation of church and state", they do so without realizing that it is impossible among free peoples. The qualifier for a federal public office is clearly laid out within various articles depending upon the office one seeks.

The House: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 --
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

The Senate: Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 --
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

The President: Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 --
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Am I failing to see why they should not be allowed to hold a political office? While you can separate the actual Church from holding a seat of power within the Government; and quite frankly that is proper and absolute that it cannot; you cannot separate a person who does not relinquish their First and Ninth Amendment protections once they decide and if be it elected to office.

So no, they should not be barred.