Back in the 1960 presidential election Kennedy's religion came into play, as he would (and was) be the first Catholic president. Kennedy commented on his religion by saying, "a candidate's "views on religion are his own, private affair," which should not be "imposed by him upon the nation." "He promised, in essence, that his Catholicism would no more influence his politics than did Quakerism for Richard Nixon. And President Dwight Eisenhower's reaction to the Kennedy speech summarized this argument well: "I would hope that it [religion] could be one of those subjects that could be laid on the shelf and forgotten."
Today, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is taking the opposing viewpoint of Kennedy. If he were to be elected, he would be the first Mormon president. He made a speech today saying, "Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people... religion is not merely 'a private affair.'"
He did agree that, "no authorities of my church . . . will ever exert influence on presidential decisions."
Romney seems to be getting a lot of press recently. Even if this is just another excuse for him to get publicity, do you all agree with his statements?... How much of a role should one's personal religious beliefs play in their policies?
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120601968.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well, generally, when I think of Mormons, I think of strict rules and certain set values. Therefore, if one were to rule the country, it would definitely affect Americans. I mean, a person is not going to ignore personal values and strong religious views when making decisions.
According to dictionary.com...
re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Key part of that definition is "moral code governing the conduct of human affairs" and I think leading a whole nation of people a pretty good example of "human affairs." Therefore, religion definitely plays a part in decision/policy making.
However, after I actually read the article, I think Romney is definitely delving a little too into the issue. Ultimately, it's what his platform is and not what religion he is that gets the votes.
Religious beliefs shouldn't come into politics. A candidate should not base his policies on his religion and voters should not vote based on religion. Mixing religion with politics simply causes problems because of the nature of religion: not everyone agrees.
in an ideal world, a person's religion would not mix with his politics. in the real world, the government is run by humans that are influenced by their life experiences, values, and morals, all of which religion has a significant role. I think what Romney means when he says that religion is important is that it shapes his views on society and how it should be run, and therefore to take his religion into account, because it gives a more accurate presentation of himself. He obviously believes this will help his cause, and that's his platform, OK. Ultimately, the voters will show how much they want religion to be an influence in their leader (according to the latest polls, it would be more than one would expect, as Huckabee, a preacher, has recently surpassed Romney in popularity).
While religion shouldn't influence how people vote for candidates, it almost definitely effects policies. If any candidate is strongly religious, then he or she would be influenced by their religion in what policies they make. So, religion has an indirect effect on politics. People shouldn't vote for or against someone because of their religion, just as they shouldn't vote for or against someone because of their race or sex, but if one or more of these factors affects their policies, then it would definitely change what people vote for them.
At the same time, couldn't religion have a positive impact on the White House. I know this is a long shot, and I know I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I think some good can come of it. No, I don't think that the president should have the power to force others to follow the laws of his religion or use his religion to affect issues such as gay rights and abortion. At the same time, if someone has strong moral values do you think we could trust them more? If our president was a devout Mormon that believed he would go to Hell if he lied or cheated--I'm just saying that someone of a religious background may have truly strong moral guidelines of honestly. Maybe? In the world of politics today someone like that would be very nice...probably not truly existant, but very nice.
I totally agree with Keith. Politicians have religions, and those religions affect their views and policies. For example, a Christian politician would probably be pro-life and against abortion. As a politican, they'd probably end up advocation their position. So, while we like to think that state and religion are separate, in many ways they cross over.
Post a Comment