Must a Presidential Candidate Believe in God?

September 15, 2007 11:27 PM from

I extend my hand to Fred Thompson for admitting he’s not much for church-going; Biden, too, has guts to say that his belief is his own business and no one else’s. The three top tier Democratic candidates seldom let an utterance go by without some reference to their God as though that would make them stand out among the crowd. It seems to me that the most important belief—an oath actually—is that they will defend the Constitution and show depth in democratic principles. One who is a nonbeliever or simply lukewarm to religion is really irrelevant; for voters should know that in time of crises, a divine power is inevitably invoked. Even a Hitchens on his death bed will supplicate if not God surely, some mysterious power—and I don’t mean the Antichrist—as in the proverbial there are no atheist in foxholes.

religion

9,296 views 69 replies

Reply #1 September 16, 2007 12:42 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Foxholes and deathbeds don't make believers. I think there ARE atheists in foxholes; they're just very frightened - very human - at that point. When fear reaches its pinnacle, desire for the all powerful bailout reaches its pinnacle as well. That isn't belief - it's what happens when both flight AND fight are no longer possible.

As for presidential candidates and their beliefs, it would be nice if belief in God wasn't such a great marketting tool for politicians. I don't know if it's because I can detect it easier as I get older, or if it's actually something that has gotten worse as the years have gone by, but most of the politicians I see seem to act on a "do what you have to do to get the vote, and we'll sort out the truth later." So to not profess a belief in God every other sentence is bad marketting. Gotta get that Christian vote because many in the country still believe that a "devout" Christian president will make their decisions from a moral standpoint. (Namely *their* moral standpoint which I witness is just as dubious as any atheist's morals - generalization admitted.)

A president - ANY president - has to represent ALL the people. That will eventually, by necessity, put them at odds with any one religious group. So show me a candidate that panders to any one religious group, and logically, you are looking at someone saying "I will not represent ALL the people."

Reply #2 September 16, 2007 10:38 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

I dont think clinton's church going was ever sincere. And frankly, I dont even pay attention to a candidates church habits. Bush is being slammed for being too religious. Yet some of our early presidents were deists. I dont think there are many buildings devoted to that.

perhaps, if nothing else, we can thank Bush for making religion not important in our leaders. Kennedy was not controlled by Rome, and Lieberman would not erradicate christianity. Power is the god that all of them worship, and we can only hope that their devotion to it will not corrupt them completely. Which is often not the case in any case.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor

Reply #3 September 16, 2007 2:13 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

So show me a candidate that panders to any one religious group, and logically, you are looking at someone saying "I will not represent ALL the people."

GOOD Point.

perhaps, if nothing else, we can thank Bush for making religion not important in our leaders

??? Rather the opposite I should think, though I grant you he doesn't any longer pay attention the Christian Right.

Reply #4 September 16, 2007 2:23 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

??? Rather the opposite I should think, though I grant you he doesn't any longer pay attention the Christian Right.

Think outside the box. His very religious nature has alienated a lot of people. There will always be religious people, but like the rest of us (or contrary to the rest of us), they will vote for the promises, not the religion

And that is worrisome enough. (the promises never kept).

Reply #5 September 16, 2007 10:49 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

I don't mind when they do include their religious beliefs in their campaigns... I'm also glad when they don't. To me, if their faith is important to them, then their faith should be an important part of their campaign. If they feel their faith is a private matter, then yes, they should keep it private. If they are atheists, then let that be part of their campaign.

In other words, I'd like them to be themselves, tell us what they are about with no explanation or appologies... let us know who we are voting for, or against.

One of the things I really like about Fred Thompson!

One of the things I really like about Ron Paul too, but I can't support him because of some of what he is about.

Reply #6 September 16, 2007 11:07 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

(the promises never kept).

Ah, yes, the promises...

If they are atheists, then let that be part of their campaign.

Doubt that they would ever admit to it, though.

Reply #7 September 17, 2007 11:27 AM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Hitchens himself said in an interview (can't remember which one sorry), that someday someone will run for president, not profess a belief in God, and no one will notice.

I like the theme of your article, but it seems to goes askew half way through.

"One who is a nonbeliever or simply lukewarm to religion is really irrelevant; for voters should know that in time of crises, a divine power is inevitably invoked."

I disagree. I've been in a few difficult scenarios recently and God was not invoked. Not for a moment. But perhaps your litmus test is only if death was a factor.

"Even a Hitchens on his death bed will supplicate if not God surely, some mysterious power—and I don’t mean the Antichrist—as in the proverbial there are no atheist in foxholes."

I respectfully disagree. Watch the brilliant mountain-climbing film, "Touching the Void" and you might change your mind about God always being invoked in crisis and no atheists being in foxholes.

Reply #8 September 17, 2007 12:15 PM from

JoeUser Forums Top

Well, you should expect a religious person to go out of their way to KEEP promises, or not make them to begin with. The problem is, people run and then the people who got them elected want their share of power. Well, who can run without backing and win as a democrat or a republican? No-one. So you'll never see that. But, if you can get yourself supported by people who support what you're running for, instead of themselves, you could make it.