The times they are a-changing.

[Oldfart]

I was originally going to post this in the "Tell me something" thread, but decided it probably needed it's own playpen.

In a 752,478 degree spinout, a question for our broad and diverse Pixies.

Is America ready for a non-Christian President?

You've had your (one) Catholic and now a Negro. Is America ready for a Mormon or, perish the thought, a Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist? I won't further muddy the waters by bringing up Atheism.

You're included in this one too, Irish. LOL

[Lilith]

*boom*

[dicksbro]

Good question. I guess I don't really know right now, but, I hope for me, I'd wait to see what the person stood for and be convinced that their agenda did not include legislation that would compromise my beliefs. Generally, I suspect they'd have a difficult time.

[jseal]

I doubt that a Muslim, a Jew, or an avowed Atheist will successfully campaign for the Presidency for quite a few years yet.

The Buddha currently has a good public image, but is also likely to be too different for many for the immediate future.

Still the secularization of the Latin West proceeds unabated, so perhaps this interval will be only 16-20 years.

[Oldfart]

Yes jseal, but a Mormon?

[Irish]

:irish: :irish: I don't know about different religions,but im my opinion anything would be better
then O'Bama! MY OPINION! Irish :irish:

[AZRedHot]

No, America isn't. I certainly am. And I would argue that many of these nominally Christian folks don't really behave in a so-called Christian manner, anyway, so the issue has long been moot. In any case, it'd be grand if more Americans began to understand that religion is a private issue between people and their understanding of their divine, and leave it alone. Jesus said to pray in a closet and not make a spectacle of yourself and your religion. Maybe the type of Christians who care whether their president is a Christian, or more likely, the "right" kind of Christian, could start with that premise for once, in a gesture of good faith, in all senses of the word.

[Oldfart]

Hi, Irish. I suspected that may be your direction.

I wonder how the power structure in Washington would cope with a bias toward

two non-Cs, Israel and Utah.

[gekkogecko]

But how is your question even a realistic possibility ? I mean, there's no major-party candidate for nominee for the office of POTUS who isn't christain.

[Oldfart]

Mitt Romney is a Mormon, as is one of the other republicans.

[Scarecrow]

Hate to bust your bubble but Mormons are Christians, just like Catholics are.

[jseal]

... I mean, there's no major-party candidate for nominee for the office of POTUS who isn't christain.

While they are few and far between, they do exist. Senator Lieberman ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2003. Although I found his campaign positions attractive, he was stomped on — but his was a "real" campaign.

[Oldfart]

I was under the assumption that adherence to the Book of Mormon and the Revelations to Joseph Smith took them a tad outside mainstream Christanity.

[jseal]

Yes jseal, but a Mormon?
Depending upon one’s theological flexibility, I'm sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can find shelter somewhere under the expansive umbrella of Christianity.

Not, I hasten to add, that I would want to defend that claim, but I've heard of ... how shall I phrase this ... groups that purport to be a Christian Church, but whose practices are rather more outré than those of the Mormons.

And anyway, they're still closet proponents of polygamy, so that's a plus in my book!

... looks over shoulder to ensure Dearsweet isn't watching ...

[scotzoidman]

[in Sgt Schultz voice] I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing...

[Oldfart]

And anyway, they're still closet proponents of polygamy, so that's a plus in my book!


I wonder if that means that a female has the right to take a couple of husbands? It doesn't quite work for Islam, I hear.

[Lilith]

It does not.

[Lord Snow]

Honestly, I'd rather know that the candidate falls under good old fashioned christian charity rather than be an actual participating member of any church/religion. I have no problem with any of the religions that I've researched into. Most of them preach close to the same aspects that anyone can agree on. Help those that need it, find understanding rather than argue, treat others fairly and like you want to be treated........The hard part is finding an honest man to put in any of the offices of power in our government it seems.

[Oldfart]

The hard part is finding an honest man to put in any of the offices of power in our government it seems.

True all round the world, LS.

[gekkogecko]

I was under the assumption that adherence to the Book of Mormon and the Revelations to Joseph Smith took them a tad outside mainstream Christanity.


Well, one can argue about the idea of what constitutes "mainstream" christainity. But that still makes them christians, "mainstream" or not.

After all, the formal name of the mormon church is "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

Jesus, as the christ figure is literally in their name.

[Oldfart]

There are Democratic Republics which aren't, GG.

Do you know of the "Cargo Cults" of the South Pacific?

I'm not anti-Mormon, I want to know how far outside the box the American votor is able to go.

[jseal]

... I'm not anti-Mormon, I want to know how far outside the box the American votor is able to go.
Far enough to make it a horse race (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html). With Mr. Romney's injudicious remarks about caring for the poor, and President Obama's backtracking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16985757) on abortifacients, 8+ months is far enough in the future that I'll let others place their bets on what they see in their crystal balls. :)

[Oldfart]

With the inclusion of birth control (a sexual issue), I have achieved the trifecta, Religion, Politics and Sex.

My puter hasn't melted yet, but the mouse is hot to the touch. LOL

[Scarecrow]

May the God of Isaac and Ishmael help with this quandary. :)

[Oldfart]

Indeed, God help us all.

[PantyFanatic]

..... Most of them preach close to the same aspects that anyone can agree on. Help those that need it, find understanding rather than argue, treat others fairly and like you want to be treated........The hard part is finding an honest man to put in any of the offices of power in our government it seems.
One correction. The REAL hard part is the other aspect of Christianity and it's variety of spinoffs, (including Islam) which is the evangelistic directive. "My way is the only way and you WILL embrace it…." seems to be the spoiler of all the other professed good will. :whack:


........ Is America ready for a Mormon or, perish the thought, a Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist? I won't further muddy the waters by bringing up Atheism. ....
The irony seems to be the one that brings no conflicting agenda is least acceptable for the office. :rofl:

[jseal]

All Faiths, Theist or Atheist, set the focus the believer in some way.

