|
I think that a president should be atheist or agnostic at least. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I'm much more interested in what faith they keep with their constituency rather than any religion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No. If you choose not to vote for the candidate because you don't know the answer that's up to you.
But there is nothing to mandate that they disclose their faith and I personally would never be so
foolish as to endorse or oppose a candidate based on their religious beliefs.
Let me ask you this, would you oppose a Jewish President? How about if the smartest person to ever
run for office happened to have Japanese ethnic roots and was a practicing Buddhist? Or what if a
recent war hero ran but s/he was atheist? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Would just the fact that someone is a Muslim or a Jew make him a bad president?
I think not.
And I think that experience, ideas and ideals of that person should be the only thing to decide the
election ideally.
The race, place of birth, ethnicity, religion should not be deciding the election. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If a Protestant or a Catholic were to have run for Northen Ireland, their religion would be the main
issue, not their beliefs. There beliefs would have been tarnished, in a "democracy" by their
religion. Their religion would have been used. As a judgement on their people, not a judgement on
their leadership. It is all rubbish. Where religion touches politics, it is democracy that fails. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I disagree. If a presidential candidate were to announce their faith, it would cause the final vote
to be biased. One should not vote their future leader based on what religion s/he follows. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't see why it's important. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
22 Nov 2008 22:31
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
