Will you vote/not vote for a presidential candidate based on their religious beliefs?

[Gunslinger08]

See poll.

Obama and the big 3 Republican candidates all seem to have "religious issues" where you hear about people who won't vote for them because of religion:
- Obama - People claim he's either Muslim or non-religious.
- Romney - Mormon, which is still viewed poorly by some Catholics/Protestants.
- Santorum - Catholic (although some of the things he says seem more Evangelical), which is still viewed poorly by some Evangelicals.
- Gingrich - See Santorum, minus the Evangelical leanings.

I'm wondering if there is a measurable difference between various religious groups and their feelings on religion in politics.

 

[wayliff]

I don't affiliate myself with any religion and vote should not be based on religious beliefs.

Voting based on religion only is simply a blind vote. I find it close minded.

 

[soundforbjt]

What if the candidate wishes to bring their religion into their way of governing?

 

[Gunslinger08]

I don't affiliate myself with any religion and vote should not be based on religious beliefs.

Voting based on religion only is simply a blind vote. I find it close minded.

I suspect that this can go both ways. You'll have religious people who will vote for a candidate because they agree with their views and you'll have atheist/agnostic people who will not vote for a candidate because they disagree with their views. I don't think we've ever had a President who claimed to be atheist/agnostic. Do you think that an atheist/agnostic candidate could get elected in America?

 

[IronWing]

If a candidate believes that bringing forward his/her religious beliefs into the political arena will bolster his/her electability, I would be more inclined to vote against that candidate regardless of the nature of those beliefs.

Edit: A candidate's raising of their own religious beliefs as a criteria or qualification for office is kind of a circular appeal to authority.

 

[Ausm]

What if the candidate wishes to bring their religion into their way of governing?

That sounds like Sanitorium...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I won't vote for someone if they base their concept of legislation or governance off a strict interpretation of a specific religion. I find that to be antithetical to the basic principles America was founded on and I can never support it. But if someone can keep their religious views separate from their political views (as I feel most people are capable of), then I have no problem voting for someone of any religion.

 

[Broheim]

I don't care about a candidate's religous beliefs as long as he/she doesn't base any policies on said beliefs.

 

[mrCide]

I don't care about a candidate's religous beliefs as long as he/she doesn't base any policies on said beliefs.

This, I don't care until you start talking about it, then I care and you lose my interest/vote.

 

[wayliff]

I suspect that this can go both ways. You'll have religious people who will vote for a candidate because they agree with their views and you'll have atheist/agnostic people who will not vote for a candidate because they disagree with their views. I don't think we've ever had a President who claimed to be atheist/agnostic. Do you think that an atheist/agnostic candidate could get elected in America?

I agree with it going both ways.

I do not believe an agnostic President would get elected in the US. People get very emotionally attached to their religious values, or bothered because a candidate belongs to "Religion A", and are unable to see beyond that.

I think many people tend to disqualify a candidate based on one or two flaws because of religion and fail to see that perhaps that person was not so bad vs the opposition.

Religion should be out of politics. We need someone to lead\fix\govern\listen and not someone to tell us how we should behave\act based on their beliefs.

 

[preCRT]

As long as a candidate keeps a strict separation between their personal religious beliefs and governing, nor try to impose any of those religious beliefs on others, nor let those beliefs influence their politics, I would probably not let their personal choice of religion influence my vote.

i.e. Romney's Mormonism had no effect on how he ran MA as governor.
Jack Kennedy kept a strict separation between his Catholicism & the Presidency. Nixon's Quaker background had nothing to do with Watergate.

Juxtapose this with Santorum who would run the country as if it were the Vatican, but with the iron hand of the Taliban or Wahabbi Islam.

I want a President who will recognize this as a pluralistic country, with folks of all faiths and none at all. He/she must treat all with respect.

If a candidate cannot separate their personal religious beliefs from how they would govern, then they have no business running. If you don't like that abortion is legal, then don't have one. Don't believe in birth control, then don't use it yourself.

But get the hell out of my bedroom & keep your hands off my uterus. If I wanted government messing with my body, I'd fuck a politician.

 

[Kadarin]

I will always vote against a candidate (like Santorum, for example) who wears their religion on their sleeve.

 

[woolfe9999]

All candidates are theists who subscribe to an organized religion. Romney aside, they're all either protestant or Catholic Christians. As an atheist, which religion is immaterial to me. However, the degree of religiosity does matter and so I voted option one.

