Question for Christian Voters

[tiny_dancer33]

...about religion.

So, suppose, for whatever reason, the option of a Christian candidate for president is hypothetically not available. Assuming that they support your political views, would you rather have a president of a different faith (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or even a less common sect of Christianity) or a president that didn't have a faith at all? A Muslim president, or a nonbeliever? A Hindu president, or an agnostic? Barring having a president of your own faith, would you rather have one who believed in something different, or one who didn't follow a faith at all?

Genuinely interested.

 

[Toxick]

I'd simply select whichever Godless heathen is less likely to let the country be overrun by Satan.

 

[aps45819]

Your poll questions don't make a lot of sense, but I prefer a POTUS that has a set of core beliefs that are similar to mine and those beliefs are demonstrated in his life. The sign in front of the building is immaterial

The core beliefs of Obama's church as listed on their web site do not agree with mine.

 

[tiny_dancer33]

Your poll questions don't make a lot of sense, but I prefer a POTUS that has a set of core beliefs that are similar to mine and those beliefs are demonstrated in his life.

Sorry about the clarity. *oops* What I meant was that, barring having a president of your own faith, would you feel more comfortable with a president who believed in something different, or who didn't believe in a deity at all (just secular morals, I guess)?

Which is what your answer explains.

 

[aps45819]

Sorry about the clarity. *oops*
Which is what your answer explains.

I didn't notice you question was only directed at Christians.

 

[tiny_dancer33]

I didn't notice you question was only directed at Christians.

Well, I meant any religious voter, but the poll question cut off the character limit when I tried to elaborate. Heh. As a religious voter, if a candidate of your faith was not an option, would you feel more comfortable with a president who believed in a different god but ascribed to a religious tenet of some kind, or president who doesn't follow a religion at all. That's what I meant. It applies to a believing voter of any religion, but I went with "Christian" because I think that's the more hypothetical situation at the moment. A non-Christian voter doesn't have the option at the moment of voting for someone of their faith, so...yeah. I meant any religious voter, though.

 

[willie]

Romney's faith doesn't bother me, Catholic doesn't bother me (unless they are from Massachussetts) Lieberman's faith doesn't bother me but anyone with even a remote association with islam is OUT. Quaker's would possibly be OK but only if there were no muslims around to start a fight.

 

[awpitt]

Romney's faith doesn't bother me, Catholic doesn't bother me (unless they are from Massachussetts) Lieberman's faith doesn't bother me but anyone with even a remote association with islam is OUT. Quaker's would possibly be OK but only if there were no muslims around to start a fight.

Well, we've already had a Quaker. As far as a candidate's faith, as long as their practice of their faith doesn't override their duty to the Constitution. In other words, if we had a Catholic as POTUS, I wouldn't want them running to the Pope every other day for guidance on what to do next. I would be more concerned about their views and actions on the issues more than I would be concerned about where they go to church if they go at all.

 

[puggymom]

I'd simply select whichever Godless heathen is less likely to let the country be overrun by Satan.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Well, we've already had a Quaker. As far as a candidate's faith, as long as their practice of their faith doesn't override their duty to the Constitution. In other words, if we had a Catholic as POTUS, I wouldn't want them running to the Pope every other day for guidance on what to do next. I would be more concerned about their views and actions on the issues more than I would be concerned about where they go to church if they go at all.

I agree with you on this. A candidate's views, policies, and actions should be evaluated. If a candidate's religion influences policy, the voter should see that and vote according to whether or not they agree with that policy. Religion shouldn't matter at all.

 

[bcp]

One of the better polls offered in some time.

I put that I didnt care, that it more matters that his political ideals were more in line with mine.

 

[godsbutterfly]

I also vote according to the candidate's political views combined with how their moral and ethical standards coincide with mine. Anybody can say they have Faith or are of a certain Religion but how are they at backing up what they say? I'd never vote for a POTUS who talked just to hear his own voice!

 

[RadioPatrol]

Well, we've already had a Quaker. As far as a candidate's faith, as long as their practice of their faith doesn't override their duty to the Constitution. In other words, if we had a Catholic as POTUS, I wouldn't want them running to the Pope every other day for guidance on what to do next. I would be more concerned about their views and actions on the issues more than I would be concerned about where they go to church if they go at all.

Nice Anti Catholic Stance .... the samething was said about Kennedy

 

[dustin]

I take a strong stance on seperation of church and state.

I always vote for the best candidate (based on issues, vision, mission, etc.) regardless of that person's religion/faith/beliefs.

I believe that anyone who votes with religion/faith/belief as a determing factor should not be voting in the first place,... because that person is stupid.

That said, I don't see any candidate's views on issues, vision, and mission aligning with mine unless they are of some Christian denomination.

 

[doubt_me]

i think anyone that purely votes based upon religion is narrow-minded and isn't considering the country's best needs.