[Oldfart]

Yes, even the ones abandoned as we depart childhood and enter adultery.

[jseal]

... and enter adultery.
My kinda guy! :thumb:

[PantyFanatic]

^^^ :rofl:

[Lord Snow]

PF, I would say that in general terms based on my own experience the closer to the position of religious extremist a person gets, the less honest that person become. I will agree with the irony of the situation you pointed out.

[Oldfart]

Lord Snow, the real worry about any religious electee is that the dictates of his religious organisation can over-ride the wishes of the people who elected him. State and Church are kept apart for a reason.

As fondly as Americans think of their founding fathers, who today would want to live under that level of draconian demand?

[jseal]

As anyone other than an Agnostic incorporates faith into their daily routine, what degree of significance should one place in that worry? How frequently does the faith of this or that elected politician routinely over-ride the wishes of the electorate? I seldom read of those events in the Latin West. I suppose they occur, but with what frequency, and to what degree do those events cause problems to the electorate?

[Oldfart]

We in Australia are having a few governmental issues due to a couple of independent politicians who hold the balance of power in the Lower House. Both these men are from more intense Christian groups.

The issue of gay Marriage, something which should be a shoo-in in the home of democracy and equality, is the single most visible example of religion's influence.

[jseal]

We in Australia are having a few governmental issues due to a couple of independent politicians who hold the balance of power in the Lower House. Both these men are from more intense Christian groups ...
The implication, as I read your post, is the the "few governmental issues" can be traced to these two independent politicians who are not willing to vote the way that they should vote. Is that correct? What is wrong with their failing to vote that way?

[jseal]

The issue of gay Marriage, something which should be a shoo-in in the home of democracy and equality, is the single most visible example of religion's influence.
As it apparently is not a shoo-in, why should it be? This is not to suggest that Marriage should or should not be particularly inclusive or exclusive, but rather why should it be a shoo-in one way or another? Is there some reason that it - or any emotional issue for that matter - should not be closely debated before being decided?

[Oldfart]

The Oz parliament cannot separate in their minds the civil union called marriage and the sacramental bonding of man and wife.

They are quite happy for people without a religious bone in their bodies to marry, but won't allow same-sex marriage.

Culture/religion/habit is pervasive.

[jseal]

... Culture/religion/habit is pervasive.
I couldn’t agree with you more! Culture/religion/habit is not only pervasive; it shapes how we perceive the world around us and think about the relationships found in it.

In the minds of many people the two relationships are the same; marriage is the bonding between male and female humans. One should keep in mind that the Stonewall riots occurred in our lifetimes, only 43 years or so ago, as doing so lends perspective to how far the West has travelled in that interval. The change in societal perceptions of homosexuality has been enormous, sufficiently large that the required redefinition of the noun marriage will occur soon – no mean feat to change the language that fast.

One of the enduring characteristics of democracy (a virtue IMHO), more so for representative, rather less for direct, is that it is prejudiced against rapid change. Not, of course, that rapid change cannot happen, merely that it is unlikely to do so on any particular topic. As you alluded in your ref to the Founding Fathers, if we compare the relationship the Citizen has to the State today, and that of 1912, I think the Citizen has a much larger range of personal freedom available now than then.

[Oldfart]

As you alluded in your ref to the Founding Fathers, if we compare the relationship the Citizen has to the State today, and that of 1912, I think the Citizen has a much larger range of personal freedom available now than then.

I'm not as certain of that. There is now a myriad of little defences of liberty, of which the Miranda Decision was one of the early stars. However . .

There are also a mountain of "thou shalt nots" snuck in by all levels of bureaucracy which snag at our shins and drag at our heels. Many of these have never seen the inside of a legislature of greater staure than the local city council.

[jseal]

Indeed, there are a host of those “legislation by regulation” irritations. There are other limitations today that did not exist in 1912, all the limitations placed on smoking being only some examples, but I’d suggest that the extent of individual freedoms available to the citizen is enormously larger in 2012 that in 1912.

There are many examples of this individual liberation. Women were not enfranchised until 1920, and official racial segregation was not outlawed until 1964. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the professional medical associations removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. The SCOTUS did not create the right to privacy until Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), and then Roe vs. Wade (1973).

As for that contemporary icon of freedom, “Free Speech”, there really is hardly any comparison worth talking about. The Sedition Act of 1918, was upheld on appeal by the SCOTUS in 1919. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 was only rendered moot by them in 1957.

While I draw upon U.S. history for illustrations, I suggest that the same transformation is largely true throughout the Latin West. The last successful blasphemy prosecution in the UK was in 1976, and the White Australia policy wasn’t dismantled until the 1950s. So, while acknowledging contemporary constraints upon citizens that were absent in 1912, on balance I think the evidence of many more freedoms now than then is convincing.

[Oldfart]

That only counts if you were one of the oppressed. LOL

We digress.

[jseal]

Not altogether. That digression paints the background for the Obama vs. Romney horserace. It is because the U.S. has become more liberal over these last few years that candidate Obama became first Senator Obama, and then President Obama. I suggest that this unambiguous liberalization trend will permit someone whose Faith is somewhat outside the norm ( acknowledging here that Faith remains an important consideration to many) to compete successfully for the POTUS. Ref here the small gap between President Obama & Mr. Romney in the head-to-head comparisons. While Mr. Romney may not win either the Republican nomination, or if successful at that, the next few years at the White House, it will not be because his Faith is not mainstream Christian.

[Oldfart]

You have more faith that faith is not a deciding factor than I, old friend.

[jseal]

I do think that the evidence as presented is persuasive, even if it may not be universally convincing.