Why do we need religion in the White House?

Probably because a good majority of people in this country, particularly in the south, are Christians and a lot of the Bible-thumping variety. But I also think that a lot of our Presidents have been Christians in name only... practicing the religion in order to court the religious vote.
 
retro said:
Probably because a good majority of people in this country, particularly in the south, are Christians and a lot of the Bible-thumping variety. But I also think that a lot of our Presidents have been Christians in name only... practicing the religion in order to court the religious vote.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just said.
I find it sad that they denounce their belief, or lack of belief, or however you want to call it, to please the crowd
 
It's very important because it means the presidents will make decent moral decisions such as invade foreign lands for oil, overthrow democratically elected leaders in foreign lands for access to their economies, keep on dragging out overseas wars with no end in sight, give much more scope for corporations to screw you over, increase unemployment, reduce welfare, increase poverty and make the rich richer. Oh, and spend your taxes like there's a sale on.

If they weren't religious, you couldn't guarantee such decent moral behaviour.
 
edgray said:
It's very important because it means the presidents will make decent moral decisions such as invade foreign lands for oil, overthrow democratically elected leaders in foreign lands for access to their economies, keep on dragging out overseas wars with no end in sight, give much more scope for corporations to screw you over, increase unemployment, reduce welfare, increase poverty and make the rich richer. Oh, and spend your taxes like there's a sale on.

If they weren't religious, you couldn't guarantee such decent moral behaviour.
Click to expand...
dripping, nay ooozing with sarcasm:clap
 
edgray said:
It's very important because it means the presidents will make decent moral decisions such as invade foreign lands for oil, overthrow democratically elected leaders in foreign lands for access to their economies, keep on dragging out overseas wars with no end in sight, give much more scope for corporations to screw you over, increase unemployment, reduce welfare, increase poverty and make the rich richer. Oh, and spend your taxes like there's a sale on.

If they weren't religious, you couldn't guarantee such decent moral behaviour.
Click to expand...

A good number of voters think you must follow their favorite religion to have a moral standard they approve of. This is why Mitt Romney might have a hard time being elected as President, regardless of his morals. But, I believe your actions speak more clearly than your label and you don't have to follow an officially condoned religion to have a good moral standard.

Good example of where claiming to be a Christian means nothing: George W Bush, the Christian who invaded a country without adequate provocation. And before anyone disagrees with me, please start out your reply with the adequate provocation that required an invasion. And I'm not talking about all the stuff we made up to justify it. Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wyndex said:
Why does ones religious beliefs play such an important role in deciding who can be a candidate for office.
When are we going to have the first Atheist or non-Christian President?
Does religion really matter when we all want to reach a common goal?
Click to expand...
People seem to have a pathological need to stereotype, categorize, or otherwise fit unique human beings into their preconceived little cubbyholes. That's why people get all bent out of shape about the D or the R, and anything not D or R must necessarily be fringe wackos too dangerous to be taken seriously, and so they ridicule, alienate, and marginalize.
 
Accountable said:
People seem to have a pathological need to stereotype, categorize, or otherwise fit unique human beings into their preconceived little cubbyholes. That's why people get all bent out of shape about the D or the R, and anything not D or R must necessarily be fringe wackos too dangerous to be taken seriously, and so they ridicule, alienate, and marginalize.
Click to expand...

I'll take that one step further, I think it's a concerted effort by the democrats and republicans to marginalize third party candidates. I don't think people would have a problem with a third party candidate if they weren't lead to believe they were fringe wacko's
 
Tim said:
I'll take that one step further, I think it's a concerted effort by the democrats and republicans to marginalize third party candidates. I don't think people would have a problem with a third party candidate if they weren't lead to believe they were fringe wacko's
Click to expand...

I've mentioned this before, but that is why I like Instant Runoff voting (pick 2 or 3 candidates in your preferred order). It's been happening in Minnesota on the local level, but I the National Parties will never voluntarily agree. They like that sense of "am I wasting my vote?"
 
Back
Top