lmaoATG wrote:
WTF, one of the most twisted religious groups l
It hasn't always been that way... well the Catholic part at least. Kennedy was attacked for being Catholic. Check out The making of a Catholic President by Shaun Casey.AussieReaper wrote:
In western politics, it pays to be Catholic/Christian.
Kennedy made it to the Presidency... Let me know when there is a candidate who stands up and says they are Atheist and has a snowflakes chance in hell of getting even considered for President.Kmarion wrote:
It hasn't always been that way... well the Catholic part at least. Kennedy was attacked for being Catholic. Check out The making of a Catholic President by Shaun Casey.AussieReaper wrote:
In western politics, it pays to be Catholic/Christian.
, McCain then spurts out the memorised line about the hand of God shown when he hikes the grand canyon at sunset.[Southern accent]I ain't lettin' no godless heathen run my country![/southern accent]Stingray24 wrote:
If Catholicism truly had an impact on the Court, Roe vs Wade would not have ended as it did. I'm quite confident an atheist who runs with the same policies as a religious person could win the presidency. It's about policy, not religion.
But wasn't there only one Catholic judge involved in that case? So, it's hardly a great example.Stingray24 wrote:
If Catholicism truly had an impact on the Court, Roe vs Wade would not have ended as it did. I'm quite confident an atheist who runs with the same policies as a religious person could win the presidency. It's about policy, not religion.
I disagree. I think an openly atheist person would be condemned by many people in the GOP for not having a religion, even if their views were exactly the same as a religious conservative. Look at Romney. He's got pretty much all the standard religious conservative views, but a lot of Republicans didn't want to vote for him because he was Mormon.Stingray24 wrote:
If Catholicism truly had an impact on the Court, Roe vs Wade would not have ended as it did. I'm quite confident an atheist who runs with the same policies as a religious person could win the presidency. It's about policy, not religion.
We're free to discriminate when choosing our vote in a free country. I'm not sure what you point is since the nominee was not chosen because of her religion, nor was Obama given his orders through a sermon.Narupug wrote:
Imo if you're voting on religious lines because the candidate is a certain religion or because the other candidate is a certain religion, or lack there of, that ladies and gentlemen is discrimination and a violation of the 14th ammendment. Though it's unlikely that religion will be the only difference.
I find it kinda sad that religion is so critical to people, so critical that you let it make decisions for you. Voting for a candidate because the person who feeds you your decisions disguised as a sermon said so is sad
Well, while I agree with the majority of your post, the Court does not represent the general population in any demographic sense. Then again, I'm not saying it should.DesertFox- wrote:
We should elect Amish officeholders. They're good, industrious folk.
Also, so what if those members of the Court are the same religion. It's still certain that they don't all think the same way, and thus you're not going to have a bloc of Catholic, abortion-hating, anti-stem-cell folk. You can't stereotype such a wide group of people and assume they all have similar beliefs on everything. I think you'll find the distribution is representative of the larger population. Besides, it's not Catholics you have to watch out for; it's those Kansas-style Evangelical folk
True, you're free to vote however you please. However, judging someone based on their religion is not a wise thing, whether it's people voting against atheists because they are atheist or people voting against people of a certain faith because of that faith.Stingray24 wrote:
We're free to discriminate when choosing our vote in a free country. I'm not sure what you point is since the nominee was not chosen because of her religion, nor was Obama given his orders through a sermon.Narupug wrote:
Imo if you're voting on religious lines because the candidate is a certain religion or because the other candidate is a certain religion, or lack there of, that ladies and gentlemen is discrimination and a violation of the 14th ammendment. Though it's unlikely that religion will be the only difference.
I find it kinda sad that religion is so critical to people, so critical that you let it make decisions for you. Voting for a candidate because the person who feeds you your decisions disguised as a sermon said so is sad
I know lucky for us Obama was elected, but there were some candidates in the republican primaries who I'm not so sure would have been making their decisions as logically.Stingray24 wrote:
We're free to discriminate when choosing our vote in a free country. I'm not sure what you point is since the nominee was not chosen because of her religion, nor was Obama given his orders through a sermon.Narupug wrote:
Imo if you're voting on religious lines because the candidate is a certain religion or because the other candidate is a certain religion, or lack there of, that ladies and gentlemen is discrimination and a violation of the 14th ammendment. Though it's unlikely that religion will be the only difference.
I find it kinda sad that religion is so critical to people, so critical that you let it make decisions for you. Voting for a candidate because the person who feeds you your decisions disguised as a sermon said so is sad
The WASPs do... the jews are just a figureheadPoseidon wrote:
I thought jews ran the US?
