US Politics

Tim Robbins

With conflicts Israel / Palestine, Western World / Islamic fundamentalism surely the religious views of the next US President are important.

Here's what I gather:

Republicans:
Giulliani: Roman Catholic. Beliefs in god, accepts evolution but doesn't seem to have any extreme religious views.
Huckabee: Nut. Stuggling with basic Science i.e. evolution.
McCain: Baptist. I think he pretends he believes more than he does. Although I found a youtube conference of the second coming which he attended.
Romney: Mormon.

Democrats:
Obama:United Church of Christ
Clinton: Methodist

Overall I am bit freaked out by it all. Can't see either Democrat winning the Presidential race. It would be great but I can't see either capable of being able to dig into the Republican vote.

Religion seems to be playing an increasingly important role in the Republican party, when European politics seem to be moving away from it or towards more liberal forms of it in Europe.

For example, this document here, outlinging the dangers of creationism was accepted by the EU
Committee on Culture, Science and Education.
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm
Thankfully the EU seem to keen to nip this nonsense propaganda movement in the bud.

My concern is, how can someone with extreme religious views have any capaciity to deal with complicated geo-politics let alone complicated scientific issues such as global warming?

I cannot believe Giullani etc are not hammering Huckabee for his incapacity to understand basic science. But it appears this is a no-go area for critical analysis.

If anything this would be evidence of how strong religious fundamenatalism is the US right now.

Scary stuff really.

5uspect

Welcome back Tim.

Oddly enough coverage of the Primaries over here seem mostly concerned with the Democratic candidates.

I doubt you're ever going to get a non-religious president for a long time. If anything after Bush you're less likely to get a nutjob. Being a Mormon seems to really hurt Romney. (Can you imagine him canvassing!).

As long as whatever president they elect is surrounded by well educated advisors then things should run smoothly. Even Dubya had a half decent science adviser.

Dades

Every candidate knows that he/she has to play the "God Card". Conversely any 'outed' atheist/agnostic politician knows not to bother running as they'd be wasting their time.

Of course strong religious views, whether for show or not don't preclude having a head on your shoulders. Curious as that may seem to some! (GWB, NOT being an example!)

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Every candidate knows that he/she has to play the "God Card". Conversely any 'outed' atheist/agnostic politician knows not to bother running as they'd be wasting their time.

Of course strong religious views, whether for show or not don't preclude having a head on your shoulders. Curious as that may seem to some! (GWB, NOT being an example!)

Can't think of too many people with strong religious views that have a head on their shoulders. Perhaps we differ on what defines "strong religious views".

Anybody who attends second coming meetings or thinks the Bible is inerrant and can't accept evolution, I can't see having a hope in hollywood of understanding and cutting through the misinformation about global warming.

I think McCain may be playing along that he's more religious than he really he.
Not sure.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can't think of too many people with strong religious views that have a head on their shoulders. Perhaps we differ on what defines "strong religious views".

Forget fundamentalists, then.

What about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? He seems like he has his head screwed on right.

cavedave

I dislike that politicians have to be religious.
However believing in the separation of church and state works two ways. If I want people to keep their god out of politics I have to make an effort to keep politics out of their worship of god.

I know personal beliefs (character etc) come into politics but if you limit the power of politicians they come in a lot less. For example if you limited the governments role to the prevention of coercion (not that this would be a good idea) then a politicians religious beliefs would have virtually no effect on the actions of the government.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Forget fundamentalists, then.

What about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? He seems like he has his head screwed on right.

Don't know much about him. But Anglicans are generally fine imo as they usually know, accept, basic Science. [I also like the work of Fr. Peter McVerry, not a politician but makes very valuable contributions from the sidelines.]

I would like to see more of an alliance between liberal theology and atheists against biblical literalists and fundamentalists. But it appears, that all candidates are afraid of critizing candidates who don't understand basic Science as unfortunately that is very important voting block in the states.

dlofnep

Ron Paul is a baptist, but he seems to be very grounded.

pH

Don't get me started on US religion and politics, it's so full of contradictions and hypocrisy that I genuinely don't understand it.

Take a country like Iran that is a religious country, I dislike it, but at least to me it seems consistent. The culture seems (on the surface anyway) to be in keeping with a religious state.

I just can't reconcile what the US does with the claim that a high percentage of its citizens are deeply religious. From its TV, films, porn and music - as voted on by US citizens when they put their hand in their pockets to its spectacular rejection of anything that looks too much like a welfare state (healthcare etc.) to its callous disregard for human life abroad, everything it does seems to be the action of a self-obsessed hedonist bent on indulging in every earthly pleasure.

Now I know some will say that I don't get to see all of US culture, and someone will point to some extraordinarily generous aid program (probably tied to abstinence 'cures' aids or such) but my general point stands.

