www.ditl.org

Don't quote the Guardian and expect me to respect the source. However, There is a difference between having right-leaning views which are typical of the more reformist Protestant sects, and having Romney want to enforce Mormon beliefs on the nation.

However, it doesn't matter. Whatever Romney says one week is out the window the next...

And hyperbole and point-making are fine, but if you have no experience with living in the US, try not make blanket statements as if you did. There are parts of the US that can be like that; there are parts where a Conservative Jew and a Shi'ite Muslim can go out for cocktails together, and where you'd get punched in the mouth for assuming it was odd.

I wonder if a part of all this is that Britain is about the size of a medium US state with the population of three states. If you carve out a chunk of the US similar to that I think you could get similar homogeneity.

And if you carve carefully you could get a wide range of political outlooks. Some of which are probably quite similar to yours whatever it is.

Actually, Northern Ireland probably gives you a taste of the situation with the south. You just have to imagine that the Catholics mattered instead of just being able to shoot a few hundred of them and then mostly ignore them.

Excellent point, Sunnyside. And the reverse is true, too. Without "carving up" the US, I don't expect we could find the same heterogenous nature in most European nations. It's not just size and population, either; most European nations, UK included, are far older than the US and subsequently more homogenous in derivations, as well.

How is that any refutation of the statement that a politician's specific religious beliefs should have no relevence to his suitablity to hold political office? Religion, or lack thereof, is a personnal matter, not something that should be used to determine whether an individual is suitable to hold high political office.

Well, if someone's religious belief is that the world was created by a giant head of broccoli, wouldn't that make you think twice about voting for him? I'm not saying that religion should be the sole overriding factor in choosing a politician, but it's definitely not of "no relevance." If someone believes that the pain and suffering is an illusion, he may be an advocate of a secularized society and state, but his religion and philosophy still going to affect the decisions he makes.

Frankly, what you're saying just doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you actually think about it; apparently, to you, someone's opinion on health care or the economy is important, but his opinion on the ultimate nature, origin, and fate of the universe doesn't? I don't know, but that's just seems a little messed up to me.

The fact that the same fundamental principle held by both Huckabee and the Ayatollahs, that the laws of the state should be subordinated to the laws of a particular religion, is the source of my concern, and of the comparison.

Wait...what? First, you say that someone's religion doesn't matter...and then you use Huckabee's religion to attack him? No offense, but that seems pretty darn hypocritical to me.

Captain Peabody wrote:Wait...what? First, you say that someone's religion doesn't matter...and then you use Huckabee's religion to attack him? No offense, but that seems pretty darn hypocritical to me.

No he didn't. He used a political opinion to attack him. That opinion happened to concern the role of religion.

Captain Peabody wrote:Frankly, what you're saying just doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you actually think about it; apparently, to you, someone's opinion on health care or the economy is important, but his opinion on the ultimate nature, origin, and fate of the universe doesn't? I don't know, but that's just seems a little messed up to me.

Someone's opinion on the ultimate nature, origin, and fate of the universe has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he or she will be a good president. Honesty and good policy ideas do have that bearing.

The thing is, I can see that you deep-down associate holding certain religious convictions with being more morally centered than others. Some of us, on the other hand, grew up with our primary exposure to religion being reading the news and history books and learning about the vast stores of hypocrisy, power fantasies, and hateful speech that are also attached to religion.

The thing is, I can see that you deep-down associate holding certain religious convictions with being more morally centered than others.

No...the 'religious opinions' in question may be absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. They may either make someone more moral or, as you seem to feel, make him less moral. All that I'm saying is that, whether or not someone is aware of it, his religious opinions inevitably affect how he acts. That is a fact.

It's really not that radical a statement; it's just plain common sense...

I'm getting the impression from Jordanis and Seafort that they believe that being personally religious will automatically translate into faith-based political views. This is not always the case. Perhaps it's because my faith is a minority one, but I can very easily segregate my views on secular political issues and religious ones.

Using the example of Mitt Romney from earlier, I made the joke about him banning coffee. That is certainly what Mormon doctrine would tell him to do, but it is obvious that such a ban would not be on his executive to-do list. His sometime support of Planned Parenthood may have the same ends as some Christian groups, but his arrival at those ends doesn't necessarily hint at a strictly faith-based agenda.

I don't support Romney. However, I refuse to make such a judgement of a person based on whether that person believes in a religion or not.

Mikey wrote:I'm getting the impression from Jordanis and Seafort that they believe that being personally religious will automatically translate into faith-based political views.

That's not the case at all. I am specifically accusing Peabody of getting his faith and politics tangled in a way that is unnecessary and logically unsound, and then pointing out why some of us do not think that someone's views on 'the ultimate nature, origin, and fate of the universe' have any relevance to a political race.