 

[Anubis]

I will always vote against a candidate (like Santorum, for example) who wears their religion on their sleeve.

this

 

[Jaskalas]

Agnostic, and it does matter.

Policy is very important, but religion obviously shapes policy for some people.

 

[khon]

I'm atheist, and my stand on this is pretty simple: I don't care what religion (or lack thereoff) the candidates have personally, but I will never vote for anyone who tries to legislate their religion, regardless of what that religion may be.

 

[Craig234]

One way to factor religion is the tribal approach. 'He's in or friendly to our tribe, so vote for him'. Or 'he's opposed by our tribe so vote against him'.

This is why you are likely to see a high Mormon vote for Romney.

I'm not a big fan of that reason. It politicizes religion and threatens freedom of religion.

As we have seen from some who use the issue, it's all too easy to pander to groups and persuade them that if they don't get to dominate everyone, they're victims.

Another reason though is to look at how it affects the person as a politician - their character, views, values, 'open-mindedness', level of dogmatism, policies, etc.

Religion is not a non-issue; it needs to be looked at accurately, though.

I'm afraid I'd have a good sized bias against a Scientologist requiring a good amount to overcome. Different religious groups carry different cultural generalizations, some more than others. The biggest difference might be fundamentalist strains versus non-fundamentalist, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and so on.

There is no religion that's a 'will not vote for' and none that is a 'will vote for'; just different weights for or against people.

JFK and Rick Santorum both joined the Catholic Church. I see them very differently.

And to expand on those two, both have areas of hypocrisy IMO. JFK supported abortion rights and did not have much respect for pohibitions on adultery. Santorum IMO as the chair of the main Washington 'conservative' meetings weekly between politicians, media and interests was smack in the middle of a lot of corruption, and I don't see him with much concern for the poor, for example.

It's less about their own religion, than their religious policies.

Reagan did wacky things - he was not a churchgoer as I recall, but secretly took the oath as governor at midgnight guided by an astrologer, continuing as Presdent.

A Jewish candidate might be more like Jon Stewart - or like someone who feels a very strong allegiance to Israel to the point of a strong bias including military actions.

So, religion is IMO neither the 'tribal' issue, nor a 'non-issue', but something to look at for each candidate.

 

[SirStev0]

No. Unfortunately there is never the agnostic/atheist candidate.

Unless you wear your religion on your shirt and make absurd claims that go along with your wish to turn the country into a theocracy, I don't care what fucking religion you are.

I think Santorium (or KY fecal discharge, as he is more popularly known) may have fallen into this category if it wasn't for the fact that I already would have never voted for that batshit insane fuck based on many many other reasons and actions.

I don't think people realize that no one in PA who has any sense is going to vote for that guy at all. He has a huge reputation from the nonsense he pulled in Congress.
Though, with Newt still in the race, I guess people are just that fucking stupid.

Back on topic, I honestly will never vote for anyone with any plans or even any tones in his speeches that talk about this country being a "enter any philosophy/religion" country and should be governed by "enter any religion/philosophy" law.

Past that you can believe in any Boogey Man you want, and I will still vote for you if I think you will do good for the country.

 

[monovillage]

If someone is a member of the mindless progressive/liberal religion I won't vote for them, but you didn't have that new age religion in your poll.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Religion does not have an effect initially. But if that candidate wants to push his agenda through Religion, and vice versa, then my decision is influenced away from said candidate.

 

[ky54]

I'm agnostic and I could care less what a person believes. I would feel more comfortable with someone who is upfront about their religious views than some idiot who claims he sat in a church for 20 years and never heard a word.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm atheist, and my stand on this is pretty simple: I don't care what religion (or lack thereoff) the candidates have personally, but I will never vote for anyone who tries to legislate their religion, regardless of what that religion may be.

I agree and I voted the second option because that someone has or hasn't a religion isn't a game changer. It's more about the application of religion in governence. The questions in the poll do not take this into account so a definitive answer given depends on perspective not defined.

 

[Icepick]

I don't take their religion into account when deciding whether to cast a vote for them or not. I'm much more interested in their social/economic views.

 

[dank69]

Option 1 because, especially after GW, I am sick of legislation developed by religious motivation.

FUCK
THAT
SHIT

 

[piasabird]

Makes more sense to look at a politicians experience and voting history. What they say does not mean anything. It always seems like Democrats are trying to claim they are christians when their actions dont back up their claims.