- #1
gnome
- 1,041
- 1
Is it possible for anyone who isn't seen going to church every Sunday to be elected president?
When's the last time that happened?
When's the last time that happened?
Probably safe to say never, religion plays a huge part in presidential elections. I think more now than in the past, perhaps? I haven't read up that much on it, it will be interesting to find out.gnome said:Is it possible for anyone who isn't seen going to church every Sunday to be elected president?
When's the last time that happened?
russ_watters said:The US wants a "Sunday Christian" (protestant): someone who goes to church every Sunday, but only pays lip-service to it. Bush is more religious than most people are comfortable with (thats right, including conservatives). The last President we had with that problem was Kennedy. Kennedy was Catholic, and there was a question raised about his loyalty to the Vatican over the US, but people quickly realized he was just a "Sunday Christian" as well (with his lebido, how could he be anything else?).
Kennedy's "problem", if that's the right word, was not that he was too religious but simply that he was a Catholic. I think, by the end of your post, that we agree on that. But are you sure that your first sentence is still true today?russ_watters said:The US wants a "Sunday Christian" (protestant): someone who goes to church every Sunday, but only pays lip-service to it. Bush is more religious than most people are comfortable with (thats right, including conservatives). The last President we had with that problem was Kennedy. Kennedy was Catholic, and there was a question raised about his loyalty to the Vatican over the US, but people quickly realized he was just a "Sunday Christian" as well (with his lebido, how could he be anything else?).
I didn't know that about Jimmy. He's in that nonexistent era between Nixon and Reagan, where I was too young (or not alive) to remember it and its too recent to teach in history class.selfAdjoint said:I think that this is just about right, but I think the last president whose religion bothered the people was Carter, not Kennedy. Once they got used to the fact that a Catholic could be just a "Sunday Christian" too, they had no problems with Kennedy. But "Born Again Jimmy" set everybody's teeth on edge.
Well, its certainly true that the majority of Americans don't want someone ultra-religious, but the majority of conservatives -- ehh, that's a little tougher. No, I'm not sure.gnome said:Kennedy's "problem", if that's the right word, was not that he was too religious but simply that he was a Catholic. I think, by the end of your post, that we agree on that. But are you sure that your first sentence is still true today?
Then this article goes on to say:Top congressional leaders have promised to push the Religious Right agenda on judicial nominations, church politicking, abortion, marriage and the Terri Schiavo case, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Americans United today released audiotapes of closed-door addresses by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to a Family Research Council (FRC) gathering March 17-18 at Washington, D.C.'s Willard Hotel. The pair talked about a range of political issues, using the Schiavo case as a springboard.
"Religious Right leaders are determined to run all of our lives, from the moment of conception through the end of life," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "And top congressional leaders are conspiring behind closed doors in Washington to help them do it. It's appalling.
"Frist and DeLay have wrapped sanctimonious language around political posturing," said Lynn. "They are using Mrs. Schiavo's personal tragedy in Florida to burnish their credentials with an increasingly powerful component of the Republican Party. It's a sad, cynical political ploy."
An agenda to remove separation of church and state could not be more clear. This should be making everyone, including conservative Republicans more than just a little uncomfortable.…DeLay urged the gathering to contact lawmakers in both chambers to support legislation that would allow churches to become much more involved in partisan politicking. The Texas Republican blasted current federal tax law, which bars both secular and religious nonprofit groups from endorsing political candidates.
Please expand: how does any of that infringe on the 1st amendment's establishment clause?SOS2008 said:An agenda to remove separation of church and state could not be more clear.
I'm responding by saying it's because these Americans who are fundamentalists (right-wing Christians) who want to remove separation of church and state (i.e., have government alignment with a specific religion, i.e., Christianity) elect presidents like Bush, and probably will therefore support future presidential candidates like Frist. They require this because there is an agenda they want to pursue, such as banning abortion, etc.gnome said:[responding to SOS2008]:
That's no secret, but it's not the question I'm trying to address here. You're talking about people who do go to church every week (or who say they do).
I'm asking why people who do not attend church weekly, and who according to numerous surveys are still the majority, seem to require that their president must do so.
Agreed my response may better fit in the thread on Separation of Church and State, however, I feel these topics are all related. The quote above is from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, for which I've gone ahead and explained what I feel is obvious (that these people support political leaders who take their side--i.e., government alignment with their religion).russ_watters said:Please expand: how does any of that infringe on the 1st amendment's establishment clause?
Or, failing that, could you explain what you mean by "separation of church and state" and explain how that jives with what Jefferson said about it (as I already requested)?
edit: oh wait, wrong thread. Could you respond in the thread we already have going instead of hijacking this one?
The church does not have an official role in the presidency as the United States has a separation of church and state. However, many presidents have been religious and have consulted with religious leaders for guidance and support.
The relationship between the church and the presidency has evolved over time. In the early years of the United States, religion played a larger role in politics and many presidents were openly religious. However, in recent years, there has been a stronger emphasis on the separation of church and state and presidents have been more private about their religious beliefs.
Yes, many presidents have been affiliated with a specific church or religion. For example, George Washington was an Episcopalian, John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, and Barack Obama attended a United Church of Christ congregation. However, it is important to note that a president's religious beliefs or affiliation should not dictate their ability to lead the country.
Church and religious organizations have influenced political decisions made by presidents in a variety of ways. Some presidents have consulted with religious leaders for guidance and support, while others have been influenced by the beliefs and values of their own religious backgrounds. Additionally, religious organizations have been active in advocating for certain political issues and policies.
The separation of church and state affects the presidency by ensuring that the government cannot favor or promote one religion over others. This means that presidents must be mindful of their actions and decisions to ensure that they do not infringe upon the religious freedom and rights of all citizens. It also means that the president cannot use their position to promote a specific religion or impose their religious beliefs on the country.