I just got a little bitter in the meantime, because I tend to feel that large religious organizations have a nasty tendency to hijack their faith for nasty worldly purposes.

Mikey wrote:Using the example of Mitt Romney from earlier, I made the joke about him banning coffee. That is certainly what Mormon doctrine would tell him to do,

This is not, in fact, the case. As my girlfriend is Mormon, I have become quite familiar with the religion. While there is doctrine that says he, as a believer, should not drink coffee, their scriptures spend much, much more time talking about the importance of free will.

This gets muddled about in Utah a lot (the difference between a minority and majority religion, basically), but the central church authority regularly releases little notes that more or less gently remind people not to vote to enforce their views on others. I could go on and on about the odd motivations and doctrinal points to do with this, but the bottom line is that the doctrine would not support him making such a move.

The culture that has grown up in Utah in response to Mormons being the dominant religion there is another matter entirely, and is largely regarded by out-of-state Mormons as being kind of insane.

That was all rather irrelevant to the discussion, but we all have expert's disease here.

Mikey wrote:I'm getting the impression from Jordanis and Seafort that they believe that being personally religious will automatically translate into faith-based political views. This is not always the case. Perhaps it's because my faith is a minority one, but I can very easily segregate my views on secular political issues and religious ones.

The cause of the entire problem is that Romney himself expressed a belief that religion should play a role in public life. From the article:

"In recent years the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They see to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life," Romney said.

"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Quite apart from the stupidity of describing secularism as a religion, the apparent intention to have organised religion influence government policy is to me extremely worrying.

I don't support Romney. However, I refuse to make such a judgement of a person based on whether that person believes in a religion or not.

As do I. Romney's personnal beliefs are irrelevent. It's the fact that he apparently sees a secular state as a bad thing that's the problem.

Captain Seafort wrote:the apparent intention to have organised religion influence government policy is to me extremely worrying.

As it is to me, especially as I am a member of a minority religion. However, there IS a difference between having religion play a role and having it influence political policy. It is an extremely slippery slope, I'll grant, and it does worry me; but for good or ill, "separation of church and state" is NOT founding concept of the U.S., as many incorrectly believe - rather it is a much later concept. It is a concept which I support, and a reason why I don't support condidates like Romney; however, I won't pillory someone for a tenet like his until he crosses the line from "public role" to "influences policy."

Believe me, you guys across the pond are the past masters of combination of church and state; what we call Episcopal, you call Anglican or "the Church of England" - founded by and originally led by the secular monarch! We've all seen where that went, and I don't want that instilled here. By the same token, I (for obvious reasons) don't want to live in a state in which mere public acknowledgement of, or publicly living by the principles of, a particular faith is frowned on.

Mikey which religion are ya if you dont mind me asking?

Mikey wrote:However, there IS a difference between having religion play a role and having it influence political policy. It is an extremely slippery slope, I'll grant, and it does worry me; but for good or ill, "separation of church and state" is NOT founding concept of the U.S., as many incorrectly believe - rather it is a much later concept.

Then why does your First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? Seems a pretty clear separation of church and state to me.

Believe me, you guys across the pond are the past masters of combination of church and state; what we call Episcopal, you call Anglican or "the Church of England" - founded by and originally led by the secular monarch! We've all seen where that went, and I don't want that instilled here. By the same token, I (for obvious reasons) don't want to live in a state in which mere public acknowledgement of, or publicly living by the principles of, a particular faith is frowned on.

Oh, I'm quite aware of the amount of drama religion has caused (and is still causing) over here. The concept of someone whose rhetoric sounds remarkably like Ian Paisley sitting in the White House is not a pleasant one.

Again, if Romney or Huckabee's comments were along lines of "I'm [insert religious belief here], what's that got to do with my politics?", as I believe Obama has (for example), I wouldn't have a problem. When they start expressing the belief that religion should have a greater role in public life, or worse that the US constitution should be subordinated to the Bible, then I see serious trouble brewing.

Mikey which religion are ya if you dont mind me asking?

If I remember correctly (sorry if I don't!) he's Jewish.

And Seafort, don't forget that the Treaty of Tripolli also re-inforced the idea that the US had seperation of church and state built in from the start.
Something along the lines of 'The US is not based on Christian ideals, nor shall it enforce religious laws' or something.

Rochey wrote:And Seafort, don't forget that the Treaty of Tripolli also re-inforced the idea that the US had seperation of church and state built in from the start.
Something along the lines of 'The US is not based on Christian ideals, nor shall it enforce religious laws' or something.

Thanks for that. I knew an early US President had said something along those lines, but I couldn't remember the exact circumstances

The second president, IIRC.