Now maybe my 'typical' American is a cliche, but why a beer-swilling, gun-toting, sopranos-watching, porn-buying, fast-food eating, football fan decides to vote on the religious conviction of a candidate is lost on me.

I suppose if there's a question in all the above I'd like answered it's this:

Why wouldn't a rich, genuinely Christian nation have the best social-security and healthcare in the world?

And given that from what I know it's common for evangelical Christians to 'give' a not insubstantial portion of their income to their churches on a regular basis, why then if Hilary announced a small tax increase to pay for universal healthcare would these same (invariably republican) Christians be frothing at the mouth to stop her?

Zillah

pH wrote: »

Why wouldn't a rich, genuinely Christian nation have the best social-security and healthcare in the world?

Because there are a titanic quantity of other factors that determine the shape of a nation? Religion is one of them, history, politics, cultural trends, law...we could list stuff all day.

Primarily the reason for a lack of social-security/healthcare is because that would make you a communist piece of filth you dirty red.

Pompey Magnus

I think atheism is making progress over in the states, I'm basing this on the way the Clinton team and Fox News, in their early attempts at playing dirty tricks with Barack Obama, claimed that he attended an Islamic Fundamentalist Madrassa and his middle name is Hussein so he must have questionable loyalties when it comes to the war on terror. Now had this been 30 years ago if they were going to unfairly smear someone it would be that they were an athiest commie fascist, so perhaps athiesm has leap-frogged one major world religion in American distaste and if the only candidates were an Islamic Fundamentalist or an athiest maybe, just maybe, the athiest could win.

Edit: I just did a quick check on snopes and it turns out that Hillary's anti-Obama smear also claimed his mother was an athiest, so perhaps there hasn't been quite as much progress made as I first thought.

Ciaran500

dlofnep wrote: »

Ron Paul is a baptist, but he seems to be very grounded.

Nope: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2571

eoin5

pH wrote: »

And given that from what I know it's common for evangelical Christians to 'give' a not insubstantial portion of their income to their churches on a regular basis, why then if Hilary announced a small tax increase to pay for universal healthcare would these same (invariably republican) Christians be frothing at the mouth to stop her?

I think its time for a good auld Religion vs Alcohol comparision. If you told a alco that he may have to pay more tax on his boose for the healthcare system you would get much the same reaction. The welfare of the nations health is not something he would generally care about. Same goes for a lot of people hooked on religion, but theyll try and reason it out a bit more. They may believe that people can heal themselves if they have enough faith in Jesus and if they die its because God works in mysterious ways etc.

estebancambias

Here, from what I know of Ron Paul I don't like him, but he backed Creationism. How does this constitute with him being 'not grounded'?

I think when he said he denies evolution, I think due to the irrellevance of the question he displayed his belief in God. I don't believ he denies that evoluton in its actual is taking place, it just does not contradict an existence of his God.

Tim Robbins

estebancambias wrote: »

Here, from what I know of Ron Paul I don't like him, but he backed Creationism. How does this constitute with him being 'not grounded'?

Because creationism is a propaganda movement. This is commonly held view among educated people. Have a read of the link I posted to see the EU stance on it.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I get the impression Obama's an Athiest/Agnostic. He's said something along the lines of "the religious don't have a monopoly on morality" which is something not many religious people believe.

Ted Haggart would probably get in before an athiest. There's no way they'd admit being one, be like a non-muslim getting in in Saudi Arabia.

See this link mistrusted minority

estebancambias

No he just does not hold a rigid belief system in my opinion.

Orion

5uspect wrote: »

Oddly enough coverage of the Primaries over here seem mostly concerned with the Democratic candidates.

That really because the real Republican race won't kick off until the run up to Super Tuesday. All that's happened until now is just promos But the Democrat race is up and running big time. Wait and see -week after next we'll be sick of the Rep. coverage

As for religion - it's sad but true that it is a major issue in US politics. Can anyone see a Muslim politician ever being considered for President? TBH despite the power of he Jewish lobby I can't even see a Jew being seriously considered in my lifetime - cf Lieberman./afk

To answer the OP - religious views are important to the US populace as long as they're Christian. Whether that's right or wrong is a different question. Personally I long for the day when religion does not matter and that world leaders and their electorates just do what's right - without reference to a religious belief system. Which is why I would love to see Obama win the presidency. He doesn't subscribe to a dogma it appears.

Galvasean

Really? i was told Obama was a Mormon and doesn't believe in evolution. Or was that a filthy lie?

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

Or was that a filthy lie?

Yup! Only Romney from what I can see is a mormon.

Check out all the candidates' leanings courtesy of our favourite Internet periodical - the Christian Science Monitor.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Galvasean wrote: »

Really? i was told Obama was a Mormon and doesn't believe in evolution. Or was that a filthy lie?

Nope, he's a radical Muslim.

lostexpectation

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/01/15/ellen-johnson-on-politics-and-religion/

link to a video from the head of atheist alliance in america, people have a problem with her saying vote with your atheism first... I think there right surely the point of atheism is you vote on eveything but (religious issues), you vote the issues, on how you see the issues, I mean atheist republicans can vote mccain (or ron paul for now)...

karen3212

Zillah wrote: »

Because there are a titanic quantity of other factors that determine the shape of a nation? Religion is one of them, history, politics, cultural trends, law...we could list stuff all day.

Primarily the reason for a lack of social-security/healthcare is because that would make you a communist piece of filth you dirty red.

I think that's true. I used to think it was all about being a decendant of a particular tribe and making sure your money only went to people of your religion or background, and increasing the numbers of your own tribe/only helping your own. But....it has to be compared to canada I suppose and they are similarly a country founded by people of many nations... and they have universal healthcare. Em so I'm leaning towards concluding that either it's the fear of the red menace thing, or perhaps predjudice and racism have been maintained better in the US than say Canada or Australia?

Daemonic

Any candidate who was to admit to being an Atheist wouldn't have a hope of getting elected - http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1003940
I'm sure some candidates and presidents have been atheists but were politically savvy enough to know not to say so.

Attractive Nun

pH wrote:

Why wouldn't a rich, genuinely Christian nation have the best social-security and healthcare in the world?

To answer with a hugely generalised theory...

The 'American' myth, or pysche or whatever you want to call it, stretches back a long way. It's associated with an adventure into the wilderness that was the North American continent in the seventeenth century (this alone has religious connotations - John the Baptist's, Jesus', ventures into the wilderness). Americans were individuals, independent from the complicated politics (and religious persecution) of Europe at the time. To a great extent, the entirety of the typical southern/republican outlook stems from this time. Individualism, the importance of enterprise, religion - it's all bound together.

Looking at it today, it is rather confusing - particularly demands for the federal involvement in religion in schools etc - but that typical American individualism that leads to a mistrust of government involvement in welfare etc and the passionate upholding of religion is bound together in many ways, as much of a contradiction as that might seem.

I would also add that religious societies have never been strongly inclined towards the creation of welfare states. Now I have my own personal doubts about welfare states, but it is pretty obvious that the most rational, and hence atheistic, countries will also tend to be the most socialist: see Scandinavia, Communist countries(!). It's strange, but makes sense in a way.

2Scoops

It's sad that religion is such an important issue within American politics. Huckabee, in particular, is galling to watch. He practically revels in his ignorance and appeals to the ignorance of others.

Tim, there is growing optimism here that the Democrats can win - please don't discount them. 2009 will be a better year for state-sponsored scientific research if the Democrats win. The amount of money wasted by the current administration with their blatant anti-intellectual, pro-military financial decisions is seriously depressing.

pH

Attractive Nun wrote: »

To answer with a hugely generalised theory...

The 'American' myth, or pysche or whatever you want to call it, stretches back a long way. It's associated with an adventure into the wilderness that was the North American continent in the seventeenth century (this alone has religious connotations - John the Baptist's, Jesus', ventures into the wilderness). Americans were individuals, independent from the complicated politics (and religious persecution) of Europe at the time. To a great extent, the entirety of the typical southern/republican outlook stems from this time. Individualism, the importance of enterprise, religion - it's all bound together.

Looking at it today, it is rather confusing - particularly demands for the federal involvement in religion in schools etc - but that typical American individualism that leads to a mistrust of government involvement in welfare etc and the passionate upholding of religion is bound together in many ways, as much of a contradiction as that might seem.

I would also add that religious societies have never been strongly inclined towards the creation of welfare states. Now I have my own personal doubts about welfare states, but it is pretty obvious that the most rational, and hence atheistic, countries will also tend to be the most socialist: see Scandinavia, Communist countries(!). It's strange, but makes sense in a way.

I understand that - and while I dislike the term 'welfare state' (with its modern connotations of scrounging single mums smoking and drinking 'on welfare') I do agree that a number of Christian sects have a strong regard for individual work ethic and so forth.

And yes, at the heart of the 'American Dream' is that anyone with some talent and enough hard work can 'make it' - this is a peculiarly selfish dream, of self-betterment and to hell with the rest - which as you point out may well be at the heart of the US's reluctance to embrace meaningful welfare programs to assist the less well off.

But still this seems in direct opposition to the countries purported Christianity. Anyone even remotely familiar with Jesus' message will agree it's one of charity and assistance, in fact on a number of occasions the collection of individual wealth is disparaged - he even goes so far to say that it's almost *impossible* for rich people to get into heaven.

I can understand a country of people following the 'American Dream', it would even make sense if these people were token Christians who 'believed' yet paid little attention, but a vast majority of the population appear to be fervent believers - obsessed with things like creationism, weekly worship and obeying God's laws - yet vehemently refuse any additional taxes to assist the less well off, while at the same time voluntarily paying more 'tax' in the form of regular church fees.